Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The UN threat continues

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    433

    Post imported post

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4098
    Friday, July 18, 2008 Over the past 7 years, the United Nations (UN) has been working to reach agreement on an international treaty on the trade in small arms. A "Meeting of States" has occurred every two years on the topic, and is going on once again in New York City. The threat this poses to our Second Amendment rights is real. Thanks to the efforts of U.S. officials, its progress has been delayed, but, unfortunately, not stopped. The "Programme of Action On Illicit Small Arms Trade" is the working group in the UN trying to create an international agreement to regulate firearms worldwide. The scope of that regulation is being debated, along with how far that regulation would intrude on the domestic policies of member nations. Former U.S. Representative to the UN John Bolton made it clear that the U.S. would not accept any agreement or treaty—or even participate in any effort that would result in an agreement or treaty—that would threaten the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Even after his tenure at the UN ended, Bolton's influence over U.S. policy remains, and has greatly hindered the ability of this group to advance its agenda. It is vital to note that the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the primary driving force behind these activities. IANSA is led by radical international anti-gun activist Rebecca Peters. Peters formerly worked for George Soros' Open Society Institute and maintains close ties to the rabidly anti-gun Soros. Their anti-gun agenda includes the imposition of domestic gun control regulations on all nations, and includes broad scale bans on gun ownership, as was masterminded by Peters in Australia. This radical anti-gun agenda has been held at bay by the policies set in place by the Bush Administration, but those policies may end on January 20, 2009. On that day, a new U.S. President will be inaugurated, and it will be his policies that are advanced. If Barack Obama wins the White House, it is a near certainty that the men and women he will appoint to key positions at the State Department will cooperate with the anti-gun agenda of groups like IANSA. The imposition of a treaty, if approved by the Senate and signed by the President, could undercut the gains made with the Heller decision, and make the Second Amendment rights of Americans subject to international restriction. A president has powers that go far beyond his authority to sign or veto legislation. The appointments he makes to cabinet offices and ambassadorships will play an enormous role in shaping U.S. policy. Under President Bush, the appointments of men such as John Bolton, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have made the difference that has protected and advanced our individual liberties. Under a President Obama, all that could be lost due to the appointment of men and women who oppose our Second Amendment rights.
    we've been protected from this corrupt organization for 8 years, but that protection may soon run out as the prospects of an anti-gunner getting into the white house who represents a party that thinks the UN is the best thing since sliced bread becomes more of a possibility.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    yeahYeah wrote:
    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4098
    Friday, July 18, 2008 Over the past 7 years, the United Nations (UN) has been working to reach agreement on an international treaty on the trade in small arms. A "Meeting of States" has occurred every two years on the topic, and is going on once again in New York City. The threat this poses to our Second Amendment rights is real. Thanks to the efforts of U.S. officials, its progress has been delayed, but, unfortunately, not stopped. The "Programme of Action On Illicit Small Arms Trade" is the working group in the UN trying to create an international agreement to regulate firearms worldwide. The scope of that regulation is being debated, along with how far that regulation would intrude on the domestic policies of member nations. Former U.S. Representative to the UN John Bolton made it clear that the U.S. would not accept any agreement or treaty—or even participate in any effort that would result in an agreement or treaty—that would threaten the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Even after his tenure at the UN ended, Bolton's influence over U.S. policy remains, and has greatly hindered the ability of this group to advance its agenda. It is vital to note that the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the primary driving force behind these activities. IANSA is led by radical international anti-gun activist Rebecca Peters. Peters formerly worked for George Soros' Open Society Institute and maintains close ties to the rabidly anti-gun Soros. Their anti-gun agenda includes the imposition of domestic gun control regulations on all nations, and includes broad scale bans on gun ownership, as was masterminded by Peters in Australia. This radical anti-gun agenda has been held at bay by the policies set in place by the Bush Administration, but those policies may end on January 20, 2009. On that day, a new U.S. President will be inaugurated, and it will be his policies that are advanced. If Barack Obama wins the White House, it is a near certainty that the men and women he will appoint to key positions at the State Department will cooperate with the anti-gun agenda of groups like IANSA. The imposition of a treaty, if approved by the Senate and signed by the President, could undercut the gains made with the Heller decision, and make the Second Amendment rights of Americans subject to international restriction. A president has powers that go far beyond his authority to sign or veto legislation. The appointments he makes to cabinet offices and ambassadorships will play an enormous role in shaping U.S. policy. Under President Bush, the appointments of men such as John Bolton, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have made the difference that has protected and advanced our individual liberties. Under a President Obama, all that could be lost due to the appointment of men and women who oppose our Second Amendment rights.
    we've been protected from this corrupt organization for 8 years, but that protection may soon run out as the prospects of an anti-gunner getting into the white house who represents a party that thinks the UN is the best thing since sliced bread becomes more of a possibility.
    disturbing.

    is the UN going to come to my house and enforce this? or will it be local/state law enforcement?

    ps: if you want to post articals that you copy and paste, throw it into notepad first to remove all the formatting then paste it in here. that way it'll break the paragraphs like it should.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    I think most states would take the position that Texas has about the UN telling them who they can execute. Let me quote a father of one of the daughters that were raped and murdered by an illegal mexican immigrant.

    "The world court don't mean diddly," he said. "This business belongs in the state of Texas. The people of the state of Texas support the execution. We thank them. The rest of them can go to hell."

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5890690.html



    I do agree that the UN is a grave threat to our freedoms and rights in this country as well as countries around the world.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't take much comfort in the fact that one or the other political party is in the White House. The differences in their desire to expand the control of the Federal leviathan over the people's lives are largely trivial.

    We should focus on voting for liberty-minded candidates at the state level and for Congress and the House. The only liberty-minded presidential candidate did not get his party's nomination.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    433

    Post imported post

    lesser of 2 evils. neither are for America' best interest. McCain was never my first choice.

    the fact that remains is that one party will kiss the feet of the UN, the other has the potential of telling it to kiss our *****.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    yeahYeah wrote:
    lesser of 2 evils. neither are for America' best interest. McCain was never my first choice.

    the fact that remains is that one party will kiss the feet of the UN, the other has the potential of telling it to kiss our *****.
    It just comes down to whether you'd rather be violated by the UN, or by your own government.

    I'll go for the former. It'd be harder to prove treason for shooting at a blue helmet...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    433

    Post imported post

    treason, what's that?

    we witness it on almost a daily basis in this country and it goes un-punished. :shock:

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    I agree with you here. I'm just going to leave it at that though

    I always get my posts jerked when I get to involved.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Can someone please explain to me how some UN inspired treaty can trump the U.S. Constitution? The NRA seems to think one could, and they've got lawyers and other smart people advising them, so there must be something to it . . . . .

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    So, a US treaty can't violate US law, correct?
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    Treaties and federal law are supreme to state laws and state constitutions, not the US Constitution.

Posting Permissions

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