Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: NRA Petition Against "UN Small Arms Treaty"

  1. #1
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331

    NRA Petition Against "UN Small Arms Treaty"

    So your first question, why does the "UN Small Arms Treaty" effect me? Per the NRA E-mail this afternoon:

    While the U.N.’s so-called “Small Arms Treaty” is being sold as a “common-sense measure” to combat international terrorism, piracy, and organized crime, the reality is something much different and FAR more sinister. Reading through Article V and Article XII of the treaty, it’s easy to see why this INTERNATIONAL gun control scheme is the gun-grabbers’ crown jewel. In fact, it’s hard to imagine how our Second Amendment could possibly survive this assault after reading through the horrific details of the Treaty, including:
    *** Requiring the United States to mandate licenses for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms; This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns!
    *** Mandating a new INTERNATIONAL gun registry; The registry must include “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms” and the identity of the “end user.”
    *** Access for foreign governments to AMERICAN firearms records. Not only would our federal government and international bureaucrats have access to these records, but also would leaders in anti-gun and potentially hostile countries around the globe!
    As bad as all this is, it will only be the first step.

    You and I both know registration is the first step toward outright CONFISCATION. This Treaty sets the stage for confiscation on a GLOBAL scale.

    I donate here and there when I have the means, but I did go out of my way to make a donation for this specific cause, today. In addition to signing the petition, please strongly consider a donation, every bit helps. The treaty will be discussed on the senate floor very soon.

    http://www.nagr.org/UN308.aspx?pid=2b
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It's a general I-hate-Obama-and-his-firearm-policies.

    So, no, I won't sign.

    If one of the national organizations comes up with a petition against a specific action by the Obama regime, I will consider it.

    Dear Barack Obama,

    The Second Amendment clearly states, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

    I hereby pledge to fight against your subversive scheme and uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    *** By signing my pledge against Barack Obama's UN Gun Ban, ***
    I'd like to also be entered to win a beautiful Iron Ridge Arms IRA-X THOR .308 semi-automatic sniper rifle below!
    The above is a direct quotation from the petition page. Look at the contest entry, too. What a sham!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    Dudley Brown's National Association for Gun Rights has nothing to do with the nra, NAGR is the anti-NRA and sponsors NRAWOL.net A Pro-Gun Criticism of the NRA http://www.nrawol.net/ One must be SERIOUSLY tone deaf to miss that.

    Without Senate ratification by 2/3 of the Senators a treaty is so much toilet paper that Obummer smeared with his feces.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 08-29-2013 at 06:41 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331

    NRA Petition Against "UN Small Arms Treaty"

    It is NAGR, I miss-typed.

    And yes, any treaty SHOULD require 2/3 senate vote, but Obama has already publicly announced that he will sign regardless. Am I the only one who watches international politics news??!

    His blatant disregard for the constitution leaves me no doubt he would sign it, and attempt to enforce it.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  5. #5
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331

    NRA Petition Against "UN Small Arms Treaty"

    I get emails from both the NRA and NAGR, so the two blur together from time to time.

    *edited for a typo
    Last edited by cirrusly; 08-29-2013 at 07:01 PM.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    And yes, any treaty SHOULD require 2/3 senate vote, but Obama has already publicly announced that he will sign .
    You are SERIOUSLY conflating ratification, accession and signing. Watching international politics news is not much different from watching the Cartoon Channel. Read. Preferably read books whose authors you trust. Books can only be burned, they cannot be changed at the press of a button.

    Currently I am reading the The Open Society and Its Enemies, that was written in about 1947, and I am astounded by its accurate portrayal of current weltpolitik crap.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    I get emails from both the NRA and NAGR, so the two blur together from time to time.
    Like blurring Clinton and Obama
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331

    NRA Petition Against "UN Small Arms Treaty"

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    You are SERIOUSLY conflating ratification, accession and signing. Watching international politics news is not much different from watching the Cartoon Channel. Read. Preferably read books whose authors you trust. Books can only be burned, they cannot be changed at the press of a button.

    Currently I am reading the The Open Society and Its Enemies, that was written in about 1947, and I am astounded by its accurate portrayal of current weltpolitik crap.
    I hope I truly am confusing "sign" and "ratify" because so far this president has done whatever the hell he has wanted with no regards for any due constitutional process.

    And yes, I read plenty of books also. In fact I just read "Denied a Chance" this week on the plane flying back from client site. Also, on that note also, I have Emily Miller's book on order (publishes September 4).

    To be well informed you need to read both news and books.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    To be well informed you need to read both news and books.
    Which news? There's another thread about Al Jazeera.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    Whether or not it is ratified is of no matter as:

    Most of our law making powers have been given to regulatory agencies and therefore the executive branch. So, we don't have to ratify a treaty for a willing POTUS to direct an agency to implement the policies.

    The Constitution does not allow for treaties to usurp it's authority but again that would fall onto the SCOTUS (again).

  11. #11
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...years-to-come/

    Apparently treaties DON'T necessarily require ratification to take effect. Hence my original post. Anyone else think we're in trouble yet?
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    No, I'm not afraid. If you are informed, you won't be either.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    A: Treaties cannot override the BoR.

    B: The UN is a laughingstock. Who cares about the UN?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    No, I'm not afraid. If you are informed, you won't be either.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
    You didn't click on the link did you? It might be a bit embarrassing if you proclaim to be informed and then, in the same sentence, proof your inaccuracy.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    A: Treaties cannot override the BoR.

    B: The UN is a laughingstock. Who cares about the UN?
    Agreed. However, as we know, they have glocks. Sometimes they just do t anyway.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Agreed. However, as we know, they have glocks. Sometimes they just do t anyway.


    This is true.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    Snopes is not the final say in anything, but that is another thread.

    As for the treaty, it is largely irrelevant anyway.

    As I stated in my earlier post, the POTUS can direct his regulatory agencies to implement any policy he/she desires. That is what happens when you give over your law making powers to agencies that are run by the executive branch.

    Remember "Cap & Trade"? It, like most of the "man made global warming" nonsense went away a few years back because, amongst other things, hacked data came out that it was largely faked. Fast forward to today, the EPA is implementing some of those policies without the law(s) because the POTUS has directed it to do so.

    Our problem is not treaties, it is not having law making power(s) where they should be: in Congress.

  18. #18
    Regular Member 07Altima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    131

    The reason this is a actual concern

    What most of you missed on this is the fact that the Treaty is written to last forever no end date, this is an issue because once signed by the President, and Kerry, it can then be ratified at any time down the road from here to eternity, thus if the Democrats ever get full control of the Government or the SCOTUS they can, and as with Osama care will ratify, the bad part about this is that even if we vote a democrat party out of control the following cycle it won't matter because once ratified it is permanent IE can not be reversed! so give it some damn respect read about it, and stop arguing over how silly it is to take it seriously, now will it be ratified anytime soon not likely but if anytime in the future the democrats take full control they will vote party line, and ratify don't believe me how about you go back to Obama care that now many democrats are no longer on board with!

  19. #19
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by 07Altima View Post
    What most of you missed on this is the fact that the Treaty is written to last forever no end date, this is an issue because once signed by the President, and Kerry, it can then be ratified at any time down the road from here to eternity, thus if the Democrats ever get full control of the Government or the SCOTUS they can
    No, not exactly - they need 2/3 control of the Senate - nothing else will do, they have to ratify it by 2/3 vote in the Senate.

    Quote Originally Posted by 07Altima View Post
    the bad part about this is that even if we vote a democrat party out of control the following cycle it won't matter because once ratified it is permanent IE can not be reversed!
    Again, not exactly. Treaties can be overridden by subsequent legislation by congress. Also, we (and other countries) have been known to break treaties in the past.

    That said, it is still a very bad thing for it to have been signed as we are now obligated to adhere to the conditions of the treaty until it is ratified or voted down by the Senate.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    If you have been following the news lately, it should be clear that .gov really doesn't need to pass a law to abridge rights. So having a treaty means nothing when the POTUS can simply direct the ATF or any other regulatory agency to implement policy without getting Congress involved.

    We are beyond rule of law in this country.

  21. #21
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    That may be but how would we be able to resist after we have been disarmed?
    This piece of claptrap MUST be stopped before the Senate reviews it!
    I don't disagree, I was just responding to the statement that "once ratified it is permanent IE can not be reversed". Didn't say it was easy or likely, but possible.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •