• 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.

The UN threat continues

yeahYeah

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
433
Location
Las Vegas, NV, ,
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.
 

johnnyb

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
340
Location
St Helens, Oregon, USA
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.
 

DopaVash

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
313
Location
Graham, Texas
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.
 

bobernet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
333
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
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.
 

yeahYeah

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
433
Location
Las Vegas, NV, ,
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 *****.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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...
 

lukeshort

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
100
Location
, Oregon, USA
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.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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 . . . . .
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_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.
 

asforme

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
839
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_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.
 
Top