Anybody worried about the vote on the UN gun ban? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Anybody worried about the vote on the UN gun ban?


RMTactical
07-26-2012, 12:31
Seems unlikely... but what if?

NecoDude
07-26-2012, 13:06
A little worried given recent events in Colorado. But you can bet that if Obama signs anything in support of this his re-election is impossible. We belong and spend billions of dollars to the UN but that does not mean we should be bound by any ridiculous resolution such as the "Arms Treaty".

My opinion is we get out of the UN but continue to aid countries on our own terms. It will never happen as liberals rule the world.

DoctaGlockta
07-26-2012, 13:18
My bet is he will sign it.

FatBoy
07-26-2012, 13:40
No not worried at all.

There are at least 51(only need 35) in the Senate(as reported on FNC this AM) who would vote not to approve on 2A grounds. Even if they did approve it, who is going to come and disarm the population, the unarmed blue capped UN observers? Or maybe all the local LEOs that Mayor Bloomberg said should go on a national strike for their safety.

I wonder how many resolutions do you think the UN would pass against the USA if we didn't comply?

FB

AK_Stick
07-26-2012, 13:51
Seems unlikely... but what if?




not unlikely, impossible.

cowboy1964
07-26-2012, 14:16
Not worried. Everyone should be MUCH more worried about the real $200,000 debt per taxpayer than some gun control bogey man.

It's not a "ban" anyway.

racerford
07-26-2012, 14:16
I am a bit more concerned after more reading. Not that we will sign it and it will get ratified, by the US. Rather that it will become de facto international law if the UN passes it, and after 2/3rds of the UN member countries ratify it. It could then be used against the US and its military allies.

And as currently drafted could be amended with a 2/3rds vote of those voting at some special session (no quorum required, and no security counsel veto power).

cowboy1964
07-26-2012, 14:20
I am a bit more concerned after more reading. Not that we will sign it and it will get ratified, by the US. Rather that it will be come defacto international law if the UN passes it, and after 2/3rds of the UN memeber countries ratify it. It could then be used against the US and its military allies.

All the foreign gun makers would have to do is start making their guns in the U.S. Maybe this is actually a plot by Ruger and S&W to corner the U.S. market?

AK_Stick
07-26-2012, 14:21
I am a bit more concerned after more reading. Not that we will sign it and it will get ratified, by the US. Rather that it will be come defacto international law if the UN passes it, and after 2/3rds of the UN memeber countries ratify it. It could then be used against the US and its military allies.



We are not bound by UN law or treaty. We could be the only UN nation not to accept it, and it would have no enforcement here in America.

racerford
07-26-2012, 14:28
We are not bound by UN law or treaty. We could be the only UN nation not to accept it, and it would have no enforcement here in America.

You are right, but it could cause shipments to be stopped to us and some of our allies, like Israel and Japan.

While it may not directly apply in the US, that does not say it will not affect us indirectly.

We do it all the time. Our anti-bribing laws affect other countries. Our laws against doing business with certain states and the compaines that support them. We have many laws that affect business in other countries.

eracer
07-26-2012, 14:32
Even if they did approve it, who is going to come and disarm the population, the unarmed blue capped UN observers?If this treaty is ratified, it can subvert State's Rights and force registration of all privately-owned firearms.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives this treaty the weight of law equal to any thing in the Constitution.

"The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts." - United States Senate.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

AK_Stick
07-26-2012, 14:37
You are right, but it could cause shipments to be stopped to us and some of our allies, like Israel and Japan.

While it may not directly apply in the US, that does not say it will not affect us indirectly.

We do it all the time. Our anti-bribing laws affect other countries. Our laws against doing business with certain states and the compaines that support them. We have many laws that affect business in other countries.



Not going to happen.


You might as well worry that the moon is made of cheese and one of these days I'm going to drink a couple boxes of wine and eat the whole thing.

FireForged
07-26-2012, 19:25
UN gun ban.... hahahah! Plenty of stuff can effect our ability to own firearms but the UN wont be one of them.

racerford
07-26-2012, 20:56
If this treaty is ratified, it can subvert State's Rights and force registration of all privately-owned firearms.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives this treaty the weight of law equal to any thing in the Constitution.

"The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts." - United States Senate.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

You misread the clause. The US constitution, federal laws, and federal treaties, have supremacy over sate constitutions, and state laws.

Theoretically our rights cannot be taken away by treaties because our rights are not granted by the constitution or our government, but protected by them.

humanguerrilla
07-26-2012, 22:16
Yes, I'm very worried. Not worried about a ratification vote now, but these things hang over us.

The constitution isn't trumped by treaty but it can definitely be trumped at the supreme court. The current court has left room for "reasonable regulation" of the 2nd amendment. We know today "shall not be infringed" is not "shall not be infringed". This hasn't been fleshed out much yet with cases. The court also has and continues to use international law.
With the way we are losing the conversation in the media, allowing everyone to misrepresent our firearms, the law, and our positions, I see much more precedent in the other direction really moving the scales against what the 2nd is.

Also antis will use whatever treaty we get to push what they can to "live up to our obligations". These will be the standards and they will make them look more "metropolitan", "civil", and "responsible". Every shooting that captures the media and it we will pounded even harder with "why crazy, backwards americans can't do this or that".

Still not looking all that great that they'll have something to sign this go 'round.
http://armstradetreaty.blogspot.com/

TangoFoxtrot
07-27-2012, 04:05
Not worried. Everyone should be MUCH more worried about the real $200,000 debt per taxpayer than some gun control bogey man.

It's not a "ban" anyway.

I agree! People get to spinned up about all their guns being taken away! ..Never happen. There would be a civil war first.

pmwglock19
07-27-2012, 07:54
Gee, if the UN fines the USA, we can pay it out of all the funding we do to the UN. I wonder what the UN will do when the USA doesn't give them anymore money. Will Iraq , Iran or USSR pick up the payouts when we stop?

Bring_it!
07-27-2012, 09:06
UN = bright blue helmet/beret wearing guys riding around in white vehicles, that don't do squat (Rwanda, Kosovo, Somalia to name a few).
I’m not too worried.:whistling:

tdreis45
07-27-2012, 11:08
Obama doesn't need to sign anything for this to happen. They are counting on him not signing...

Hillary's End Run on Gun Control! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT! - YouTube

AK_Stick
07-27-2012, 12:12
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Dick Morris needs a brush up on facts.

Foxtrotx1
07-27-2012, 12:40
If people keep focusing on this treaty so much the dems may actually slip some real gun control through.

kirgi08
07-27-2012, 13:40
We'll get plenty of warning.'08.

TangoFoxtrot
07-28-2012, 05:29
Gee, if the UN fines the USA, we can pay it out of all the funding we do to the UN. I wonder what the UN will do when the USA doesn't give them anymore money. Will Iraq , Iran or USSR pick up the payouts when we stop?

The answer to your question is HELL NO! The Useless Nations should be relocated North Korea. :steamed:

Bren
07-28-2012, 06:26
You misread the clause. The US constitution, federal laws, and federal treaties, have supremacy over sate constitutions, and state laws.

Theoretically our rights cannot be taken away by treaties because our rights are not granted by the constitution or our government, but protected by them.

Actually, our rights cannot be taken away by treaties because the constitution is the supreme law of the land and a treaty can't diminish a constitutional right, nor do the people making the treaty have that power.

However, that "god-given rights" theory is nice as a "feel-good" ideal, but the reality is that our rights are given by the constitution and those who back it up with the force to preserve them - ONLY. Your rights come from people with guns, not supernatural beings or theories or nature.

racerford
07-28-2012, 10:24
Actually, our rights cannot be taken away by treaties because the constitution is the supreme law of the land and a treaty can't diminish a constitutional right, nor do the people making the treaty have that power.

However, that "god-given rights" theory is nice as a "feel-good" ideal, but the reality is that our rights are given by the constitution and those who back it up with the force to preserve them - ONLY. Your rights come from people with guns, not supernatural beings or theories or nature.

Well, while not the US Constitution; The Declaration of Independence gives an idea of how the founding fathers felt about it, nonparticipating view not withstanding. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The US Constitution enumerates the powers of the government. The ninth and tenth amendments say we have rights that are not declared but we still have them.

As I stated our rights are not granted by the constitution, Some are enumerated, some not, but the purpose is to protect all of our rights which pre-existed the Constitution.

Of course that protection includes people with arms and not, including the now standing military, militia, police forces, the courts, the president, the legislature, and ultimately the people that the preceding serve, at our leisure. If any part of the government doesn't understand that, see the Declaration of Independence and what happened to the last government that didn't believe it.

Bren
07-28-2012, 14:10
Well, while not the US Constitution; The Declaration of Independence gives an idea of how the founding fathers felt about it, nonparticipating view not withstanding. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The US Constitution enumerates the powers of the government. The ninth and tenth amendments say we have rights that are not declared but we still have them.

As I stated our rights are not granted by the constitution, Some are enumerated, some not, but the purpose is to protect all of our rights which pre-existed the Constitution.

That's great - nice feel-good stuff. Ever see anybody get or keep those rights other than by force? Not yet in human history. The Unied States is created by the constitution like a corporation is created by the articles of incorporation. It's nice to say, "you already ad these rights" but the reality is that the force that grants and maintains the rights came into being with the constitution. While you may have had the same rights the day before, they ended and started again, granted by a new source of paower, the day the United States became an independant country. The rest sound nice in a philosophy book, but a philosophy book never got anybody out of a concentration camp or a gulag or a mass grave.

FatBoy
07-28-2012, 18:10
If this treaty is ratified, it can subvert State's Rights and force registration of all privately-owned firearms.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives this treaty the weight of law equal to any thing in the Constitution.

"The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts." - United States Senate.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


OK, even if you are correct in your interpretation, so who is going to come collect the guns? The Local LEOs, Big Green, Alphabet soup guys, or the Blue hats? Or do you just think everyone will just line up at the local PD and hand them over?

I happen to disagree w/ your interpretation. Do you think they could sign a treaty to force people to be Buddhists, have State controlled media, or remove the right to vote for women? The easy answer is no.

UneasyRider
07-28-2012, 20:15
I agree! People get to spinned up about all their guns being taken away! ..Never happen. There would be a civil war first.

A civil war today would only require one state with a military base in it that has nukes and a commanding officer and staff who would go along with a willing state government. The MAD of it would prevent anyone from taking it farther, like it or not.

emt1581
07-28-2012, 21:46
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=FyfkQkchlu4

This mainly focuses on Katrina but it references the what-happens (not what-ifs) when such things are enforced. Go to 15:23 for a VERY interesting perspective. The only thing most here can come up with is "don't be there". But then there are those that say "way too many gun owners to enforce"....really??

I mean what IS the real answer (read: solution) here?

Am I worried? Yup. Not so much that blue helmets will be here. I think it'll be domestic forces that carry it out. But I'm really worried that Obama didn't say no. He just said he needed more time to consider it. Notice I didn't say I was surprised...

-Emt1581

Sierra9
07-28-2012, 22:43
I am more worried because there are people in this country so susceptible to this propaganda that THEY are worried.

AK_Stick
07-29-2012, 03:50
A civil war today would only require one state with a military base in it that has nukes and a commanding officer and staff who would go along with a willing state government. The MAD of it would prevent anyone from taking it farther, like it or not.



Not really.


There are safeguards in place, for just such event. It also has alot to do with how people in those roles are selected/screened.


We also have the ability to negate said nuclear weapon.



Oh, you've got 4 nuke silos.


Damn, looks like our B-2's just dropped bunker penetrating ordnance through the door and disabled all your cards....... Prepare to be tried, and killed for treason.




Not to mention how silly it is to suggest a .mil contingent breaking away from the .mil to work with a rogue state.

TangoFoxtrot
07-29-2012, 04:15
The media doesn't help with all the spin they have put on it. Look how CNN is over doing it with the Colorado shooter. They are giving that nut case to much lime light.

kirgi08
07-29-2012, 07:25
Not really.


There are safeguards in place, for just such event. It also has alot to do with how people in those roles are selected/screened.


We also have the ability to negate said nuclear weapon.



Oh, you've got 4 nuke silos.


Damn, looks like our B-2's just dropped bunker penetrating ordnance through the door and disabled all your cards....... Prepare to be tried, and killed for treason.




Not to mention how silly it is to suggest a .mil contingent breaking away from the .mil to work with a rogue state.


No,what's silly is ta ignore the possibility that .gub could actually become so brutal that these steps maybe needed.I don't condone it,it but most folk would frown on the type of scenario that would make this plausible.'08.

AK_Stick
07-29-2012, 15:15
No,what's silly is ta ignore the possibility that .gub could actually become so brutal that these steps maybe needed.I don't condone it,it but most folk would frown on the type of scenario that would make this plausible.'08.


Probably because most folks realize its about as likely as me becoming the pope.

FatBoy
07-29-2012, 16:25
Well I guess we can all have a collective sigh of relief. From a GOA email blast I received...

The pro-gun community breathed a collective sigh of relief after United Nations negotiators failed to produce a treaty regulating global arms trade on Friday.

“There is no consensus and the meeting is over,” said a spokesman for the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, which sponsored the month-long conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

We will have to wait until next year to yell: The Blue hats are coming, the Blue hats are coming.:rofl:

FB