Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Small Arms Treaty of 2012

  1. #1
    Regular Member Trent91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Muskogee, Oklahoma, United States
    Posts
    100

    Small Arms Treaty of 2012

    I am very concerned about this as should be you all. I've done a little research about it and it seems that the U.N. is trying to, as Hillary Clinton has stated, "actively [pursue] a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons." I don't know about you all, but this looks to me like something that could snowball into something that could seriously infringe upon our rights as americans to keep and bear arms.


    Cheers.
    Last edited by Trent91; 10-06-2011 at 01:07 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Trent91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Muskogee, Oklahoma, United States
    Posts
    100
    This is what the bill is most likely to entail according to http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...rs-up-in-arms/

    1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

    2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

    3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

    4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

    5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

    That link is a really good article, and points out that (n)Obaba is an active anti-gun politician, as is Hillary Clintin. This "treaty" is actually a plot in disguise for the U.N. to achieve full international gun control!

    ALL GUN OWNERS BEWARE!!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Treaties mush be in pursuance to the Constitution.
    A Law that violates the Constitution is void.
    Marbury V. Madison (1803)
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  4. #4
    Regular Member Trent91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Muskogee, Oklahoma, United States
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Butch00 View Post
    Treaties mush be in pursuance to the Constitution.
    A Law that violates the Constitution is void.
    Marbury V. Madison (1803)
    I've heard that is doesn't have enough support in the us, nor worldwide yet to have a chance anyway. However, should anything like this ever slip by us, I'm sure the lawsuits would start flying.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I don't think it's going to "slip by us." I do think that while most people opposed raising the national debt, they did it anyway. Not all Republicans are pro-2A, most Dems are not, and although most state legislatures have been fairly gun-friendly, a lot of governors haven't been as friendly. It would take a lot to modify or repeal the 2A, or more likely, the clause in the Constitution concerning treaties.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Trent91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Muskogee, Oklahoma, United States
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I don't think it's going to "slip by us." I do think that while most people opposed raising the national debt, they did it anyway. Not all Republicans are pro-2A, most Dems are not, and although most state legislatures have been fairly gun-friendly, a lot of governors haven't been as friendly. It would take a lot to modify or repeal the 2A, or more likely, the clause in the Constitution concerning treaties.
    True. I agree.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Unless and until we get politicians in both the Executive and Legislative branches who are familiar with and honor the spirit and letter of the Constitution, this treaty is very likely to be ratified. Should that happen and American gun owners resist, you can expect to see foreign troops, wearing UN blue helmets, on the streets of American cities.

    Am I a conspiracy theorist or just paranoid? I hope I am a realist and neither a theorist nor paranoid.

    I will also predict that, should the foreign troops become a reality, this country will see an armed insurrection that will make the War of Northern Aggression seem like a Sunday School picnic.

    I most devoutly pray that neither the treaty nor the resulting insurrection become a reality.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    I feel very sorry for ANY troops being foreign or Domestic that attempt National gun confiscation. it would not take long for the word to get out...Admiral Yamamoto said something about American rifles being behind every blade of grass if the Japanese were to invade continental USA...those blue helmets make great targets

    I say bring it
    Last edited by GLOCK21GB; 10-12-2011 at 03:20 AM.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  9. #9
    Regular Member Trent91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Muskogee, Oklahoma, United States
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by GLOCK21GB View Post
    I feel very sorry for ANY troops being foreign or Domestic that attempt National gun confiscation. it would not take long for the word to get out...Admiral Yamamoto said something about American rifles being behind every blade of grass if the Japanese were to invade continental USA...those blue helmets make great targets

    I say bring it
    +1

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    58 Senators have sent a letter to obooba and the Arkansas sow stating their opposition. As it would take 67 Senators to ratify it, as I have been saying all along, it would be doa in the Senate. But if the two jackals push it, it becomes a strong campaign issue.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Butch00 View Post
    Treaties mush be in pursuance to the Constitution.
    A Law that violates the Constitution is void.
    Marbury V. Madison (1803)
    Correct. No government official can enter into a treaty which is in violation to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So if the president and the senate decided to do this, it would not have the power of law behind it because it would be an illegal act. Furthermore, they would be opening themselves up to charges of high crimes and treason.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    No government official can enter into a treaty which is in violation to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
    No government official can enact non-Amendment legislation in violation to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, either, but it happens all the time. Look at the mounds of 2A-violating legislation out from under which we've been digging ourselves for decades.

    So if the president and the senate decided to do this, it would not have the power of law behind it because it would be an illegal act.
    Governments get away with illegal acts all the time.

    Furthermore, they would be opening themselves up to charges of high crimes and treason.
    Government officials get away with high crime and treason on a fairly regular basis.

    See my new signature.
    Last edited by since9; 10-14-2011 at 01:12 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    SNIP See my new signature.
    You understand that most of the founding "fathers" were opposed to a Bill of Rights?

    For any interested readers, here is the overview:

    Even the guy called the Father of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, was opposed to a bill of rights, calling it an "odious business."

    The Founders had to be dragged into a Bill of Rights. Men like Patrick Henry and George Mason raised such a fuss about the lack of a bill of rights in the constitution that it threatened to derail ratification of the constitution itself. Although, Henry himself was opposed to the constitution--period, if I recall, Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights. He correctly foresaw the mischief from a government with the powers granted in the constitution.

    Finally, Madison and other Federalists recognized the danger to the ratification of the constitution and relented, Madison reviewing numerous suggested rights from the several states, culling their lists down to twelve articles of amendment, the last ten of which were ratified.

    The opposition to the constitution was very serious. The opposition was labeled Anti-federalists. A few wrote essays, not too unlike the Federalist Papers, pointing out mainly that concentrating power in a central government would lead to an overbearing national government. Turns out they were more right than some of the howlingly laughable promises and predictions made in the Federalist papers.

    Some of the Anti-Federalist writings are collected in a book titled The Anti-Federalist Papers. Paperback. Very interesting reading.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-14-2011 at 02:10 AM.

Posting Permissions

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