Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Is anyone up to date on the battle of the 2nd Ammendment by the UN??

  1. #1
    Regular Member richarcm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,182

    Post imported post

    Apparently if the United Nations agrees to ban handguns it will supercede our 2nd ammendment.

    Does anyone have any good info on this? Its pretty scary how close we are to being ruled by a global government. The UN has entirely too much power. Of course it is mostly run by anti-american has beens who seek to minimalize our nation.

    I hate the direction this world is moving....I just don't understand it. This country doesn't need a revolution. This planet does.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    richarcm wrote:
    Apparently if the United Nations agrees to ban handguns it will supercede our 2nd ammendment.

    Does anyone have any good info on this?
    Check the Constitution.

    Treaty provisions carry the weight of law.

    The US is a member of the UN by a treaty.

    There is argument however that no treaty provision can wipe away a fundamental right.

    I wouldn't worry too much about the UN. Yes, fight them, and keep an eye on them. As in, keep an eye on anybody who has any power.

    Watch closer thecontinental scene where machinations have been under way seemingly to establish a North American Union with Mexico, US, and Canada, not unlike the EU.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    richarcm wrote:
    I hate the direction this world is moving....I just don't understand it. This country doesn't need a revolution. This planet does.
    That is so true. The problem is that most people on the planet are either

    A. Selfish

    B. Sheep

    C. Irresponsible

    D. All of the above



    The UN is simply waiting for a Obama government before they act again. They realised that under Bush, they got nowhere with their global agenda.

    With an Obama government, they can nullify the 2nd amendment with his court appointees, then the treaty could go through.

    The fundamental problem with the U.N. is that not all governments are equal. In fact, the U.S. has the most important form of government, a constitutional republic.

    How can a consitutional republic be equal to that of a 3rd world dictatorship???

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    SNIP How can a consitutional republic be equal to that of a 3rd world dictatorship???
    What? Is this a trick question?

    OK.I'll bite.

    My answer is: Electto the PresidencyandCongress members of the (select one orboth) Democratand Republican parties.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    To be honest, this doesn't worry me in the least bit.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    Time to join a militia group.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    richarcm wrote:
    Apparently if the United Nations agrees to ban handguns it will supercede our 2nd ammendment.
    WRONG! Doing so would be absolutely unconstitutional (not like that would stop anyone from trying), but the idea that the Constitution authorizes itself to be superseded by a treaty is absolutely false.

    Very good article on the subject: http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    From what I understand, the Congress passed a bill with an attachment to it that stated that the United States would cut off all funding to organizations, including the U.N. that seek to infringe upon our constitutional rights and the 2nd Amendment was specifically mentioned in the legislation.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    I call BS. Congress is still getting funding.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    I call BS. Congress is still getting funding.
    I'm all for cutting them off, yesterday. :celebrate

  11. #11
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    Time to join a militia group.
    You are part of a militia. Read the Federalists Papers.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    AbNo wrote:
    I call BS. Congress is still getting funding.
    I'm all for cutting them off, yesterday. :celebrate
    Soare SCOTUS, states, and citiesthat have antigun laws.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  13. #13
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    The UN is simply waiting for a Obama government before they act again. They realised that under Bush, they got nowhere with their global agenda.

    With an Obama government, they can nullify the 2nd amendment with his court appointees, then the treaty could go through.
    That's why, if Obama gets elected, I'm gonna start preparing to "head for the hills".
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    I call BS. Congress is still getting funding.
    +1,000,000 Best comment I have read today!!
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    433

    Post imported post

    With Bush in the whitehouse, the UN was useless in its quest for world govt. If Obama gets elected, the UN will have a great friend in the white house. Democrats love the UN and IMHO would sell this country out to them if given the chance. Factor in that Obama is clearly anti-gun, it makes for a spicey cocktail that could cause trouble. Not to mention he can appoint Ginsberg type judges in the mold of radical ACLU lawyers.

    Obama reeks right now of that "anti-Christ" persona...and to me if just makes sense that he would fold to or into them easily.

  16. #16
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    yeahYeah wrote:
    Obama reeks right now of that "anti-Christ" persona...and to me if just makes sense that he would fold to or into them easily.
    The first time I saw a picture of Obama, he was looking directly into the camera up close. My first thought was"This man is pure evil". I think at this time he is a puppet of the anti-christ. My pastor can't even convince me otherwise.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  17. #17
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Here it is in all it's nastiness.
    World Politics Review Exclusive










    In mid July, the international community renewed its efforts to curb the spread of small arms and light weapons (SALW). After failing to even adopt a report at their last meeting in 2006, this year's delegates found a way through Iranian procedural objections to vote for modest next steps on a program of action to address the illicit trade of the deadly devices. Watchers of the small arms trade will now be looking to see if successful conclusion of the meeting adds momentum to a separate process examining the possibilities for a broader global arms trade treaty.

    In 2001, U.N. member states adopted the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects
    , and in 2005 agreed to an International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons. Both these instruments are politically binding, as opposed to legally binding, meaning that while states agree to follow the documents' guidelines there are essentially no legal ramifications for failing to do so. Together, the instruments provide recommendations for national, regional and global cooperation to limit the illegal transfer of small arms, such as revolvers, pistols and some machine guns, and light weapons, such as heavy machine guns and other weapons that can generally be transported by a pack animal or light vehicle. Due to their ease of transport and general availability in many of the world's conflict areas, SALW have come under increasing scrutiny around the globe.

    In 2006, countries came together for a five-year review of the program of action, but failed to agree on improvements
    to the plan. At the outset of that gathering, U.S. representatives indicated that they would not accept any final agreement that mentioned ammunition, civilian possession of small arms or transfers to nonstate actors. Although not the only obstacle, the United States' positions were viewed as a major cause for the meeting's failure. Prior to this year's meeting, there were indications that the United States would not be attending the full meeting, raising the prospects for success as well as questions about the program's relevance.

    In order to improve the chance of reaching consensus, this year's chair-designate, Ambassador Dalius Cekuolis of Lithuania, began consultations seven months before the July 14-18 Biennial Meeting of States. This resulted in the selection of four major topics for the gathering: (1) international cooperation, assistance, and national capacity-building; (2) stockpile management and surplus disposal; (3) illicit brokering; and (4) a review of the 2005 instrument on tracing. Each of these issues was shepherded by a separate facilitator who worked with the chair.

    Cekuolis and his advisors created a draft outcome document before the meeting began, and each night around 9 p.m. circulated revised text on the scheduled topic(s) of the day. This sped the process along, especially when the first day was filled with opening statements, instead of more focused suggestions on the day's theme. The approach was risky. It did not envision allowing for the typical debate and negotiation of each line of text that more typically characterizes these U.N. meetings. It also focused on somewhat easier issues, leaving out or sidestepping some topics that had previously been contentious and which some delegations wanted to address.

    Possibly because of Cekuolis' strategy, the meeting was mostly on track going into the last day, with the exception of Iran, whose delegation wanted line by line debate to occur. The United States, in attendance only for a day, focused on tracing and argued against the need for a legally binding instrument, but generally did not obstruct the meeting. Addressing Iran's stance produced the most tension during the 5-day meeting. It eventually led to the call for a recorded vote, because consensus could not be reached on accepting the outcome document. In that final vote, 134 countries adopted the report with none opposed. Iran and Zimbabwe abstained. The United States was absent. This marked success, although a messy one, and a number of states asked that the final adoption process not become a norm for other multilateral fora.

    In assessing the outcome, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), a leading nongovernmental coalition, wrote the headline "Landslide vote sets UN gun talks back on track
    ." (The network was also responsible for another dramatic moment, a performance by Sudanese singer Emmanuel Jal, former child soldier, whose song on the third day highlighted the plight of those impacted by war and small arms.) IANSA praised the final report for including important suggestions on marking of firearms, managing of arsenals and stockpiles, and a dedication to addressing brokering. The network also noted that more could have been done, such as including ammunition in stockpile decisions and including stronger obligations to mark firearms. Other topics broached at the meeting but not resolved involved the link between humanitarian assistance and progress on small arms goals, inclusion of gender considerations in SALW decisions and calls for legally binding instruments.

    As was mentioned frequently at the meeting, there is still much more for the international community to do to combat and eradicate the illicit SALW trade. At the time of the meeting, there were still 47 countries that had never even submitted a report on their implementation of the program of action. Researchers noted that widely accepted standards for reporting and assessing progress on the effort do not exist. Fewer than 50 countries have legislation specifically addressing brokering. The Small Arms Survey
    , which released its 2008 report at the meeting, continues to value the authorized trade of small arms at more than $4 billion per year. By its very nature, the illicit trade is difficult to estimate. The Survey instead highlighted that at least 76 million of the world's 200 million military firearms could be considered surplus, as well as much of the 20-30 million tons of military small arms ammunition. If not destroyed, surplus SALW can enter into the stream of illicit weapons.

    The fundamental question of what is legal and what illicit also remains under debate. A group of governmental experts
    is meeting now in New York for its third and final 2008 meeting looking specifically at the feasibility and possible aspects of a legally binding treaty on the export, import and transfer of conventional weapons, which includes SALW as well as major systems such as battleships and fighters. While the prospects for creating an "arms trade treaty" (ATT) this year are very low, the experts meeting will continue through Aug. 8 and may get a boost from the decision at the SALW conference. The effort to consider such an ATT grew in part out of the failure of the 2006 meeting, garnering the support of 153 countries at the end of that year. Global leaders, including South African Nobel peace prize winner Desmond Tutu, have expressed hope that an ATT could end "the continuing scandal of the unregulated weapons trade."
    Jeff Abramson is a research analyst at the Arms Control Association.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    The first time I saw a picture of Obama, he was looking directly into the camera up close. My first thought was"This man is pure evil". I think at this time he is a puppet of the anti-christ. My pastor can't even convince me otherwise.
    Oh come on, now...what is going on around here? Is there something in the water?

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    richarcm wrote:
    Apparently if the United Nations agrees to ban handguns it will supercede our 2nd ammendment.
    This is not true. Stop spreading this falsehood.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert


  20. #20
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    richarcm wrote:
    Apparently if the United Nations agrees to ban handguns it will supercede our 2nd ammendment.
    This is not true. Stop spreading this falsehood.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
    Nothing can supercede the Constitution. If Obama gets elected I think he and the commies we have in Congress will try.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    Treaty provisions can in fact over rule the US Constitution....

    But the treaty must be specific and then ratified by the US Senate and signed by the President for it to have any effect.

    A general treaty with the UN (even if they pass a resolution against handguns) does nothave any weight of law in the US.

    If say the US, Canada and Mexico agreed, by international treaty, to elimnate the private possession of weapons, and that treaty was presented to the US Senate for ratification, and signed by the President.... then it's bye bye OC and everything else. It has the weight of law.

    But since no law or treaty can abrogate unalienable (or natural) rights--we have the duty and moral high-ground to resist (by force if necessary) this treaty and its agents of enforcement.

    If the government persists to deny us our rights, we have the duty to change (by force if necessary) those representatives who are abrogating our rights.

    Coachroach politicans and LEO's on the front-line would disagree... but this is what happened in 1776.... and it could happen all over again.

    S T

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Takezo wrote:
    SNIP [Cock]roach politicans and LEO's on the front-line would disagree...
    The real majority party in Congress?

    As in, forget the camoflage provided by the common party labels, Dem. and Rep.

    I like this method of identifying politicians much better than a party label. You see a truer picture.

    Unfortunately, I think there are more cockroach politicians, than good guys.

    Didn't Harry Reid just try to turn out the lights in Congress the other day?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Takezo wrote:
    Treaty provisions can in fact over rule the US Constitution....

    But the treaty must be specific and then ratified by the US Senate and signed by the President for it to have any effect.

    A general treaty with the UN (even if they pass a resolution against handguns) does nothave any weight of law in the US.

    If say the US, Canada and Mexico agreed, by international treaty, to elimnate the private possession of weapons, and that treaty was presented to the US Senate for ratification, and signed by the President.... then it's bye bye OC and everything else. It has the weight of law.

    But since no law or treaty can abrogate unalienable (or natural) rights--we have the duty and moral high-ground to resist (by force if necessary) this treaty and its agents of enforcement.

    If the government persists to deny us our rights, we have the duty to change (by force if necessary) those representatives who are abrogating our rights.

    Coachroach politicans and LEO's on the front-line would disagree... but this is what happened in 1776.... and it could happen all over again.

    S T
    WRONG!!! TRY AGAIN

    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty"



    Wanted to make sure it was big enough for you to read it.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  24. #24
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Didn't Harry Reid just try to turn out the lights in Congress the other day?
    No, that was Nazi Pelosi, and she didn't try, she did it. She also had the cameras and microphones turned off. That was because about 75 Republicans were still there doing 5 minute speeches about everybody taking a 5 week vacation while the nation was in an energy crisis. She works like a dictator, if you don't say what she wants, then she doesn't want anyone to hear it. They stayed anyway and went on like everything was OK. They had a lot of visitors cheering for them today. The Reps. said if they don'tbring a vote on drilling in places that are off limits to the floor for a vote, they willshut down the government. Fiscal year ends September 31.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    Takezo wrote:
    Treaty provisions can in fact over rule the US Constitution....
    this ais absolutely not true. the constitution declares itself "teh supreme law of the land:

    "...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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding..."

    U.S. Constitution, article VI.

    while treaties made under the authority of teh United States are considered part of that supreme law, they are only considered such as long as they are not contrary to the constitution or relevant state law. 2nd ammendment infringement is absolutely contrary to the constitution.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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