Is it just me or does it not bother anybody else? The UN says they don't need approval from our government to proceed with their agenda. If that's the case, than there is nothing we can do to fight this. Can anyone help me get through my paranoid thoughts about disarmament under UN rule?
UN problem
- Thread starter 50 cal
- Start date
- Status
Tommygunn
Member
Let's not get all riled up about the U.N. There's a lot of conspiracy theories about them coming after our guns which usually amounts to international agreements about shipping military ordnance.
Considering how incompetent the U.N. is, if ever there was to be a gun confiscation, I couldn't think of any other organization I'd like to be in charge.
Considering how incompetent the U.N. is, if ever there was to be a gun confiscation, I couldn't think of any other organization I'd like to be in charge.
50 cal,
The UN does not need America's permission to go forward with its agenda. It can do whatever it wants. BUT to calm your nerves... Anything the UN does is not binding on the US unless it passes a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
The UN can pass a mandate that all governments must confiscate guns from their citizens. America would not have to abide by this unless 67 senators vote to ratify the UN mandate. Even if President Obama agrees to the mandate and signs the treaty, he cannot enforce it unless 2/3 of the Senate say he can.
This comes directly from the Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. "He [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 UN cannot take away our guns without our permission. Feel better?
The UN does not need America's permission to go forward with its agenda. It can do whatever it wants. BUT to calm your nerves... Anything the UN does is not binding on the US unless it passes a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
The UN can pass a mandate that all governments must confiscate guns from their citizens. America would not have to abide by this unless 67 senators vote to ratify the UN mandate. Even if President Obama agrees to the mandate and signs the treaty, he cannot enforce it unless 2/3 of the Senate say he can.
This comes directly from the Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. "He [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 UN cannot take away our guns without our permission. Feel better?
Last edited:
Discussed repeatedly here at THR and elsewhere and answered well by cbrgator, I'll reinforce the idea that the UN has no authority or power to force compliance with any rule made by them. Sovereign nations have been ignoring UN rules since the inception and will continue to do so. UN rules have any real effect because of cooperation of member nations.
USAF_Vet
Member
This is the part that concerns me though. All they need is to call an unannounced midnight session of nothing but anti's in the senate to be present. It doesn't say 2/3 of all 100 Senators must vote to approve, just those present. Nor would it surprise me if they pulled another "We have to pass the bill before we can see what's in the bill."
Wisconsin did it just a few months ago.
NMBrian
Member
Can a foreign treaty overrule a Constitutional amendment? Even with a 2/3 vote?
Mike1234567
member
That's a very valid concern, IMO. How many times have these "secret midnight sessions" resulted in passing legislature to support hidden agendas?
USAF_Vet
Member
If a foreign treaty is ratified by our government, then yes, I belive so. Enacting and enforcing this, however, will be awfully difficult.
loadedround
Member
Food for thought. Just how many Senators are pro gun and wish to be re-elected and how many anti gun Senators are there. My point is that it would be near impossible to get a "midnight" vote or similar meeting of 2/3 of the U.S. Senate. So rest easy, the vote will never occur and our guns are safe.
PreMod70
Member
A lot of messages from our government throughout the last couple of decades about the New World Order, economic exchange changes, currency matters and the most recent financial troubles suggest that the crossroads to American independence and the charter of a new one world government is closing in on our countries future. I have yet to hear a president explain what our future plans are once we are completely in the the New World Order or whether we are there as present and none the wiser. I think it is fair to us citizens to get a coherent answer so judgements came be made concerning our family and their future.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Let's call this one "asked and answered." The UN Gun ban is very old news that's been discussed many times, and the answer hasn't changed.
THR isn't the place for discussions of NWO paranoia ... but let's just say that the more one follows the international scene, the less likely it appears that we're on the brink of the nations of the world merging into a cooperative entitiy -- or even compromise enough to decide on which carry-out place for lunch.
THR isn't the place for discussions of NWO paranoia ... but let's just say that the more one follows the international scene, the less likely it appears that we're on the brink of the nations of the world merging into a cooperative entitiy -- or even compromise enough to decide on which carry-out place for lunch.
- Status