What you NEED TO KNOW About the UN Gun Meeting Next Week! – YouTube
A funny thing is happening concerning the second amendment. On one hand, we are witnessing the strengthening of gun rights as SCOTUS’ Bruen V. NYSRPA ruling has set a new standard detailing how gun laws are to be judged, from a legal standpoint. No longer are lower courts allowed to use a two-tiered balancing system where the so-called interests of the state can be used to limit the protections laid out in the constitution. If the plain text of the second amendment covers an individual’s conduct concerning owning and carrying firearms, that conduct is protected and constitutional. If a gun law is not aligned with the nation’s historical, traditional, and plain text meaning of the second amendment, it is, according to SCOTUS, to be deemed unconstitutional. On the other hand, the assaults against our natural right to keep and bear arms have increased two-fold as anti-gun states have snubbed their nose at SCOTUS’ ruling, and the Biden Administration continues searching for ways to disarm us. Unfortunately, these attempts at civilian disarmament are not exclusively coming from Biden. They are a part of an international, United Nations effort to implement global gun control through the U.N. Arms Treaty.
The Arms Trade Treaty made big news in 2014 as Obama attempted to push it through the Senate for ratification after it received John Kerry’s signature. This was at the same time the Senate was changing its own rules on how it could implement treaties by calling them “agreements.” Remember the Corker Bill and the Iran deal? The Iran deal was pushed through by changing the way these types of laws are passed. A treaty requires a two-thirds vote for ratification. The Corker Bill changed that, (allegedly just for the Iran deal to go through) by requiring a two-thirds vote to stop it from being implemented. This occurred without a peep from the public. If they can do that with this deal, they can do it with anything. Don’t ever forget how Nancy Pelosi deemed Obamacare passed even though technically, it didn’t have the votes. Fortunately, the Arms Trade Treaty caught enough people’s attention that pushing it through would have come with major consequences for anyone wanting to be re-elected. Interestingly, in 2019, The United States, under the Trump administration, informed the U.N. that we were under no legal obligation to conform to the treaty’s requirements despite John Kerry’s signature. This is something I gave Trump credit for despite his positions on red flag laws. That is concerning enough as many states are now implementing such laws which not only violate the second amendment but the First and Fourth as well. Due process of law is one of the fundamental principles that make liberty possible. Nevertheless, Trump did inform the U.N. we would not be participating in the treaty’s enforcement, for the time being. What Trump didn’t do was get rid of the treaty. It is still sitting in the Senate judiciary committee awaiting ratification.
So what? How does this treaty, which mostly revolves around the shipment and transfer of military equipment, and the illicit trade of small arms, affect our second amendment? Does the treaty have to be ratified to get the U.S. to comply? These are interesting questions that have troubling answers. First, The United States signed something called The United Nations Participation Act in 1945. This law contains some interesting verbiage concerning the role of U.S. representatives in the U.N. It essentially states that they are to perform whatever functions, in accordance with U.N. objectives, that the president may direct them to.
“Such representative shall represent the United States in the Security Council of the United Nations and shall perform such other functions in connection with the participation of the United States in the United Nations as the President may from time to time direct.”
What does that mean, exactly? It means the president can direct our appointed representatives in helping the U.N. further their objectives. Another interesting law, passed in 1973, also reinforced our participation and compliance with U.N. objectives. The United Nations Environment Program Participation Act made it U.S. policy to contribute funds to the United Nations in a “coordinated international” effort to protect and improve the environment. In other words, the U.S. government is an active participant in the climate change agenda. What does one have to do with the other? Nothing, directly. Aside from the fact that U.N. Agenda 2030 and The Great Reset can’t happen if there is an armed population willing to resist. This is where it gets interesting.
The Arms Treaty was preceded by a U.N. document entitled A Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. Reading that title one can only assume that the term “in all its aspects” refers to any aspect in which small arms and light weapons are used. Including legitimate civilian use. Section II paragraph 21 states that effective disarmament programs should be established, which include the collection and destruction of small arms, particularly in post-conflict situations. What does this mean? It means that the further we go down the Great Reset road towards the culmination of Agenda 2030, the greater likelihood there will be of U.N. involvement. Why? Because at some point there will be resistance to the climate change agenda which our government signed onto. Another interesting point that should be considered is that a large number of countries, including Mexico and Canada, have ratified the U.N. Treaty. Theoretically speaking, and we see this happening with the lawsuits Mexico is bringing against U.S. gun manufacturers, Canada and Mexico could pressure the U.N. to take action against the U.S. as they are making the claim that U.S.-made guns are illegally coming into their country. This would make them part of the “illicit” small arms trade. Would it not? Makes you wonder why Trump really told the U.N. we would not be participating. It seems like a great problem, reaction, solution strategy to me. Create a situation where the U.S. is one of the few countries refusing to go along with an agenda the rest of the world views as necessary in saving lives. Create the perception that reasonable gun control measures have reached a global consensus while the U.S. selfishly refuses to surrender their guns. That is just speculation, of course.
Many people argue that this treaty will have zero effect on the second amendment because there is a paragraph that explicitly states the legitimate and recreational use of firearms, where permitted by law, is to be protected.
Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership, and use are permitted or protected by law.
There are several problems with this paragraph. One is “the use of certain conventional arms, for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities.” What is a conventional arm? It isn’t an AR-15, which has successfully been portrayed as a weapon of war. Why do you think they use these propaganda terms to describe this type of firearm? Two, “where such trade, ownership, and use are permitted by law.” Several states have outlawed, or severely restricted the ownership of semi-automatic rifles. Despite SCOTUS’ Bruen decision, several appellate courts are upholding these bans. Could the agenda be to keep these laws on the books as long as it takes to get the treaty ratified by the Senate? I am asking, not making the claim. Finally, this paragraph mentions nothing of the natural rights of all people to armed self-defense. In fact, the right to armed self-defense isn’t even mentioned in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. The second amendment is meant to protect our right to resist the type of encroachment against our sovereignty that they intend to impose. Do you think they respect that? Not a chance. The armed U.S. citizen is the last remaining obstacle to achieving the goals they have established for global dictatorship.
The U.N. Arms Treaty may not appear, on the surface, to be the biggest threat to our gun rights as the Biden administration continues its relentless assault. It is, however, lurking in the shadows as the agenda which is driving it. According to the National Association of Gun Rights, the treaty governs everything from how guns are transferred, to who may transfer them. This explains the government’s actions against FFLs and their attempt to redefine who is in the business of selling guns. If the Biden administration gets its way, and no one has stopped them so far, the ATF will introduce a rule later this year stating that any individual who sells their own private firearms for profit is to be considered a dealer, and would be guilty of a federal crime if not in possession of federal firearm license. Furthermore, the Chinese Communists have taken a lead role in the Treaty’s implementation on a global scale, as they are now the largest financial contributor. They have made several public demands that Americans be disarmed, and are urging the Biden administration to ratify the treaty. This should come to no one’s surprise, but the U.S. State Department also reassured the global community that Biden is committed to getting the Arms Treaty ratified.
The second amendment is something that many Americans take for granted. You can not simply sit back and watch the push for global government take place without understanding its implications for gun rights. There is no way such an agenda can be successfully pushed, without any problems, if an armed population resists. Armed self-defense against tyranny is America’s historical tradition of firearm ownership. Our country and your freedom, including the freedom to hate it – whether you like it to not – was formed by men who used their private firearms to resist the encroaching power of a tyrannical government. It is my opinion that any mention of any restrictions against the second amendment should meet the full opposition of all of us. You can’t brush off the Arms Treaty, for example, because the one paragraph claims to protect the lawful use of conventional arms when every effort is being made to criminalize the ownership of an AR-15. Which is nothing more than a standard semi-automatic rifle that has existed since 1956. You can’t sit back and make excuses for any politician who pushes red flag laws because they are the needed pretext for declaring you a danger to society simply for refusing to surrender your guns. Read that again, if AR-15s are banned, and you refuse to surrender yours, red flag laws are the needed catalyst to declare you a danger to others for illegally possessing one. Defending the 2A first requires taking a principled stand and understanding what the term no infringements means. If you accept compromise or are willing to accept certain infringements from people you voted for because they are not Hillary Clinton, you accept infringements and are already losing this battle.
