United Nations & International Action Network on Small Arms Plotting to Tear Down the 2nd Amendment & Take Away Our Guns
Never heard or IANSA? Well get ready they have already succeed banning guns in the UK and the AU.
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA –-(AmmoLand.com)- NRA News’ investigative reporter Ginny Simone takes a look at the global gun control goals of the United Nations.
By pushing for a binding international treaty aimed at superseding the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations is committed to rendering Americans’ Second Amendment rights to own a firearm meaningless.
Simone interviews past and current U.N. officials and politicians and examines the debates at the United Nations Small Arms Summit to expose the international anti-gun agenda.
View the video above or follow this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
What is IANSA?
International Action Network on Small Arms says they are “The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global movement against gun violence – a network of 800 civil society organizations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons (SALW).”
What they really are is a well organized, well funded group of anti-gun partner organizations, including the Brady Campaign” from around the world, funded by governments that hate and fear the freedoms of the USA.
IANSA has one goal….to take a way the right of free Americans to own guns.
About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
We need to remember that it's Soros and his hog-swilling partner in crime Barack who attempt to perpetrate everything that goes against the framework of the US of A. Also need to somehow get the UN out of the USA. maybe some jihadists will mistake UN headquarters on their next attempt.
All: I just think blue helmets make great targets.
The United Nations objective should not be to tear down our Constitutional rights. Nor does the US have any interest in restructuring the laws of any foreign country. Foreign countries have no desire to invade the US, because they know our citizens are trained and armed. Switzerland issues firearms to all of their citizens and trains them. How many wars has Switzerland been involved in, NONE. How many times has Switzerland been invaded by a foreign power, NONE. Nuff Said.
Another Oathhkeeper.
Anyone remember recently the Pelosi comment when questioned about healthcare bill legality…"The Constitution? Are you kidding?"
I couldn't agree more with Mike G III's comments. As citizens of the United States of America it is also our duty to defend The Constitution against any and all threats foreign or domestic. Any holders of public office who attempt to circumvent The Constitution will be removed from office any way we have to. We will not wait to vote them out, because that could be too late. If they do try to "come and take them" there will be war and I'm sure our forefathers will be proud of us.
As the Court ruled in Marbury v Madison 1803, "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” That's all that needs to be said for any true Patriot. God is the author of liberty, and the granter of it also. Any action by this government that offends the Constitution is null and void, and if the elected parties commit treason they should stand trial and be punished for such if they violate in any official capacity our sovereignty. There are more of us than them. Stand firm in truth and liberty, live free and fight the… Read more »
Saying it is unconstitutional is pretty weak. The Federal govt has violated the 10th amendment for years and no one does anything. The UN scares the crap out of me.
The Constitution confers the power upon the President to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. However, one of those treaties cannot contradict the Constitution itself, just like a federal law (the "supreme law of the land") cannot contradict the Constitution. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) ( "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.")
This worry over this treaty is much ado about nothing.
Mikey,
It will be made under the authority of the Us when ratified by the Senate and signed by the president and will be USED as a PRETEXT to overturn the 2A under the international treaty.
They want to disarm us. If they try, there WILL be a civil war.
Molon Labe
No Fort Sumters!
Mike G III
Oathkeeper
Here is the little catch that everybody misses:
Article 6:
"…and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;…"
A treaty must be made UNDER the AUTHORITY of the United States. What authority does the United States have to violate the Constitution? Answer, NONE. Result, all treaties must conform the the Constitution, because no power not specifically delegated to the United States BY the Constitution is valid or lawful.
Majors and generals had cannon and shot on their front lawns and black power in the barns.
Kentucky rifle was state of the arts in 1776, I just want to upgrade.
I am looking for a used Abr. tank
2 ICBM
3 oz of nuclear material
What a fantasy world some folks live in. It's not like the US government hasn't done things contrary to the constitution before. This, for example, of the Issei/Nissei confinement and divestiture of property during WWII. There was not then, nor is there now, any basis in the constitution for such an act. It took, literally, decades before anyone even got an apology and (as I recall) a lousy $80K for having lost large parts of their lives and all of their property. If the current administration of this country wanted to sign off on such a treaty, the president could.… Read more »
Have to agree with AmmoLand on this one. The Bill of Rights is held to be inviolate by the Federal government. In other words, they cannot, in theory, pass any law, erect any regulation, or even express an opinion in contravention of the BOR (yeah, right!). Just because they have the power to pass a treaty, because of the BOR, they should not be able to accomplish disarmament and an infringement of rights with a treaty. This would be in total disregard of the intent of the Constitution. And why should we, the people of the USA, have to go,… Read more »
Shame on Simone and the NRA for not taking a look at Article VI of the Constitution (U.S., not UN). Here's an excerpt: "This Constitution. . .and all Treaties made. . .is the Law of the Land. . .and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. . .the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrry notwithstanding." [The elisions are not prejudicial.] You've certainly read the requirements attendant to amending the Constitution and you know they are rigorous, requiring large majorities of the States and of both houses of Congress (Article V). To make a Treaty, though… Read more »
Flavet:
Your explanation points to the obvious problem with this whole issue. That it would still come down to the supreme court having to make a decision as to which would prevail, the anti-gun anti-rights treaty or the 2nd amendment?
We have never put our constitution in that position, why would we do it now?
The USA should not even be considering this mass extermination of the one right that protects all the other rights of our constitution!
Ergo, more hope and change we don't need.