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.
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 »