UN Gun Control Treaty

[gringo pistolero]

Any politician voting to ratify a treaty that opposes the constitution proves they're no friend of the constitution.

Any government employee acting to enforce treaties or laws that that oppose the constitution proves they're no friend of the constitution.

It doesn't matter if they're foreign or domestic.

[chasfm11]

Any politician voting to ratify a treaty that opposes the constitution proves they're no friend of the constitution.

Any government employee acting to enforce treaties or laws that that oppose the constitution proves they're no friend of the constitution.

It doesn't matter if they're foreign or domestic.

I believe that "no friend of the Constitution" is a fitting descriptor for too many of our elected officials and many more of the unelected bureaucrats. The prevailing logic seems to be that "getting something done" takes precedence of any thing that is in the Constitution.

The amazing part to me is that several of them stood in front of microphones and said that they were just carrying out the will of the people and that "everybody" wanted them to do what they are doing. That sort of flies in the fact of the reaction that Congresspeople got when they were still bothering to hold town meetings and the audience got in their faces about the spending, the debt and the failure to observe the Constitutional boundaries. I just assumed that the people at those meetings didn't know their own will.

I'm making a habit out of writing e-mails and personally calling the offices of my Federal and State representatives on a variety of subjects. None of them will be able to talk about "everybody" now with issues like the UN treaty.

I have a reasonable feeling about Senator Cornyn on this issue. I'm not so sure about KBH, considering her lame duck Status. I have to admit being queasy when almost anything comes to a vote in the Senate. Too many of the members are no friend to anyone but themselves and those who are "contributing" to them.

[chasfm11]

Another fellow paranoid

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... in-arms/3/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FORBES online
by Larry Bell Op/Ed 6/07/2011 @ 2:04PM

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

I haven't seen any news about the conference yet. We can hope that it won't be a Bilderberg clone and be done in secret.

[Kythas]

I just sent the following email to both Sen Cornyn and Sen Hutchison:

Sen. _________, I would like to strongly encourage you to vote against the UN Small Arms Treaty if it ever comes to the Senate for ratification.

This Treaty would be in direct violation of our Second and Fourth Amendment rights. As a US Senator who is sworn to uphold our Constitution, you have an obligation under your oath of office to vote against ratification of this Treaty.

Thank you,
____________

[74novaman]

Iran has been chosen as a member of the “bureau” overseeing a month-long United Nations conference in New York aimed at finalizing a controversial global “arms trade treaty.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-na ... off-police


Yes, a police state that we know have been providing arms to terrorist groups and the insurgency against US troops in Iraq seems like a solid choice to talk about arms control.

[Dave2]

Iran has been chosen as a member of the “bureau” overseeing a month-long United Nations conference in New York aimed at finalizing a controversial global “arms trade treaty.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-na ... off-police


Yes, a police state that we know have been providing arms to terrorist groups and the insurgency against US troops in Iraq seems like a solid choice to talk about arms control.

Now, now, if we didn't have the rotating schedule, someone might deservedly get their feelings hurt.

[Heartland Patriot]

Iran has been chosen as a member of the “bureau” overseeing a month-long United Nations conference in New York aimed at finalizing a controversial global “arms trade treaty.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-na ... off-police


Yes, a police state that we know have been providing arms to terrorist groups and the insurgency against US troops in Iraq seems like a solid choice to talk about arms control.

Now, now, if we didn't have the rotating schedule, someone might deservedly get their feelings hurt.

I WANT their "feelings" hurt...that way, there is no guesswork that we don't like their troublemaking, repressive government.

[VMI77]

The proposed treaty would regulate the sale of weapons to nations in crisis both militarily and in terms of human rights. The UN concern is that every minute, someone in these various countries, largely Africa and the Middle East, dies from violent combative gun fire. The goal is to prevent the sale to and distribution of weapons to those nations. Unless you are in the business of selling AK's to Somalia, you probably don't have much to worry about here.

It is strange to me that the UN's "good intentions" seem to get applied to the US far more often than to the places where they really might have an impact. For example,
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29 ... ns-rights/ (sorry about the Fox News link but they seem to be the only ones reporting this.)
Yep, when I think of Iran, I think of the paragon of women's rights, a shining example for other countries to emulate.

The UN has accused the US of voter fraud (and I can agree with them in some cities like Chicago and NY) but somehow Iran and Russian don't even get honorable mention in this category. Why? Does the US truly disenfranchise its voters more than Tehran?

I have no respect at all of the UN or any of its "elected" officials. When it comes to the worst places on the planet for mass murder, somehow, like Somilia, they turn a blind eye to the problem while all of the voices are clamoring for US intervention. Bosnia was another horribly managed mass murder situation from a UN perspective. Where is the UN outrage about Mexico? Oh, that's right - it is all the US's fault that the drug cartels are heavily armed and slaughtering 10s of thousands of civilians.

The US should tell the UN to read Matthew 7:5. That said, however, there are enough anti-gun Elites in the US, some in positions of power, who would like nothing better than to use a UN treaty as a means to their end. It is a sad commentary on our Federal government when I, as a citizen, have to worry about the clandestine implementation of a UN gun treaty. And I am worried. Since no one would tolerate the implementation of much of what is happening at the Federal level if it were exposed to the light of day, far too much is being done by stealth, backdoor means. Our Legislative branch seems more than willing to cede extraordinary powers to the Executive branch. I fully understand the treaty ratification process but I thought I understood the taxation powers, too. Boy was I wrong.

I remember the old bumper stickers: US out of UN; UN out of US --and I still support the sentiment.

[VMI77]

2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

[Heartland Patriot]

2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

VMI, there was a case in the UK some while ago where a group of three (IIRC) thugs were taken to court by a man's mother on his behalf, because he was a little too (permanently) messed up to do it for himself. They beat him pretty much senseless IN HIS OWN APARTMENT. However, he tried to fend them off for a few minutes, with his bare hands...and because he did that, the judge wouldn't allow the case to proceed because of it. So, you either have to simply take it, or simply take it; if you lose, you lose...and if you win, you lose because the "justice" system will convict YOU of injuring the others if you defend yourself successfully. I will ask the question again: why is it always okay to START trouble, but never okay to end it? Can any of our legal minds please answer this question for me, in a manner that a mere layman and mechanic can understand? Because otherwise, all I smell is a collectivist rat carcass by the name of Marx stinking the place up...

[74novaman]

So, you either have to simply take it, or simply take it; if you lose, you lose...and if you win, you lose because the "justice" system will convict YOU of injuring the others if you defend yourself successfully.

There have been documented cases in Britain of homeowners/residents going to jail for hitting criminals breaking into their home.

The laws over there are absolutely insane.

[C-dub]

Anyone see this today?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/10 ... s-to-iran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A little more than a week after accusing Iran of supplying arms for Syria's bloody crackdown on democracy-minded rebels, the UN has given Tehran a key seat at negotiations for a global arms treaty.

It actually makes feel a bit more secure that this is never going to happen here in the USA.

[Dave2]

Anyone see this today?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/10 ... s-to-iran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A little more than a week after accusing Iran of supplying arms for Syria's bloody crackdown on democracy-minded rebels, the UN has given Tehran a key seat at negotiations for a global arms treaty.

Last night, my roommate and I had the following verbal exchange (or something very very close to this):
Me: "Hey, guess who's been put in change of negotiations for the UN arms treaty."
Roommy: "Well, if it was a sane choice, we wouldn't be discussing this... Iran would probably be the worst possible choice, and since they're so obviously the wrong choice, yeah, I'm going with the Iranians."

It actually makes feel a bit more secure that this is never going to happen here in the USA.

You say that like you think the gun-grabers won't try if Obama wins again.

[C-dub]

Anyone see this today?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/10 ... s-to-iran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A little more than a week after accusing Iran of supplying arms for Syria's bloody crackdown on democracy-minded rebels, the UN has given Tehran a key seat at negotiations for a global arms treaty.

Last night, my roommate and I had the following verbal exchange (or something very very close to this):
Me: "Hey, guess who's been put in change of negotiations for the UN arms treaty."
Roommy: "Well, if it was a sane choice, we wouldn't be discussing this... Iran would probably be the worst possible choice, and since they're so obviously the wrong choice, yeah, I'm going with the Iranians."

It actually makes feel a bit more secure that this is never going to happen here in the USA.

You say that like you think the gun-grabers won't try if Obama wins again.

Well, yeah, but who knows. We all thought that ObamaCare was unconstitutional until the Dread Pirate Roberts redefined what the definition of "is" is.

[chasfm11]

2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

VMI, there was a case in the UK some while ago where a group of three (IIRC) thugs were taken to court by a man's mother on his behalf, because he was a little too (permanently) messed up to do it for himself. They beat him pretty much senseless IN HIS OWN APARTMENT. However, he tried to fend them off for a few minutes, with his bare hands...and because he did that, the judge wouldn't allow the case to proceed because of it. So, you either have to simply take it, or simply take it; if you lose, you lose...and if you win, you lose because the "justice" system will convict YOU of injuring the others if you defend yourself successfully. I will ask the question again: why is it always okay to START trouble, but never okay to end it? Can any of our legal minds please answer this question for me, in a manner that a mere layman and mechanic can understand? Because otherwise, all I smell is a collectivist rat carcass by the name of Marx stinking the place up...

This is real easy to explain. The enemy of the statists is anyone who is willing to think for themselves. Someone willing to defend themselves IS thinking for themselves. Someone who does that is far more of a danger to the government than a petty thug and will be treated as such. Ever notice that tax evasion is punished more consistently and more harshly than many other crimes? Laws, especially in the UK are prosecuted according to the impact on the State, not individuals or the population.

Go through our States and look at similar situations. NJ, for example, is nearly as likely to punish you for defending yourself as the UK. You must retreat if attacked and you have to be able to demonstrate that you retreated. Then look at the crime rate in cities like Newark or Camden. They are right up there with the big boys - NYC, Chicago. Trust me, if you walked through Newark, your chances of being a victim of a crime are very high. But use a gun to defend yourself in Newark and wait until you see the jail sentence waiting for you. Heck, you'd get punished for for having it.