There's no grandstanding or hyping going on. The nra successfully lobbied a bi-partison majory of the senate to send a letter to obama stating the gun-control treaty was doa in the senate. And when that happened, the un realized that it didn't matter that there were 8 drafts of the treaty to negotiate,there could be a 100 drafts but the gun control crap was not going to be ratified by the US. So they scrapped the whole scheme, at least for now.
NRA stops the UN from gun treaty
- Thread starter gym
- Start date
- Status
husbandofaromanian
Member
I have no doubt that many politicians are afraid of the NRA when it comes election time. The UN probably sees them as a bigger threat than any one country.
What I am waiting for is for the left too accept guns and gun people as something good and stop fighting us. The supreme court has ruled the 2nd as an individual right and they will not undo that just like Roe-v-Wade will not be undone.
What I am waiting for is for the left too accept guns and gun people as something good and stop fighting us. The supreme court has ruled the 2nd as an individual right and they will not undo that just like Roe-v-Wade will not be undone.
Sorry, the NRA is only one of the groups that made this happen.
The PEOPLE made the US government who serves them address this.
The NRA is one of the important groups representing the people who wanted their government to do this.
The PEOPLE made the US government who serves them address this.
The NRA is one of the important groups representing the people who wanted their government to do this.
How many steps removed from the decisionmaking process can you be and still take credit for the decision?
At least three steps removed, according to the NRA and some of the folks here and on other firearms forums I read.
Speaking of which, any of you guys see that Olympic swimming medal I was responsible for being won yesterday? Yep...all because of my efforts.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
To be fair, it is possible that the statements by the Senators indicating that the treaty could not be ratified did put pressure on our delegates to the UN which helped increase the dissent in that body which helped lead to no final treaty document being put up for a vote.
But there were MANY countries not willing to play ball, and it seems pretty certain that it wouldn't have been finalized and sent out to be signed by the member nations even if the US had been completely for it!
Praise to the NRA for spearheading and coordinating the effort to be ready IF it ever came our way. The Association, and those Senators, deserve kudos for that. But they didn't stop the UN treaty process.
But there were MANY countries not willing to play ball, and it seems pretty certain that it wouldn't have been finalized and sent out to be signed by the member nations even if the US had been completely for it!
Praise to the NRA for spearheading and coordinating the effort to be ready IF it ever came our way. The Association, and those Senators, deserve kudos for that. But they didn't stop the UN treaty process.
bikemutt
Member
I think the title is more the problem than anything else. Here's a link to the actual NRA-ILA press release: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/nra-stops-un-arms-trade-treaty.aspx
It's difficult to read the story and imagine how the title was distilled from it. Even the part where the NRA is being "widely credited" for killing it is a push. One thing I guess no one knows is what the outcome would have been if the NRA had sat this one out.
It's difficult to read the story and imagine how the title was distilled from it. Even the part where the NRA is being "widely credited" for killing it is a push. One thing I guess no one knows is what the outcome would have been if the NRA had sat this one out.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Good odds that the NRA's lobbying was a major contribution, but the other gun rights organizations certainly contributed.
Within the UN, it was Russia's opposition that began the arguments, and then our ambassador's pointing out that the Senate would not ratify the treaty which put "paid" to the deal.
Within the UN, it was Russia's opposition that began the arguments, and then our ambassador's pointing out that the Senate would not ratify the treaty which put "paid" to the deal.
ccwillie
Member
What power does the UN have anyway? How can they enforce what any country does about its own relations with any other country out there? They are always condemning something or trying negotiate a cease fire somewhere and nothing happens. What power do they actually have to do anything? I may be uninformed but I don't see that the UN can force a country to do anything it does not want to do. To me the UN serves no useful purpose at all other than giving a group of pseudo intellectuals a place to give a speech about whatever their particular special interest group supports.
I personally don't think that the UNITED STATES should support such a dysfunctional organization with taxpayers dollars. In short, the UN cannot do anything about anything.
Probably not the place to say all of this, so I will get off my soap box and let the discussion resume.
I personally don't think that the UNITED STATES should support such a dysfunctional organization with taxpayers dollars. In short, the UN cannot do anything about anything.
Probably not the place to say all of this, so I will get off my soap box and let the discussion resume.
Birch Knoll
Member
The UN doesn't have to enforce treaties. When a nation signs a treaty, they are pledging to uphold the treaty themselves. In the U.S., treaties have the same force as any other Federal law.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
The risk here is more insidious than the UN, itself, enforcing its will. As you say, the UN itself has little real power.
The risk presented by a treaty like this is multi-fold.
1) IF the member nations ever get on the same side of the fence and vote to adopt a treaty, and our President signs it, it is very close to being a law of our land. The Senate has to ratify it, of course, but we just never know which way that body will swing, year to year, and depending on the specific language of the treaty. If nothing else, the fact that a popular President comes out in favor of the consensus of "the whole world community" and signs a treaty means that we and our allies have to spend a lot of political capital (and REAL capital) to fight it. If we can't overcome that political will/momentum, the treaty becomes the law of our land and our law enforcement agencies enforce it as such!
2) Even if we don't ratify it, if OTHER nations ratify such a treaty, it may directly affect gun sales and support in the US. If nations like Italy, Brazil, Russia, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Belgium, Turkey, Spain, Romania (and many other former eastern-bloc states with stockpiles of surplus weapons) etc. decide that personal small arms need to be restricted, registered, or eliminated, those important sources for weapons WE enjoy may dry up, disappear, or present significant regulatory hurdles to the American consumer. (I'm not sure whether this is at all likely but someone else postulated it so: I don't want to be filling out an "End User" certificate for my new CZ to go on file with the UN even LESS than I want to fill out a registration of that weapon to our own BATFE.)
We do need to be vigilant about this. But we need to be scrupulously clear, factual, and honest about it as well. That means we should avoid "Chicken Little" panicky hyperbole because that distorts and obscures the real threats, and we should not accept blanket statements like "The NRA stopped...." preferring instead to understand exactly where we stand and what tactics can and will work.
The risk presented by a treaty like this is multi-fold.
1) IF the member nations ever get on the same side of the fence and vote to adopt a treaty, and our President signs it, it is very close to being a law of our land. The Senate has to ratify it, of course, but we just never know which way that body will swing, year to year, and depending on the specific language of the treaty. If nothing else, the fact that a popular President comes out in favor of the consensus of "the whole world community" and signs a treaty means that we and our allies have to spend a lot of political capital (and REAL capital) to fight it. If we can't overcome that political will/momentum, the treaty becomes the law of our land and our law enforcement agencies enforce it as such!
2) Even if we don't ratify it, if OTHER nations ratify such a treaty, it may directly affect gun sales and support in the US. If nations like Italy, Brazil, Russia, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Belgium, Turkey, Spain, Romania (and many other former eastern-bloc states with stockpiles of surplus weapons) etc. decide that personal small arms need to be restricted, registered, or eliminated, those important sources for weapons WE enjoy may dry up, disappear, or present significant regulatory hurdles to the American consumer. (I'm not sure whether this is at all likely but someone else postulated it so: I don't want to be filling out an "End User" certificate for my new CZ to go on file with the UN even LESS than I want to fill out a registration of that weapon to our own BATFE.)
We do need to be vigilant about this. But we need to be scrupulously clear, factual, and honest about it as well. That means we should avoid "Chicken Little" panicky hyperbole because that distorts and obscures the real threats, and we should not accept blanket statements like "The NRA stopped...." preferring instead to understand exactly where we stand and what tactics can and will work.
ccwillie
Member
thank you ttolhurst.......got a little carried away. been watching too much news today and that always gets me stirred up, as my wife puts it.
The NRA is often called a gun lobby, but it is in fact lobbying for individual rights and freedoms for all Americans.
The media would have you believe that the second ammendment is about sport shooting and hunting, in fact it is about freedom from tyranny.
History has taught us again and again there is nothing more dangerous than living in a country where only the agents of government may keep and bear arms.
The media would have you believe that the second ammendment is about sport shooting and hunting, in fact it is about freedom from tyranny.
History has taught us again and again there is nothing more dangerous than living in a country where only the agents of government may keep and bear arms.
Let's put this issue of the NRA's action on this treaty in focus. For the sake of augument just imagine if the NRA didn't do anything. Let's say Wayne sat there mute. What would all of you be talking about? 1: Obama would have a HUGE anti-gun victory 2: Quite possible that confiscation would start to take hold 3: UN would start to dismantle our beloved 2ND amend 4: Excutive orders via the Attorney General and ATF would start 5: All form 4473 info would be starting to go to the UN for analysis 6: UN would rule that all semi-automatic weapons handguns etc are now terroist weapons and now are illegal to have period 7: Ammunition sales would stop through the mail at all 50 states 8:grace periods for nearly every firearm to turn in would be set-up. Same thing Australia did to it's gun owners notices
would go out via NBC,CBS,ABC and most FFL's would be null and void. Are you getting the picture? Sure I know this all sounds very extreme and you may disagree very loudly BUT, what if? Are we as NRA members and firearm owners willing to take the chance and NOT defend our rights as the NRA did? So they grandstanded a little big deal. Sure the NRA is going to play it up. I know that, so what? These are dangerous times for gun owners right now. Colorado brought it all to a boil so to speak. We cannot be arguing about who did what or who's grandstanding. We need to stand up together. Obama will do anything to disarm us, even if he has to destroy the 2nd amend through the UN. He doesn't care. Do you think ol' Chuckie Schummer cares? Hell no, they just want us disarmed. Thus we become mere slaves and serfs. Remember once a freedom is lost it almost never comes back
would go out via NBC,CBS,ABC and most FFL's would be null and void. Are you getting the picture? Sure I know this all sounds very extreme and you may disagree very loudly BUT, what if? Are we as NRA members and firearm owners willing to take the chance and NOT defend our rights as the NRA did? So they grandstanded a little big deal. Sure the NRA is going to play it up. I know that, so what? These are dangerous times for gun owners right now. Colorado brought it all to a boil so to speak. We cannot be arguing about who did what or who's grandstanding. We need to stand up together. Obama will do anything to disarm us, even if he has to destroy the 2nd amend through the UN. He doesn't care. Do you think ol' Chuckie Schummer cares? Hell no, they just want us disarmed. Thus we become mere slaves and serfs. Remember once a freedom is lost it almost never comes back
Last edited:
ConstitutionCowboy
member
That's right. It must be TAKEN back.
I'm sure the NRA put forth an effort. I won't bash the NRA leadership and functionaries, but I'll certainly hold their feet to the fire. It's my money they spend. That said, I'm more than happy to let them know when they are spot on.
Woody
Today the usual suspects put forth a bill in Congress to stop all ammunition sales from the 'net. This bill by Frank Lautnbough and Carolyn McCarthy both Democrats of course would require photo ID and log sheets for your actual purchases. I am sure Charles Schumer would support it also. Fellow THR members, this is just a mere tip of a hugh iceburg that would happen if the UN small arms treaty passes. In my post from from yesterday,I think this would be one of the laws Omama would pass by excutive order, if he is re-elected. I think he will definitly outlaw ammunition sales, but not before the election but right after it. If there is to be any sales it will be face to face, ID papers, log out sheets and very tiny amounts. Maybe only 25 to 50 at a time and once a month. If you can afford it start stock piling or start loading up on reloading supplies. And if nothing happens well happy shooting. Remember once a freedom is lost it almost never comes back.
Last edited by a moderator:
barnetmill
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,264
Does anyone know what the internal differences were amongst the nations that led to the failure of the treaty? I know a lot former combloc nations and china sell a lot of small arms about the world. Were any of these nations involved in the differences?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
barnetmill, the only country name I recall was Russia. I vaguely recall that the list included some of the thugocracies of Africa, but not the names.
- Status
