United Nations Launches First Small Arms Control “Standards” While you were distracted....

So if this international then they have some major work to do in Afghanistan, doesn't everyone own an AK-47 over there?

reply to post by Consequence


The point of all those ideas is to find ways to harass gun and ammo manufacturers and make owning a weapon expensive as hell.

Nothing needs to change in our gun laws. NOTHING. Its working just fine as it is.

The UN can shove it and if you don't like me owning a gun that no one can track then you can shove it too.

My Rights. My Guns. Period!

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by jeantherapy

 

When the Chinese come to claim their property they won't have the former homeowners firing on them.

I dont see the citizens firing on the banks so why would they fire on the Chinese. Estimated a million children now homeless in the US and still the people do nothing...

Because some anonymous wall street suit aided by" the govt.""legally" absorbing your 401k is different than some agressive foreign thug with a face in a uniform banging on your door.
edited: "nm..."

Even if this were to come into effect, wouldn't arms dealing just go underground? If people want something, they'll find a way to obtain it.

As far as soldiers kicking in citizens doors like during katrina very different circumstances. Soldiers are going to have to decide to uphold their oath to protect the CONSTITUTION or be traitors there is no middle ground. They are working outside of their authority when conducting military operations inside the USA and they will only get to kill people once after the first citizens are killed they will start taking small arms fire from the MILLIONS of patriots with scoped long rifles everywhere they go from that point forward. Ask the British how that works out.

reply to post by jibeho


The UN cant write laws for the US.

They also cannot create a treaty that would strip rights of US citizens. The UN cannot confer new authority to the US government thats not already specified in the constitution.

Any type of treaty / agreement / etc the US signs onto (either by the UN or bilateral treaty) becomes a part of the US Federal body of law, making it subservient to the US Constitution. This allows the treaty / agreement to be challeneged by US citizens, it allows for Congress to be able to make changes to the treaty vis our domestic process and it allows the court system to review3 and issue rulings on the treaty / agreement.

Just because a "law" is passed and the US signs onto it doesnt make the law valid in this country. If one of our idiot ass leaders does go down this road then they are going to be needing people to enforce it because I wont be.

For those wishing to do research on this start with the Constitution. The first court case dealing with foreign treaties and their effect inside the US stems from the Head Money case, which made those treaties subservient to the Constitution / part of the federal body of law.

The UN has always been one of those organizations which was loaded down with bias from the time it was created. It could have actually been something which might have helped human society evolve. When the UN was created it took on all the baggage of the League of Nations; which was a huge mistake in my mind. The UN has always been attempting to balance conflicting interest instead of working to bring unity to humanity.

With that said...The Small Arms Treaty is yet another example of the UN attempting to balance conflicting interest. Almost every nation has different laws concerning citizens bearing private arms due to the history of each nation. It becomes very difficult to find common ground in such a situation. Many nations don`t want other nation`s citizens armed for just about as many reason as one can think of. There is also the issue of huge international arms dealers who make a outrageous amount of money selling arms to anyone who is willing to fork over the cash. The right to bear arms and the business of selling arms conflict with each other and make the situation twice as complex.

Sometimes it depends on which country some of the arms dealers base themselves out of. Some of the nations which have huge arms dealers based on their homeland have to be careful about pushing for gun control on a international level due to all the money and influence involved. As we all know, the 21st so-called global economy is not balanced and regional markets are exploited on a regular basis. Just think what would happen if too many African nations started banning private gun ownership. You would see twice as many African governments overthrown as we do now. Arms dealers make a ton of money in Africa. In fact, in areas of the world in the politics and social order is highly unstable, small arms sells are the bread and butter of arms dealers.

I think a solution to the issue of bearing of arms by citizens, or military for that matter, is for regional bloc groups to be formed to discuss the issues and decide what is best for their own nations as well as their region in the world. Human society is still very fractured and solidarity is hard to come by. It would be a massive effort involving sub-blocs within the regional blocs as well as including non-aligned and rebels group within each region to even start to come of an agreement on weapon ownership and weapon sales.

At this point, it is important to keep a close eye the UN Small Arms Treaty but it is no where close to becoming a major threat to private gun ownership in the United States. It may be a good idea to see how the major arms dealers based in the US change their market tactics and selling habits over the next few years to get a better understand of the direction the treaty is taking.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Great Information!! Sadly it is all meaningless to an administration that his hell bent on walking all over the constitution. I'm convinced that the only reason Obama "studied" the constitution was to learn how to circumvent it and to learn which aspects of it he abhors.

We've never had the UN so involved in US domestic matters than we have had with this President.

Remember this?

The controversy over requiring voters to provide photo IDs has reached the world stage.

The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.

Officials from the NAACP are presenting their case against U.S. voter ID laws, arguing to the international diplomats that the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Obama reported AZ gov. Brewer to the UN Council regarding AZ's immigration laws in 2010.

You make a great point though. A point supported by this

Since treaties are compacts between/among " the powers of the earth" of "separate and equal station" as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties may not be consummated with other than sovereign nations.

Consequently, for at least these two reasons --- 1) because the U.S. Senate in 1945 ratified the United Nations (UN) Charter as a treaty and the UN is not a sovereign nation, and 2) because membership in the UN makes the U.S. inferior to the UN --- U.S. "membership" in the United Nations is unconstitutional, FORBIDDEN, and thus declared null and void. Ditto for the World Court and the nebulous entanglements of the New World Order.

Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)

In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end. Some even boast of having made an end run around the Constitution.

At its conception and inception, America was founded as a Constitutional Republic under the Rule of Law. In a Republic, law prevails until changed as per a stipulated process, even if a majority of, or 150 percent of the Congress, or 200 percent of the people vote otherwise. (Don't giggle: LBJ was "elected" to Congress with 110 percent of all of the issued ballots in his Texas district "cast" for him!)

But, the U.S. has been traitorously transformed into a socialist (tyrannic) democracy by and of lawless men. Thus, the stipulations and safeguards of the Constitution have been repeatedly circumvented, eroded, and nullified by majority rule.

All irrelevant to an administration who disregards the constitution.
www.jpands.org...

If our UN friendly President "wins" a second term he will be very dangerous for our nation given his present attachment to the UN!!!!

reply to post by freedomwv


I hope your are right! and it will be interesting to watch how the arms manufacturers proceed in anticipation of upcoming events.

Thanks for your thoughtful response!!

I laugh at this latest UN endeavor.

Outlaw them completely. Guns are made with files, hacksaws and hand drills by Pakistani tribesmen. They could be made in a garage or basement with just as simple tools by people in any other country.

I could travel less than a mile from where I am this moment and buy heroin, which has been illegal for many years... and the poppies grow in Afghanistan. Are you trying to tell me that the criminal elements everywhere wouldn't be able to get unmarked weapons?

reply to post by jibeho


We do not officially recognize international law. So, i dont know how this would affect us.

Also, this would have to pass congress. Which i can pretty much gurantee you, it wont.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by jibeho

 

We do not officially recognize international law. So, i dont know how this would affect us.

Also, this would have to pass congress. Which i can pretty much gurantee you, it wont.

Why is that, because the Congress has your best interests in mind at all times?

reply to post by jeantherapy


I would hope so, we elect them.

2nd.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by jeantherapy

 

I would hope so, we elect them.

2nd.

Hope isn't enough.

They passed Obamacare, and IMO, that wasn't in our best interest.

reply to post by butcherguy


It isn't in our best interest. However, the democrats had the majority and it wasn't bipartisan. America is basically 50/50 on Obama care it seems from the polls lately.

I do not agree with Obama Care, i do agree with Insurance reform. On a massive scale. They ignored the real issue for the 250 Million Americans who have health insurance and went to the 40 million or so without. I do not want our Government running anything other than what it has too.

The American government is not very efficient.

---

Congress is more Bi-Partisan this time around, and i can pretty much guarantee no congressman wants any kind of NATO ruling, i hope their patriotism is still existent.

Originally posted by TSZodiac
Folks - this is already happening, President Obama has already signed on to this. I suggest that you go down to your local Gun Shop (not Wal Mart or the big box stores), and ask how easy it is for the shop owner to get AMMUNITION. That shop owner will tell you that he isn't able to get 9mm ammunition - because ALL 9mm ammo production for the next 3 years has ALREADY been reserved for another buyer..... if that shop owner asks his supplier about other calibers he will be told that the same thing will be occurring shortly with 30-06 (7.62mm), .357, .45, and other higher caliber ammo. Since the administration understands that gun restrictions are extremely unpopular, they are attempting to make the point moot by restricting ammunition. BUY RELOADER KITS AND LEARN HOW TO USE THEM - SAVE ALL YOUR BRASS !

Don't know where you live amigo, but if you can't get ammo locally go to Luckygunner.com Bulk Ammo.
There is no shortage of ammo in Denver. It was however cheaper and more convenient to have UPS deliver 3000 rounds to my door. 1000 9MM 1000 .45 & 1000 5.56 .Just a thought. As most are aware, this is NOT a huge amount if one practices regularly. Cheers

Originally posted by phroziac
Time to buy more guns.

That's exactly what they want you to do. The gun industry is booming lately thanks to propaganda about the big bad government taking your precious weapons away from you which isn't going to happen.

Ever.

Good job on feeding an industry designed to exploit.

They will never take our guns... never....

next line...

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by jibeho

 

We do not officially recognize international law. So, i dont know how this would affect us.

Also, this would have to pass congress. Which i can pretty much gurantee you, it wont.

Or President Obama wins again and just creates another off the cuff executive order regulating ammunition( an end run around the constitution).Don't think it's not on the table.("YES WE CAN!")
And liberal people will support "bringing us into the"modern age" of state servitude" and the social utopia of a centrally planned tyranny

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by phroziac
Time to buy more guns.

That's exactly what they want you to do. The gun industry is booming lately thanks to propaganda about the big bad government taking your precious weapons away from you which isn't going to happen.

Ever.

Good job on feeding an industry designed to exploit.

GREAT! ECONOMIC GROWTH for some body here.!
gun manufacturers
advertising agencies
trucking/shipping services
Shooting clubs/ranges..
Perhaps a few less muggers and rapists in the system
..Win..win...