1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

UN GUN BAN. WHAT WILL YOU DO?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by Auctioneer, Dec 12, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Auctioneer

    Auctioneer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,965
    Can a treaty with the UN over ride OUR CONSTITUTION? If so do you think the UN is willing to come in the USA and try to disarm us? Will OUR military help US the people or help the UN? What will happen if they do?
     
  2. Joe Potosky

    Joe Potosky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,494
    Who would of thought the US would vote for Obama Care and the courts upheld....

    If the Senate ratified and the Supreme Court upheld, the courts would enforce international laws ratified by the Senate!

    All depends on the Supreme Court. Now leans a bit to the right, but with projected retirements will be a left leaning court and all bets are off, no matter what has been ruled on in the past!

    Elections have consequences...

    If you think about it. All the last supreme court ruling said is you have a right to have a gun in your home. Not that there could be no licensing or restrictions!

    An appellate court is trying to broaden that ruling, will have to wait and see how it plays out.

    After a few retirements, how will the court rule every time a new law is passed tightening the noose on your rights and objected too, UN treaty or not?


    ---------------------------------
    =================================


    Here's an example of a UN Treaty (Not ratified by the Senate) YET!

    The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and entered into force on May 3, 2008, after it received its 20th ratification. The Optional Protocol to the Convention went into force on the same day after it received its 10th ratification.

    The CRPD was signed by President Obama on July 30, 2009. Since it has been sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification by President Obama, the U.S. Senate could vote to ratify this treaty at any time.


    1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.


    2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.


    3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.


    4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.


    5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.


    6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.


    7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.


    Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.


    8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.


    9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.


    10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

    ---------------------------------

    Another one sitting around:

    Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

    A lot of left wing nut stuff is in it, but one that has to have most of us scratching are heads is the U.N. treaty would abolish Mother's Day.
     
  3. wayno

    wayno TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    310
    in a landscape populated more and more by wingnuts, this has to be the most astonishing in the depth of its ignorance. what barfin posted is correct, beyond the shadow of any doubt.

    where do you people come up with these jewels of paranoia? is there some "leader" who churns out this mindless bullshit, which is then adopted without question? i mean, all reasonable men can differ about many political issues, but this kind of thing is simply pitiful.
     
  4. Auctioneer

    Auctioneer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,965
    Wayno, who would think we would get Obama as Pre. Who would even think he would be re elected. Who would think the Fed Suprem Court would say a develeper could condem your property for their use. But it all did happen.

    Musketman or is it muskRATman? You can try to dish it out but you can't take it. Typical. Only a COWARD would delete his reply on his PM so you could get the last word. How cowardly and childish. What are you an old woman in the closet? Its you who can go do what you wish everyone would but you come up way to short for the job. Keep your head in the sand and us braver and smarter people will protect you while your down there.
     
  5. SL900LOADER

    SL900LOADER Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    161
    Come on guys, Dont sugarcoat it, Tell us how you really feel!
     
  6. drgondog

    drgondog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    @BarFin and Wayno - I have thought about this for a long time - ever since the UN 'movement' started while the Bush was President. He saw the Small Arms Treaty for what it was - a direct and not subtle attack at the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution - and directed John Bolton to basically 'just say no' to US involvement. Of course, the US is THE target for the Treaty.

    Both Obama and Clinton have a different POV, namely that a Senate approved Treaty Could have the force of law at the Federal level but there are a series of obstacles to overcome. The first is 'attitude' of the American populace regarding firearms and their necessity for anything but 'hunting'. The Heller decision didn't help them, but Fast and Furious - given the hype regarding "90% of all firearms connected to the cartels were from the US'- was almost certainly a plan to support erosion of the 'attitude'. We knew than as we know now that the joint statements from State and DOJ were BS but Obama, Clinto and Holder were shoulder to shoulder stating that they wanted an 'assault weapons Ban like Clinton's 1995 GCA'. Semi aut weapons were not Banned but they posed that lie nevertheless.

    The media continues to be a partner by broadcating every lunatic shooting while carefully ignoring the 500X examples of firearms used in self defense. Feinstein is busy drafting yet another 'Assault weapons ban' for presentation following introduction of new Congress.

    One thing is clear. Obama has zero problem issuing Executive Orders to support an as yet un-approved UN Treaty - example the UN Law of the Sea (can't recall exact name) which BTW GW Bush also so authorized pending the treaty - but Obama added 'To promote Social Justice' to the objectives in case you missed another groundwork for 're-distribution'.

    So, respectfully gentlemen there is no reason that Obama wouldn't issue a similar order to DOJ and possibly DoD to begin enforcing the Treaty. IMO, it is questionable that active duty Military as well as Nat'l Guard would immediately obey the order given the oath that we swear, but both my 'former marine' sons reported to me that when Krulak was chief of staff for USMC they were given a questionairre which asked the question 'would you obey an order to disarm citizens if so instructed by the CiC?"

    BTW Posse Comitas applies only to the US Army and says nothing about any other service, nor is it explicit regarding limitations.

    Another Constitutional question is how the 10th Amendment addresses Powers Not delegated Explicitly to the United States (i.e Federal Government) are so passed to the States or the People. Virtually every State - even CA and MA and IL have far more Rights to K&BA than the UN Small Arms Treaty.

    Therefore, the question posed in this thread is not as ridiculous as the two of you seem to believe.

    The questions you should ask of yourself are"
    1. Why is this Administration both engaging in the draft and supporting the treaty development.
    2. Why do you believe Obama would reject the Treay submission to the Senate?
    3. What makes you believe, per past track record, that Obama is concerned about bypassing Congress oversight by issuance of Executive Order?
    4. What makes you think Holder/DoJ would not attempt to enforce an Executive Order, so issued?
    5. What makes you think that Panetta has any strong feelings of support for the 2nd Amendment with respect to following orders from Obama to instruct the military to begin a process to enforce the Treaty?

    Personally I think that 3-5 would trigger an armed response from say 10-50,000 citizens of the 80 million gun owners and before you dismiss the size as trivial - consider the al Qaeda force structure in Iraq or Taliban in Afghanistan.

    So, I ponder motives, assets, intent and think about consequences - and trust the common sense of most senators and military leaders - particularly State National Guard - that are Citizen soldiers located in their States and theoretically subordinate first to the Governors.

    Regards,

    Bill
     
  7. wayno

    wayno TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    310
    under your doomsday scenario, the president and congress, supported by the military, and abetted by that fearsome armed force that is the u.n., would have to defy their own law and our entire population in a suicidal attempt to get your ak 47, or your buddies ar15, or my perazzi, or my neighbors ruger 10=22.

    youi will pardon me if i fail to see the sanity in those images...
     
  8. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    wayno is a lawyer- what can you expect?
     
  9. drgondog

    drgondog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    Wayno - no. Your reading comprehension is deficient.

    That is a presentation of possibilities, not a prediction - it does explain why Congress may not even be involved if and when the UN Treaty is passed by UN with an affirmative vote from the Obama Administration, and explains how and what is required to make the scenario feasible.

    For those that aren't intellectually challenged, the scenario suggests what could happen if Obama chooses to support a UN treaty not yet voted upon in the Senate, as he has in the past.

    Personally I believe that even the Senate, with as many anti-2nd Amendment Senators as are in place plus some RINO's like Lugar, would not pass that Treaty with the required 2/3 affirmative vote.

    Having said that do you believe that Obama would discontinue his habit of issuing Executive orders that bypass Congress? If so, why do you thinks so?
     
  10. Voolfie

    Voolfie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Wilmington, DE
    If I missed this in the conversation, I apologize, but...

    One thing that could happen is that a requirement of a U.N. treaty could be enacted that didn't "infringe" on our rights, such as a national registry of guns and their owners. Something like that wouldn't involve constitutional questions, but could be required by a treaty. This is something that the left would dearly love to have, but they haven't had the political power to effect. This would give them political cover - they could say, "Don't blame us, it's the treaty".

    Since (to my knowledge) no gun ban has ever been effected without a registry first, this is something that should concern us and is very possible.

    Again, if someone already mentioned this, my apologies.

    J.F. Wolfington
    Wilmington, DE
     
  11. Shooting Sailor

    Shooting Sailor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,084
    Pay attention to what happened to the firearms registry in Canada. The $2 million it was to cost ballooned to $2.7 billion over the life of the registry, with an error factor of as much as 90%. It has been scrapped, except for Quebec.

    The registry in New Zealand has been scrapped, due to errors and costs.

    Every single registry of privately held firearms has been a failure, EXCEPT when used as a tool for confiscation, and even then, only the law abiding sheeple register their firearms. In Canada, approximately 65% of firearms owners registered at least one rifle or shotgun, which added up to less than 50% of the firearms in the country. That doesn't include those illegally imported, or held by criminals.

    If a registry is instituted, you will have a long, hard fight on your hands, but it is one that can be won, by noncompliance, and stressing the costs and error level in the registry. Eventually, you will get a government in power that will realize the insanity involved in perpetuating a program which does not perform as advertised, costs a huge amount more than advertised, has no net benefit to the population as a whole, and will scrap it. Your best hope is to maintain an even keel, and fight to prevent any such plan before it can come to fruition.
     
  12. airborne11

    airborne11 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    16
    Will the milatry act to diarm us? AfterWW1 the veterans were promised a bonus, when it wasn't paid they marched on Washington and camped in a park across from the WH. They wre ran out by soldiers. American vets ran out by Americansoldiers lead by Douglas Mcarther.There are clauses in Obamacare the allow to set up officers to command brigadesin case of civil crise under Homeland Security. The latest appointments to high positions in Homeland Sec. are described as devout muslims. What next? Jack A
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.