UN Gun Grabber

[chipperi]

Just curious can the Guy in charge...( I refuse to call him the president) sign a treaty that locks the US into BS like this without congressional approval?

EDITORIAL: The U.N. gun grabber - Washington Times

American gun owners might not feel besieged, but they should. This week, the Obama administration announced its support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. This international agreement poses real risks for freedom both in the United States and around the world by making it more difficult - if not outright illegal - for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

The U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife within individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action. According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to "prevent, combat and eradicate" various classes of guns to undermine "the illicit trade in small arms." Such a plan would necessarily lead to confiscation of personal firearms.

This may seem like a reasonable solution to governments that don't trust their citizens, but it represents a dangerous disregard for the safety and freedom of everybody. First of all, not all insurgencies are bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. That threat is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorse gun control.

Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, which works out to 1.5 million victims per year. Even if all 300,000 annual deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small-arms trade (which they cannot), governments are a bigger threat to most people than their neighbors.

This U.N. treaty will lead to more gun control in America. "After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. "The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. ... They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty opens a back door for the Obama administration to force through gun control regulations. Threats to the Second Amendment are as real today as ever.

Edited May 29, 2010 by chipperi

[Mike.357]

A treaty would have to be ratified by the US Senate.

I do not think that will happen. Them guys like their cushy jobs.

[G27]

Just curious can the HNIC sign a treaty that locks the US into BS like this without congressional approval?

What's 'HNIC'?

Civics classes are a Good Thing...

[Garufa]

Some would consider it derogatory. I'm neutral on all that crap.

Mike's assessment is correct. Treaties require ratification by a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Garufa

[Mike.357]

problem corrected

thanks

Edited May 29, 2010 by Mike.357

[G27]

I neglected to mention that HNIC is fairly well excepted as a racial putdown.

That's what I figured he meant.

We really don't need that crap here.

Agreed 100%.

[Chief07]

I must be naive. I thought it was nitwit.

But you're right keep it clean.

[StPatrick]

I PMd requesting an edit before the 1st reply, and explained why I'd appreciate said edit. Maybe he got the PM in time, maybe he didn't.

Either way, now a mod has to spend time clearing this up, and any idiot with google who gets in beforehand can cite the comment as proof that we are who they say we are.

[chipperi]

I edited it...who says I didn't mean nincompoop

[Garufa]

I PMd requesting an edit before the 1st reply, and explained why I'd appreciate said edit. Maybe he got the PM in time, maybe he didn't.

Either way, now a mod has to spend time clearing this up, and any idiot with google who gets in beforehand can cite the comment as proof that we are who they say we are.

I have edited my quote/comment so as to remove the quote referencing the derogatory term to make sure we uphold our upstanding PC values.

[Mike.357]

I have edited my quote/comment

ditto

[Guest Jamie]

uphold our upstanding PC values

Screw that. I'd much rather people call it like they see it, and let me form my own opinions of the situation.

And yeah, Obama is the "Head Numbskull In Charge".

( Though people should feel free to substitute any word or words they see fit to use, so long as the 1st amendment is still in effect. )

Really, some folks need to get over themselves...

J.

[aquaman67]

Anyway,

The whole UN Treaty thing is a dupe...

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

[Guest HvyMtl]

Reid v. Covert 354 US 1

Geofroy v. Riggs 133 US 258

"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 in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent." (emphasis added.)

So, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution Forbids the Government from removing the right to bear arms... Thus, treaties cannot authorize the removal of the right to bear arms...

Edited May 29, 2010 by HvyMtl

[Guest peacexxl]

Reid v. Covert 354 US 1

Geofroy v. Riggs 133 US 258

"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 in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent." (emphasis added.)

So, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution Forbids the Government from removing the right to bear arms... Thus, treaties cannot authorize the removal of the right to bear arms...

Sure, bring a perfectly viable thread to a complete screeching halt with silly details like the truth! ... you guys suck

[Guest HvyMtl]

Um. Sorry. I forgot. I am NOT to use logic on a Web Forum. I am NOT to use logic on a Web Forum...

I will write this 200 times...

[Tap & Rack]

What's 'HNIC'?

Civics classes are a Good Thing...

Hey bro, I'm new hear and thought I should just give a link on this one.

See here:

Urban Dictionary: HNIC

New to me as well and just Googled the letters.

T&R in Indy

[rab1961]

I have one word if this happens WAR!!!

[Guest Straight Shooter]

THIS. IS. NOT. TRUE.

Please, for the love of Pete.....STOP spreading this rumor. How many more times must it be shown false?!

This NEVER happened, and never will. This is just another internet rumor, just like the one about having to claim your guns on your taxes. NOT TRUE.

For goodness sake....let this die.

[gotigers]

I have one word if this happens WAR!!!

This. Trying that would be a huge mistake.

It will never be ratified as a treaty, but they could try to pass it as an international "agreement". Like NAFTA. Agreements don't need 2/3's to pass.

I think they will just tax ammo and guns so high that we wont be able to afford guns and ammo. We will give them up or hide them. Either way the libs win. Guns off the streets. They cant win the 2ndA war, but the congress has the right to tax anything they want to.

[wjh2657]

1. There is no treaty.

2. There is a thought that maybe there should be a treaty.

3. Sitting down, negotiating and drafting the "treaty" have not even started.

4. Russia, China and Israel are rabidly opposed to even thinking about such a treaty. The big 3 do swing some awesome weight in the UN.

2/3 of the Senate issue is not even a point, there is no treaty, and it is not very likely that there will be. Too much Arms Dealer money is floating around at the International level opposing the issue.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Guys, this is hype and hysteria, perhaps put out buy a gun dealer wanting more sales, or a political group wanting more anger.

to add to what wjh2657 stated, even if there was a treaty, ratified by the U.N., signed by the President, approved by the Senate, it still would not void your 2nd A rights, per multiple and multiple SCOTUS rulings... The Constitution TRUMPS treaties. The 2nd A is an Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore is part of the Constitution, and so too, TRUMPS treaties...

Get over this, and be aware of the REAL threats. FAKE ones like this take away your time from fighting the real ones...

[Bigiron]

:up:HvyMtl, thank you for your post.

[mikegideon]

Guys, this is hype and hysteria, perhaps put out buy a gun dealer wanting more sales, or a political group wanting more anger.

to add to what wjh2657 stated, even if there was a treaty, ratified by the U.N., signed by the President, approved by the Senate, it still would not void your 2nd A rights, per multiple and multiple SCOTUS rulings... The Constitution TRUMPS treaties. The 2nd A is an Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore is part of the Constitution, and so too, TRUMPS treaties...

Get over this, and be aware of the REAL threats. FAKE ones like this take away your time from fighting the real ones...

Naw... you're funnin' me

[bonzii34]

Nra has been telling us all along this un deal is bs and to stop emailing them about it. Now this morning nra mass email goes out telling us to watch out.... FreedomTimes26.jpg . They gave a link to EDITORIAL: The U.N. gun grabber - Washington Times are they fianlly falling for it too and spreading myths??? Hopefully they are both wrong.