United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 9:43:22 AM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO0k9SHljCc
As if attacks on the second amendment within the borders of the United States weren’t enough, we now have to defend the right to bear arms on a global level if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has her way. The U.S. has agreed to a timetable for the UN Gun Ban:
The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms. Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Former United Nation’s ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” Once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States. As an arch enemy of gun owners, Clinton has pledged to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.
While this so-called treaty still has a way to go, it is likely that most, if not all of the other 151 nations will approve this UN declaration. Most other countries, unlike ours, do not value this right of the individual to defend himself. This is an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and according to the Constitution itself, cannot be violated by domestic law, let alone an irrelevant international body. As a constitutional amendment, the very idea of the treaty should be immediately scrapped by our President and Congress:
The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“ The Constitution of the United States, Article VI: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Our Constitution was designed to specifically forbid this exact scenario from occurring. Any such action to mandate, through a global governing body, that the right to bear arms is illegal is nothing less than a treasonous act by any and all elected representatives who would vote to approve such a treaty. Regardless of what a particular elected official would like to happen, the Constitution forbids it. If the right to bear arms is to be taken away, it must be repealed by a constitutional amendment, not a vote in Congress that approves a foreign treaty. If the United Nations were to pass a declaration specifically forbidding any speech that is contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, how would Americans react if it were made into US law, and subsequently enforced in America? This is exactly the same idea as a foreign treaty that aims to ban firearms globally. Incidentally, the United Nations Declaration Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, section 3 does specifcally ban any rights and freedoms outlined within the declaration if they are “exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.Author: Mac Slavo
Date: February 5th, 2010
Visit the Author's Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/




kdsub -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 9:52:25 AM)

Realone read the bill itself instead of depending on a radical web site... I did.

I’ll provide a link if you like.

When you do you will see how wrong your post is.

Butch




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 9:52:28 AM)

Really. And just exactly how does this treaty ban the private ownership of firearms? Care to share an excerpt with us?

Or are you totally full of shit?




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 9:54:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Realone read the bill itself instead of depending on a radical web site... I did.

I’ll provide a link if you like.

When you do you will see how wrong your post is.


No he won't. He'll just laugh at you and claim that you can't possibly understand him because you're not as smart as he is.




Jeffff -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 10:08:11 AM)

The only real mistake here is in reading the post to begin with.

If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that.




DomKen -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 10:12:08 AM)

The conference isn't about to try and limit private ownership of firearms but to control the illegal gun trade. The name of the proposed treaty kind of gives it away.




tazzygirl -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 10:19:41 AM)

This first surfaced in 2009.

Q: Has Obama found a "legal way around the Second Amendment"?

A: The administration’s agreement to talk about writing a United Nations treaty to regulate arms exports and imports is a far cry from banning possession of firearms, which Obama says he doesn’t want to do and the Supreme Court has said can’t be done anyway.


A copy of the e-mail claiming such things is provided.

We’ve received many queries about this chain e-mail, which refers to a proposed United Nations treaty to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons.

Much of what this e-mail claims is simply false. A "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" isn’t possible under our Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which held just last year that:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 26 June 2008: (T)he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

Furthermore, if an arms trade treaty ever materializes, the administration won’t be able to "bypass" Congress, as the e-mail maintains. All international treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before they are considered ratified and in effect.

In addition, the idea that a treaty necessarily would make U.S. citizens "subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," as the e-mail claims, is wrong. Treaties don’t subject one nations’ citizens to the laws of other nations. They do commit governments to whatever actions a treaty specifies, such as ceasing to test nuclear weapons, in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (a treaty signed by the U.S., but never ratified by Congress).

As for this particular treaty: First of all, it doesn’t yet exist. What is true is that the Obama administration, reversing the line taken by the Bush White House, has voted to support a process that could, in 2012 at the earliest, result in a treaty.

........

For more, here is the link

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/




Termyn8or -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 10:53:29 AM)

I've read of three cases in which US citizens were extradited to foreign countries after not breaking any US law. The one I can easily prove is that of Ernst Zundel. You might not like him or his ideology, but that wasn't a reason for criminal action in this country last I checked.

I believe though that Zundel was a dual citizen, but even at that when in US obey US law, when in Germany obey German law. Makes sense right ? If I go to Amsterdam and smoke pot, should the US be able to prosecute me ? Where does jurisdiction end ? These lines are being blurred, and while some responses to such things are alarmist, the threat is real. It's just not as imminent as some think.

And there's always the old axiom, which seems quite true - Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. While I am not watching for pieces of the sky, someone has to keep an eye on these suits, whose goals are not in line with the well being or the spirit of freedom of this country.

T^T




tazzygirl -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 10:55:01 AM)

No one is saying the possibility doesnt exist. But for it to be a hidden agenda would be impossible for the reasons listed above.




DCWoody -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 10:58:07 AM)

It is, IMO, entirely reasonable for mods to ban people on the grounds of stupidity.




jlf1961 -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 11:16:01 AM)

If realone ever posted something based on reality, I would consider it a miracle.

DCWoody, you cant ban someone for stupidity, since stupidity is in the eye of the reader. I do agree this particular post of his is stupid (as is everything he posts.)

Rule is the one that claims to be a super genius, ThatDamnedPanda, not realone. In point of fact, they are both intellectually challenged and have a very nonexistent grasp of reality.




FullCircle -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 11:25:07 AM)

I think this treaty is an attempt to link Gun Ownership with carbon trading, apparently (from what I hear) those without guns will get a significant carbon discount.






DomKen -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 11:35:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

I've read of three cases in which US citizens were extradited to foreign countries after not breaking any US law. The one I can easily prove is that of Ernst Zundel. You might not like him or his ideology, but that wasn't a reason for criminal action in this country last I checked.

That's a flat out lie.

Zundel was never a US citizen and was arrested quite legally in the US for overstaying his visa, IOW illegal immigration. He was deported back to the country he was last a legal resident of, Canada, who happened to want to extradite him back to Germany, the only country he is a citizen of, for crimes he commited there.




pahunkboy -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 11:36:58 AM)

Montana is leaving the UN.  I think PA should too. 




FullCircle -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 11:38:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
Montana is leaving the UN.  I think PA should too. 

Is it leaving the UN to join the US?

Damn traitors!




DomKen -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 11:38:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Montana is leaving the UN.  I think PA should too. 

They can't unless they can convince the federal government to do so. The Constitution gives the absolute right to enter into binding treaties to the federal government.




DarkSteven -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 11:44:49 AM)

Oh God.

International law in no way overrides individual nations' laws.  The SCOTUS interprets US laws, not those of other countries.

I believe that international law governs nations, not individuals within them.




pahunkboy -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 11:44:58 AM)

I would not be so smug on all that.

Many do not like the UN.  They stand for world government.




Lucylastic -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 11:53:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

It is, IMO, entirely reasonable for mods to ban people on the grounds of stupidity.

Not according to the mods
Dumb isnt a bannable offense, so stsupid sure isnt
I asked!!!
[&o]




jlf1961 -> RE: United States to Pursue UN Global Gun Ban (2/13/2011 11:57:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

I would not be so smug on all that.

Many do not like the UN.  They stand for world government.




The UN does not stand for a world government, countries disregard UN resolutions all the time.

Get back on your meds or check into a institution on the grounds of raging paranoia.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875