The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights 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.
Perhaps, one of the most litigated amendments to the Constitution is the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the “well-regulated militia.”
Over the centuries since it became part of the fabric of United States law, the Second Amendment has been attacked by the left with their constant attempts to infringe on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. The Federal government, states and municipalities have passed statutes that require licensing of firearms plus concealed carry and unconcealed carry laws.
In its most recent landmark ruling, the District of Columbia v. Heller, Washington D.C. was generally found to be in violation of the Second Amendment with their regulations. Told to rewrite the statutes and submit them to the lower court for approval, they turned around and tried to impose similar restrictions on handgun owners.
So why does the left hate the Second Amendment? Perhaps, it’s because they see it as a way for ordinary citizens to exercise some personal control
over their lives. We all know that the left is all about government control of our lives. Entitlement programs, including Obamacare, attempt to lash its citizens to the ship of state, limiting our freedom.
The second Amendment was an opportunity for the founding fathers to allow the new Americans to arm and defend themselves. After all, Englishmen had been required to arm themselves with the famous English longbow from Medieval times. In fact, they had been required to perfect their skills on a weekly basis in order to be available to defend the rights of their kings and queens.
At Agincourt on Saint Crispin’s Day in 1414, an outnumbered English army, the majority who were bowmen, destroyed a numerically superior French army. Their weapon of choice was the longbow. Against a loss of only 112 men, they inflicted 7,000-10,000 casualties.
The Founders had a fresher example when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. On April 19, 1775, Massachusetts militiamen, armed with their personal weapons, chased a force of British Regulars from Concord Bridge back into Boston. They had truly fired the shot heard ’round the world. Like their English yeomen forebears, they had practiced weekly on their village green.
Realizing that the cannot make their way around the Supreme Court, the left in the form of Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham 
Clinton have decided to take another approach. Their means of exerting control over the Second Amendment rights is to attempt to pass the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
We must understand that a signed and ratified treaty on arms control will override our constitutional rights, under the premise to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates”. As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon describes its purpose, “Our goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence…It is ambitious, but it is achievable.”
Don’t be fooled. When Hillary Clinton signs this draft treaty, slated for July 27th in New York, it will signal the left’s first step in their attempt to erase Americans’ rights to keep and bear arms. Step two will be their attempt at Senate ratification, most likely in the lame-duck session. Step three will be Obama’s signature. Just like that, over 700 years of the rights of free men and women to keep and bear arms will be gone.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton cautions gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
On closer examination, this new treaty is a Trojan Horse for a wide variety of pet U.N. world government initiatives. Barack Obama was an 
aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars.
If reelected, he could sign an Executive Order that has all the force of law or have his executive branch departments enact new, stringent rules that would require opponents to begin new, drawn-out court fights over them.
Our only recourse is to remain alert to the possibilities and respond to every challenge to our Constitutional rights. Of course, the best way to secure our rights is to defeat Obama and his cohorts at the ballot box.
