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

U.N. Treaty banning firearms?????

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 38SnubFan, Oct 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 38SnubFan

    38SnubFan Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    451
    Location:
    Harrisburg, PA
    I've just read in an e-mail letter that on October 12th, the president of the NRA will be engaged in a live iN DEMAND Pay-Per-View debate with international gun-ban leader Rebecca Peters, regarding a U.N. gun-ban treaty with the United States which the U.S. Senate will vote to ratify.

    To be completely honest, I truly feel EXTREMELY THREATENED by this.

    My knowledge isn't the best as far as international law and treaties go, so I must ask this question: If the U.S. Senate votes and ratifies this U.N. treaty, do we lose all of our guns just like England and Austrailia.

    I was always under the impression that all laws (national and international) required the passing of a bill through both the House AND Senate, as well as signing into law by the President.

    Like I said, I'm not overly familiar with International Law and U.N. treaties, so if someone could explain this, I would be extremely grateful.

    Sincerely,
    Matthew Webb
    Franklintown, PA USA
     
  2. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,107
    That's not going to happen.

    A greater number of people in the state of Pennsylvania alone show up for the first day of hunting season in that state than are on active duty in the military. That should give you an idea of just how many people in this country cherish their right to keep and bear arms.

    Sure, they might try it. But it will never fly. And there will be serious political hell to pay in the form of being voted out of office for anyone who actually votes in favor of this garbage. The gun owners who didn't know what the AWB covered and thought it was a good idea are going to think again when the UN sets its sights on all guns.
     
  3. erik the bold

    erik the bold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    Middle of the Mitten, Somewhere' Nort of Hell
    Especially when many people take a distinct dim view of the UN because of the oil for food fiasco
     
  4. Bobarino

    Bobarino member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,625
    Location:
    western Washington
    if i'm not mistaken, this topic came up at the U.N. in the not too distant past and Colin Powell politely told them where they could put it. ain't gonna happen. that is, unless Kerry is elected.

    Bobby
     
  5. Bigjake

    Bigjake Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,066
    Location:
    North Central Ohio
    let Kerry try and ratify it ( in that sick, nightmare world where he would be elected president), and then try and enforce it. little blue helmets make for great target practice.
     
  6. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    Article II of the Constitution states that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

    The consent of the House is not needed to make treaties.
     
  7. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,107
    It would never come to that. Ratifying such a thing is not only unconstitutional but would be political suicide. And if there was ever a way to get the supreme court to recognize firearms ownership as an individual right, that would be it.
     
  8. mr_dove

    mr_dove Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Denver
    even if we signed the treaty, International Law is not binding in any way. Its only binding to the extent that a country agrees to abide by it.

    I heavily doubt that we would ever sign it though.
     
  9. Norton

    Norton Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,718
    So....just how visible are blue helmets at 400 yards?:evil:
     
  10. Langenator

    Langenator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    Ft Belvoir, VA
    WT is correct that consent of the House is not required to ratify treaties.

    However, consent of the House is required to pass what is known as "enabling legislation"-U.S. domestic laws that put the terms of the treaty into effect.
     
  11. 38SnubFan

    38SnubFan Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    451
    Location:
    Harrisburg, PA
    Thanks to everyone...

    Thank you to everyone so far for your replies on this matter, and I look forward to reading any more that post on this subject.

    I guess one could say that the NRA has become very good at scaring people. Considering the fact that the debate is a Pay-Per-View event, I wonder if such is just a tactic that is being used to scare people into spending money to watch it.

    As far as the little blue helmets at 400 yards.....if it ever comes to that, I'll be standing on the firing line right next to you. :evil: :fire: :cuss:

    -38SnubFan
     
  12. feedthehogs

    feedthehogs Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,801
    Its a money making event for the NRA.
    You see most gun owners are dumb and only get their knowlege of world events thru the NRA.
    The NRA takes advantage of this fact and sends out scare messages to their members which in turn panic and spread to others that are non members. I run into this all the time at the gun shows.
    Every piece of NRA material that comes to the house, goes into the trash.
    Most gun owners couldn't repeat the second amendment let alone any of the bill of rights and constitution.
    Anyone who knows about this situation knows it will never happen without another revolution taking place.
    Other than the few who want to run the world, the UN is known as a joke and has absolutly no power to enforce anything they dream up in their fantasy world.
     
  13. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    Oxymoron

    "Most gun owners couldn't repeat the second amendment let alone any of the bill of rights and constitution.
    Anyone who knows about this situation knows it will never happen without another revolution taking place."

    Well, IF "most gun owners' are so ignorant they "couldn't repeat the second amendment let alone any of the bill of rights and constitution" [sic], then what makes you think they'd even KNOW about the UN treaty?

    And if the average gun owner IS that ignorant, how is it you rely on them to prevent just such an event from occurring? Ignorance being oft accompanied by inertia (and caused by it), your reliance seems ill-placed.

    Your assertions are mutually contradicting. Further, the egregious restrictions of the Second Amendment to date generally, and in Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and California particularly (note the high population concentration), suggest that no such "revolution" would be triggered by signing such a treaty.


    :scrutiny:
     
  14. Shield529

    Shield529 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Location:
    Arkansas
    If gun theft does occur in this country, this is how it will be done.
    Most peoplewould never have any idea it happened until UN solders were kicking in the front door.
    By the way I think blue helmets would be quite easy at 400 yards.
     
  15. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    I see it this way. I believe that almost no one will let the UN create laws viuolating the constitution. After all, if they can enact global disarament, who's to say they wont enact global religious licensing.

    And would you want to be the senator that handed over the US's soverginty to the UN?
     
  16. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
  17. mountainclmbr

    mountainclmbr Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,289
    Location:
    On top of a mountain in Colorado
    "And would you want to be the senator that handed over the US's soverginty to the UN?"

    Wouldn't that be Senator John F. Kerry?
     
  18. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,107
    From the UN Disarmament site:
    I had no idea that small arms could do all of these things all by themselves!

    Color me surprised. Might there be any available resources and statistics that show the peaceful and prosperous results of all of this disarmament?
     
  19. cracked butt

    cracked butt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    6,986
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    Raven beat me to it. Maybe the UN should negotiate with the small arms, and use diplomacy instead of trying to get rid of the small arms.

    If the UN speaks of small arms as if they were human, wouldn't eliminating small arms be the same thing as genocide?
     
  20. cracked butt

    cracked butt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    6,986
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    Feedthe hogs- everything you stated in your post is horsepucky.

    Well, except for this part to a certain extent:

    I said "to a certain extent" because the UN has the ability to extract $billions of taxpayer dollars from the USA, but this is the only thing they can consistantly do competantly.
    :fire: :banghead:
     
  21. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,107
    You know, to the UN's credit, "legal owners" and "legitimate owners" are brought up quite a bit. "Illicit arms" are also brought up.

    Might we, as legal owners, not be targeted by this? If I were the UN, I would certainly be more concerned with the arms proliferation in destabilized and war-torn regions of the world instead of middle America.
     
  22. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Indiana
    Look at the past fifty years and tell me again they wouldn't try it at some point. Sorry but I can see such a treaty being ratified and I can see a future president at least attempting to give it teeth. Think, oh, I don't know...Hillary Clinton backed by a Democratic Senate in say, 2010? More frightening? I tend to believe the bulk of gun owners would meekly give up what they have. And the left knows it.

    So, if it happened and most of the armchair warriors here and elsewhere rolled over because "it's the law"(seems we've heard that on this very forum a lot lately) what WOULD you do? Gonna go out in a blaze of glory? What about the wife and kids? Taking them with you?

    Sorry, it's negative yes, but it probably will happen at some date. As I've said before, nothing is immortal including the United States and it CAN happen here.
     
  23. ilcylic

    ilcylic Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,002
    Location:
    Desert Southwest, USA
    Blue Helmets

    Remember, the helmets are bullet resistant.

    Aim a little low.

    -Ogre
     
  24. Dave R

    Dave R Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,628
    Location:
    Idaho
    If we had a gun-grabber President...then a UN resolution would be the perfect excuse to begin registration and confiscation.

    "The United States is going to join with our civilized allies, and indeed, the rest of the world, in ridding ourselves of these dangerous weapons..."

    Good reason to make sure we don't wind up with a President who has eagerly signed so many other "common sense" gun laws in the past as a Senator.
     
  25. El Rojo

    El Rojo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,541
    Location:
    The People's Republik of **********
    Incrementalism is the key. A gun here and a gun here. If they ever tried to take them all away, there would be a civil war. We know this, they know this. In fact, if you think about it, I think they have already gone too far and that is why the AWB expired. We are on a trend back the other direction. At least Free America is.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page