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.

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 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!!

Treaties mush be in pursuance to the Constitution.
A Law that violates the Constitution is void.
Marbury V. Madison (1803)

Butch00 said:

Treaties mush be in pursuance to the Constitution.
A Law that violates the Constitution is void.
Marbury V. Madison (1803)

Click to expand...

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.

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.

since9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

True. I agree.

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.

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

GLOCK21GB said:

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

Click to expand...

+1

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.

Butch00 said:

Treaties mush be in pursuance to the Constitution.
A Law that violates the Constitution is void.
Marbury V. Madison (1803)

Click to expand...

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.

SouthernBoy said:

No government official can enter into a treaty which is in violation to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Governments get away with illegal acts all the time.

Furthermore, they would be opening themselves up to charges of high crimes and treason.

Click to expand...

Government officials get away with high crime and treason on a fairly regular basis.

See my new signature.

since9 said:

SNIP See my new signature.

Click to expand...

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.