Treason against the Second Amendment
On July 27th, Barack Hussein Obama will attend a UN conference, where he will sign the global Arms Trade Treaty (ODA/57-2012/ATT. Also see here.) That act is nothing short of treason.
Before I proceed, I want to make it perfectly clear that this article is not rehashing the merits of our Second Amendment. CNAV has written on this issue extensively.
The stated objective of this Treaty is to stop the proliferation of small arms (not assault weapons, etc.) throughout the world. It will, however, have the capacity to legislate gun control in the United States and therefore to overturn our Second Amendment. The Canadians have tried to include language that protected the rights to bear firearms for recreational purposes. That language is not present. Today Canada and Israel are among the few countries advocating for lawful public ownership and recreational use of firearms. The U.S. is not one of them.
History of the Arms Trade Treaty
The negotiations for this Treaty began in 2006, when the U.S., under President George Bush, voted against the resolution. The Obama administration (including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) reversed that vote.
The nations working on this Treaty say they want to promote transparency (where have I heard that word used before?) and accountability in the arms trade, and prevent international transfers of arms that contribute to serious human rights violations (like Fast and Furious?) armed conflict, U.N. sanctions violations , organized crime and terrorist acts. I can’t help but wonder if this includes TEA Party members. Have they not been labeled as thugs and terrorists by Nancy Pelosi and Janet Napolitano, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and others?
Effect on the US
How will it affect us? The U.N. will have the authority to tell member nations to adopt policies to facilitate regulations and flow across borders within their own control, including but not limited to registration and bans of arms and guns.
Just as a reminder – our Second Amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Why this is treason
The US Constitution. Photo: National Archives of the United States
Another reminder – Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton took oaths to preserve and protect our Constitution, of which our Second Amendment is a part. Signing this Treaty is nothing short of treason!
Let me make this clear: Signing this treaty is a treasonous act. It overthrows our constitution by rendering the Second Amendment invalid.
It is nothing less than plotting to overthrow our government – and that is treason!!!
It does not preserve, protect, or defend our Constitution by any stretch of the imagination.
Will we permit this to continue?
Frankly, whether or not the Senate ratifies this Treaty is immaterial. Both Obama and Clinton are guilty of treason none-the-less. They are trying to surrender our sovereignty to a foreign government. For that reason, both should be immediately impeached for treason!!!!
However, chances are they will not – not unless We the People demand this.
What can we do?
Inundate the Senate (all members of the Senate – not just yours) with phone calls, faxes, letters and in person visits. Demand they do not ratify this Treaty. Similarly, inundate the House (again, all members, not just your Representative). Demand they impeach Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton for Treason. If you are in a position to do so, July 27th may be a good time to visit the U.N. as you may have intended to do as some point in life.
Other few points of interest: If someone deliberately sets out to destroy a nation what would they do? History has shown that they will:
- Overtax the people, thereby financially and subtly enslaving them,
- Take away their personal property (through programs like Agenda 21),
- Dumb them down (as with our failing public school systems),
- Overregulate everything they do (and in some cases say and/or believe), and last but certainly not least:
- Take away their guns.
You may argue these points and try to justify them until you are blue in the face. The facts remain that this is a common course of action taken by totalitarian governments – and it is all done in the name of creating a better place to live.
Once again I find myself quoting Patrick Henry:
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be bought at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others might take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Today we might not have to lay down our lives for the cause of liberty – at least not yet. But unless we act decisively and with vigor, the future may hold a different fate for liberty-loving Americans. Stand now, while it is still day and the night might not be as dark.
I don’t see how it’s treason. It’s just about arms trade across national borders, and it’s unrelated to trade within the US
This treaty is a good thing. There will be less small arms circulating in third world countries, which means much less killing (I think we can both agree that an assault rifle is more efficient than a machete).
And the rest of the world isn’t necessarily like the US, where firearms are so pervasive. “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” will be much less of an issue.
Unrelated to trade within the US?
Are you willing to bet your life, liberty and property on that? For I am not.
Read the text of the resolution if you want. The treaty is about international trade.
It doesn’t stop there. You have no definition, nothing to say, or imply, that the authority of the UN stops inside any country’s border.
Once again… treason is NOT defined as “something a conservative does not like.”
Treason is defined in the Constitution as “providing aid and comfort to the enemy” or “waging war on the United States.”
That’s from the Constitution. For a web site that claims to be full of such strong Constitutionalists, you miss that pretty basic fact.
Except for one thing: when you sign a treaty that lets an international “authority” register guns in your country, and confiscate said guns, you are making war against your own people, or aiding and abetting such a war.
For the purpose of this discussion, there is an important difference between “making war” against your own people, and literally waging war. The Constitution is not a metaphor.
Then what do you call letting the United Nations create a world-wide gun registry, and to confiscate guns on its own authority?
I’d call it “a myth that combines two of the standard ultra-conservative bugaboos: gun control and the UN.”
Sure, you do. But you also want no person, save an LEO or a military service member, to carry a gun. Do you not?
you also forget that the obama occupier has appointed the supreme court. why else do you think they have voted for him in ALL of the court cases as of late?? now he has the power to change (or add) to the second ammedment. i would prefer that never happen. we must NEVER let that happen and must dethrone the Occupier Obama.
[...] this brazen administration is going forward with a United Nations treaty to take guns away from the peoples of all its signing countries. It’s as if nothing had [...]
Don’t put words into my mouth. I am not a supporter of gun control. I do not object to private ownership of firearms.
You have a d__n funny way of showing it.
Why? Because I don’t buy into every “ZOMG! They’re coming to take away our guns!” rumor?
Mainly because you call it that, and refuse to see how any of the rest of us would reasonably suspect that.
And because you promulgate an ideology that requires the disarmament of the American people.
Tell me – the UN are coming to take away your guns (I assume you own one, which says a lot about the licensing requirements) and herd you all into city gulags.
Just where exactly is the UN going to get the people to actually do this? How many people do you think they’ll need to herd 300 million Yankees into the cities.
Of course, the fact that nothing has been built to accommodate the millions.
Why don’t you just admit you get off on feeling persecuted, no matter how insane the conspiracy theory? Everybody else knows it’s true, and they say the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have one.
I bet you watch Alex Jones every day and have a shrine to David Icke.
Well, now, I imagine that I am conversing, more’s the pity, with one of the first persons to volunteer to wear the baby blue beret (or helmet) of the UN, come to my house with a battering ram, barge in toting a Kalashnikov rifle (not an ugly American Armalite and never an Israeli-made UZI), and shout, “[Blankety-blank]! Hand over those guns!”
“Nothing has been built”? The plan is to build the dingbat dorms. And maybe the ultimate dingbat dorm: the “arcology.”
Insane conspiracy theories? How about yours? “Says a lot about the licensing requirements.” You admit it. That alone is an un-American thing to say.
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Has President Obama levied war against the United States?
Has he adhered to our enemies and given them aid and/or comfort?
No and no.
While on the subject of gun control in the United States, could you please direct me to a single action carried out by President Obama that has decreased the access American citizens have to firearms?
He is about to create an international gun registry that will include guns that American citizens and lawful residents hold.
By that act he will turn the United States into a “mega-province” of the United Nations.
No doubt the original author reads that as an act of war.
And as for “a single action”: Operation Fast and Furious was his first attempt. This is the culmination. Once this treaty is in place, every gun that every citizen owns will become subject to confiscation.
Really? Alliances with other countries are now the equivalent to making war? That is absurd. If this is treason, then how about Bush’s regular meetings with the Saudi Royal Family? Or Hillary Clinton’s campaign contributions from the Chinese government? Or George H.W. Bush’s signing of the START Treaty? Or Ronald Reagan’s selling of arms to Iran?
Could you please provide a source that this will create an international registry of all American gun owners?
And Operation Fast and Furious was started by the Bush administration. And yes, Eric Holder certainly botched it up, but the overall goal was to prevent American firearms from moving into Mexico and abroad. Since a large percentage of the weapons used in global conflicts are American-made I dont see how it is such a terrible idea to put some restrictions on the transportation of firearms.
They are when disarming the populace is on the table.
And now: just try to defend that treaty, now that Iran is in charge of its implementation.
1. Overtax the people, thereby financially and subtly enslaving them,
-Taxes have been lowered under Obama more so that any other president over the last thirty years (including the conservative demi-god Reagan) (source: link to politifact.com)
2. Take away their personal property (through programs like Agenda 21)
-Name one case of American private property being taken and given to the international community.
3. Dumb them down (as with our failing public school systems)
-Cuts for schools have been primarily a result of conservative leaders and policies.
4. Overregulate everything they do (and in some cases say and/or believe)
-Both sides (liberal and conservative) are guilty of this. There are many conservatives who want to base our nation’s laws off of religion (you know, like what the Taliban does), even though many of us are either not religious or of that particular religion. How is that not regulating what people believe?
5. Take away their guns.
-Once again, name one piece of legislation put forward by President Obama that takes away people’s firearms.
1. “Taxes lowered”? That’s a lie. And your source is just as mendacious as “Brother” Obama is.
2. That’s coming.
3. The curriculum is a “dumb down” instrument. And as usual, you try to convince everybody to throw money at a problem. Money that ends up in the treasuries of the teachers’ unions and the pockets of the executives of said unions.
4. Conservatives don’t propose capital punishment, or indeed any kind of criminal or civil punishment, for adultery. (They might propose that the injured party in adultery be entitled to a higher equity consideration, but that’s about it.)
5. Operation Fast and Furious was the first attempt. The Arms Trade Treaty is the culmination.
1. Do you have a source that Obama increased taxes? The stimulus put in by the President was about 60% tax cuts.
2. Uh oh. Im sure that you must have some sort of hard evidence.
3. The United States still has the best university system in the world (no thanks to the Republicans. I am a graduate of the University of Virginia. In 1990 25% of our funding came from the state. Now its less than 10%)
4. Really now? I was not aware that Texas/Arizona/Oklahoma/Alabama/Mississippi/Georgia/South Carolina/etc weren’t predominately conservative states.
5. Didn’t Fast and Furious distribute out more guns, rather than restrict them?
1. I don’t have figures to compare, but if taxes are higher then they’re re higher for those who can afford them. In addition, taxes had to be raised to fixed the financial disaster Obama inherited from Baby Bush. It’s funny how all the great financial crashes happen on a Conservative watch – Great Depression, savings and loan debacle, credit crunch. Coincidence? I wonder.
2. No it’s not. In your mind, maybe, but in the real world. No. You don’t even understand the statute, preferring to attach some weird conspiracy to it, that would require an army of millions to implement.
3. It’s laughable that you complain about the curriculum being “dumbed down” when you are a senior admin on a homeschooling site, where the “teacher” Andrew Schlafly gives full marks (as in Superb contrast.”) for answers such as “President Ronald Reagan had morals and did not have sex with an intern; President Bill Clinton did not have such great morals and had sex with an intern” when asking his history students “Contrast President Ronald Reagan with President Bill Clinton.”
If anybody is dumbing down his students’ learning, it’s this man, but you are strangely silent about that.
4. If you’re seriously saying that “Texas/Arizona/Oklahoma/Alabama/Mississippi/Georgia/South Carolina” aren’t conservative, then I’d love to see your definition of conservative. Unless, of course, you think these states, aren’t conservative, but insane – then I agree with you 100%.
5. And for that Obama must die!!!
What gives you the right to extort money from anyone, for any purpose, or to suggest such a course?
1. No. Im reading it now and while I was wrong on the 60% number, out of $787 billion, 290 (37%) was tax relief, $144 (18%) was state relief (mostly tax breaks). Much of the rest was investments into education and infrastructure.
2. Agenda 21 says right in the text that it is non-binding. So where exactly is this source about how American properties are about to be seized by an international authority?
3. HA!! Really, so all universities across the globe are in on this socialist plot? Ranging from Ivy Leagues to small liberal arts colleges? Out of curiosity, where did you get your education?
4. Thats not really the point. There are countless conservatives in favor of capital punishment as well as liberals.
5. “The whole idea”? The overwhelming majority of guns in Mexico already comes from the Unites States. Guns are one of our few things we still export. How many guns were part of Fast and Furious? Several hundred? Maybe several thousand? A considerable number to be sure, but not really much when compared to the net transport of uncontrolled firearms to Mexico (and elsewhere).
The only crime that anyone thinks should be capital, is murder in the first degree. So is that what you meant by Texas, Alabama, and other States being conservative? Did you really mean to suggest that in those States a number of legislators want to make adultery a capital offense?
And of course no one dares tell the truth about the ultimately binding nature of Agenda 21.
As for the rest: you’re not even reading my articles. If you can say, for example, that “the overwhelming majority of guns in Mexico comes from the United States,” then you obviously haven’t seen FactCheck.org’s conclusion that the figure was more like thirty-four percent. Not even the lion’s share, nor anywhere close to it.
Finally: I’ve been to university. That I graduated with any semblance of honor was because I majored in the hard sciences, not the squishy sciences.
Also, you obviously haven’t seen FactCheck.org’s conclusion that the total number of guns entering the United States was inconclusive (it sometimes helps to read the whole article):
“Given the lack of hard data from Mexico, we can’t calculate a precise figure for what portion of crime guns have been traced to the U.S. Based on the best evidence we can find so far, we conclude that the 90 percent claim made by the president and others in his administration lacks a basis in solid fact. But we also conclude that the number is at least double what Fox News has reported, based on its reporters’ mistaken interpretation of ATF testimony.
Whether the number is 90 percent, or 36 percent, or something else, there’s no dispute that thousands of guns are being illegalIy transported into Mexico by way of the United States each year.”
The 34% number you cite is just double the number reported by Fox News, which FactCheck says is a minimum.
The exact number doesn’t matter. The point is that the United States is providing a large number of the guns that are destabilizing Mexico, and this is very bad for our own security.
Oh, no. You don’t skate on that. You said the overwhelming majority of guns seized in Mexico came from the United States. 34 percent is not a majority.
And in no event have you shown just cause why any American should give up his gun.
No reasonable people think that adultery should be punishable by death. The point was whether conservatives or liberals are more prone to regulate the citizenry over what they do (or think). There is a sizable block of conservatives in the United States who think that our laws should be based off of religious beliefs, regardless of an individual citizen’s religion. It’s like what the Taliban does, except with Islam replaced with Christianity (of course if we actually followed the Bible to the letter adultery would be a crime punishable by death, but thats another issue entirely).
No one dares tell the truth about Agenda 21 because there isn’t any underlying truth to be told and it really isnt that big of a deal. It was thought up all the way back in 1992, yet for some reason the American Right decided not to start complaining about it until President Obama was in office. You’ve offered absolutely zero evidence, in any of your articles, as to what Agenda 21 actually calls for other than flat-out conspiracy theories. The “global tax” on fossil fuels is nonbinding, and even if it was the United States (along with most Western countries) has a terrible track record with going along with treaties it signs on to, so why would this be any different? The “rules” about environmentalism are completely akin to other treaties already in effect, such as the Kyoto Protocol. And Agenda 21 has absolutely no teeth to controll the development of new technologies, such as “synthetic biology, geo-engineering, genetic modification, nuclear energy and nanotechnology.”
If you graduated in something related to medicine, then I hate to break it to you but thats not a hard science. Chemistry/physics/geology/biology/ecology/astronomy (and some others) are the hard sciences.
I’m sorry, I may be missing something, but since treaties cannot override the Constitution (see, for example, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)), how could this treaty possibly interfere with the Second Amendment, much less “overthrow[] our constitution”?
Treaties are legally binding on the nation. And given the expressed attitude of the Supreme Court (National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius et al.), I say that that treaty destroys the Second Amendment and leaves it unprotected.
National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius et al. had absolutely nothing to do with foreign nations or organizations. The Court ruled that the government has the right to collect taxes (Article I of the Constitution).
When has the United States EVER superseded one of our own laws with an international treaty?
The United States has allowed the international convention on privateering to supersede Congressional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal. In the same vein, the Arms Trade Treaty would inevitably supersede the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
NFIB v. Sebelius served to illustrate the profound perfidy with which the Justices of the Supreme Court approach their basic duty.
Actually, Terry, the US has followed an 1856 treaty against piracy, so the hideous conspiracy against privateering goes back even further. (link to en.wikipedia.org)
And we haven’t issued any letters of marque and reprisal since the War of 1812.
And thanks for the giggle this morning. Really, you want the US to go back to state-sponsored *piracy*. I’m picturing you, Andy Schlafly and Rand Paul setting out in a schooners, sailing the beautiful blue waters of the Caribbean, looking for fat French merchantmen, laden with gold and rum.
Aaaaarrrrr!
Privateering was a bit more complex than you seem to have looked up.
So outlawing piracy was a bad thing? let’s say the UN had existed in the 1860s, and had passed a treaty outlawing slavery.
What would your reaction be?
“Frankly, I have begun to re-examine and re-evaluate every alliance of which this country is a part.”
I know you’re an isolationist, but face it, your reviewing of the teaties isn’t going to change them. Sure, because when there was a Big Russian Bear, it was a really bad idea to be involved in the defense of Europe. Of course, it would have meant that the US didn’t get involved in that illegal mess that was Vietnam.
By the way, you must have been of draftable age around that time – what did you do during the Vietnam war, for the country you’re so proud of?
I have two issues with you, as I’m sure you know.
First, many of the policies that I know you favor, are not consistent with liberty.
Second, regardless of the merits of any given issues, those are decisions for us to make by ourselves.
Any one-world federation that can do good, can do evil in equal measure. But I don’t expect you to understand that.
“Treaties are legally binding on the nation.” True, but only to the extent that they do not conflict with the Constitution. And unless they’re ratified by the Senate, they are binding only to the extend that they do no conflict with existing federal law. That’s the point of my previous post and the holding of the case I cited.
I don’t understand what point you’re making. As I said originally, a treaty cannot “destroy[] the Second Amendment” since any treaty that restricted or reduced Second Amendment protections would be unconstitutional. Or are you just concerned that the Court might somehow use this treaty as a Trojan horse to enact a more restrictive reading of the Second Amendment. If that’s your concern, the trouble is with the courts, not this treaty.
The point is that you, and all those who support that treaty, either are not reading, or do not want the rest of us to read, the fine print.
The immediate point is that I want the Senate to reject that treaty. To that end I want every member of the Senate to understand what an unconstitutional thing the putative President is asking the Senate to do.
“Well, now, I imagine that I am conversing, more’s the pity, with one of the first persons to volunteer to wear the baby blue beret (or helmet) of the UN, come to my house with a battering ram, barge in toting a Kalashnikov rifle (not an ugly American Armalite and never an Israeli-made UZI), and shout, “[Blankety-blank]! Hand over those guns!”
Really Terry. I’m a winter – it’s black leather, or nothing, baby. And personally I like those funky looking Belgian FN P90 jobs.
“That alone is an un-American thing to say.”
I always love how the Tea Party rant and rave about how awful and terrible the US has become, and then blow their top the minute you say something bad about the US. It’s like they have sole rights to outrage. maybe their friends the Koch brothers bought the rights – they certainly bought the rest of the Tea Party. sad thing is, the suckers still think they’re a grass roots movement.
The Koch Brothers never paid me a red cent. I never heard of them until people like you started ranting and raving about them. They have nothing to do with the Tea Party movement.
This might be news to you, but you are not the Tea Party. Who provided campaign donations for Tea Party backed candidates? Did it all just come out of thin air? If you hadn’t heard of the Koch Brothers, have you heard of the Cato Institute? The Reason Foundation? Americans for Prosperity?
Americans for Prosperity alone has donated millions to Tea Party groups. No, not to you. But to the campaigns in order to elect Tea Party candidates.
The money came from individual donors. And because I have been a member in good standing of a local Tea Party group almost since its founding, I would have known if the group itself got any money from Charles or David Koch. It never happened.
The other groups you mentioned have been around a lot longer. And you now seem to have dropped all pretense that you respect freedom of speech. You are now saying that no group, other than a labor union, has the right to support political candidates. How convenient.
There you go moving the goalposts, Terry. First you claim the Tea Party is a grassroots movement and now you’re saying that it’s perfectly okay for it to receive vast donations from multi-billionaires.
You may have started as a grassroots campaign but you’ve been bought.
What makes you think that some of the organizations named, do not have grassroots support? I think you’re the one moving the goalposts. And against anything you name, I can name George Soros and the alphabet soup of foundations he runs or has funded.
Your only quarrel with any of the organizations in question is that they disagree with you.
Sorry for being late to the conversation, but by your logic, it was treason for the USA to be a part of NATO. After all, if any member of NATO is attacked the others are required to defend it, but per the Constitution only Congress can declare war.
Frankly, I have begun to re-examine and re-evaluate every alliance of which this country is a part. That ought to please a liberal like you. That it doesn’t, speaks volumes.
What “pleases” or “displeases” me is irrelevant – we all have our opinions after all.
The point in question is that you promote the idea that the current President is committing an act of treason by engaging in agreements about international arms trade that do nothing to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms within the USA itself. Your only evidence for treason is a bunch of hypothetical FUD scenarios rather than anything actually happening.
In contrast, I’ve pointed out that treaties like NATO are much more likely to provoke a crisis, where we either ignore the Constitution and reflexively enter wars without Congressional approval when a member nation is attacked, or the word of the USA in partnerships like this becomes worthless if we don’t.
If you want to examine all such past agreements and call them out when they challenge the Constitution, that’d be a good showing of consistency on your part.
I’d also hope that in the same spirit, you and your CNaV editors will start to take an objective look at what a Romney presidency would actually be like. He wasn’t your endorsed candidate after all, and while you may feel that “anyone but Obama” is best, it would at least show that you’re not ignorant of the consequences.
The other point is that you, with a straight face, deny the obvious: that the Arms Trade Treaty has set for itself goals that it can accomplish only through a world-wide small-arms registry. Therefore, I conclude that the small-arms registry is the real, hidden goal.
Nor do I expect you to admit that. You know as well as I do that the very Americans who are the targets of this treaty, would be the ones best able and most motivated to resist. The UN dare not risk provoking those people.
So instead the UN treats us like frogs that it wants to have for dinner. Simmer a frog slowly, and he’ll roast before he even knows what’s happening to him. But try to scald him, and he’ll jump out.
It’s my job to make that simmer feel like a scald, so that the frogs will jump out before the simmer kills them.
Okay, I’ll bite — what alliances do you think the United States should have, and why?
We don’t need quite so many alliances anymore. From a few bases here and there, say, Germany, Japan, and maybe Australia, we can project power to just about any spot in the world. No more need for as many permanent land bases as we have now. It would cost a great deal less, and be a lot less complicated to run.
So, alliances are just so we can have military bases?
I’ll agree with you — a handful of bases and a decent navy with air power allows us to project power pretty much anywhere, but what about trading partners? Intelligence sharing?
Intel sharing might qualify as an “alliance” in this context. Trade agreements are something else again. Of course, such agreements ought to be treaties, and that means getting two-thirds of the Senate on board.
I said the overwhelming majority based on claims made by the United States government. You said 34%, based on a number that is bare minimum. Neither of us is right, because nobody knows the total amount of guns that are going from the United States to Mexico. Which is exactly why there needs to be an effort to put a constraint on that number.
Because in no case any American does need to give up his gun. Even if this arms act was to be followed, it doesn’t even call for people to not have their guns, it has to do with gun trafficking. And the United States rarely listens to anything the U.N. tells us to do (example: invading Iraq). So why would this treaty overturn the Constitution? Please provide some evidence other than wild claims about a socialist new world order conspiracy theory.
First, I do not accept the “claims made by the United States government” as valid. I accuse that government of ideologically motivated fraud. Therefore any uncorroborated statement they make about the aggregate or proportional numbers of guns that move from the USA to Mexico is valueless.
Second, the framers of the UN Small Arms Convention have every reason to conceal from the general public the true purpose of the treaty. Even if you really believe what you say, you have only the word of the UN on that. And I don’t trust the UN any further than I could throw the building.
By te way, you are on records as saying “I’ll grant you that the United Nations is a joke.”
Why the sudden morphing of them into an army of millions, coming for your guns and sending you to the ghetto?
Because that treaty would take them out of the joke stage.
[...] Treason against the Second Amendment [...]
[...] Treason against the Second Amendment UN Arms Trade Treaty pleases no one Public OpinionPoll Results [...]