Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Right to Shoot Tyrants, Not Deer


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 04-December 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 194
  • Reputation: 44
HUDDLER

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:36 AM

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.

#42 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:44 AM

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.

#43 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:50 AM

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.

#44 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 04-December 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 194
  • Reputation: 44
HUDDLER

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:08 AM

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.

#45 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • Joined: 22-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,867
  • Reputation: 370
  • Locationnorth carolina
HUDDLER

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:15 AM

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.

#46 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:59 AM

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)

#47 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,926
  • Reputation: 1,459
HUDDLER

Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:08 PM

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.

#48 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • Joined: 27-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,981
  • Reputation: 192
HUDDLER

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:26 PM

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.

#49 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,926
  • Reputation: 18,355
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:24 AM

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.


when all this popped up a few months ago or whenever it was i did hours of research digging up every article i could find on the alleged UN gun ban, because my facebook was exploding with every manner of outrage and indignance and i wanted to see if there was anything to it. all i could find was that international arms sales would be regulated by way of registries, with domestic sales never addressed.

i tried to be incredulous but then i realized the people on my facebook posting this stuff are literally (LITERALLY literally) convinced that obama is communist hitler bent on the destruction of the free world. the contortions people put themselves through to validate massive confirmation biases are truly fascinating.

#50 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,043
  • Reputation: 239
  • LocationFlorida
HUDDLER

Posted 19 January 2013 - 01:27 AM

A buddy of mine in the military was telling me that nobody wants to confront present day Americans on the ground because there are 1 1/2 guns per citizen as it stands now. The Canadians and now Russians are calling for us to not give up our guns.

Like I've said I don't own one but I sure as heck don't want anybody to give up theirs.


Very true.

From what I understand, China is one of the biggest supporters of America banning firearms.

Gee, I wonder why 1.2 billion of America's enemies would like to see us disarmed...





The quote by a Japanese general during WW2 is one of the most important reasons why we should never allow our firearms to be taken away. - "It would be impossible to invade America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

The US starts a war on average about every 2 years. We have killed millions of people since WW2, and we have lots of enemies who would love to see us disarmed.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users