NIGHTWATCH
Member
This lady has much to say. Click the link "Additional Titles" for an archive of her work.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd198.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd198.htm
The UN is NOT going to take your Guns
- Thread starter NIGHTWATCH
- Start date
- Status
Tell that to the Australians. The UN, soros and his minion rebecca peters managed to take theirs.
Don't make light of the UN threat. The first thing a kerry or hitlary would do is bow to the UN and let them run roughshod over the entire bill of rights and US sovereignty. Constitutional or not.
Don't make light of the UN threat. The first thing a kerry or hitlary would do is bow to the UN and let them run roughshod over the entire bill of rights and US sovereignty. Constitutional or not.
(Edited after the link was posted).
This woman is confusing being right with winning. It is true that the UN has no legitimate authority to take away our guns, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.
The most likely scenario is a multi-national treaty brokered by the UN that pretends to be targeted at the black market arms trade, but requires signatory nations to implement highly restrictive domestic gun control measures. President Hilary and a Democrat Congress would love to sign such a treaty.
I have heard Koffi Anan several times on the radio chanting the mantra that "peace requires a government monopoly on arms" (translation: disarmament of civilians). I know this is their agenda and it is utterly foolish to say "it can't happen here."
This woman is confusing being right with winning. It is true that the UN has no legitimate authority to take away our guns, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.
The most likely scenario is a multi-national treaty brokered by the UN that pretends to be targeted at the black market arms trade, but requires signatory nations to implement highly restrictive domestic gun control measures. President Hilary and a Democrat Congress would love to sign such a treaty.
I have heard Koffi Anan several times on the radio chanting the mantra that "peace requires a government monopoly on arms" (translation: disarmament of civilians). I know this is their agenda and it is utterly foolish to say "it can't happen here."
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I dunno, but from what some have said, it might be possible for the Senate and the President to enter into negotiations of some sort of treaty that negates the Bill of Rights and/or the Second Amendment.
I imagine the uproar from even the non-activist shooters would put "paid" to that notion, PDQ. Even the little old granny-ladies would get totally bent out of shape.
I worry a lot more about the creeping gun-control BS that we've been fighting for all these decades.
Art
I imagine the uproar from even the non-activist shooters would put "paid" to that notion, PDQ. Even the little old granny-ladies would get totally bent out of shape.
I worry a lot more about the creeping gun-control BS that we've been fighting for all these decades.
Art
Technosavant
Member
Art, while I think a total gun bad by installment is the more likely tactic, those pushing such bans will do so in order to "make us better global citizens." Many people argue for various things based on how Europe, Canada, or others do things. While a total confiscation of private arms would be their endgame, they will hold up various "sensible gun control measures" 
from these other nations as models for our own nation.
Fight such sentiments wherever and whenever they show up. We scored a major victory in the UN for their little conference last month, and we can never let up. I've got no problem with kicking the anti-gun forces while they're down.
from these other nations as models for our own nation.Fight such sentiments wherever and whenever they show up. We scored a major victory in the UN for their little conference last month, and we can never let up. I've got no problem with kicking the anti-gun forces while they're down.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Art
What ever those someones have said does not take the restrictions in the Constitution into account.
First and foremost, the Second Amendment would prohibit the President the power to create, and the Senate to concur on the creation of, anything that would infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Secondly, any treaty made that didn't fall under the authority of the United States to make(ie: prohibited by the 2A) would not be the supreme law of the land, and would in fact be unconstitutional(Article VI, Clause (2)).
Nothing would prevent the President from entering into negotiations, but any such negotiations would be for naught other than for the President to tell whomever wanted such a treaty that he can't do it.
Woody
"I swear to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but I am not trigger-happy. I am merely prepared and determined in its defense. It's a comfortable place to be. I don't suffer doubt." B.E.Wood
What ever those someones have said does not take the restrictions in the Constitution into account.
First and foremost, the Second Amendment would prohibit the President the power to create, and the Senate to concur on the creation of, anything that would infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Secondly, any treaty made that didn't fall under the authority of the United States to make(ie: prohibited by the 2A) would not be the supreme law of the land, and would in fact be unconstitutional(Article VI, Clause (2)).
Nothing would prevent the President from entering into negotiations, but any such negotiations would be for naught other than for the President to tell whomever wanted such a treaty that he can't do it.
Woody
"I swear to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but I am not trigger-happy. I am merely prepared and determined in its defense. It's a comfortable place to be. I don't suffer doubt." B.E.Wood
K-Romulus
Member
too bad IANSA didn't get that memo
You wouldn't even need a treaty, just get squeezed under international pressure as a "pariah state."
I have to start a new thread on this . . .
You wouldn't even need a treaty, just get squeezed under international pressure as a "pariah state."
I have to start a new thread on this . . .
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Member
I also fear the "stealth treaty" tactic, and I am certain Hillary or Kerry would not hesitate to use it.
What I find particularly galling is that the UN, the biggest organizational hypocrite in the known universe, wants to take guns away from Americans who aren't harming or threatenting anyone, but they REFUSE to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon. "Coffee" Annan says that's not their job.
("Dear Mr. Annan: If disarming Hezbollah isn't your job in Lebanon, what IS your job there?")
What I find particularly galling is that the UN, the biggest organizational hypocrite in the known universe, wants to take guns away from Americans who aren't harming or threatenting anyone, but they REFUSE to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon. "Coffee" Annan says that's not their job.
("Dear Mr. Annan: If disarming Hezbollah isn't your job in Lebanon, what IS your job there?")
Tommygunn
Member
Somehow, I do not feel reassured
I don't trust the U.N.; they are full of themselves and corrupt, many representatives there are socialistic and the majority despiuse America.
I don't think it's beyond possibility they will try to disarm us, someway somehow. How successful they'll be is problematic, but it is the attempt that poses the danger.
I do believe one of the greater dangers in this matter is not the U.N. per se, but who is in office, plus houses of legislature.
President Hitlery Klinton?
With a Democrat House & Senate?
"There's the rub."
I don't trust the U.N.; they are full of themselves and corrupt, many representatives there are socialistic and the majority despiuse America.
I don't think it's beyond possibility they will try to disarm us, someway somehow. How successful they'll be is problematic, but it is the attempt that poses the danger.
I do believe one of the greater dangers in this matter is not the U.N. per se, but who is in office, plus houses of legislature.
President Hitlery Klinton?
With a Democrat House & Senate?
"There's the rub."
rev214
Member
yes it is possible and has happened before...look at the history of NAFTA for the agreement vs. treaty sham...
Igloodude
Member
If the gun ban in DC continues to be law in the face of the Second Amendment, what's to say that a treaty mandating the same thing nationwide would be shot down on constitutionality grounds?
oldfart
Member
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of hand guns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal." Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, page 53.
So, how are they doing? Well, after a flurry of lawsuits by gun-banners, most of which have failed, the gun manufacturing industry in the U.S. is on the ropes with Winchester recently selling out to Browning. The state of California has tentatively passed a bill to require some sort of "laser-etching" on gun parts that will identify the gun that bullets or casings come from and which will increase the cost of doing business so much that many manufacturers will simply fold their tents. Registration has been accomplished by hanging the carrot of CCW in front of gun owners and letting them stampede to the sheriff's office for the honor of putting their names on a list. So called "safety checks" have been turned into de facto registration in several states. Other states have toyed with the idea of requiring a picture ID before buying ammunition, and that will happen too - in time.
If it was a company traded on the NYSE, I think "The Brady Bunch" would be a pretty good investment. :banghead:
So, how are they doing? Well, after a flurry of lawsuits by gun-banners, most of which have failed, the gun manufacturing industry in the U.S. is on the ropes with Winchester recently selling out to Browning. The state of California has tentatively passed a bill to require some sort of "laser-etching" on gun parts that will identify the gun that bullets or casings come from and which will increase the cost of doing business so much that many manufacturers will simply fold their tents. Registration has been accomplished by hanging the carrot of CCW in front of gun owners and letting them stampede to the sheriff's office for the honor of putting their names on a list. So called "safety checks" have been turned into de facto registration in several states. Other states have toyed with the idea of requiring a picture ID before buying ammunition, and that will happen too - in time.
If it was a company traded on the NYSE, I think "The Brady Bunch" would be a pretty good investment. :banghead:
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
Actually AB357, the laser-etching, isn't the "two-year bill" coming back to life--AB352, microstamping, is what you're thinking of. (I think I got the bill numbers straight). The firing pin is supposed to pound a serial number into the primer. It passed the Assembly and is currently awaiting a vote in the Senate.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Rights for Sale
I'll concur with Art on this one...though we both may be wrong if the elections go straight to Helen Gone.
Your rights aren't usually taken in one fell swoop. They're nibbled to death until nobody remembers exactly what they were originally.
I'll concur with Art on this one...though we both may be wrong if the elections go straight to Helen Gone.
Your rights aren't usually taken in one fell swoop. They're nibbled to death until nobody remembers exactly what they were originally.
longeyes
member
No, nothing to worry about--and the North American Union isn't happening either, any more than we are being inundated by illegal immigration from Central America. We're just imagining it all.
We already know what the Grand Plan is. What we don't know is when or if those of who get it are going to really do anything about it. So far the gun-grabbers have little reason to fear us.
We already know what the Grand Plan is. What we don't know is when or if those of who get it are going to really do anything about it. So far the gun-grabbers have little reason to fear us.
Zundfolge
Member
100% true.
Of course the UN is not going to take your guns ... the'll just get the governments of their member states to do it.
It won't be "blue helmets" coming to confiscate grandpa's hunting rifle ... it will be the local Sheriff with some sort of order from the State government (which is written because the State.gov got an order from the fed.gov which is a requirement of some sort of "agreement" a Hillary type signs with the UN).
So she's not lyin' the UN isn't going to take your guns
It should always be remembered that the folks who believe that gun control should be established at the U.N. level also don't believe that the Second Amendment has anything to do with individual rights to gun ownership, but rather the right of the government to equip the National Guard - although it was the stated position of the Clintion Administration (past) that even National Guard personel didn't have any business having arms as individuals.
And the Supreme Court hasn't said otherwise so far...
So anyone who thinks that they would have any protection from the Second Amendment during a Democrat administration had better do some serious thinking.
And the Supreme Court hasn't said otherwise so far...
So anyone who thinks that they would have any protection from the Second Amendment during a Democrat administration had better do some serious thinking.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
REV 214
Be it a treaty or "agreement", it is still forbidden by the Second Amendment.
Woody
"If we don't elect honorable people to office, it will be beyond the bloodless will of man to set things back on the path to constitutionalism. We are duty bound morally and in the name of common sense to get it done. To wait is to condemn patriots to death." B.E.Wood
Be it a treaty or "agreement", it is still forbidden by the Second Amendment.
Woody
"If we don't elect honorable people to office, it will be beyond the bloodless will of man to set things back on the path to constitutionalism. We are duty bound morally and in the name of common sense to get it done. To wait is to condemn patriots to death." B.E.Wood
But is it?
We would say so, but frankly our opinions don't matter in this instance. What does is opinions handed down by courts - the United States Supreme Court in particular.
If we found ourselves with a left-wing congress and administration - something that could happen as soon as 2008 - and such a treaty or agreement was enacted - the only thing that would upset it would be a ruling by the SCOTUS, and getting a favorable ruling for our side is by no means assured. Where are you at if the ruling from an activist court says that the 2nd. Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to own firearms?
beerslurpy
member
So if the UN only acts by proxy, everything is just peachy?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Where Am I?
I'm sittin' on my front porch, guns at the ready for when they come to get them. They're all sighted in, and ready to rock!
Don't forget, eliminating the Second Amendment does not cancel the right. It may no longer be protected on paper, but the metal, wood, and plastic projectile launching devises will suffice.
Woody
This is what the Second Amendment is for. Should any such amendment or treaty be ratified to cancel the Second Amendment, it shall compel forceful preservation and restoration of the protections of the right, for it would attempt to deprive us of the means to preserve freedom. B.E.Wood
I'm sittin' on my front porch, guns at the ready for when they come to get them. They're all sighted in, and ready to rock!
Don't forget, eliminating the Second Amendment does not cancel the right. It may no longer be protected on paper, but the metal, wood, and plastic projectile launching devises will suffice.
Woody
This is what the Second Amendment is for. Should any such amendment or treaty be ratified to cancel the Second Amendment, it shall compel forceful preservation and restoration of the protections of the right, for it would attempt to deprive us of the means to preserve freedom. B.E.Wood
:banghead:In a country where the magic words "national security" are seemingly attached to anything the WH deems might upset people if made public, I have no doubt that any agreement by treaty with the UN on this subject will probably (or has been) be tabled in a setting with no press access and very limited cabinet knowledge.
-------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
-------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
------quote---------
In a country where the magic words "national security" are seemingly attached to anything the WH deems might upset people if made public, I have no doubt that any agreement by treaty with the UN on this subject will probably (or has been) be tabled in a setting with no press access and very limited cabinet knowledge.
--------------------
For all the issues I do have with this administration, collaborating with UN shennanigans is not one of their faults.
Bolton (Bush's appointee to the UN) slammed them down publicly in no uncertain terms in the UN's recent small arms treaty meeting.
In a country where the magic words "national security" are seemingly attached to anything the WH deems might upset people if made public, I have no doubt that any agreement by treaty with the UN on this subject will probably (or has been) be tabled in a setting with no press access and very limited cabinet knowledge.
--------------------
For all the issues I do have with this administration, collaborating with UN shennanigans is not one of their faults.
Bolton (Bush's appointee to the UN) slammed them down publicly in no uncertain terms in the UN's recent small arms treaty meeting.
- Status