The Glade 4.0

As the United Nations prepares its final push to ratify a controversial gun treaty, the U.S. Senate is set to approve the measure which critics say will not only give away U.S. sovereignty but directly attack the individual gun rights of American citizens, according to a report published Thursday at Stand Up America.

Democrats still hold the majority in the Senate.

Known as "the U.N. small arms treaty," the measure would regulate private gun ownership, according to firearms rights watchdog groups.

Retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who has been at the forefront of citizen opposition to the treaty, stated,

There has been a decree by the administration by the president and the secretary of state saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons,” Boykin warned. “That means the United Nations, an international body will decide how you and I as Americans can buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are. This is a dangerous trend.

The treaty has been in the works for several years, and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have expressed full support for the measure, which critics say is an underhanded attempt to implement massive gun control without having to go through the normal legislative process in Congress.

Obama stated during the 2008 presidential campaign that he would not seek to push gun control through Congress due to the fact that he does not have the votes. And on that point he is correct. Gun control has fallen on hard times in America over the past two decades. Increasingly states are enacting laws that give citizens greater leeway in self defense, many approving bills that allow citizens to carry guns either openly or concealed without having a permit from the state.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in two monumental cases in 2008 and 2010 that most of the anti-gun laws in the District of Columbia and in Chicago were unconstitutional. The ruling also clarified the definition of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, stating that the right to bear arms is an individual rather than a "collective" right.

Thus, known gun opponents such as Obama and Hillary Clinton immediately went to work to devise plans, under the radar, to attempt to change the tide of public opinion about firearms and implement gun control without the approval of Congress, according to government whistleblowers and watchdogs.

One plan was to send U.S. firearms to Mexican drug cartels as a means of padding statistics that would "prove" the administration's contention that "90 percent of the firearms used by the cartels come from the United States."

The other plan was to bypass Congress and use the U.N. to trump U.S. law by signing a treaty that would grant international supervision over the sale and possession of guns in America.

But the plans have been met by heavy opposition. Congress has exposed the scheme inherent in the Fast and Furious operation, leading to contempt charges against Attorney General Eric Holder. Hillary Clinton has been implicated in the scandal as one of the original masterminds behind the scheme. And over 130 members of Congress have openly expressed their opposition to the U.N. small arms treaty.

The Senate is also considering another U.N. based treaty called "The Law of the Sea," which is intended to regulate international waterways but would hand over U.S. sovereignty to international entities, according to critics.

President Reagan refused to approve the treaty in 1982 due to sovereignty issues. But Obama and Hillary Clinton have pushed for its ratification.

Both bills have created a firestorm of controversy due to their encroachment on the Bill of Rights and the final authority of Congress to regulate international commerce.

According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the authority to regulate international commerce pertaining to the United States, and thus, critics say that the treaties are blatantly unconstitutional.

Proponents of the bills often engage in what opponents say is "Orwellian newspeak" in their frantic attempts to get the treaties approved. The Law of the Sea Treaty, for example, is being promoted as a method of "protecting U.S. sovereignty" in spite of the fact that it does nothing of the sort. And the small arms treaty is promoted as having nothing to do with individual gun rights but is rather an attempt to address gun sales by "rogue nations."

But the gun treaty applies directly to the United States and lumps the nation together with so called "rogue nations." Thus, the treaty would directly impact gun sales in the U.S. and by extension the gun rights of individual citizens.

For most people desiring to control arms, that is the end goal in and of itself.

I disagree with this statement.

Certainly yes, there are folks out there who only want to ban firearms. However, there are plenty (I personally believe the majority) of people who just want reasonable control around objects that can easily kill people.

For me personally, I'm less concerned about controlling the firearms themselves as I am the people wielding them. Anyone who wants to own or use a firearm should be able to pass a test, similar to a driving test, that proves you understand the basics around firearm safety, etc. After that, then go nuts.

your viewpoint is far more in line with advocacy of firearms rights.

For me personally, I'm less concerned about controlling the firearms themselves as I am the people wielding them. Anyone who wants to own or use a firearm should be able to pass a test, similar to a driving test, that proves you understand the basics around firearm safety, etc. After that, then go nuts.

Do you believe you should have to first pass a test to vote? Speak freely? Practice your religious beliefs?

, I've got another 2 or 3 friends that want to get a Desert Eagle, but have never shot a handgun in their lives. And their ownership will probably consist of going to a lane once or twice and being amazed at the power of the gun,

In order to legally drive, you have to show that you're not legally blind

If you purchase a firearm for use on private property (your own or anybody with whom you have an agreement), you should be able to plunk down the cash, get the firearm and walk out, no questions asked.

This is all well and good, but unless you own a large farm or other large plot of land, your use of said firearm won't likely remain on your property. (i.e. even a .22 is dangerous to a mile or so)

I think the more serious concern would be that there's no way to confirm, at the time of purchase, whether said purchaser will in fact only use the firearm for legitimate reasons and exclusively on his/her own property. Hence the need for universal background checks at the very least. I'm less worried about irresponsible gun owners accidentally shooting someone than I am about people with a history of violence and/or mental illness deliberately shooting someone.

Already have universal background checks at FFL's RD. Have for years andyears.

We already have penalties for committing a crime, whether with a firearm or not.