There are far more law abiding citizens.= "the masses". Those are the ones that need to be controlled in order for "them"to maintain power. Have no fear, when there are none left but the "lawless" they will be eliminated en mass by the "regime". Plus you "treasonous" individuals that will not march in lockstep will suffer the same fate as the other criminals! The rest of the brainwashed PC "sheeple will applaud this!If something like this gets passed I'll just have to bury my guns in the backyard till after they come looking. And report them stolen. I don't know. I can't believe that this is even being considered. Criminals will get guns no matter what so why are law abiding citizens being punished. Its especially hard to swallow for me having fought in Iraq and protected our rights like so many before me. I spit at this administration.
Actually under the constitution no other country can regulate crap, buzz off UN, come and take it. Based on your past history you losers will get your butt kicked.
Last month a U.N. committee met in New York and signed off on several provisions, including the creation of a new U.N. agency to regulate international weapon sales, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide.
Isn't it interesting that it always seems to be about MONEY? So as long as mass murdering dictators rule a country that does not manufacture guns bear no liability for their atrocities. I guess the quote "The sword does not commit the murder and the sword maker bears no sin" has just been rendered meaningless.
Read more: Proposed U.N. Treaty To Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns For U.S. Gun Makers | FoxNews.com
Here is what Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.
The above was selected from: The Constitution --- Plain and Simple: Treaties
There is a lot to read on the subject after and during the above statements. The article starts off reassuring us that treaties are not the law of the land and then goes on to confirm that issue. But if I'm reading it correctly it is all up to the Senate to make the final decision to the legality and constitutionality of the treaty.
All that having been said, If somehow 2/3 of the Senate agree and ratify a treaty, it does in fact become 'Law of the Land'.