• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Congressmen Urge the UN to Trample the US Constitution

scott58dh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
425
Location
why?
"Today begins the most important 26-day period for our Second Amendment freedoms in recent history.

Specifically, the U.N. wants to implement international gun registration requirements, bans on commonly owned firearms, tracking and registration of ammunition purchases, and create a new U.N. gun control bureaucracy.

a group of anti-gun members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), went so far as to circulate a letter last week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, in which they “strongly urge the United States to take a leadership role in pushing for a strong, verifiable Arms Trade Treaty.”

Read More;:arrow:http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/02/congressmen-urge-the-un-to-trample-the-us-constitution/

The UN's View of a *FREE* Society :exclaim: View attachment 8758
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
"Today begins the most important 26-day period for our Second Amendment freedoms in recent history.

Specifically, the U.N. wants to implement international gun registration requirements, bans on commonly owned firearms, tracking and registration of ammunition purchases, and create a new U.N. gun control bureaucracy.

a group of anti-gun members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), went so far as to circulate a letter last week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, in which they “strongly urge the United States to take a leadership role in pushing for a strong, verifiable Arms Trade Treaty.”

Read More;:arrow:http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/02/congressmen-urge-the-un-to-trample-the-us-constitution/

The UN's View of a *FREE* Society :exclaim: View attachment 8758

This has been talked about here before, and I believe it was debunked as false. I believe that the treaty has to do with arms dealing across international borders. It doesnt have anything to do with our 2A.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
This has been circling the internet for years because they have been working on this treaty for years. The reason it hasn't went anywhere is because the Bush administration wanted nothing to do with it, but of course Obama is trying to get the senate to ratify this treaty. Obama will not succeed because nearly 40 senators have already expressed their dissaproval, and a 2/3 vote is required to ratify. This could be a severe attack on what types of firearms we can obtain and also lead to total registration, especially since this administration believes the UN and international law are of greater importance than congress and the United States Constitution. We are living in troubling times and I suggest everyone research information such as this to discover whether it is indeed a threat or some hysteria B.S. This could absolutely be a threat, so let's hope the senate keeps their word and protects our 2A rights.
 

scott58dh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
425
Location
why?
Do the Math, it adds up to Something Fishy goin' on

Ditto to KYGlockster !! Issues such as this are not resolved overnight.

Just read the article(s), do some research & decide for yourself.

If it's worth the effort to discuss the issue, either in this forum between ourselves, &/OR with Senators/Representatives, then fine.

If not,,, then I guess we'll just keep moving on as though nothing like this has or ever will take place again.

Timing is everything, and I believe that sometime ,,,soon,,, our time will just run out, then *WE* can say, "Why didn't anyone care enough to do something about this?"

All I know is that *THE KNOTTED GUN* keeps popping up it's ugly head, enough so that it seems to get some random attention from MSM (not that *THEY* are always the most reliable source.)

However, the UN has been attempting to get ***USa*** under the *EU Banner* for quite some time now & this is ONE issue (2nd Amnd.) that should not (& will not) be taken half-heartedly.

Remember, A RIGHT NOT EXERCISED IS A RIGHT LOST !

peace&rkba4ever!:cool:
 
Last edited:

readyfire

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
27
Location
Virginia beach, VA ,USA
Yeah you know just like commie care would never pass.Don't sleep on this guys they are coming for our guns they have everything else.......It may have been BS years ago and never passable.It is certainly passable now with corrupt courts and Presidents who wipe away the Constitution with a pen swipe.....
 

tomrkba

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
125
Location
Virginia
Treaties are not self-actuating. Congress would still need to pass laws to implement it.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Here's a sample of the UN rationale, taken directly from their web page - "UN Office of Disarmament Affairs" - with my comments added in blue:
Taking their toll, violating rights​
The majority of conflict deaths are caused by the use of small arms, and civilian populations bear the brunt of armed conflict more than ever. Also, small arms are the dominant tools of criminal violence. The rate of firearms-related homicides in post-conflict societies often outnumbers battlefield deaths. Perhaps that's because the only small arms are then held by tyrannical dictatorships, who then take retribution upon those who opposed them.
These weapons are also linked to the increasing number of killings of UN employees and peacekeepers, as well as workers from humanitarian and non-governmental organizations. Refer to previous comment. Tyrants and dictators don't want any organization or person giving humanitarian aid (and hope) to those they have enslaved. But... it helps their worldwide image if they grudgingly allow these people to enter the country, and then maintain a highly deniable distance from the "rebel groups" that dispatch those workers. The workers from "humanitarian and NGOs" are all volunteers who chose to jeopardize their lives in the service of others. The consequences of those choices are frequently unpleasant.
Small arms facilitate a vast spectrum of human rights violations, including killing, maiming, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, torture, and forced recruitment of children by armed groups. More human rights abuses are committed with small arms than with any other weapon. The "armed groups" are generally thugs sent by the ruling class, or by self-proclaimed "warlords", to intimidate the people and discourage disagreement with those in charge. Small arms are used to commit "human rights abuses" because they are cheaper than buying each thug his own tank. Believe it or not, there are many people running 3rd world countries, who see committing human rights abuses as a perk of their position of power.
Furthermore, where the use of armed violence becomes a means for resolving grievances and conflicts, legal and peaceful dispute resolution suffers and the rule of law cannot be upheld. Most of the areas in which these activities occur are 3rd world countries - where armed retribution is almost accepted as traditional, and has been going on for hundreds of years. As for the "rule of law"... the "laws" are designed to oppress the people, and as a rule, the "societies" are always about 0.5º from anarchism anyway.
The UN's entire philosophical statement is viewable at: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

The UN seems to view world violence through "rose-colored glasses". The gangs, organized crime syndicates and assorted other criminals (individuals and small associated groups) will continue to possess, buy, sell, barter and steal firearms, and the unarmed civilians will still "bear the brunt of armed conflict more than ever". The criminal element will NEVER obligingly surrender their weapons! Our current administration is NOT a great defender of RKBA, so don't the surprised if you wake up some morning to find a large number of heavily-armed government agents at your door, declaring "We're here at the direction of POTUS, who, IAW UN Resolution XXXX demands you surrender your illegally possessed firearms for destruction, or redistribution to UN Forces for use in defending your country against you." We are currently in the smoke phase, And have been for several years. Just remember the old saying, "Where there's smoke..." Just my thoughts. Pax...

P.S. There's also an excellent (but very lengthy) explanation of "The Militia of The Several States" (2A) at: http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/militia.htm (written by Edwin Vieira, Jr., who holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School)
(Vieira has been a practicing attorney for over thirty-six years, specializing in cases that raise issues of constitutional law.)
 
Last edited:

scott58dh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
425
Location
why?
Here's a sample of the UN rationale, taken directly from their web page - "UN Office of Disarmament Affairs" - with my comments added in blue:
The UN's entire philosophical statement is viewable at: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

The UN seems to view world violence through "rose-colored glasses". The gangs, organized crime syndicates and assorted other criminals - individuals and small associated groups) will continue to possess, buy, sell, barter and steal firearms, and the unarmed civilians will still "bear the brunt of armed conflict more than ever". They will NEVER obligingly surrender their weapons! Our current administration is NOT a great defender of RKBA, so don't the surprised if you wake up some morning to find a large number of heavily-armed government agents at your door, declaring "We're here at the direction of POTUS, who, IAW UN Resolution XXXX demands you surrender your illegally possessed firearms for destruction, or redistribution to UN Forces for use in defending your country against you." We are currently in the smoke phase, And have been for several years. Just remember the old saying, "Where there's smoke..." Just my thoughts. Pax...

P.S. There's also an excellent (but very lengthy) explanation of "The Militia of The Several States" (2A) at: http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/militia.htm (written by Edwin Vieira, Jr., who holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School)
He has been a practicing attorney for over thirty-six years, specializing in cases that raise issues of constitutional law.)

Thanx Gil223 !

This is a Very interesting exerpt from "The Militia of The Several States",,, provided by Gil223,,,

"For example, assume that Congress enacts a purported statute which bans the transportation, receipt, sale, barter, gift, transfer, or possession in interstate commerce of all handguns by private individuals. "Surely a clear-cut violation of the Second Amendment!" you say. Not so, as any $500-an-hour "gun-control" shyster attorney can easily demonstrate in the contemporary kangaroo courts:

Criminals use "concealable handguns" to commit violent crimes.

The government has a "compelling interest" in reducing the incidence of all crimes, including those committed with "concealable handguns".

Because all handguns are more or less "concealable", all handguns are "concealable handguns".

Criminals obtain handguns in the markets, white or black, which operate through or affect interstate commerce.

If all these markets were absolutely denuded of handguns, criminals could not obtain them, and then could not use them to commit crimes.

If interstate commerce were absolutely denuded of handguns, there would be none in the markets. The only way to remove all handguns from interstate commerce is to prohibit them absolutely.

Therefore, the "least-restrictive means" to serve the "compelling interest" is to outlaw transportation, receipt, et cetera of all handguns in interstate commerce.
And,

Inasmuch as the Second Amendment protects only the right of common individuals to possess "sporting" firearms (the Amendment's "well regulated Militia" phrase being irrelevant), the government's "compelling interest" in banning all firearms outweighs any individual's personal interest in possessing any firearm, because the suppression of crime is undoubtedly more important than the pursuit of a mere hobby. Q.E.D.

Thus the Second Amendment is rendered (or proves itself) impotent."

“GOD GUNS & GUTS MADE AMERICA FREE, LET'S FIGHT TO KEEP ALL THREE !”

LINK;:arrow:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1760005/posts

The National Rifle Association and the Right to Bear Arms
by John G. Mitchell

peace&rkba4ever!:cool:
 
Last edited:

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Inasmuch as the Second Amendment protects only the right of common individuals to possess "sporting" firearms (the Amendment's "well regulated Militia" phrase being irrelevant), the government's "compelling interest" in banning all firearms outweighs any individual's personal interest in possessing any firearm, because the suppression of crime is undoubtedly more important than the pursuit of a mere hobby. Q.E.D.

Thus the Second Amendment is rendered (or proves itself) impotent."

No matter how many times I read 2A, I seem to consistently miss the part that restricts us to "sporting firearms". This is especially disconcerting inasmuch as there were no designated "sporting firearms" at the time the Constitution (including the BoR) was ratified. The firearms that were used to put food on the table (with the notable exceptions of canons and volley guns) were the very same firearms used to repel the Brits during the American Revolution and also the War Between the States (same exceptions, plus the Gatling gun). Firearms were multitasking before there was such a thing as multitasking! "Keep and bear arms" seems all-inclusive to me. ;) Pax...

P.S Along those same lines, here's an interesting video:
[video=youtube;iDivHkQ2GSg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg[/video]
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Well hes got two things working against him on this.

1) It would have to get a 2/3rds vote in the senate.

2) It would be an illegal act for him to sign such a treaty that countered any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because of the oath of the office of president which he took before entering that office. This would make any attempt for him to sign any treaty which overtly or covertly countermands any part of these two documents not only an illegal act, but one which would be an impeachable offense with a charge of high treason.
 

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
Well hes got two things working against him on this.

1) It would have to get a 2/3rds vote in the senate.

2) It would be an illegal act for him to sign such a treaty that countered any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because of the oath of the office of president which he took before entering that office. This would make any attempt for him to sign any treaty which overtly or covertly countermands any part of these two documents not only an illegal act, but one which would be an impeachable offense with a charge of high treason.

He doesnt give a crap about our constitution or the Bill of rights. If he has a chance,he will sign it, if he doesnt sign it,that doesnt mean he doesnt want to, If this ass hat gets elected again, then we are done for as the USA as we know it.
 
Top