The article; "Obama's United Nations Backdoor to Gun Control" states the following:
The new treaty demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light weapons." Article 5 of the treaty requires nations to "establish and maintain a national control system, including a "national control list." Article 10 requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights but, instead only declares it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for "recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense was mentioned).
Congress still retains the right to reject this agreement and thankfully, given their action to the Bill President Obama has introduced recently, they won't be standing for any efforts by this President to further erode our Constitutional Rights.
Now, before the reader jumps to the conclusion that this is a right wing, gun-nut supporting article, let it be said that it is not. It is quite simply a statement against the deception which has for far too long surrounded initiatives by the past and present presidential administrations and their media based, talking heads to fool We the People. It is time to hold accountable those news outlets which have been so reluctant to reveal the truth and recognize what our "representatives" are hatching behind closed doors.
Case in point: The media has recently shown the defeat of Obama's Gun Bill being met with shouts and curses by the families of Sandy Hook victims and those Americans less knowledgeable about what this bill really proposed and have worked tirelessly to depict an insensitive, Republican controlled Congress serving the gun lobbyists instead of the American citizens. Very few news outlets had actually explained what was in the gun bill before beginning their character destroying onslaught.
As pointed out by the New York Times, the bill has much more in it than the television media is paid to tell you. Although many of the initiatives make sense when looked at in a glimpse, the price tag will be extraordinary and the implications of its content are immeasurably destructive both fiscally and constitutionally. Many House and Senate Republicans and Democrats did not vote "yea" for this reason alone.
One of the sections of the Bill "directs the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks" and an executive order which "addresses (sic) legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which may prevent states from making information available to the background check system", potentially opening up many sycophantic cans of freedom-quashing worms like eliminating patient-doctor confidentiality and our very right to privacy.
In a seemingly tandem effort, the recent Boston bombing has created an initiative that goes much further than merely solving the case of a "terrorist" attack on Americans. Again, the televised media has made no attempts to see beyond the hard plastic cover of the story. Between the lines of President Obama's talks of protecting Americans, the reality of our government's solution involves increasing internet monitoring and street cameras for use in identifying assailants. These reactive suggestions sound helpful when described in an informative short on the news but the oncoming "solutions" will most definitely attack more our Constitutional freedoms, if there still are such things anymore.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
6
3
