by Doug Hagmann
Presently flying under the radar of the American people is the much misunderstood, deliberately mischaracterized and under-reported United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty. Considering the persistent multi-level attacks against U.S. gun owners and American’s rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “Final U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” that convened yesterday and is scheduled to last through March 28, 2013 should be front page news all across America. But it’s not, and for good reason.
Most people, including conservative Americans thought the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was a dead issue, or at least not a threat to U.S. gun owners based on a number of assumptions relating to international treaties and U.S. Constitutional law. Like everything else with the Obama regime, however, things are never what they appear, nor are they as simple as we are led to believe.
But first, let it be made clear that Barack Hussein Obama is on record as being against the private ownership of firearms by American citizens. This might surprise anyone who listens to the hysterically-pitched assertions by such Obama lapdogs as Chris Mathews and Lawrence O’Donnell, for example, who contend that Obama has posed no threat to private gun ownership as President. Such assertions are only convincing to those who have not done any research into this matter.
Barack Hussein Obama has a long and well documented history on gun control, going back as far as his law school days. There, he was mentored by Laurence Tribe, a staunch opponent to gun rights of American citizens. In 1994, Obama was a member of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago based charitable organization that in part, is a proponent of various anti-gun groups and related agendas.
In 2003, Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois. While running for political office in 2004, Obama called for national legislation to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms. As reported in the February 20, 2004 edition of The Chicago Tribune, Obama was quoted as “back[ing] federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.”
In the April 2, 2008 edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Obama was quoted stating “I am not in favor of concealed weapons… I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted twice against SB 2165, more commonly known as the “Castle Doctrine,” which would permit household occupants to defend themselves through the use of firearms.
Perhaps most nefarious and telling of all is what Obama whispered to Sarah Brady during a meeting on 30 March 2011 concerning gun control: “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
By far and despite the intent of Obama-supported organizations such as Fact Check and Media Matters, it is clear that he is the most anti-Second Amendment (putative) President ever to hold office.
Perhaps most disconcerting about the present actions of the United Nations is the cavalier attitude held by most, including many conservatives, that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty would be completely impotent against the U.S. Constitution and American’s rights under the Second Amendment. After all, it is argued that to be effective, such a treaty would require Senate ratification and at present, such ratification would have a “zero possibility” of passage. Such thinking is consistent with a normal political atmosphere and an administration that has a genuine respect for the U.S. Constitution. Considering what we’ve seen over the last decade, does the recent track record of our elected leaders alleviate your concerns?
Consider that within 24 hours of his re-election, Obama pushed for a new round of international negotiations to revive the very U.N. treaty he visibly backed off of in the months leading to the 2012 elections. Isn’t this act alone enough to trip some alarm bells, even among the most skeptic?
It should also be noted that on February 26, 2013, the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights issued a white paper on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, concluding that “the proposed ATT is consistent with the Second Amendment.” A review of this four-page document reveals certain questionable assumptions on which that conclusion is based.
This is a warning to all Americans that the Obama support of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty can lead to some “UN-intended” consequences to American’s right to own and bear arms. Americans looking at this issue are failing to look at the larger picture, which is the ultimate subjugation of the United States to a global governance. This can most effectively be accomplished through the disarmament of its citizens, especially in the face of violent outbreaks as the U.S. and the world economic systems begin to unravel.
The machinations of the Obama regime within the inner workings of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty must not be underestimated. We must look at the bigger picture and the end-game objectives of the globalists pulling the puppet strings. All is not what it appears.
Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: email@example.com
Times are gtting worse by the hour.
AND DAY BY DAY......WHAT IN THE WORLD HAS MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD DOING RUNNING OUR H.L.S.
I DON'T RECALL THEM GETTING VOTED IN, SO BESIDE OBAMA PUTTING THEM THERE, WHY HAS NO ONE PUT A S T O P TO THIS, IS IT ME!
After 2000 I am done! Just in case you U.N. robots don't understand, that's rounds and not a year! What number is in your wallet?
When a person can theoretically get elected to be President -Twice---Based far less on their ability or their Constitutionally mandated qualification for the Office....when they twice swear /or affirm intent to defend the US Constitution But Don not --Not in four years --or more-- when their Administration appoints questionable and perhaps criminal minds to high position and Congress DOES NOT-- HAS NOT acted to IMPEACH--- Like they used to say when we had a Space program -- "Houston --We've got a problem." Unless--or until Congress is willing to do the work they were sent to do--Unless or until they are willing to honor the Oath Administered to Every one of them. We no longer have that system established 1776--1791.IMPEACH Obama-- then allow a good old fashioned political hot Tar and feathering--and run him out of Sodom (D.C. ) on a rail.As American's would have done when we were not in the decline to the supine eternal dirt nap.
Robert, the ones that re/elected him are people that don't even understand the constitution, they don't read, stay updated on a damn thing except the movie guide. They are takers. Then his tactics of being re/elected were far from legal. Today I have no trust in our Congress, both sides of the fence. They have an agenda and they are pushing this right along. An impeachment is not what we need.. This would be stopped by the Senate and maybe the Congress..It would take valuable time and we don't have that time. We have been scammed by the lot of them and I think about this constantly. I see no other way but to take our Country back by force.
This man was HIRED to do a job and he is doing it.. I don't know how we will take our Country back, but we have God on our side and I sincerely pray someone will take control of this and march us into the right direction.
I hole heartedly agree with you, The good ones in office will not give up their status easly
The fact is "The Department of Homeland Security" has an official branch office in each and every Patriots home in this Country. The authorization for that to be the case is the Second Amendment of our Constitution. No Bar Association, Judicial authority or any other groups opinion supercedes the authority the Second Amendment grants each law abiding Citizen in this Country. You want to take our guns with some ill conceived legal opinion reflecting the perspective of global thinking, liberal, progressive, Marxists who, in conjunction with the UN continually work to enfeeble the handywork of our Founders, the Constitution and our Republic? Have at it global thinkers, but you have to face on hard fact before you commit. You're dealing with American Patriots when you come for our guns, you had better be willing to die to get them.
Obama is nothing but a paid puppet.
I THINK WE RALLY NEED TO TALK TO THE MILITARY AND SEE WHAT THEY THINK ( THE WAR IS HERE NOT THERE ) .
The problem is knowing Which military they belong to. Our Historic military full of patriotic men and women who love their country, or the ones put in by the cabal to get DADT repealed and institute gay marriage and a lgbt agenda to befoul the greatest asset our nation has.
Just as it has been stated here, most people in America either don’t even know about this UN Small Arms Trade Treaty, or they believe this particular treaty will not have any effect on our second amendment and our right to bear arms. But anyone that tells you this treaty will not effect the second amendment is either lying to you or they don’t know what they’re talking about. The real hidden danger in this treaty is the undisclosed side effect of registrations. This hidden clause calls for “owner registrations”, that’s you and me, not only the guns and ammo manufacturers. These provisions are hidden deep within the bowels of this treaty, kept hidden and secret from the American public. “Owner registration” as it is presented in the treaty sounds like it is meant to allow the UN to know who any arms are being sold to in a foreign country, such as South Africa, Somalia, or Syria. But it is the wording of those provisions that caused Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration to request “more time” at the hearings last year. That wording was changed to alter and adjust the language so that it was not limited to manufacturers selling arms to someone in a foreign country, but so that it would apply to anyone in any country. Another example of inclusion by omission. Here’s an example; Lets say the treaty contained the following sentence; (Arms sales will be forbidden to terrorists groups in foreign nations). Now lets look at what happens when we simply remove the last three words in that sentence, it now reads as follows; (Arms sales will be forbidden to terrorists groups).
By omitting the last three words in the first sentence, (in foreign nations) we have opened the restrictions to include any one who has been deemed a potential “terrorist group” Even if they are American Patriots and oath keepers and veterans. As I said, inclusion by omission. Both the restrictions of sales, trade, and the provisions for registrations have been altered in just such a manor.
That “owner registration” will eventually lead to total weapons confiscation. It may not come right away, possibly a year or two down the road, but if this treaty is passed and accepted by the Obama administration, be aware that that “owner registration” provision will be part of it.
And don't be fooled by the claim that this treaty will have to be rattified by the US Senate before it becomes law.