The UN Small Arms Treaty Is Not About Arms – It’s About Taking Your Freedom


United Nations Small Arms Treaty, this kind of sounds okay if one just looks at it through rose colored glasses. If we begin to break down this so-called treaty, we see ideology which closely resembles the way the Nazi's took control of Germany, only this is the United Nations and the only free nation not signed on to this treaty is the United States! Is there any wonder why? Just what does this so-called United Nations Small Arms Treaty entail and how would it affect the United States?

To get a general idea of just what the United Nations wants to do, all one has to do is to read their statements. The United Nations specifically states:

"Less information on small arms than on nuclear weapons

Reliable data sets on small arms can only be built if countries provide information on production, holdings, trade, legislation and use. But of all transparency measures on weapons systems, those on small arms are the least developed. According to the Small Arms Survey, "more is known about the number of nuclear warheads, stocks of chemical weapons and transfers of major conventional weapons than about small arms".

There are no accurate figures for the number of small arms and light weapons currently in circulation globally. Sources estimate the total to be at least 875 million. The majority of small arms - generally the only category of weapons not falling under Government monopoly of possession and use - are in private hands."

It is very clear that the United Nations wants to see just who owns small arms and in this manner, they can confiscate them when they decide that they have to control all the small arms. This is very troubling since it seems to be just what Barack Obama is saying and just what he wishes to do. As a matter of fact, right after his election he all but signed the United Nations Small Arms treaty on the dotted line. We cannot help but remember that just last week Obama said the one thing "constraining" him from "confiscating" all weapons is the Constitution and he had stated before that he would like to get around the very Constitution that he is supposed to uphold!

It seems as though the United Nations wants to know not just where the small arms are, but who has them and why. They do as the Democrats do, they lay claim that they need to do this because they are trying to track down all the illegally trafficked arms. Take a look at just what the United Nations says in their explanation of the Small Arms Treaty and what they have to do to "track" the arms.

"Marking and tracing

If national law enforcement officials were able to trace small arms back to their last legitimate owner, who might then be held accountable, this would form an effective measure against illicit trade and diversion. For that purpose, it is essential that the weapon be marked upon production and import, and that appropriate records be kept. Existing stocks should also be marked. Although many weapons are marked upon production and import, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy."

The United Nations wants to "mark and track" all small arms back to their original owner. Does this sound like they just wish to see who had the gun last or does this sound more like a way to track down all small arms to confiscate them? We show this to you so you can decide just what benefit would this have to the legal gun owners in the United States and if this were to happen, what would our Second Amendment protect if the United Nations has a right to trace all weapons back to the original owner? It does not sound like a Second Amendment friendly idea!

In an article by Tim Brown, in which he referenced a Reuters article, he stated the following:

"The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions."

Note in the underlined part above that this is in relation to the "Disarmament Committee." Take note that it does not say background checks, or anything of the like. It is very clear, it states, "Disarmament Committee"! This also shows that Obama would not discuss this until after the election. So was this what he was heard talking to Russia about stating he would have more flexibility after the election? It seems to indicate that Obama held off any ideas of disarmament until after the election and it shows here that it was done due to political reasons. Now how is it that the President, who is supposed to hold the Constitution higher than the United Nations, seems to have bowed down to them after the election?

Even the Catholic Church is being attacked by Obama's socialist agenda. In a recent video the narrator speaks of just how much Obama has aligned his ideology with those of Stalin, Hitler and others that have worked to bring forth the Socialist ideology into the free world. Catholics have exposed the socialist agenda for what it is and Obama is very good at dividing this nation and the Catholics. In a confirmation to what we are speaking about, watch this brief video.

Once you view this video you will understand what this nation and Christians are up against with Obama! The United Nations Small Arms Treaty is but a small part of this entire plan because once they take the guns away, they obtain all the control and then they begin to tear this nation down and even those who now love Obama will pay the ultimate price because they will be nothing more than pawns in his aim to become the first "king" of the United States, or maybe the first "Dictator" of the United States. In either case, the United Nations Small Arms Treaty figures into this master plan as a major part to eliminate the ownership of any sort of gun. The United Nations has courted Obama on this issue and Obama has fallen in line with the United Nations, but the Constitution remains the chief obstacle in Obama's wish to join the World in banning people from having weapons. This can be seen from what is below from Hot Air:

"The United Nations' overwhelming approval Tuesday of an arms trade treaty opposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) sets up a showdown between President Obama and the powerful gun lobby's friends on Capitol Hill.

President Obama is expected to sign the treaty within the next few months after the United States joined 153 other countries in supporting the treaty."

Only State Attorney General Greg Abbot from Texas has come to the forefront on this issue. If the rest of the States would join in with him on this, it would send a very clear message to Obama that his ideology does not fit into that of the United States and maybe if Obama wants to rule like that he should resign as President and move to Venezuela where he could become a dictator without any constraints upon him! Mr. Abbot presented the following regarding the United Nations Small Arms treaty.

"As the United States has required from the outset of these negotiations, nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment," the statement said.

Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, urged Obama not to sign the treaty. He said it could "draw law-abiding gun owners and gun store operators into a complex web of bureaucratic red tape created by a new department at the UN devoted to overseeing the treaty."

Abbot writes, "when the Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," it means no one—including the UN—can infringe that right."

 
 

Now the entire idea of any sort of treaty with the United Nations especially when it seems to 'infringe" upon our Constitutional rights, not only does not make any sense, but it borders upon treason itself! Wake up people and take a very close look at this. It is not about small arms. It is about the very freedom of our nation. It is about the very fabric of our society. It is about our Constitution and what it does! If you do not stand against this treaty, you do not stand next to the United States Constitution!

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

  • Micheal

    Yes it is all about taking away our freedom, also the 46 Senators that agreed to the UN Treaty should be tried for treason for violating their Oath of Office and siding against the Contsitution.

  • John Perkins

    I have two words for the UN...they aren't Happy Birthday! Any idea what those two words might be? These thugs have no jurisdiction in the USA no matter what Obutthead may say! If they try to invade, a big surprise will be waiting.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1486141321 Joanne Satmary

    That has been in the works for the last 21 years and three of our Presidents have each made a contribution to forwarding this treasonous act.

    • Scott Winebrenner

      since 1961 i think

  • 2War Abn Vet

    Columnists continue to refer to the NRA as a "gun lobby'; this is a mischaracterization. It is really a "freedom lobby".

  • R.Young

    The Great Black Father is the "Elected One" and as the "Elected One" He is not going to let some silly old outdated peice of paper stand in his way. He will get what He wants, Constitution or No Constitution. As the "Elected One" He is the final authority His word is LAW!

    • Jeffrey Cereghino

      The only countries that voted against the treaty were North Korea, Iran and Syria. I suggest all of you who posted against it haul your commie loving, terrorists asses back to your home countries, and leave this country to the true patriots.

    • R.Young

      Nice to meet you Jeff, I am one of the people the Great Black Father in Washington has been warning everybody about, I am a Home Grown American Terrorist, I am an Oath Keeper!

    • Jeffrey Cereghino

      Go join your commie brothers in North Korea. They are threatening to attack us and you want to vote with them! You are a traitor.

    • R.Young

      And what Planet are you from if you do not understand the term Oath Keeper?

    • Jeffrey Cereghino

      Thankfully not one where I support the enemies of freedom like you do. If you love Iran or N. Korea so much just pack up and join them. Iran is a terrorist nation and you support them. God will judge you harshly.

    • R.Young

      Still haven't answered my question, must be a DUMBOCRAT!

    • Jeffrey Cereghino

      And you never answered mine. Lets keep it simple commie boy. Do you stand with our enemies N.Korea, and Iran? How can you if you claim to be an American support those countries? You are either a fool or a traitor.

    • R.Young

      Oath Keeper = U.S.Militray Ret.!

    • Jeffrey Cereghino

      Learn to spell military. My guess is you were one of those guys in basic the DI's paid special attention to, or you ended up some Air Force weenie who never flew diddly.
      Now you are a tool for commies and terrorists. When Iran hands a Sam to Muslim terrorists who use it on American planes you and your oath can rot in the hell our Lord Savior has planned just for traitors like you. Repent now and ask forGod's mercy. Our conversation is done.

    • R.Young

      Guten Nacht!

    • donwalk

      How can you claim to be an American citizen and support the trashing of our Constitution? This is not about supporting other countries, it is about supporting our Constitution and our citizen's Bill of Rights. You either support and believe in our Constitution, or you don't! You need to make your position clear.

    • donwalk

      This is not about supporting other countries, it is about supporting our Constitution and our citizen's Bill of Rights. You either support and believe in our Constitution, or you don't! You need to make your position clear.

    • donwalk

      Please explain how contradicting and trashing our Constitution is a display of loyalty? Shouldn't you be coming out and claiming that taking an Oath to Office and to our Constitution is illegal and has no standing also?
      You either believe in our Constitution, or you don't. Your post so far leaves your belief in question!

    • Scott Winebrenner

      sarcasm....

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

    Of course you get people that will try to tell you that they can sign this against the interest of the Constitution. What they do not tell you is that any one signing this is automatically in violation of upholding the Constitution. IPSO FACTO a traitor in that they have betrayed their oath and are acting against it. Up against the wall please.

    • John Perkins

      Any doubt in your mind we have a traitor in the oval office? Most probably one that isn't vetted to hold that office to begin with.

    • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

      Vetted?? I would not pass any one in his administration vetting them. They have all serious security problems.

  • jasonjackson

    Obama ( a.k.a -the Fuhrer Noveau) is itching to sign the U.S up for this. The kickback he gets from this will be enormous. Everyone knows the UN has about as much transparency as a thick layer of tar. Not only that but they are diplomatically immune which means they cannot be touched. Most countries in the UN are 10 times as corrupt as any goons here in the U.S. and would be more than ecstatic to see the U.S slowly disarmed and taken over. If there is any creedence to this New World Order theory President Bush spoke of in 2006, then the next step is to amend the U.S Constitution and pave the way for a complete lock-down of small arms. Everyone should pray that no one in the NRA is getting 'greased' otherwise the Obama's path to ' Hope' and Change' ( translation: complete plutocratic domination of resources and firepower) will almost be complete. Food for thought: If the nuke is the biggest baddest weapon on the block and at least 10000 times more powerful than a gun, why would you even consider banning small arms.