Could This Move Lead to Civil War?
More columns
written by Laramie:
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
Laramie Boyd
What did you say?
The Soft Touch
Here They Stand
The Right to Life
The Big Burp
Are Rules Made to be Broken
Re: Venus Williams
Hands That Feed Should Not Be Bitten
Something For Nothing
        Reuters, an international news service headquartered in London, recently reported that President Obama reversed a major firearms policy that former president George W. Bush's administration followed. Bush's policy was that the U.S. deciding its own gun control laws was the best way to support the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Obama has announced that he would support talks aimed at an international treaty involving the United Nations to force a ban on manufacturing, selling, or possession of any and all firearms by the signing nations, which would include U.S. citizens. The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said that the Obama administration would support such a treaty if the talks operated on a consensus voting procedure. In other words, the treaty would be put into effect simply by getting most of the agreeing nations' signatures.
        One reaction to any weapons ban, if signed by Obama, contained some possibly disturbing, even scary consequences for those who want to maintain their right to "keep and bear arms" as a constitutional guarantee, and those who want to protect their home and family from harm or from an overly invasive government, whichever might come first. Of course any such treaty would not be binding on terrorists or dictators or even most criminals. That's disturbing!
        One opponent of such a treaty pointed out that by signing an international treaty with foreign nations on gun control, which of course would never be agreed on by all nations anyway, the Obama administration could use the U.S. State Department to bypass normal legislative procedures in Congress, as international treaties restrict the soverignty of national states, like the United states, to enact laws to meet the best interests of the individual states. Once the government signs such a treaty, all U.S. citizens would be subject to the gun laws created in part by foreign governments. The president could then announce that he will not push for any new gun control laws, having already signed one that commits the citizens to that law. (That very announcement has already been made by the White House). By such a strategy, would he expect the public to believe he was not in favor of gun control? Under such a signed treaty, all citizens of the U.S. could be required to deliver their firearms to a government collection and arms destruction center, or face imprisonment. Under such a treaty all this could occur without the approval of our elected representatives in Congress. That's scary!
        Consider the ramifications of this move if such a scenario came to pass. I believe most people would welcome an arms control law under certain conditions, which would include primarily the removal of guns from the criminal element of society, not just the law abiding citizens. If taking guns away from legitimate sportsmen, hunters, target shooters and home owners was included in a law, but not from those who use them for illegal purposes, such as thieves, robbers, drug runners, and cop killers, that is ridiculous on its face. The government claims they can't even locate or identify the illegal immigrants in the country. If they can't locate these people, how could they locate and remove the millions of guns owned by not just the registered owners of weapons, but all the arms that are not registered, items that can so easily be hidden from detection. An impossible task.
        The often cited remark that "guns don't kill people, people do", implies that banning guns would not stop the deaths guns are held responsible for. The Constitution says that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. That's the bottom line. For President Obama to try to change the Constitution under the pretense that an international treaty has banned arms, and not his insistence on a legislative act he sponsored, and that he can get rid of arms in America, reeks of something besides the welfare of the country. Early on in our nation's history, the government tried to get rid of all alcoholic beverages in the country, and alcoholic consumption wasn't a constitutional right. As we all know, that effort failed. The graft and corruption and violation of the ban on alcoholic beverages throughout the country was overwhelming. Imagine, if you can, the backlash of attempting to remove all weapons from all citizens, which is a constitutional right.
        Suppose a ban is placed on guns. Would the Police need to be armed? Would the Secret Service, guardians of the President, need weapons? If the President signs an arms ban and thinks this will rid the country of guns, what will be his argument that anyone needs to carry a gun? Can you imagine the exceptions to any no-gun rule that would occur, exceptions that the average citizen could not receive. The no-gun rule would not apply to, you guessed it, criminal element of society. Good luck finding and eliminating these weapons.
       I just can't help but think that Obama's attempt to determine the private citizen's health care by way of Obamacare, and now attempting to regulate citizens' rights to keep and bear arms, as something more than a selfless gesture of kindness to the citizens of this country. He is poking around where he doesn't belong. He is seeking power in areas that do not need his oversight. The power the president will inherit under Obamcare and a no-gun rule will, in those areas, be dictatorial. How much power does he need? What citizen's rights in the Constitution will he want to determine next? I believe he doesn't just want gun control. I believe he may want total control. I believe the president should back off and get busy fixing the economy, not just say it's okay, but concentrate on the country's problems involving taxes, jobs, and debt reduction, rather than spending the taxpayers' money campaigning. Does he want change? Then change the way he does the job of presidency by attending to business, and let the election take care of itself. If he does his job and does it well, that's the best campaigning he could do. Let's hope some answers to these issues will be forthcoming.