Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Other countries want to disarm US, rest of world

Discussion in 'Legal' started by LAR-15, Oct 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    *UN HAND GUN CONFERENCE: COLOMBIA WANTS INTERNATIONAL CONTROL

    United Nations, July 9 (RHC)--The government of Colombia today proposed the
    creation of a worldwide system to control the spread of small arms across
    the globe.

    Colombian vice president Gustavo Bell Lemus and UN Ambassador, Camilo Reyes
    are heading a delegation to the UN Conference on Hand Gun Trading that began
    today in New York. The Conference will run through July 20 and includes the
    participation of more than 70 countries.

    Bell Lemus said that the commercial trade of handguns has reached global
    proportions and that all nations confronting the problem at home needed
    cooperation from the international community to put an end to the traffic.
    He added that the delegates should ensure that action follows any decisions
    made during the Conference and asked that a commission be set up to monitor
    results. Ambassador Reyes added that although handguns may not be the
    principal cause of armed international conflict, they enable the flow of
    illicit drugs, which pays for such conflicts. It has been estimated that
    handguns account for the deaths of over a million people a year.

    In the first international accord of its kind, a number of nations in the
    Americas have already signed and ratified the Interamerican Convention
    against the Manufacture and Trafficking of Firearms, Munitions, Explosives
    and other Related Materials. The Convention was proposed by Mexico to close
    the blackmarket arms trade that contributes to violence associated with drug
    trafficking, terrorism and organized crime.

    In the United Nations, Colombia also exhorted member nations to quickly
    resolve their differences and, when the time comes, to issue a strong and
    consensual closing document. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and some 100
    heads of state last year came to an agreement to design a strategy to put an
    end to the illegal trade of pistols, assault rifles and other small arms
    that are easily transported.

    In the United States, the ready availability of handguns has contributed to
    a 2.7 higher possibility of being killed and a 4.8 times greater likelihood
    of suicide, recent studies report. On an international level, of the
    half-billion small arms that exist in the world, between 40% and 60% were
    obtained illegally. Of the 49 major armed conflicts of the 1990s, small arms
    predominated in 46 of them, resulting in the deaths of four million people--
    90% of them civilians and 80% of those women and children.
     
  2. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    Old but relevant news.

    Countries like Colombia and Japan keep pushing for UN gun control.
     
  3. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    The scary thing is that if we end up with the "wrong" individuals in the US Senate, we could end up with something like this, despite the Second Amendment. If a foreign treaty is signed by a US President, it has to be ratified by the Senate. All it takes is 67 Senators to vote "Aye" on such a treaty, and it takes on the force of law in the USA - overriding anything to the contrary in the Constitution. I can see leftist gun-grabbers using this legal loophole to accomplish by the back door what they could never achieve through the "front door" of electoral politics...


    Edited to change the number of Senators - it takes a two-thirds majority, rather than a simple majority, to approve treaties.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2005
  4. Bruce in West Oz

    Bruce in West Oz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    290
    Location:
    Western Australia
    The attacks are coming from all sides and are becoming more coordinated.. Note the date on this report:

     
  5. artherd

    artherd member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,518
    Location:
    An Elevated Position in the Bay Area, PRK
    COLOMBIA?!?!?! The same Colombia that's pumping out metric tonnes of Coke every day?

    Come on!
     
  6. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Transnational Socialism

    Tranzis

    Check it out. Government by non-elected elitist bureaucrats and NGOs. The leftist's dream... Global taxation with no representation. No accountablility.
     
  7. AStone

    AStone Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    24,176
    Location:
    Far N, E coast
    first small arms, then fried chicken

    And after small arms, next will come swords. Then, knives.

    After that, karate, kung fu & baseball bats because they can kill people.

    Followed by fried chicken & mashed potatoes, causes of obesity, which kills people.

    After that, there's nothing left but sharks, avalanches, tornadoes, hurricanes & rattlesnakes.

    Oh yeah, and the occassional lightning bolt.

    It should be interesting to watch them try to stop lightning. :neener:
     
  8. ChiefPilot

    ChiefPilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Practically speaking, this is probably true. However, I don't think legally speaking this is the case. Unless I am misreading it, the constitution overrides treaties and all other laws.

    Cold dead hands, blah blah blah...
     
  9. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    I, too, thought the Constitution trumps treaties.

    Maybe if some of the countries that have made handguns completely unavailable to law-abiding citizens would loosen up and allow them to be sold through normal (regulated) channels, some of the appeal of illegal handguns would go away.

    I wonder where they make up their statistics. 2.7 times more likely to be killed? 2.7 times more likely than where? A statistic comparing one thing is not a statistic.
     
  10. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    Preach,

    I've looked into the "international treaty over riding the Constitution" thing in a fair amount of detail, and my take is that the theory is not well founded.

    All laws and treaties must be made in congruence with the constitution, or they become a nullity.

    Now, what we (rightly) fear is that revisionists in the 3 branches would accept that invalid theory, and start behaving as if it were in deed the law, in the same way that the 3 branches might accept the ill founded "collectivist" interpretation of 2A.

    If that were to firmly become the case, we'd be in Kozinski's nightmare, and our choices would be to accept the final death of our Constitution, or fight, ultimately going to guns _if_ need be.
     
  11. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    I was wrong about the number of Senators - it takes a two-thirds majority, or 67, to approve a treaty, rather than a simple majority of 51. Nevertheless, any treaty, once approved, becomes part of the Constitution in terms of its legal status:

    US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
    US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:
    So, yes, any treaty limiting the possession, sale, transfer, etc. of firearms to which the USA is a signatory, and which is approved by the Senate, would trump any and all internal US legislation, even the Second Amendment, which would be modified by the treaty, since the latter has the same status as the Constitution in terms of being "foundational law" for the entire USA.
     
  12. Jhorn

    Jhorn Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    35
    guns

    they say that small arms were in 46 of the 49 conflicts, what did they use in the other 3?
     
  13. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    These clauses LIMIT the nature of laws and treaties.

    Laws must be made "in pursuance", which means "Proceeding from and conformable to; in accordance with."

    Treaties must be made "under the authority of", which means the enumerated and delegated Powers granted to the fedgov.

    If the "override theory" had any merit, one could assert that simple legislation was sufficient to repeal the Bill of Rights.

    Clearly, that is not the case.

    This phrase,

    causes the confusion, until one realizes that what it means is that it is the STATE constitutions and laws being over ridden.

    I believe the purpose of this is to prevent, say, New Jersey opting out of the acceptance of a peace treaty with say, Belgium.

    Another test of this, would, for example, be to assert that the US could negotiate a treaty with the UK asserting that Anglicanism shall be the Established Church of the USA.

    Clearly, also not the case.


    The bottom line is that treaties may not contravene any element of the Bill of Rights.

    The _real_ problem is what the nature of scope of the protections of the B of R actually are.

    For example, one could argue that requiring makers marks and serial numbers does not Infringe RKBA, and if so, a treaty requiring makers marks and serial numbers might pass the test.

    Ultimately, it all comes down to what is deemed Infringement.

    If Infringment is interpreted narrowly, or the right is construed to be collective, then we are vulnerable to mere acts of legislation, which is easier to pull off than a treaty anyway.
     
  14. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Well there is some punctuation separating pursuant and the treaty bit.

    The "authority of the united states" might be read as "the US only has authority to agree to things which it has authority over" or "only treaties made by the authority of the US, not by the subordinate states."

    I guess it boils down to what the "authority of the united states" means. Is this the authority that you need to possess a machine gun under 922(o)? There might be a revolt in this country if the gun grabbers moved forward too quickly, but the current SCOTUS might well uphold such a treaty. The united states has a lot of authority lately.

    Then again, treaties were traditionally between countries and involved wholly internation issues. Ie- we agree that neither of us shall fish these waters bordering our nations, or we shall not shoot firearms at your soldiers across the border, etc. Obviously a law made by the local mayor that it was OK to shoot canadians would not be acceptable and might result in war if the US had signed a treaty to the opposite effect.

    Only recently have treaties become a means of implementing enormous amounts of civil and criminal law in areas that were traditionally reserved to the states or to the people. Multinational corporations dont like having to lobby for each individual piece of law, especially in countries which have no vested interest in protecting the corporations. A great example of this is the movie industry and its forcing through of the Berne Copyright treaties.
     
  15. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    As you point out, the fundamental underlying question as to whether our scheme of limited government wielding only enumerated Powers is still in force remains to be seen.

    If it's not, all bets are off, and anything goes.
     
  16. NCP24

    NCP24 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    What happens when US outsourcing reaches 75% and these countries impose trade sanctions to impose their will? Can you say "bye bye guns"?
     
  17. DelayedReaction

    DelayedReaction Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    645
    Compared to what? This is a junk statistic thrown in there to make people feel bad about guns, and reflects poorly on the journalist.
     
  18. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Despite some of the pessimism in these forums, I don't expect that our government will sacrifice our sovereignty and the 2nd Amendment on the altar of the UN any time soon ... but whats going to happen to Glock, SIG, Walther and the other European firearms manufacturers when the EU gets on board with complete gun control?

    I say we start working on them now ... try to get them to move their companies here to the States.

    Gun access has been clearly demonstrated to have ZERO effect on suicide.

    Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
     
  19. mpthole

    mpthole Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,058
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Well isn't this dandy. Not only do they want to take everyone's guns, but eventually have their grubby hands on free speech and the internet too!

    Breaking America's Grip on the Net

    :fire:
     
  20. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    So a supermajority in the senate is a bit of a hassle so the workaround is to take a treaty, change the name to "agreement", and presto chango a simple majority in both houses will suffice. You get to spread responsibility for failure and lower the bar for approval. NAFTA and CAFTA come to mind though many others exist.

    Ain't a constitution a grea thing?
     
  21. Archangel

    Archangel Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Messages:
    243
    Location:
    Maryland
    It's Anti Math!

    Man, that is some interesting math they did.

    (Ignoring the fact that they don't say what they're comparing to to get that 2.7 higher possibility... I'm just going to have to assume they mean everybody else in the world.)


    Approx 300 million people in the US, average 35,000 gun deaths per year (total, not just handguns, and that includes murder, suicide, accident, justified...)

    Approx 6 billion people on earth... with a 2.7x lower rate. So, let's see, 35,000 x 19, divided by 2.7... I'll even add the US's 35000 back in... carry the 2...


    Using their "2.7 higher possibility," I extrapolate the US's rate out to 281,269 annual firearms (not just handguns) deaths wordwide.

    Apparently, rifles and shotguns are bringing over 700,000 people back to life every year! :what:
     
  22. DeseoUnTaco

    DeseoUnTaco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Messages:
    290
    Now THAT is a good idea, just like how the Single Convention on Narcotics of 1961 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs_of_1961) eradicated the illegal trade in cocaine, heroin, and cannabis within a few short years of its passage, such that by the middle of the 1960s, drugs were virtually unheard of throughout the West, a situation which persists to this day.

    Yeah that'll work!

    Never mind that a) guns are easier to manufacture than drugs and b) there are millions of us who would never give up our guns (I won't die for my gun rights, but I'll certainly move).
     
  23. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    What passes for "news" is often pure propaganda dished up for people who are completely incapable of critical thinking. For reasons I've never been able to fathom, numbers are often much more convincing than words.
     
  24. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    The Constitution is superior to all treaties in terms of hierarchy, not that it would help us much in this example since the Second Amendment is still in a pretty tenuous state despite recent comebacks. Without any clear decision from SCOTUS on whether it is an individual right or not, it would be all too easy for 67 Senators and a President to contravene the will of the American people. The only inside-the-system recourse would be to fight a judicial battle on ground that hasn't been that favorable to us in the past.
     
  25. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    The Constitution isn't going to save you, unless you engrave it on a steel plate and wear it over your chest under your poncho :p

    The Congress and Supreme Court will just define any part of the Constitution to mean whatever they want it mean at the moment - as they have been doing the past few years (emminent domain, campaign finance reform, states rights of medical marijuana, etc...). :(

    We are only going to keep the rights that we fight for (literally) and maybe not even then. :scrutiny:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page