But hey, what's the constitution when compared to the might and glory of the UN.
So what latest transational boondogle does Obama endorse?
According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to “prevent, combat and eradicate” various classes of guns to undermine “the illicit trade in small arms.” Such a plan would necessarily lead to confiscation of personal firearms.
Why, oh why did the wookie-suiters have to be right?
You see... drugs can't be controled by prohibition but I'm sure a bang up job can be done with firearms.
The first question is if Obama plans to acutally go through with this, and if he does can it pass the Senate, and if it goes in the Senate would the Supremes uphold it?
First of all, not all insurgencies are bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. That threat is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorse gun control.
And we've seen how well banning guns works in Chicago. And if they can't get your rights one way they'll do it another.
Know your place, serf.