D-Day For Gun Control
By Dick Morris on July 10, 2012
   
Published on TheHill.com on July 10, 2012

Without much fanfare and with as little publicity as possible, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at the U.N. The treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights.

The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT’s true intent: to force gun control on the United States.

Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty.

The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU), which will ensure that “parties [to the treaty] take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within [their] territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the illicit market or to unintended end users.”

The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this requirement and will move to make sure that they do, indeed, take “all necessary measures.” This requirement will inexorably lead to gun registration, restrictions on ownership and, eventually, even outright bans on firearms.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: “After the treaty is approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms.”
Bolton explains that “the administration knows that it cannot obtain this kind of legislation in purely a domestic context. They will use an international agreement to get domestically what they couldn’t get otherwise.”

The treaty makes no sense otherwise, except as a circuitous vehicle to achieve gun control in the United States. The vast majority of all small arms and light arms exports (the ostensible focus of the treaty) are from sales by the governments of the United States, Russia, China, Germany and Israel. Individual or corporate arms trafficking is a distinct minority. But it is to absorb the brunt of the treaty’s regulations.

Insofar as the treaty restricts governmental action, it bars governments from arming “illicit” groups in other nations. This provision could well be interpreted to ban U.S. arms sales to Iranian or Syrian dissidents. It could even be used by China to stop us from selling arms to Taiwan, since the U.N. does not recognize Taiwan as a nation, but rather an entity occupying territory that should belong to China.
And let’s not forget how well the United States has done in reducing murders and other crimes despite the absence of comprehensive gun controls and bans. In 1993, there were 24,350 homicides in the United States. Last year, there were 13,576 (despite a growth of 60 million in the population). Only 9,000 of these murders involved a firearm. (Less than one-third of the highway deaths each year in the country.)

Obama has left gun control off his legislative agenda so far. Now his strategy becomes apparent: Use international treaties to achieve it.

And bear in mind that under the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution, we would be obliged to enforce the ATT despite the Second Amendment. International treaties have the force of constitutional law in the United States.

If it is ratified during the lame-duck session of the Senate this year, then nothing can ever change it. Goodbye, Second Amendment.

Right now we need 34 courageous Republican senators to step up and demand that Hillary not sign the treaty, and indicate their intention to vote against its ratification if it is submitted. Only such an action can stop this treachery in its tracks.

Click Here to sign the petition to stop the US from signing the Arms Trade Treaty!

People sit on their guns and let the government run rampant.  The System might as well take them away.  Not like the people are using them.

I rest my case...

Here is what the headline SHOULD be:

California Police Fire Into Protesters, Unleash Killer Dog On Woman And Child

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/07/21/officer-involved-shooting-reported-in-anaheim/


The actual, wussified headline:

Near Riot Breaks Out After Officer-Involved Shooting In Anaheim

ANAHEIM (CBS/AP) — A police shooting that left a man dead led to a near riot Saturday as angry witnesses threw bottles at officers who responded with tear gas and beanbag rounds.

The man was shot around 4 p.m. in front of an apartment complex on the 600 block of North Anna Drive following a foot chase, Anaheim Sgt. Bob Dunn said. He died three hours later at a hospital.

The Orange County Register cited family members and neighbors who said the man shot was Manuel Diaz. Dunn said he could not confirm the man’s name early Sunday.

His niece, 16-year-old Daisy Gonzalez, said her uncle likely ran away from officers when they approached him because of his past experience with law enforcement. “He (doesn’t) like cops. He never liked them because all they do is harass and arrest anyone,” Gonzalez said.

Residents, protesting what they say is an increased police violence against them in the community, started the near riot after the shooting on nearby La Palma.

Crystal Ventura, a 17-year-old who witnessed the shooting, told the Register the man had his back to the officer. She said the man was shot in the buttocks area. The man then went down on his knees, and she said he was struck by another bullet in the head. Another officer handcuffed the man who by then was on the ground and not moving, Ventura said.

“They searched his pockets, and there was a hole in his head, and I saw blood on his face,” she said.

Dunn said he could not comment on these allegations because the shooting is under investigation.

Jay Jackson, reporting for CBS2 and KCAL9, said Saturday night’s scene was chaotic.

The residents blocked off a street and set fire to at least one dumpster.

Earlier in the day, police in riot gear, fired rubber bullets into the crowd. Several protesters lifted their shirts to show large red welts on their torsos and backs.


Residents told Jackson that police overreacted and created the disturbance.

One man said, “They just started shooting.”

Police also set a K-9 officer on one woman and a bystander they said were agitating the situation.

Said Susan Lopez, “I had my baby with me. My baby! The dog scratched me and then grabbed me.” She added, “They shot at me while I was holding a baby!” Another woman yelled, “They just shot at us, they shot at a little kid, too.”

According to police, two patrol officers observed three male suspects in an alley.

Police said the suspects tried to flee on foot when a chase ensued.

The shooting reportedly occurred after one of the officers encountered one of the suspects in a courtyard.

No officers were injured.

The other two suspects are at-large.

Dunn said, “What exactly led to the shooting, we don’t know. We’re still investigating. But a shooting did occur. And the male was taken to a hospital.”

Authorities said the circuмstances regarding the shooting were under investigation by members of the gangs unit and Orange County District Attorney’s office.

Four people told Jackson that police offered to buy their cell phone video.