In response to:

UN Arms Trade Treaty Eyes "Legally Owned Weapons"

Mattieohmalley Wrote: Jun 23, 2012 5:12 AM
"Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 n giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [Congress is not authorized to infringe on the right to bear arms] “When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 28.)
Mattieohmalley Wrote: Jun 23, 2012 5:15 AM
Since the feds may not infringe on our right to bear arms, it may not give permission for other powers, foreign governments, etc. to limit that right.

It has no right to do that. It would be cause to "fight government" as Hamilton says.

This is why Obama, Democrats, Stalinists, etc. want to wrench the food supply from you: to starve your guns from you.

They know Americans are pointing their weapons at all criminals. The ones on the streets. And the ones In D.C.

The United Nations is preparing to finalize the terms of the Arms Trade Treaty at an upcoming July conference. Their hope is that the treaty will “create a level playing field for the global arms trade, bringing to it more accountability, openness and transparency.”

Level playing field, transparency…President Obama would definitely approve.

The target of the ATT, you ask? In addition to the Second Amendment, it seems everything from small arms and light weapons to tanks, heavy artillery, helicopters and aircraft. In a report by the UN Coordinating Action on Small Arms titled, “The Impact of Poorly...