The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. –Article V of the UC Constitution
For years the idea of an Article V convention of the states has been pushed by many conservatives as a way to reign in federal spending and an out of control federal government.
An Article V convention is a way to propose new amendments to the constitution, a provision added by our founders as a way to ensure the people have the ability to take control of their governing process.
Any new amendments, once proposed, must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states legislatures in order to become the law of the land. Conservatives argue, that because Republicans control the majority of the state legislatures, precious liberties protected by the constitution, such as the right to keep and bear arms, would be in no danger.
This has proven to be false as The New American Magazine is reporting that a “clarification” of the Second Amendments meaning is on the agenda should an Article V convention take place.
What does it mean to clarify the Second Amendments meaning?
Well, many gun control proponents point out, as The New American highlights, that the Second Amendment was written at a time when only muskets and other arms of less lethal ability existed.
Their arguments would, of course, suggest that the founders had no idea what direction technology would go and what type of arms would then be available to the public.
On the other hand, if a pro-Second Amendment majority is present at the convention, clarifying the right to keep and bear arms could indeed do just that.
They could re-affirm that an armed public is the best way to ensure the security of a free state.
This, however, in our politically charged climate of fear and hysteria against guns, is not likely.
Setting these idle arguments aside there are more serious threats that an Article V convention poses to the Second Amendment.
One of these threats is the fact that gun control, and the disarming of America, has been written into public law since 1961.
Signed by President Kennedy, PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act sets in motion the process in which America’s military will be systematically reduced, disarmed and subverted to the authority of a world army headed by The United Nations.
According to Bernadine Smith of libertygunrights.com, the final stages of this plan would be the elimination of national control of our armed services, which in turn would subvert our national sovereignty, and the total and complete disarming of the American people.
The American public seems blissfully unaware that the past several decades have brought us a massive, systematic reduction in the size of our military and the closure of many bases nationwide.
Also, the process for turning over command of the U.S. military to the United Nations started nearly two decades before with the passing of the United Nations Participation Act.
This act put the power of committing U.S. forces to conflicts overseas in the hands of the U.N. Security Council as opposed to the U.S. Congress, who incidentally constitutionally speaking, has the sole authority to declare war.
Since the Korean war, all conflicts involving U.S. forces have been directed by the United Nations Security Council.
State Department Publication 7277 states as one of its goals the total and complete disarmament of military forces except for that which is necessary to maintain internal order and for contributions to a United Nations peacekeeping force.
This essentially means that only a small body of armed forces operating under the jurisdiction of the United Nations would exist for the purpose of enforcing principles set forth by a world governing body.
What agreements are this publication referencing and what disarmament obligations are the United States expected to be held to?
The United Nations Program of Action on Small Arms is one such agreement.
Many may argue that as of now this agreement has no bearing on U.S. law. Considering the harsh political climate and the constant efforts to pass gun control laws it is important that the American public at least understand what this agreement entails.
For example, section II explicitly states that where they do not yet exist, laws should be passed criminalizing the illicit manufacture, transfer and possession of small arms.
What does illicit mean?
Does that mean the three-pound drop trigger in your semi-automatic rifle? It can mean anything that gives them the necessary wording to criminalize gun ownership in America.
At the national level
2. To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons, in order to prevent illegal manufacture of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, or their diversion to unauthorized recipients.
3. To adopt and implement, in the States that have not already done so, the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offences under their domestic law the illegal manufacture, possession, stockpiling and trade of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction, in order to ensure that those engaged in such activities can be prosecuted under appropriate national penal codes.
4. To establish, or designate as appropriate, national coordination agencies or bodies and institutional infrastructure responsible for policy guidance, research and monitoring of efforts to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. This should include aspects of the illicit manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.
(Take note that the current gun control bill proposed by Republican Carlos Curbelo is so vaguely worded it could outlaw the manufacture of almost anything that enhances a semi-auto’s performance.)
Another agreement is the U.N Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed illegally by Former Secretary of State John Kerry.
While this treaty has not been ratified it is hard to argue that our government is not working to accomplish the objectives set forth within its text.
One particular aspect of this treaty that readers should take note of is Article 16 titled simply, International Assistance.
To put it bluntly, this section establishes a trust fund of sorts, and other means of assistance, which can be used to assist nations that have signed into forcing others into compliance.
While this treaty begins with words that suggest the U.N. will respect the sovereignty of nation states, other material provided in this article shows that the ultimate objective is, in fact, completes disarmament of the public.
Proof of this being the final objective is demonstrated every time the push for gun control returns in response to a national tragedy.
Bernadine Smith, at sweetliberty.org, claims that the government will use the Article V Convention process to introduce a new constitution which will be communistic in structure and more in line with the principles of the U.N. Charter than the U.S. Constitution. This constitution exists and it explicitly denies the right of individuals to keep and bear arms of any type except for those serving in the capacity of a U.N. peacekeeping force Clarifying the used for keeping internal order. This constitution can be read here.
With all of this being said it is imperative, should an Article V convention take place, that the people, along with pro-Second Amendment advocates pay close attention to its proceedings?
There is a reason that America is constantly being discredited and referred to as a racist, oppressive nation.
They want the general public confused and spiritually defeated to the point they will accept this new socialist constitution as an alternative to a system of governance they have been taught has failed.
Be weary America.
Allow me to leave with one more quote.
By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil. At last a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist State, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses.
>Article posted with permission from David Risselada