Billll's Idle Mind calls to attention this report, of Obama using foreign agencies and treaties to get around Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms (the 2nd amendment).
The President of the United States is tasked with creating and exercising foreign policy in the name of the United States. Any treaties are signed by the President - but must be ratified, or confirmed, by the US Senate before they become binding on America.
President Clinton signed this Organization of American States (about Latin America) treaty. But the Senate at the time would not ratify it. Points of the treaty that concern me include registration, denying licenses to gun dealers, and wording that prevents use of firearms "that may or are suspected" to violate human rights. A tyrant, someone intent on disarming opposition, would find language like this sufficient to say, "Why, a gun can be used to hurt someone. So, we can't allow anyone to have a gun. Except for people that work for me, of course."
Gun violence is increasing here in heartland America. Drive-by shootings and neighborhood shootings in Ponca City, OK, are more prominent and frequent than in previous years - and involve more drug deals and often Mexicans, indicating drug cartel involvement. Ponca City is a rural community, about 25,000 people, in quiet northern Oklahoma.
Laws do not disarm criminals. They disarm the law-abiding. Time after time, communities that have passed ordnances requiring every head of household to own and possess a firearm - see crime rates drop. On the other hand, gun-free zones such as schools, shopping malls, and college campuses have been the traditional setting for mass shootings - the shooter is promised a lack of opposition.
There is a perspective that one that does not carry a legally licensed, concealed carry weapon is as much to blame for hazards in their community as the thugs carrying guns to commit robberies, assaults, and murders. Tyrants in particular, as Machiavelli pointed out in 15th century Italy, focus first on disarming the populace before taking advantage of the state.
Whether Obama would be a threat to the people of the US, after disarming the nation, isn't the real problem. The real problem is that a disarmed United States would be too tempting a target for foreign nations and criminal elements, as well as corrupt local influences, to leave intact and unassailed. Just look at our schools, our shopping malls, our college campuses for the effect disarming and bans on guns have on the lawless.