Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: ALERT: Small Arms Treaty of 2012

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

    ALERT: 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 01:06 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Wolfgang1952's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mt Hermon / Franklinton,La ,
    Posts
    173
    Well what you expect from a bunch of socialist in the BLACK HOUSE and the UN. It’ been coming for a long time now. The Lefties just might there way this time, if we on the RIGHT are not carful.
    Pres. Florida Parishes Chapter of LOCAL www.laopencarry.org

    .308 Isn't an area code, but it can still make long distance calls.
    How may I help you? Press '1' for English. Press '2' to disconnect until you learn to speak English.


    Wolf

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang1952 View Post
    Well what you expect from a bunch of socialist in the BLACK HOUSE and the UN. It’ been coming for a long time now. The Lefties just might there way this time, if we on the RIGHT are not carful.
    Hey now, don't assume that just because we are pro-gun means we are all on the "RIGHT."

    I am loyal to neither the left or right. Just the constitution.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Hey now, don't assume that just because we are pro-gun means we are all on the "RIGHT."

    I am loyal to neither the left or right. Just the constitution.
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Trent91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Muskogee, Oklahoma, United States
    Posts
    100
    OC for ME,

    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!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    It currently doesn't have the votes in the Senate to be ratified; regardless of what King Obama and Queen Hilary want. They need either 60 or 67 votes to get it ratified. Last number I had read, there were only 15-20 senators that would vote for it.

    The UN is hopeful it can use the other socialist members to put pressure on those countries that won't or can't get it to pass; but it doesn't seem to making any ground. IIRC, Glock came out against this and so did Austria. I don't think there is a lot of traction worldwide, except with the social dictators.

    So, I understand the concern, we need to be cautious and not let something to slip by; but it has no chance of passing in the very near future, especially with the next re-election cycle coming up.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    OK, call me a dummy, but, even if the Senate were to ratify the treaty (Deity forbid!!), how could it be enforced within the United States? It would very clearly, at least to me, be a monumental violation of the Second Amendment's guarantees. I would also presume that, in the event of ratification, there would be a suit filed with the Supreme Court almost immediately.

    Not to mention that such a treaty and its provision would be a violation of quite a few states' constitutions. I know Alabama's Constitution states very clearly that the citizens' right to keep and bear arms, being necessary for the defense of self and state, shall not be infringed. I would suspect that many of these states attorney generals would have to be prodded by the citizenry, but, since it is an elected position, they could not, if they want to be re-elected, ignore the screams of outrage.

    I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conspiracy theorist, but would any of you hazard a guess as to how long it would take before the UN decided to send foreign troops here to "enforce" that treaty?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    OK, call me a dummy, but, even if the Senate were to ratify the treaty (Deity forbid!!), how could it be enforced within the United States? It would very clearly, at least to me, be a monumental violation of the Second Amendment's guarantees. I would also presume that, in the event of ratification, there would be a suit filed with the Supreme Court almost immediately.

    Not to mention that such a treaty and its provision would be a violation of quite a few states' constitutions. I know Alabama's Constitution states very clearly that the citizens' right to keep and bear arms, being necessary for the defense of self and state, shall not be infringed. I would suspect that many of these states attorney generals would have to be prodded by the citizenry, but, since it is an elected position, they could not, if they want to be re-elected, ignore the screams of outrage.

    I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conspiracy theorist, but would any of you hazard a guess as to how long it would take before the UN decided to send foreign troops here to "enforce" that treaty?
    You move past the ratification portion...which is great. You hit on some very challenging thoughts.

    In theory, if it did get passed...you are right, it would violate our 2A as well as many states'. Obviously, once it becomes enforced, the lawsuits would start flying, federally and in the states. In long and short of it, it would prolly be ruled unconstitutional. The question is, how long would that take and could an injunction be in place to prevent enforcement once it was ratified? I hope we never have to go down that road.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    OK, call me a dummy, but, even if the Senate were to ratify the treaty (Deity forbid!!), how could it be enforced within the United States? It would very clearly, at least to me, be a monumental violation of the Second Amendment's guarantees. I would also presume that, in the event of ratification, there would be a suit filed with the Supreme Court almost immediately.

    Not to mention that such a treaty and its provision would be a violation of quite a few states' constitutions. I know Alabama's Constitution states very clearly that the citizens' right to keep and bear arms, being necessary for the defense of self and state, shall not be infringed. I would suspect that many of these states attorney generals would have to be prodded by the citizenry, but, since it is an elected position, they could not, if they want to be re-elected, ignore the screams of outrage.

    I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conspiracy theorist, but would any of you hazard a guess as to how long it would take before the UN decided to send foreign troops here to "enforce" that treaty?
    Actually, it would be illegal for a president or senate to enter into such a treaty and such a treaty would have no power in law in this nation. The reason is the oath of office taken by these representatives chains them to the constitution. So if they attempt to enter into a treaty which is in violation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, they are in violation of the law and furthermore could be charge with high crimes and treason. The Constitution keeps them from doing anything more than thinking about such a treaty.

    For example, I would wager most all Americans would be aghast if the president and the senate entered into a treaty which mandated that foreign born Americans were now eligible for the office of president. Or that periodic and unannounced inspections of citizens' home were to be conducted by local and/or federal authorities for firearms and contraband. I don't think that anyone on this website or just about anywhere else would entertain something this and would consider such a treaty completely illegal and unenforceable. So why on earth would controlling small arms be any different?

    Now, am I foolish enough to believe that they won't try something like this because our hallowed documents prevent it? Of course not. But then again, these documents also give the states the authority and power to ignore any such treaty for the simple fact of its illegality. If a president and senate enter into a treaty which, in any way, violates the Constitution, that treaty is automatically null and void. Could be very interesting.


    President's oath of office;
    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (so help me God is added at the end as tradition)
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 10-07-2011 at 08:49 AM.
    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!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Actually, it would be illegal for a president or senate to enter into such a treaty and such a treaty would have no power in law in this nation. The reason is the oath of office taken by these representatives chains them to the constitution. So if they attempt to enter into a treaty which is in violation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, they are in violation of the law and furthermore could be charge with high crimes and treason. The Constitution keeps them from doing anything more than thinking about such a treaty.

    For example, I would wager most all Americans would be aghast if the president and the senate entered into a treaty which mandated that foreign born Americans were now eligible for the office of president. Or that periodic and unannounced inspections of citizens' home were to be conducted by local and/or federal authorities for firearms and contraband. I don't think that anyone on this website or just about anywhere else would entertain something this and would consider such a treaty completely illegal and unenforceable. So why on earth would controlling small arms be any different?

    Now, am I foolish enough to believe that they won't try something like this because our hallowed documents prevent it? Of course not. But then again, these documents also give the states the authority and power to ignore any such treaty for the simple fact of its illegality. If a president and senate enter into a treaty which, in any way, violates the Constitution, that treaty is automatically null and void. Could be very interesting.


    President's oath of office;
    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (so help me God is added at the end as tradition)
    So true....you are right....although it would be unconstitutional for them to sign it, their interpretation may be rationalized it isn't...but regardless, it would go through the courts to ultimately come to that conclusion, taking possibly years to bring to an end. Hopefully, an injunction would prevent any implementation during the legal process.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Are we being trolled? UN joke ban? again? really?
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  12. #12
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang1952 View Post
    Well what you expect from a bunch of socialist in the BLACK HOUSE and the UN. It’ been coming for a long time now. The Lefties just might there way this time, if we on the RIGHT are not carful.
    Pardon me, good sir; but I'm what some would consider a "lefty", and I don't appreciate the thought process that only right-wing party members would own firearms, and oppose such a treaty; while Left-wing party members would welcome it, and shun firearms. In short, I take offense to your ignorant comment. Or am I the only 2A supporter, Firearm owning, Democrat OC'er on these boards? if So, then please ignore my post, and continue about with the willful grouping of peoples based on stereotypes. Yes, because that worked SO well with the Nazi's, and the Committee on Un-American Affairs.

    To prove my point further. Let the U.N. send troops to enforce a law. Assuming our military doesn't step in, I'm sure the roughly tens of millions of Americans who own firearms and are willing to defend that right, would be MORE than happy to give them a headache in doing so. But of course, nothing helps a headache like a 180grain aspirin. ;-)
    Last edited by DrakeZ07; 10-09-2011 at 08:03 AM.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    ... Or am I the only 2A supporter, Firearm owning, Democrat OC'er on these boards?)...
    Are you? I ask because there are many people, even Republicans, who claim such things yet when asked about details fail to hold up to their claims. So do you truly want all federal firearms laws repealed other than the interstate travel protection? So do you really want it to be possible to buy a Thompson sub-machinegun at a local hardware store or through mail order as one could before 34', with no federal involvement or taxes? Or for individuals to be able to make lightning links, machineguns, and whatever else they care to and sell such things without getting federal permission? If so then you might be the only one. Owning guns, using permission slips and hunting do not by themselves a 2A supporter make, as I hope you know.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

Posting Permissions

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