Throughout history, when nations have started to move from those that are free to those ruled by a tyrannical form of government one of the first priorities of the would-be tyrants is to disarm the indigenous population. There are two main purposes for this. First, if the population is unarmed and people can't defend their families and homes against the criminal element they will be more inclined to look to the government to protect them. The theory is that people in this position will willingly give more power to the government, and give up some of their own rights in the process.
The second reason for disarming the population is to prevent people from effectively resisting the loss of their liberties. The founding fathers were well aware of this when they were drafting the U.S. Constitution. The very existence of the United States had come about because the colonists were armed and effectively used their weapons to secure their freedom from Great Britain. This is precisely why the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution. It states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
For years, the progressives in this country have tried to deny the clear meaning of this amendment. They've claimed that the amendment does not establish an individual right to bear arms, but only a collective right belonging to such groups as state national guards. Under this premise, they tried desperately to keep law-abiding American citizens from owning guns. Unfortunately for them, the US Supreme Court has now ruled twice that it is an individual right that cannot be taken away by the federal government or by the states.
Now, in the White House we have a President of the United States who has repeatedly shown his disdain for the Constitution and the rights of individual Americans. Obama is well aware that even if the Supreme Court rulings did not exist he would still not be able to get legislation through Congress that would strip the American people of their firearms. So he's decided to bypass Congress, ignore the court rulings, and utilize an organization that is openly hostile to the interests of the United States and its people.
I'm talking about the United Nations that is currently putting together what it refers to as a Small Arms Treaty. The UN is claiming that this treaty is designed to stop the flow of arms to insurgents and terrorists. However, I have read one of the drafts of the treaty and believe that the actual intent is to disarm the American people. Many of the specifics of the treaty have yet to be defined, but it is clear that it would allow the United Nations to make rules and regulations regarding gun ownership in the United States and other countries.
This could include such things as gun registration, a prohibition against ownership of many types of weapons including handguns, and the wholesale confiscation of weapons from the American public. Bans on ammunition sales and weapons sales would also be included. All of this would be at the whim of the United Nations, and Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are in favor of such a treaty and have agreed to sign it. (By the way, does anyone recall that both of these individuals professed their support of the Second Amendment during their campaigns in 2008?). The final treaty will be agreed to at a special UN conference next year.
Hillary Clinton has promised the UN that she will push for immediate ratification of the treaty by the U.S. Senate. The good news is that ratification requires a two thirds majority and that will not happen if we are vigilant and apply enough pressure on our senators. The other piece of good news is that in 1957 the Supreme Court of the United States specifically ruled that no international treaty supersedes the rights of the American people under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That seems like an end of the problem doesn't it? However, if this is the case, why are Obama and Clinton pushing so hard for this treaty? Unfortunately, I believe that based on public statements made by some of Obama's advisers, he is being told and truly believes that he can give up US sovereignty to the United Nations regardless of what the Senate does. He has already repeatedly shown that he will ignore decisions made by the federal courts including the US Supreme Court, and he will bypass and ignore Congress in order to get his way.
Such has been the philosophy of the tyrants that have preceded him, and regrettably many of them have been successful. It is up to us, as a free people, to make sure that it doesn't happen here. After all, as one of my favorite bumper stickers distributed by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear arms says “The Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting!” Instead, it is about freedom.