The landmark Arms
Trade Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms –
from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships – will enter into
force on 24 December 2014. States can sign and ratify the Treaty until it enters
into force. After entry-into-force of the Treaty, States can still accede
to the Treaty.
This obviously is
alarming because of the TPP, and Net Neutrality laws that will be coming into
effect shortly. For those who don’t know what Net Neutrality is, it can be
summed up like this: They are going to govern the internet, monitor and snoop a
whole lot more than they do now. This is the loss of our freedoms, The internet
has become on of the most vital tools in spreading information, our first
amendment right, well Obama and the UN have their eyes set on taking away two
amendments almost at once.
“His quandary: trying
to shape rules for an open Internet, or net neutrality, that would
satisfy the millions of people who wrote the agency in support of strong regulation
— and also would stand up in court and encourage web investment and
innovation.” – from the New York Times
Well, if you aren’t
broke you will be because of the TPP:
Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP): Job Loss, Lower Wages and Higher Drug Prices
Have you heard? The
TPP is a massive, controversial “free trade” agreement currently being pushed
by big corporations and negotiated behind closed doors by officials from the
United States and 11 other countries – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. In one fell swoop,
this secretive deal could:
BACK TO THE ARMS
TRADE TREATY’
The last time
government pushed for the ATT, the gun stores almost sold out of ammo. This
will lead to civil war, and that should be avoided at all costs. However the
government keeps pushing the people to the brink.
For those unfamiliar
with the text of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, here’s a brief sketch of the most
noxious provisions:
• Article 2 of the
treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy,
sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is
denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.
• Article 3 places the
“ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms
covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as
well.
• Article 4 rounds out
the regulations, also placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the
scheme.
• Perhaps the most
immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found
in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates
that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a
national control system, including a national control list.” This list should
“apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional
arms.”
• Article 12 adds to
the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include “the quantity,
value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as
well as the identity of the “end users” of these items.
• Finally, the agreement
demands that national governments take “appropriate measures” to enforce the
terms of the treaty, including civilian disarmament. If these countries can’t
get this done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance,
specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management,
disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.” In fact, a
“voluntary trust fund” will be established to assist those countries that need
help from UN peacekeepers or other regional forces to disarm their citizens.
from The New American.
Arguably, the Arms
Trade Treaty would become the law of the United States if the Senate were to
ratify the treaty.
While that is the
process that the Constitution establishes for the implementation of treaties,
fundamental principles of construction and constitutional law dictate that no treaty that
violates the Constitution can become the supreme law of the land. In
the case of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, there is no doubt that regardless of
presidential signatures or congressional consent, this treaty cannot pass
constitutional muster and therefore will never be the valid law of the land.
Unless, of course,
Americans once again acquiesce to President Obama’s assumption of illegal
authority and relinquish their rights and weapons regardless of the reasons
they should not do so.
There is a higher
authority, however, who never asked his followers to surrender their weapons
and leave themselves defenseless in the war against tyranny.
While the president
declares that greater federal restriction on the right to own, transfer, buy,
and sell guns and ammunition is necessary in order to “heal our troubled
minds,” Christians believe that there is only one place to turn for such
relief: the Great Physician.
Christians, moreover,
believe they not only have the right to keep and bear arms, but have the
obligation to do so in the fight to protect freedom. The idea that God has
commanded his children to own weapons and to be ready to wield them in defense
of liberty might sound odd to many, but the scriptures provide ample evidence
of this divine injunction.
In Luke 22:35-36, to
cite one example, Jesus commanded his followers to purchase a sword in defiance
of Roman law. Within the boundaries of the world under the control of the Roman
emperor, to carry such a weapon was a crime punishable by death.
Why, then, would
Jesus, the Prince of Peace, command his followers to break the law of the
world’s most powerful empire — with legions of armed enforcers around
every corner — if the benefit of keeping that commandment did not outweigh the
potential harm?
Furthermore, if Jesus
was the pacifist so many modern gun-rights deniers portray him as, why is there
not a single syllable in the scriptures forbidding disciples from keeping and
bearing arms?
If God is the same
yesterday, today, and forever, why would he instruct early Christians to arms
themselves, but insist that modern disciples be left defenseless? And, what of
Paul’s pronouncement that “if anyone does not provide for his own, and
especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse
than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8)?
If God preferred that
his children refrain from buying, selling, owning, or transferring weapons, why
is there not one verse in the entire canon of Christian scripture setting out
such counsel?
Where has the
Christian adherence to and understanding of this principle gone?
Perhaps it has slipped
into oblivion, much like the related precept of being steadfastly dedicated to
obeying the world of God in defiance of immoral government edicts.
Perhaps there are
“evil men and seducers” who are “without natural affection, trucebreakers,
false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good.” (2
Timothy 3: 3, 13) who intend to enslave mankind and who understand that a
disarmed populace is a slave populace.
Turning to the wisdom
and warnings of the Holy Bible, Christians can find the “instruction in
righteousness” that they believe lead them to “all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:
16-17)
All Americans,
regardless of religion, must recognize that God gave us the freedoms we enjoy
and with that gift comes the obligation of protecting ourselves and our loved
ones. We must be armed, not for the purpose of private vengeance, but to remain
ready to defend the liberty that is our inheritance.
The next meeting of
the states that are parties to the Arms Trade Treaty — including the United
States — is scheduled for November 27-28 in Berlin, Germany. There is time,
then, to convince our elected leaders to refuse to sacrifice our freedom to
keep and bear arms on the altar of one-world government. -The New American.
Biblical Christianity doesn't agree completely with all the statements made by The New American, but absolutely agrees that it point to a horrible turn of events, and understands their point of view.
