Could a U.N. resolution banning/taxing/regulating firearms in the US succeed?


PDA






Drjones
October 4, 2004, 05:57 PM
I read an article in America's First Freedom about the U.N. plan to go after firearms in America, in addition to the article quoting chirac as wanting to tax small arms transactions.

Seriously: does any legislation of the sort stand ANY chance of succeeding in the US?

I guess I am prone to "sky-is-falling" syndrome.....:(

If you enjoyed reading about "Could a U.N. resolution banning/taxing/regulating firearms in the US succeed?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.H. Lee
October 4, 2004, 06:10 PM
No. Not now. Maybe in 20, 30, 40 years.......

chevrofreak
October 4, 2004, 06:12 PM
They might change their mind once they see how we will react.

Bigjake
October 4, 2004, 06:14 PM
not while i still breath.

Valkman
October 4, 2004, 06:16 PM
To me this is why Kerry or Hillary are so dangerous - they would let UN crap like that in. We know that Bush doesn't really care what the UN thinks and I don't think it would get far under him.

If guys in blue helmets show up for my guns we'll have a big problem...

roscoe
October 4, 2004, 06:33 PM
Uuuummm - no. They simply have no authority over any US jurisdiction. I love it when people get so concerned about the UN becomng too powerful. If you could only see just what they can really accomplish - pretty much nothing. I encourage you to study the raw, unchecked power of the UN peacekeepers in the Bosnia.

Just what is the mechanism by which the UN would enforce any edict regarding firearms? You think the Norwegians and Peruvians are going to show up in blue helmets and half-tracks demanding their 2 cents a cartridge?

The UN passes symbolic resolutions all the time that have ZERO meaning in the real world - check out all the resolutions re: Israel. The UN can't even pay its own bills, let alone send out revenuers to chase down bootleggers bringing white-lightning ammunition in from the hills of West Virginia.

jsalcedo
October 4, 2004, 06:36 PM
If guys in blue helmets show up for my guns we'll have a big problem


I think you have that backwards Valkman :D

I'm wondering if my 45/70 with a 500 grain solid would go through both sides of a blue helmet. :evil:

Drjones
October 4, 2004, 06:39 PM
I guess there's also the fact that America IS the UN; we provide most of the money and just about ALL of the military might.

Without us, the UN basically wouldn't exist....right?

Redlg155
October 4, 2004, 06:40 PM
A UN resolution in practice is only effective when imposed on a "weaker" nation that cannot resist by force. The United States is one of the nations that will have the power to resist until someone bigger comes around with enough clout to enforce a resolution by threat of military action. Also, UN membership and participation is also voluntary, so we can back out whenever we want.

I don't see this happening as long as we are the "Big Boy" on the block.

Good Shooting
Red

jefnvk
October 4, 2004, 07:19 PM
Do you think that the US Senators and Representitives are going to turn over taxation privliges to someone else? Or, would you want to be the congresscritter woh sold US's soverginty out to the UN?

RevDisk
October 4, 2004, 07:57 PM
I guess there's also the fact that America IS the UN; we provide most of the money and just about ALL of the military might.

Without us, the UN basically wouldn't exist....right?


Nope. It's a pleasant thought, but nope. Most of the UN personnel are from third world countries most people couldn't find on a map. The UN motor pool guy I knew was from Togo. Snow was an interesting problem for him. Percentage wise, the US pays a lot to the UN. But it's not the overwhelming majority or even close to it.

As for UN troops, nope again.



The answer is no. The UN will not be invading the US. They won't show up late at night for your guns. No, they won't ban or tax all of the guns in the US. They don't want to either.

Black92LX
October 4, 2004, 08:10 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/Black92LX/UN.jpg
:neener:

Jim K
October 4, 2004, 08:17 PM
If Sen. Kerry is elected president, it would have a good chance. No matter what he says now, he said in New Hampshire that he would never order American forces to fight without prior permission from the U.N. He seems to feel that the U.N. is a super government, whose "laws" supercede the laws and constitutions of member states, a view held by almost all "liberals".

I suggest voting against the candidate who is supported by such good and perfect nations as Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba, Russia, France, and Sudan.

Jim

XLMiguel
October 4, 2004, 08:29 PM
UN treaties won't stand up here.

IIRC, the President may enter into treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, with other soverign nations. The UN ain't a soverign nation, so in order for the US to enter into a binding treaty with it would require a Constitutions amendment, which, IMNSHO, isn't likely anytime soon.:fire:

Jim K
October 4, 2004, 08:43 PM
Who is talking about treaties? President Kerry can simply create an "emergency", then announce that he is suspending the constitution, dissolving Congress, and placing the nation under the protection of the United Nations. Meanwhile, as commander-in-chief, he is ordering the armed forces to arrest all registered Republicans, potential "subversives", and members of "terrorist organizations" like the NRA.

The people will cheer this bold and courageous action to save the nation, and Michael Moore will make a movie about the heroic action of the president.

Jim

boofus
October 4, 2004, 08:49 PM
Wasn't the first American Revolution fought because of a little 'tax dispute' too?

I say we throw john kerry, hitlery klinton, ted kennedy, mcfatty moore, george 'i'm a god' soros and all the other pawns of the UN into Boston Harbor.

Probably wouldn't work on ted kennedy though, he has practice swimming to land fully clothed while people claw at him for help.

Greg L
October 4, 2004, 09:17 PM
President Kerry can simply create an "emergency", then announce that he is suspending the constitution, dissolving Congress, and placing the nation under the protection of the United Nations. Meanwhile, as commander-in-chief, he is ordering the armed forces to arrest all registered Republicans, potential "subversives", and members of "terrorist organizations" like the NRA.

Second word needs to be changed to Hillary & I could certainly envision it :( .

wasrjoe
October 4, 2004, 09:47 PM
There's not a chance in hell that it would happen. However, if it DID (which it's not going to, at least any time soon), I can tell you - there would be some pissed off people. With guns. We Americans have a high tolerance for being screwed over by our own government. Other governments, on the other hand... :uhoh:

Atticus
October 4, 2004, 09:54 PM
The Iraqis know the strength of the UN...one bomb....run away!

Kim
October 4, 2004, 10:42 PM
If they can get us to follow Kyoto they can sure as heck get a tax placed on firearms manufactured in this country it would just be included in the cost of the firearm to you. This was first brough up under Clinton. The UN has been looking at this for years along with many NGO groups. During the first year Bush was in he told them NO something along the lines that it would violate our 2nd amendment. They plan another conference in 2006. Look up Isana at the UN web site. The woman Wayne is debating in England (where Isana headquarters is) is the number one activist that got Australia to pass their firearm laws. This is no joke it is one that no one will pay attention too until too late. Believe me they are serious about this.They are also pushing countries to register all private firearm owners. The NRA is also a NGO at the UN. This just happened a few years ago. The vatican also is pushing this. And I usually have no complaints aganist Catholics. They are going to use the tax to get this-------fight global poverty.:what:

Standing Wolf
October 4, 2004, 10:47 PM
I say we throw john kerry, hitlery klinton, ted kennedy, mcfatty moore, george 'i'm a god' soros and all the other pawns of the UN into Boston Harbor.

Let's not pollute natural resources, eh?

jefnvk
October 4, 2004, 10:57 PM
If they can get us to follow Kyoto they can sure as heck get a tax placed on firearms manufactured in this country it would just be included in the cost of the firearm to you.

But they can't.

Waitone
October 4, 2004, 11:02 PM
At one time I thought political free speech was beyond the reach of the president, congress and the courts. Boy howdy was I wrong.

If the ruling class can limit political free speech (AKA Campaign Finance Control) other BoR items can be violated.

Call me skeptical, paranoid, suspicious, and right.

czhen
October 4, 2004, 11:19 PM
I refuse to think there can be someone so naif to believe that can works. If there are, geez Houston we have a problem.

Hen
Fl

M2 Carbine
October 4, 2004, 11:30 PM
Jim Keenan

Who is talking about treaties? President Kerry can simply create an "emergency", then announce that he is suspending the constitution, dissolving Congress, and placing the nation under the protection of the United Nations. Meanwhile, as commander-in-chief, he is ordering the armed forces to arrest all registered Republicans, potential "subversives", and members of "terrorist organizations" like the NRA.

Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes folks think the US military and US law enforcement troops are going to go along with kerry or anyone like him handing the country over to the UN or trying some BS like trying to suspend the Constitution?

The Officers and Enlisted Personnel are also US citizens that took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Having spent 13 years in the military I know if I were at the controls of a helicopter gun ship, the guns would be protecting the Constitution not someone that tried to suspend it.

roscoe
October 4, 2004, 11:44 PM
Who is talking about treaties? President Kerry can simply create an "emergency", then announce that he is suspending the constitution, dissolving Congress, and placing the nation under the protection of the United Nations. Meanwhile, as commander-in-chief, he is ordering the armed forces to arrest all registered Republicans, potential "subversives", and members of "terrorist organizations" like the NRA.

Oh man, I hope that was not to be taken seriously. Oherwise - time to break out the tinfoil.

Drjones
October 5, 2004, 01:13 AM
IIRC, the President may enter into treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, with other soverign nations. The UN ain't a soverign nation, so in order for the US to enter into a binding treaty with it would require a Constitutions amendment, which, IMNSHO, isn't likely anytime soon.

Very good point.


So basically I'm the victim of a little fearmongering by the NRA, right?

chink
October 5, 2004, 01:09 PM
The UN has no bearing on American Policy. They cannot impose taxes on anyone. Only our Senate can gather revenue if I remember my Constitution correctly. On top of that, if the UN did decide they wanted money from the US, where are they going to get tax collectors from? I will tell you where they won’t be coming from.

People like to think of the UN as some big powerful thing, because for a long time America made it a big powerful thing to justify its foreign policy. Then the Cold War ended and Europeans realized that their neighbor to the East wasn’t so big and bad anymore and they didn’t need America anymore and started using the UN against America.

Rules/Law/Mandates without the ability to enforce them is basically just a ink on paper and the UN charter give it no way to enforce it Resolutions.

jsalcedo
October 5, 2004, 01:13 PM
I read somewhere that UN environmental rules are messing with our national parks and the folks that live and work in and near them.

any truth to this?

Waitone
October 5, 2004, 01:48 PM
Yep!

World Heritage Sites is sponsored by the UN. Smokey Mountains National Park is a national heritage site and is Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

http://www.sovereignty.net/ is a primer on a number of UN initiatives.

Here is the specific world list. Thumb down to the US and get the whole picture.

http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31

Sam Adams
October 5, 2004, 04:01 PM
IRC, the President may enter into treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, with other soverign nations. The UN ain't a soverign nation, so in order for the US to enter into a binding treaty with it would require a Constitutions amendment, which, IMNSHO, isn't likely anytime soon.

It goes beyond that. Even if the UN were a soverign nation and the President had the power to enter into a treaty with it (with the advice and consent of the Senate), the terms of the treaty itself would be subservient to the Constitution. A treaty is on the level of a law, and may be overturned by the Supreme Court if it violates any section or clause of the Constitution.

Getting, however, to first matters: I believe that the life of any President who dared to even propose such an idea would be in grave danger. Mind you, I DON'T advocate the use of any violence on any federal official, but I believe that this would be the case. President Lurch or Hitlery would have to become like Hussein, constantly moving from one place to another, never sleeping in the same place two nights in a row...and if the ordinary citizens didn't get them, those in the military or the various lettered security agencies would. Ditto for any Senators that voted for such a treaty (and they have considerably less security than the President).

Sam Adams
October 5, 2004, 04:04 PM
I like that picture, particularly the use of the pulled AP bullets.

Is that .30-06, or is it .308? Either way, what is the load you use, and what kind of accuracy do you get?

Sam Adams
October 5, 2004, 04:08 PM
Only our Senate can gather revenue if I remember my Constitution correctly.

Not quite right. Bills that will result in the collection of revenues must originate in the House of Representatives. Both houses must, of course, approve said bill before sending it to the President for signature. The Prez may sign it, veto it or "pocket-veto" it (i.e. not sign a bill within 10 days by "putting it in his pocket" at a time when the Congress is not in session). Until it goes through both houses and is signed into law, it is meaningless.

buzz_knox
October 5, 2004, 04:17 PM
They simply have no authority over any US jurisdiction. I love it when people get so concerned about the UN becomng too powerful.

If signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, international law becomes federal law. So yes, they would have authority if the Senate gives it to them.

Third_Rail
October 5, 2004, 06:55 PM
Sam Adams, looks like .300 Win Mag to me.

I can look up load data for you later in my handbook, but the AP bullets are 167gr IIRC.

MountainPeak
October 5, 2004, 07:04 PM
Not with ME!

Jmurman
October 5, 2004, 07:15 PM
The Senate has the authority to make treaties. They could concievably make one about weapons.

feedthehogs
October 5, 2004, 08:10 PM
Who is talking about treaties? President Kerry can simply create an "emergency", then announce that he is suspending the constitution, dissolving Congress, and placing the nation under the protection of the United Nations. Meanwhile, as commander-in-chief, he is ordering the armed forces to arrest all registered Republicans, potential "subversives", and members of "terrorist organizations" like the NRA.

Somebody is spending way too much time in the SHTF threads.

The NRA has got some of you chasing ghosts.......................

You forget quickly the result the AW ban had on the careers of some politicians to the point that the Democrats backed off the ban renewal and playing down the gun issue this election.
What do you think would happen if they even hinted at inviting the UN into controling our policies and laws?

The US is a strongly independant nation who would just as soon as stand by ourselves than become one of the UN lap dogs.
The Iraq war comes to mind as we gave the finger to most of the rest of the world.

Bush, Kerry or who ever would never get the support to suspend the constitution. If you believe that, then reality has left the building.

Nippy
October 5, 2004, 08:14 PM
Molon Labe..

Shootcraps
October 5, 2004, 08:24 PM
The UN can't even find its own @ss with a funnel. How can you expect it to do anything meaningful ( or in this case extremely stupid)?


AND WHAT THE F*#&@^ is MOLON LABE? ;)

XLMiguel
October 5, 2004, 08:33 PM
Greek for "come and get them" = Lionendes (sp?), Spartan king's response to Xerces (Persian king) at the battle of Thermopolye (sp?) around 600 BC (I wasn't there at the time), when the Persian offered to let the Greeks go free if thye'd hand over their weapons. Use the 'search' function for a full explaination

Shootcraps
October 5, 2004, 08:36 PM
Cool. I like it.

Where are you in No. VA? I used to live in Manassas and shoot at Blue Ridge Arsenal or Clark Brothers. I'm in Virginia Beach now.

RobW
October 6, 2004, 12:24 PM
A treaty is on the level of a law, and may be overturned by the Supreme Court if it violates any section or clause of the Constitution.

As good as the mutilation of the 1st amendment? All involved in it, especially McCain, Feingold, the Supreme Court, President Bush swore to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC!

Expect further infringements of the constitution, anything else is a pink dream!

benEzra
October 6, 2004, 01:08 PM
So basically I'm the victim of a little fearmongering by the NRA, right?
Yes and no.

Would the UN be able to send a multinational force into the U.S. to confiscate firearms. No way.

Could a President Kerry or President Hillary sign a U.N. Convention on Small Arms and push it through the Senate? Yes.

Then President Kerry/President Hillary could point to it as a binding agreement that would have to be enforced by the executive branch (like NAFTA, or GATT, or whatever). It could definitely be used to shut down FFL's, shut down manufacturers, and the like. (Look at how WTO decisions are in effect overriding U.S. trade policy in various areas.)

Would guys in blue helmets be coming to your door? No. But guys in suits and ties could shut down your local gun store, or all "civilian" sales of ammunition...

CAS700850
October 6, 2004, 01:23 PM
Do we really think that such a measure could pass the U.N.? Sure, there are some nations that would vote for such a resolution, either out of their own desire to ban the private ownership of firearms, or even because it's anti-U.S. But, think about the nations such a measure would affect. Germany (H.K.), Austria (Glock), Canada (Para-Ordnance), Italy (Beretta),China and Russia (all those SKS rifles we love, and the ammo). Money out of their pockets, and remember money does mean something.

Plus, as was pointed out along the way, the U.N. doesn't have the clout to pull off something that big and enforce it. Look at the situation in the Sudan. Genocide is actively occurring, and the matter is being debated in the U.N. Now, picture the same debate about the U.S. and arms control. They can't put together a peacekeeping force to stop the violence in the Sudan. Can they really muster an armed invasion of the U.S.?

And, even if it was with the U.S. Government approval (which would likely be the end of the Constitutional government we enjoy, think of the practicalities of the measure. A house-by-house search across the nation. There aren't enough troops to pull that off, even with minimal armed resistance. And, I think we'd be more than minimal armed resistance...

RocketMan
October 6, 2004, 03:09 PM
I find this discussion interesting.
Many of the posters to this thread state how the Constitution prohibits much of what the UN would like to do to the US via treaty, how we are protected by its existence.
And yet, many of these posters often complain about how our elected officials routinely ignore the Constitution, how the USSC has emasculated the 1st Amendment, etc.
Curious.

GEM
October 6, 2004, 04:04 PM
Vote and the UN will not come down your street. I'm sure that a Tactical Team from Botswana or Luxembourg is just raring to go to Houston or Harlem just to duke it out with Americans.

That's why I would join the Luxembourg Army.

The biggest threat is legislation in the USA. The UN is tinfoil hat crap to raise money.

Look, we told the UN :neener: to invade Iraq. We can tell them :neener: about any old thing.

If you enjoyed reading about "Could a U.N. resolution banning/taxing/regulating firearms in the US succeed?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!