In response to:

U.N Arms Trade Treaty Potential Assault on 2nd Amendment

Turophiles2Cents Wrote: Jul 24, 2012 1:32 PM
Don't ignore the words "... in Pursuance thereof ..." These words limit the Federal government to those powers explicitly granted to the Federal government by the States in the Constitution. Nowhere is the Federal government granted the power to abrogate, by treaty, the limits placed on it by the Constitution. Indeed, it is not granted the power to make anything Constitutional which is not via a Supreme Court ruling. Thomas Jefferson stated in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, "the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers."
aknowles Wrote: Jul 24, 2012 6:41 PM
See my reply to Reginal10 above but the real problem...is the attempted change of the type of government we have by Obama. He seems to have slipped the leash of his mentors and is runing for a one man rule and no term limits. Just listen to him. He and Eric Holder have decided to ignore the Constitution and Congress. It seems strange but I feel close to the colonists who wanted respresention. They had to go to war to obtain it and in the process established this wonderful nation. We have the November election to do so and let's do it.
Defenders of Americans’ constitutional right to “keep and bear” arms have been rightly alarmed by treaty negotiations underway in Turtle Bay. Thankfully, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is finally getting the congressional attention it deserves.

How bad is it? Here’s one clue: Iran was selected to provide one of the 14 vice presidents for the ATT conference. That’s right: a treaty that’s supposed to be about stopping terrorism and preventing human rights abuses, and the U.N. decides to give the ceremonial spotlight to Iran, a nation that supplies arms to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the murderous...