“You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.” This quote comes from a wise man named Rush Limbaugh. You might say this sounds a little extreme, and you would be right. (Well at least correct, if you’re “right” you probably agree with his quote. Those on the left are those ones offended by Mr. Limbaugh) But extreme times call for extreme measures, or in this case, extreme claims.
For several years, the second amendment to the United States Constitution has been under attack. According to the US Senate’s Web site (http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#amendments), the second amendment to the Constitution 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.” “Arms” in this case, of course, means guns. Why is it that the word “gun” has such negative connotation? I think it’s important to note that that was the second of the amendments. (The first ten are part of the Bill of Rights.) Why do you think James Madison and the other contributors included this so early in the document? Well probably because they knew the importance of putting the power in the hands of the people. Like nationalizing health care, this is just one more example of how the Obama administration (and other liberal administrations before him) is working to increase the size and power of the federal government.
Last month, the United Nations, with full support from the United States, stepped up their plan to create an Arms Trade Treaty. According to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton,
“The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong independent standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations. As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, The United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”
(http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/130573.htm)
There are multiple things wrong with this statement. First of all, there should be no regulation of guns, other than perhaps keeping them out of the hands of the medically insane and criminals. As stated previously, and in the Constitution, EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN. Now, as with all civil liberties, the line is drawn when one person’s freedoms infringe upon another’s. Freedom of religion is limited when one’s religion necessitates the murder of other humans. For the second amendment, gun rights are limited when you abuse them. Those who are dishonorably discharged from the military are not allowed to purchase guns. As determined by 18 U.S.C. 922(g), felons are not allowed to purchase them either. The average citizen who is over 21 years of age, however, has every Constitutional right to purchase fire arms, and in my opinion, citizens should exercise that right.
Another issue I have with Madam Secretary’s statement deals with idea of international regulation. This treaty would provide the means for every country in the United Nations to have the same provisions for gun control. Not only would it make the US federal government bigger, it would increase the power the United Nations has over US citizens. As it is, the people don’t elect the UN ambassador anyway. He or she is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Slowly, or rapidly now, the rights and liberties and powers are being taken from each of us as citizens. The president of the General Assembly of the United Nations is a man by the name of Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, from Libya. (http://www.un.org/ga/president/64/presskit/president.shtml) The UN is organized in a manner such that the power is dispersed; nevertheless, is this man, who is not from America, really the one we want heading up discussion about a treaty that will limit your rights? I would certainly hope not.
My third issue with Clinton’s statement is the hypocrisy. Do you remember they way all the liberals had a hissy fit when Bush sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan? There were claims that he was trying to police the world. Well what is this now? The US is working to help the UN police other nations about their arms policy. Hmmmm. I think the US has enough problems of her own right now.
Next, let’s look more closely at Clinton’s statement: “…improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them…” I hate the be the bearer of bad news, Madam Secretary, but those who would abuse arms are probably not attaining them in a legal manner in the first place. Yes, it’s all well and good that we only want arms in the arms (haha) of citizens who have had legitimate background checks and are properly trained; nevertheless, abusers of guns and of other controlled substances will still find a means to get what they want.
Later on in her statement, Clinton talks about raising “…standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorists groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions.” Is this really necessary in the US? Maybe the focus should be on obliterating terrorists and Black Market-users rather than pissing off the hunters.
Ok back to the treaty itself. According to an article from Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS), global trade will be regulated for “conventional arms, including fighter planes, combat helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, warships, missiles, battle tanks and [armored] personnel carriers” (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49081). Wow, hold up. Read that one again. Yes, it really does list several items associated with war. So we’re internationally regulating our ability to wage war? I don’t know about you, but that really does not seem like a good idea. This same article highlights a quote by the head of arms control for Amnesty International, Brian Wood. The article states: “the treaty needs a golden rule requiring governments to stop any proposed arms transfer that poses a substantial risk of being used for serious violations of human rights or war crimes” (these are the words of the article, not of Wood). This type of language is extremely dangerous, because it is extremely vague. Who determines what these violations are? Soon, war crimes will be any war in general.
Here in America we have been fortunate enough to have a safe and protective government; but recently, many Americans are becoming more and more worried about the size of government and the role it plays in individuals’ lives. Heaven forbid we ever have to worry about our government taking away some of our most basic rights, such as the right to bear arms; but I must say, the situation does not look good when Obama is looking to hand our rights over to an international body. Thank goodness the Communist nations are currently abstaining from any vote, because there must be a consensus on the treaty for it to pass. I am in no way a proponent of anarchy. But I can’t help but think that Limbaugh had it just about right.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." George Washington