Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Survival/Preparedness Forum' started by RMTactical, Jul 26, 2012.
Seems unlikely... but what if?
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.
My bet is he will sign it.
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?
not unlikely, impossible.
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 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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
UN gun ban.... hahahah! Plenty of stuff can effect our ability to own firearms but the UN wont be one of them.
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.
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.
I agree! People get to spinned up about all their guns being taken away! ..Never happen. There would be a civil war first.
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?
UN = bright blue helmet/beret wearing guys riding around in white vehicles, that don't do squat (Rwanda, Kosovo, Somalia to name a few).
Im not too worried.
Obama doesn't need to sign anything for this to happen. They are counting on him not signing...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Qm-mShNSg&feature=plcp"]Hillary's End Run on Gun Control! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT! - YouTube[/ame]
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Dick Morris needs a brush up on facts.