Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Right to Shoot Tyrants, Not Deer

54 posts in this topic

Posted

Not trying to say you are lying, I just can't find anything that suggest that there would be confiscation of any weapon or banning of ownership in the US of any weapon related to this treaty at all.

someone in the UN may have proposed that but it was never a serious proposal as far as I can tell.

It is a serious proposal and history would indicate that it would be very much like what happened in Canada. This is very serious and we need to take it very seriously since laws can be changed and treaties are binding and cannot be changed unless the UN agrees.

Their reasoning does nothing to protect the law abiding citizen. Traffickers and terrorists won't be the ones turning in their rifles. I can't help but think there is a hidden agenda here. That being said, I don't think it will pass, but what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Obama would NEVER sign a treaty taking guns from Americans, nor would the senate ever ratify it. I'm not worried about the UN taking American guns.

I really don't think you are correct about the details of this treaty at all - it sounds from everything that I am reading that it is basically making an international register of internationally traded arms, which seems like a very good idea to help cut down on illicit drug trafficking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It is a serious proposal and history would indicate that it would be very much like what happened in Canada. This is very serious and we need to take it very seriously since laws can be changed and treaties are binding and cannot be changed unless the UN agrees.

Their reasoning does nothing to protect the law abiding citizen. Traffickers and terrorists won't be the ones turning in their rifles. I can't help but think there is a hidden agenda here. That being said, I don't think it will pass, but what do I know?

you really don't understand how little our government gives a shiat about the UN do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have seen literally nothing in any reputable media source nor any UN documentation that could come even close to corroborating what you have posted about what the treaty would do, rippadonn. What I have read is that it would cause an international register of arms traded *internationally*.

In fact, the Obama administration has been quoted over and over and over on the treaty as saying it would have literally no impact on the domestic gun industry nor on gun ownership of citizens. At most, it would mean that a registry of international arms sales would be created.

and it hasn't been ratified, it hasnt' been signed, and it isn't even up to be talked about again until March...

That last line is funny because thats when the debt ceiling debate is supposed to be. Is gun control a method for diverting attentiona away from the real issue? Sure seems that way. I believe if they thought it was peacefully theisible they would confiscate every gun tomorrow. But thats not why we are all focused on this issue. it's the media leading the sheep to the watering hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Obama would NEVER sign a treaty taking guns from Americans, nor would the senate ever ratify it. I'm not worried about the UN taking American guns.

I really don't think you are correct about the details of this treaty at all - it sounds from everything that I am reading that it is basically making an international register of internationally traded arms, which seems like a very good idea to help cut down on illicit drug trafficking.

If I'm correct the big fear is the President can sign a treaty and the United States would be bound by the laws of said treaty until it is brought before the Senate for ratification, pass of fail. The only problem is with Harry Reid as leader in the Senate, it would never be brought to the floor for a vote, so we would be bound by the treaty for however long it would take to bring it to a vote. Also, the big deal with the treaty is this. The UN says it's to stop international arms dealing. That's cool and all, except they would require signatory nations to maintain a database of all firearms inside their borders to control the flow of guns outside the country. Lots of bills are seemingly harmless, but can pose a real danger if you look into them ( See Patriot Act). The last thing many of us want is the UN, let alone our own government, have an inventory of addresses and firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That last line is funny because thats when the debt ceiling debate is supposed to be. Is gun control a method for diverting attentiona away from the real issue? Sure seems that way. I believe if they thought it was peacefully theisible they would confiscate every gun tomorrow. But thats not why we are all focused on this issue. it's the media leading the sheep to the watering hole.

doubt it has anything to do with the debt ceiling stuff, since the conference on the UN arms treaty is march 18-28, but I'd heard we needed to have debt ceiling stuff resolved by late Feb/early March.

I don't think Obama would confiscate "every gun tomorrow" at all if he could, and I have seen absolutely nothing in his policy to suggest that. I suppose you can have that gut feeling if you want to, but nothing I've seen suggests he would take an action like that. He would undoubtedly enact much more sweeping reform if given the ability to but I'm not convinced that Obama would "take" anyone's guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If I'm correct the big fear is the President can sign a treaty and the United States would be bound by the laws of said treaty until it is brought before the Senate for ratification, pass of fail. The only problem is with Harry Reid as leader in the Senate, it would never be brought to the floor for a vote, so we would be bound by the treaty for however long it would take to bring it to a vote. Also, the big deal with the treaty is this. The UN says it's to stop international arms dealing. That's cool and all, except they would require signatory nations to maintain a database of all firearms inside their borders to control the flow of guns outside the country. Lots of bills are seemingly harmless, but can pose a real danger if you look into them ( See Patriot Act). The last thing many of us want is the UN, let alone our own government, have an inventory of addresses and firearms.

1st bolding: Perhaps one of our Constitutional scholars here could correct me, but my understand is that the only part of the treaty the United States would be bound to would be that we could not take actions that would invalidate the treaty for other nations, but that the President's actions would be EXTREMELY limited until it was ratified.

2nd bolding: Not what I've read in the least - only read that internationally traded arms are covered by this, so if an American buys a gun made internationally then yes they would be in the database, but if they buy a domestic gun they would not. I see no problem with this at all.

Finally, how was the Patriot Act at all seemingly harmless? It was terrifying from the very start... Do you mean a lot of people didn't realize how scary it was? Those people just didn't look into it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1st bolding: Perhaps one of our Constitutional scholars here could correct me, but my understand is that the only part of the treaty the United States would be bound to would be that we could not take actions that would invalidate the treaty for other nations, but that the President's actions would be EXTREMELY limited until it was ratified.

2nd bolding: Not what I've read in the least - only read that internationally traded arms are covered by this, so if an American buys a gun made internationally then yes they would be in the database, but if they buy a domestic gun they would not. I see no problem with this at all.

Finally, how was the Patriot Act at all seemingly harmless? It was terrifying from the very start... Do you mean a lot of people didn't realize how scary it was? Those people just didn't look into it at all.

In response to your second bolding. Sure, it only refers to guns crossing borders yada yada. How would a country monitor private transactions, to include international, unless they had a database to reference serial numbers/owners names/ etc. Thats what it all boils down to, is how they would have to act to make sure the treaty was enforced. And I think you misunderstood me on the PA. I meant it as everyone (that voted for it) pushed it through with good intentions and high and mighty language, when the nuts and bolts of the law were scary indeed if you stepped back and gave it a good hard look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

doubt it has anything to do with the debt ceiling stuff, since the conference on the UN arms treaty is march 18-28, but I'd heard we needed to have debt ceiling stuff resolved by late Feb/early March.

I don't think Obama would confiscate "every gun tomorrow" at all if he could, and I have seen absolutely nothing in his policy to suggest that. I suppose you can have that gut feeling if you want to, but nothing I've seen suggests he would take an action like that. He would undoubtedly enact much more sweeping reform if given the ability to but I'm not convinced that Obama would "take" anyone's guns.

I don't give obummer that much credit. him and all other pols should have to dress like nascar drivers. everytime they pick up a contributor they should have to add a patch so the rest of us can see who thier advertisers and sponsors are. Cause thats what they are and thats who I'm talking about. Its funny that people act like the pols still serve the people and run the gov. i agree with an earlier statement that our gov doesn't care about the UN. But their investors do and thats what matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In response to your second bolding. Sure, it only refers to guns crossing borders yada yada. How would a country monitor private transactions, to include international, unless they had a database to reference serial numbers/owners names/ etc. Thats what it all boils down to, is how they would have to act to make sure the treaty was enforced. And I think you misunderstood me on the PA. I meant it as everyone (that voted for it) pushed it through with good intentions and high and mighty language, when the nuts and bolts of the law were scary indeed if you stepped back and gave it a good hard look.

To enforce the treaty, they would need to create a database of guns traded internationally - if they did any more than that, they would be exceeding the requirements of the treaty as I have read.

As to the PA thing I understand now - but the Republicans in the Senate are unlikely to ratify any treaty from the UN, let alone one on gun control (see recent disabilities stuff, heh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If I'm correct the big fear is the President can sign a treaty and the United States would be bound by the laws of said treaty until it is brought before the Senate for ratification, pass of fail. The only problem is with Harry Reid as leader in the Senate, it would never be brought to the floor for a vote, so we would be bound by the treaty for however long it would take to bring it to a vote. Also, the big deal with the treaty is this. The UN says it's to stop international arms dealing. That's cool and all, except they would require signatory nations to maintain a database of all firearms inside their borders to control the flow of guns outside the country. Lots of bills are seemingly harmless, but can pose a real danger if you look into them ( See Patriot Act). The last thing many of us want is the UN, let alone our own government, have an inventory of addresses and firearms.

No treaty is valid until the Senate ratifies it by a 2/3 majority. The president, as chief of the executive branch can order the executive branch to follow some treaties, such as a treaty allowing inspection of nuclear weapons. He can't order the executive branch to impose elements of a treaty on the populace until the senate ratifies it. And even then, no treaty would supersede the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you really don't understand how little our government gives a shiat about the UN do you?

Let's wait for those executive orders coming down the pike before we discuss that. We'll see soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites