1 - 3
It doesn't really matter what the UN Treaty says or implies. It also doesn't matter whether a 2/3s majority of Congress signs the treaty (which seems unlikely.) The fact of the matter is that there is longstanding judicial precedent in this country which has affirmed, time and again, that constitutionally granted rights supercede foreign treaties. There's certainly no way that a foreign treaty would be the "end game" to take away our rights to own firearms. If that was really the strategy here, there would be many other - and more clever - ways to accomplish this goal...
I don't have to explain why we need such a Civilian Force, RG. In fact, I haven't really thought about it. That wasn't the point of my post. The point of the post was to point out that you had taken a quote, from a very lengthy speech, way out of context and used it to suggest that Obama wanted to create some sort of armed civilian force like the Gestapo. I'm not here to defend Obama, It just doesn't promote rational debate to twist quotes way out of context, in order to induce fear or "win" an argument. I personally like taking full measure of an impartial set of facts before I pass judgment, that's all.
Actually, RG, that quote you cite -- which was completely taken out of context -- was a speech Obama made about the different ways that American funded initiatives like the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps can offer a powerful supplement to things like our military. These organizations demonstrate to the rest of the world that America is powerful not just because of our military but also because of our values. Values such, such as charity and volunteerism, can be as persuasive as a strong military. He wasn't talking about creating an army of armed-to-the-teeth, Jack-booted thugs. He was talking about the Peace Corps and Americorps. The entire text of the speech can be found here: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force
1 - 3