Bolton: ‘Small Arms’ treaty has hidden agenda by gun control crowd that would impact gun ownership in America

John Bolton affirms that the ‘Small Arms’ treaty is indeed a plot to force America to enforce gun control. Fortunately he says that gun rights advocates have gotten 58 senators to vote against it, but the treaty isn’t anything new and it likely won’t go away.

He also weighed in on Fast and Furious, saying that he believes the whole intent behind it was “to prove that lax American gun control laws were the problem in Mexico”, and he adds “that’s about as far from the truth as you can get.”

Watch below:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • notebene

    I seriously hope that Romney intends to dump the UN once he gets into office! The UN is nothing but another socialist/terrorist organization that we are funding. Cut off the funds and let Iran have them! Enough is enough…the US must protect its own citizens and its sovereignty! The UN leeches have done enough damage to us with the Somali crooks they forced on us in Tennessee, and they will continue as long as we fund them and cow tow to them.

    • I’ve been thinking about that every day. Amen! And England is not America’s friend! But getting rid of the Fed Reserve / IMF, World Bank – get out of it all – gotta read The Creature from Jekyll Island – we all gotta get educated.

    • kong1967

      If we take all three branches it can be done.

  • we need to hear more from him.
    anyway to find upcoming appearances for him?

  • I will never get tired of saying this: John Bolton for Secretary of State!

    • keyesforpres

      He was my first choice for president. Especially when he said he would overturn everything O has done.

  • Betsey_Ross

    Getting rid of the UN and our participation in it has been at the top of my list for ages. All of a sudden from out of nowhere the UN is starting to impact our lives for no reason except the Democrats want a one world government. If you have not heard of Agenda 21 Google it and see what a horror it is. No treaty involved. Every local government in the US has dabbled with it. Some have embraced it and some have seen it for what it is.

    Now the small arms treaty. Since we don’t have a Constitution anymore this is especially dangerous. We have no protection.

    • MiketheMarine

      We do have protection. Those very same weapons they wish they could transport away like I Dream of Genie. This is the point of the 2nd Amendment. I agree that the UN needs to go to the EU.

      • keyesforpres

        I think the UN needs to go to a place MUCH warmer than the EU!

        • KenInMontana

          Those blue helmets do have a lot in common with the “shoot’n-c” brand of targets. 😉

          • MiketheMarine

            Blue does stand out well against a green or brown back ground. Makes a useful target. 😉

        • MiketheMarine

          Anywhere but the USA and we need to put our check book away.

      • ebola131

        During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

        Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders’ Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

        The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders’ Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

        We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

        • MiketheMarine

          Hooray, Out-friggin-standing AND hand salute. I am a firm believer in using three boxes to protect our freedoms.

          1) The Soap Box, stand up and be heard. ( done and it failed)
          2) The Ballot Box, coming in November. ( Yet to be seen if it will work)
          3) The Ammo Box, we’d rather not go there but will if forced to.

        • frank907

          Actually, there are more than 50 million gun owners in the USA. 22 million are veterans and 2+ million of those are combat veterans. Any idea why progressives want them disarmed?

  • MiketheMarine

    Good luck to the UN with taking my weapons. That will be quite the challenge.

  • Joe

    Obama likes LOVES this idea

    This way we could not defend ourselves against – a caliphate

    I hope the “peoples” know what he meant about transforming America


  • marketcomp

    It will be interesting to see how John Bolton and Condolezza Rice fit into the Romney administration. I know that John Bolton has disagreed on a number of foreign policy desicions made by the Bush administration and Sec. Rice was the author of almost all of those decisions including the so call Arab Spring.

  • Dukehoopsfan

    Think of the possibilities if we evicted the UN … We could recover and rent out a really nic building in downtown Manhattan, deport several thousand terrorists and corrupt third-world thugs, make English the official language in NY again. Think of how safe the streets would be without all of those non-driving fools with diplomatic immunity.

  • LIRight

    Hopefully we’ll be lucky enough to control both houses of Congress as well as POTUS in November – at that point a bill should be passed prohibiting the United States from entering into any agreement or treaty that violates any part of the US Constitution or any other law of the United States……..including the proposed LOST Treaty at the UN.

    If Obama gets in again I really am concerned that a civil war, or other Constitutional crisis will occur. Obama and the leftists at the UN (along with Hillary Clinton) would love to further erode the rights, freedoms and liberty that we have enjoyed since 1776.

    • keyesforpres

      That’s a great idea. Maybe even try to make it a Constitutional amendment. I am sure the writers of the Constitution never intended for us to enter into any treaty that would take away any of our unalienable rights.

    • beastdogs8

      I believe that if the American people are stupid enough to give Obama, after all the damage he has done to this country that is going to take years to fix, a second term a civil war will be inevitable.

  • keyesforpres

    What’s really appaling is that only 58 senators are against it. It should be 100.

    • beastdogs8

      I live in a very blue state that is on the verge of bankruptcy due to out of control spending by liberals, and my two senators are both far left liberal democrats who think anyone to the right of Karl Marx is a right wing extremist, they both will sign up for this treaty before the ink is even dry on it. Keep your powder dry and your arrow heads sharp.

      • LIRight

        “Keep your powder dry and your arrow heads sharp.”

        Absolutely love it!!

  • Watchman74

    “He also weighed in on Fast and Furious, saying that he believes the whole intent behind it was “to prove that lax American gun control laws were the problem in Mexico”, and he adds “that’s about as far from the truth as you can get.””

    And the whole thing blew up in there face and bit them in there rear end, got to love it.

  • RosiesSeeingRed

    I had heard Dick Morris commenting the other night on something about this, but unless he was speaking about something else and I’m misunderstanding, senators would have nothing to do with this because Hillary Clinton will be signing the treaty via the UN and circumventing congress, which is Obama’s way, as we all know. This is from Dick Morris’s website:

    “On July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to prevent the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment.

    The ATT will set up a global body which will require all nations to regulate firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries. Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. A gun ban is not far away.

    The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification.”

    So by “block Senate ratification”, is this where those 58 senators come in?

    • KenInMontana

      Dick Morris is a sensationalist hack, he plays on people’s fear to sell books. If he were as intelligent as he pretends, he would be aware of SCOTUS; Reid v. Covert. October 1956, 354 U.S. 1.
      From Reid;

      “…No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, ‘This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;…’ There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggests such a result…. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights ‑ let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition ‑ to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. pgs. 500, 519). In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

      Here is the “meat” of Reid v. Covert;

      “This Court (Supreme Court) has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” ‑ Reid v. Covert. October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg. 17.

      This same court also issue a similar ruling in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267;

      “The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

      Also from Geofroy v. Riggs;

      “This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”

      These are examples of SCOTUS doing precisely what it was intended to do. Oh, to have this bench today. These rulings were handed down when the UN was in its infancy and when the fears of UN dominance were at their peak in our country, as you can see from the rulings. Feel free to pass these excerpts along to your respective Senators.

      • RosiesSeeingRed

        Thank you very much. And you’re right, Morris IS a sensationalist hack!

      • Yet Clinton will still vote on it, and we on the sidelines will be raising hades……All for nought…….We should fear this administration with all our heart, Obamsama The O’Bumbler is far more dangerous than he is smart.

        • KenInMontana

          O’Bumbler is far more dangerous than he is smart.

          Narcissistic egotists tend to be that way.

  • Watchman74

    “John Bolton affirms that the ‘Small Arms’ treaty is indeed a plot to force America to enforce gun control.”

    Of course, can’t have the fox guarding the hen house while the hens are armed to the teeth!

  • tvlgds

    I’ve written to all of my Congress critters on this subject! Thankfully, they’re all Repubs, and against it.

  • Sober_Thinking

    The Government wants to disarm America so it can take over. I hate saying that and before this monster came into office, I never thought that likely.

    Boot the idiot and then kick the UN out of our country.

  • PVG

    The man is awesome!

  • dlg1956

    If you want to read the historically accurate books on gun control and how governments then begin a systematic slaughter of it’s people then read:

    Bloodlands, Europe between Hitler and Stalin

    Mao’s Famine.

    Both books detail how the state dis armed the ciitizens then began a brutal slaughter of it’s people to acheive the communist utopia goals. It is sickening and should it happen here you know what is coming next. Never trust the communist social engineers to be honest about their goals or the outcome.

    The UN and Washington DC is full of these power grabbing statists with one goal in mind, growing their personal power and wealth while stomping the life out of our nation. Obama has more or less said this exactly. A armed citizenry is the only thing stopping them and it is a big issue.

  • beastdogs8

    The UN is corrupt and useless, anything that comes out of the UN is designed to harm America and the American people, the senate has to ratify all treaties and they need to respond to this disarm the law abiding American treaty with not just NO but with a HELL NO. Keep the powder dry and your arrow heads sharp.