The UN wants your Guns.

[Desertdog]

http://www.sierratimes.com/05/08/15/64_28_54_203_67911.htm
The UN wants your Guns.
Michael E. Cook

To all you gun owners and those who like your freedoms and rights I want to give you a heads up. The United Nations is working very hard on a treaty that would impose a world wide ban on civilian ownership of firearms. The UN in New York held an international conference on July 11th through the 15th. In attendance were many nations and lots of gun ban groups. They hope to have this treaty ready for every nation to sign by next year.
So you say how would this effect me as a gun owner, well I’ll tell you. Any treaty that is signed trumps the Constitution and our bill of rights as I understand the law. That means if some president we elect would sign this then it would affect every citizen in America that owns a firearm. Can you just imagine what would happen if Hilary Clinton was elected our next president?

I along with many others in the pro-gun movement see this as the single largest threat we will ever endure to our rights to keep and bear arms in America. This fight could be of great effect on our national sovereignty, and our individual freedoms for the future of our nation and children. I believe this threat to be far worse than our war on terrorism that we are now fighting. I can’t stress any stronger what this would do to us for generations to come.

The fight must start with your vote, it is more important now than ever that we elect people with strong pro-gun stances to every elected office in this nation right down to those we elect to city councils. We must send a strong and clear message to them all that we will not stand for this threat to our freedoms and the nation we all love a fight to keep free.

I see this as the catalyst for the next world war and civil war right here on our soil. The cost in human life and our freedoms would be far too great. I like many of you would not go softly into the next years without putting up a fight. I’m an old man and if they kill me the world wouldn’t lose much, however I worry about my children and grand children and what they would face in the future. My only hope is that God will smile on America once more and help us through this fight.

Once this starts it will not be a good thing for anyone. Our future and our world as we know it would be worse than the holocaust in Germany. Perhaps this is the start of the great world war that will start the thousand years of piece prior to the end of the world. I don’t know but it sure is looking bad from my saddle.

I tell you all of this so that you can prepare for what I believe to be the hardest fight we will have in the future and hope that we can stop it with our very important vote instead of having to take up arms and fight the hard way. I have been to war and it is not a good thing, as they say war is hell. This means we will all have to sacrifice as much as possible in the next year and help people like the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun organizations as much as possible to get the right people elected to office. This will mean we must each reach down as far as possible and give tell it hurts with financial aid and writing letters and making phone calls to get the right people in office all over this land of ours.

You won’t hear or see much on the main stream media about this yet because they don’t want you to get up in arms and fight this until it is sprung on you at the last minute. It’s the old mushroom syndrome to keep you in the dark until you’re picked. If you are not a member of the NRA or other pro-gun organizations please join now as our strength is in numbers with those in office. This may be the single most important thing you do to insure that America and our freedoms endure for years to come. Please take the time to be informed about this and other issues and put up the fight that I know you are all able to do. Even if you are not a gun owner this could affect your life and quality of life for future generations. We need your help also. If we lose our rights then America is finished for good.

It’s time for the United Nations to go away and leave our soil for good. When nations like Great Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Japan, and Belgium are attempting to tell us how to live. Most if not all other nations owe there way of life to us and our freedoms and our people who are the best in the world with weapons because we have the freedom and rights to use them and own them. Now they want to control us and make us slaves like their own subjects. I think not.

God Bless America and God bless our troops still in harms way.

Michael E. Cook, Coos County Sheriff, Retired.

 

[boofus]

The last time I checked it was national militaries, government sponsored militias, and rebel groups that were responsible for most atrocities with firearms.

How will gun control laws with exemptions specifically for government and their agents stop genocide?

The rebel groups are outside the law to begin with, so no law will prevent them from obtaining arms from the least expensive source.

Of course the UN general assembly overwhelmingly represents communist/totalitarian dictatorships, so there is no doubt in my mind they will try to disarm future potential civilian victims.

 

[kbr80]

Does anyone have any more information on this? Any press releases from the UN, any other that have looked into this matter?


Thanks.

 

[Frandy]

FYI...these July meetings took place in 2001.

 

[Daemon688]

Even if there was a worldwide ban, how exactly do you think the UN would take away MY firearms?

 

[dasmi]

Even if there was a worldwide ban, how exactly do you think the UN would take away MY firearms?

The UN wouldn't have to. Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement of the USA would handle it.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Come and get them. Nobody lives forever.

 

[Control Group]

I haven't done any looking into what the UN is actually doing, but if this treaty is what this article says it is, it could very well be the best possible thing that could happen for our RKBA. Sound crazy? Think about it:

Question: what's the one thing that no gun grabber (at least, not the ones who hope to be taken at all seriously) in this country has ever done? Answer: they've never gone for the whole enchilada. No one has ever seriously proposed that we take away all guns from everyone. Incrementalism has been the plan, and incrementalism has worked. IF this treaty were to be signed, and IF our government chose to enforce it, they will have triggered exactly the reaction the antis have so assiduously avoided thus far.

How much time and effort have we spent on trying to convince people that our rights are being slowly chipped away? That "reasonable gun control" banning .50 cal rifles, or machine guns, or "assault weapons" are just as threatening to the family 30-30 in the long run? That restrictions on handguns will turn into restrictions on hunting rifles? Imagine how much easier this would be if, tomorrow, the fed.gov just said to everyone "turn 'em all in, the UN says we have to."

I've seen estimates on here that upwards of 80 million homes contain firearms. How many of the people in those homes are going to be happy that the federales are knocking on their door demanding the revolver great-granddad was carrying when he fell at Appomattox? How many of the people in those homes are going to be happy that the BATF is on their front lawn, demanding the Luger dad got off the corpse of a dead Nazi officer? Can you imagine their reaction when they find out that it's the United Nations making them give up their heirlooms? You might as well show up and say "give me your guns, they scare the French," you'd get a similar reaction.

And that's not even touching all the hunters who don't particularly care about RKBA - until now, that is.

If this wouldn't turn around the prevailing apathy towards RKBA in this country, nothing is going to; we've already lost. I don't believe we've slid so far, but if we have...well, then we might as well be getting on with things.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Article VI, US Constitution.

According to the Constitution itself, no provision of the Constitution can be altered except by the amendment process (see Article V), which is laid out in the document itself. Treaties, therefore, must either conform to the Constitution, or their contradictory provisions are invalid. Treaties cannot alter the Constitution (see Article V), therefore they cannot, with force of law, contradict the Constitution. Notice that the above quote refers to Treaties being "under the authority of the United States," and Federal laws as being made "pursuant" to the Constitution. This clearly places the Constitution itself above any laws or treaties made under, or persuant to, its authority. They need to repeal the Second Amendment, therefore, in order to implement this international ban in any way which effects the Law of the Land within the boarders of the United States.

 

[CAS700850]

As pointed out above, this isn't exactly news (2001), and it hasn't exactly made great progress since then. Heck, even my liberal brother-in-law has said that he thinks farmers and others should be allowed to own a rifle or shotgun (or even a revolver) since they are tools used around the farm. Even he'd get a little hot and bothered when the U.N. said we had to turn them all in.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

Yes it may be old news to some of us, but I'll bet this is the first go-round on it for a lot of folks. Good post.

Always good to be handed a reminder.

 

[gc70]

What? Again!

No thanks, I gave at the office.

 

[Jeff]

Come and get them. Nobody lives forever.

AMEN.

 

[Marshall]

Call me an optimist but I don't think we will see the day in our lifetime where the law comes to every Americans house to confiscate firearms. There's not near enough blue state people in the red states yet and there's still enough down home red state people that won't put up with it. The Government would be inviting an uprising like not seen in decades. There's enough house and senate members, Democrat and republican that would see this as wrong and dangerous they wouldn't let it happen. Besides, it would be political suicide and both parties know it.

 

[bakert]

I'm an optimist like Marshall but there's a lot of people here in the US including some of our elected Senators and Congressmen working towards this global ban goal. Not sure how they would get past our constitution and there's a hell of a lot of gun owners that would defy any attempt to conficate their firearms. For every NRA member there is probably another 8 to 10 people owning guns that would not give them up. Confiscating 35 to 45 million guns would an almost impossible task in this country.

 

[Sindawe]

I'd like to be an optimist like Marshall, but it is just not in my nature. Based on a very small sample set (about 60 people I've worked with over the years), about 40% are gun people like you find here on THR, another 30% are stong antis 20% support the 2nd, but don't shoot and the last 10% just don't care either way. That sample set was comprised of late Boomers/early Gen-Xers, 90% B.A./B.S.

I HOPE it never comes to confiscation. But if it does, Blue, Black or Green, they all bleed.

 

[borrowedtime69]

QUOTE: ""This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Article VI, US Constitution.

According to the Constitution itself, no provision of the Constitution can be altered except by the amendment process (see Article V), which is laid out in the document itself. Treaties, therefore, must either conform to the Constitution, or their contradictory provisions are invalid. Treaties cannot alter the Constitution (see Article V), therefore they cannot, with force of law, contradict the Constitution. Notice that the above quote refers to Treaties being "under the authority of the United States," and Federal laws as being made "pursuant" to the Constitution. This clearly places the Constitution itself above any laws or treaties made under, or persuant to, its authority. They need to repeal the Second Amendment, therefore, in order to implement this international ban in any way which effects the Law of the Land within the boarders of the United States."

Thats all great, but since when does the left care about the Constitution? They think of it as a "Living Document" which means that if there's a law they dont agree with, then its outdated and therefore invalid and should be ignored or changed. Heck, just look at how abusive the judicial system is. recently there was a lib senetor who thought that we need to look to other countries to interpret the law, use their examples of law to help "boost" their confidence in their countriesby using their laws here. Thanks for letting me vent! -Eric

 

[beerslurpy]

This article is misleading and alarmist and not based in fact.

Treaties have to be ratified by congress or they are null and void. The Kyoto Treaty was an excellent example- clinton signed it and congress ignored it. The president cant just treaty his way to tyranny.

Additionally, the constitution remains the highest law of the land, treaties cannot change this.

The day we have to worry about a UN treaty will come long after the real battle and only if we lose.

 

[scottgun]

They (the gun grabbers) will have to chip away a small bit at a time, slowing raising the heat of the water in the pot. Some states are doing this already, keeping the AWB in place on a state level, banning .50 cals, etc...

But I can't see the UN attemping to ban guns in American. I can say that will never happen in my life time, or my unborn children's life time.

The NRA likes to use this as a rallying cry and its good to remain vigiliant. If the Hilldabeast gets elected president, who knows what could happen.

 

[DMF]

This horse has been flogged recently: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=120787&highlight=treaty

 

[4570Rick]

What was it that King Leonidas said to Xerxes?

 

[Control Group]

Confiscating 35 to 45 million guns would an almost impossible task in this country.

According to estimates I've seen here and elsewhere, you're off on the low end by an order of magnitude. A comprehensive gun confiscation would be looking at guns in the hundreds of millions spread across eighty-million-plus homes.

 

[Sam Adams]

Confiscating 35 to 45 million guns would an almost impossible task in this country.

According to estimates I've seen here and elsewhere, you're off on the low end by an order of magnitude. A comprehensive gun confiscation would be looking at guns in the hundreds of millions spread across eighty-million-plus homes.

+1. Confiscating 35-45 million guns would still leave about 200 million...and those holding them would be both warned and mightily ticked off.

The Government would be inviting an uprising like not seen in decades.

About 14 decades, to be precise.

There's enough house and senate members, Democrat and republican that would see this as wrong and dangerous they wouldn't let it happen. Besides, it would be political suicide and both parties know it.

I'd wager that it'd be more than just political suicide.

 

[No_Brakes23]

The UN wouldn't have to. Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement of the USA would handle it.

I doubt it.

Sure, lots of cops are Antis, and the redundant f-troops at Bat-feed were hot for guns under Janet Reno.

But I am pretty sure there are still a whole lot of LEOs who will do what they can to not comply with a total ban.

Look at Canada where the cops often turn a blind eye to ban-violators up there.



I think Gun Control can get pretty far without open war. As long as beer is in the fridge and gas isn't $10 a gallon, the eloi will stay conplacent. If we still have our "sporting" guns and relics, that is...

But a total ban will create guerilla warfare if not open civil war in the U.S.

Too bad one of the few states able to support itself, (Cali) wouldn't be on the right side of that conflict.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I'm worried that if the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate it will drive the country to elect a gun-grabbing liberal Democrat, in which case this treaty could receive new life. And I don't see the situation in Iraq improving anytime soon. If Iran unites with the new Saudi leadership and they hook up with Venezuala, we could be looking at fuel rationing before the 2008 elections, further driving people away from the current administration. The lefties in the Democratic party will likely sieze on this to install a tyrannical leftist Democrat in the Oval Office, and if people are P.O.ed enough, they might just elect such a critter.

Right now our best hope for preventing that is that the Bush administration actually knows what it's doing regarding Middle Eastern policy, but if that doesn't prove to be the case we'd better have a 2A plan B in place for dealing with a President Hilary (or worse).