• 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.

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

richarcm

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,182
Location
Richmond, VA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
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???
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.

:)
 

asforme

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

I_Hate_Illinois

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
237
Location
Joliet, Illinois, USA
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.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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".
 

yeahYeah

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

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
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?
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 
Top