• U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
    35 replies, posted
[quote]It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms. What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail? While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to: Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course). Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp). Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights. Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” More from contributor Larry Bell Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle. As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations. If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it. There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%). Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home. Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment. So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment. Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously. Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.[/quote] [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/[/url]
Doesn't said 2nd amendment only allow the carrying of guns in times of war?
I don't agree with this, and I'm British. The UN doesn't have the right to mess with something like the US constitution. There's no way it'll get passed.
This won't go anywhere with the US.
The US is on the Security Council, so this will go down hard.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;36681868]Doesn't said 2nd amendment only allow the carrying of guns in times of war?[/QUOTE] No? The reason the amendment is there is so that if the people ever get pissed off at their government not doing what they want them to do, they can raise arms against them. Since Thomas Jefferson clarified the amendment, the wording has been "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, [B]the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed[/B]." I.e. "if the government goes all fascist on our asses, citizens of America have the ability to raise a militia against them to make sure they control the government, rather than the government controlling them."
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;36681868]Doesn't said 2nd amendment only allow the carrying of guns in times of war?[/QUOTE] [quote=The fuckin constitution]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote] nope
giving this any attention is just silly, the first thing that is gonna happen is that the US vetoes anything this agreement may lead to
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;36681868]Doesn't said 2nd amendment only allow the carrying of guns in times of war?[/QUOTE] A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [editline]8th July 2012[/editline] Double ninja'd.
Legal guns aren't a danger, the only ones that are used in terrorism and gang wars are untraceable illegal ones so whats the point in going after legal gun owners?
"These are the NWO globalists and oligarchical collectivists that have infected Obama, the Obama regime, and our government and the world. These are the enemies of truth, freedom, liberty, constitution, and the USA and our ideals. This is a act of treason by the Obama regime, they are plotting against our natural god-given rights. It is high time these criminals in washington end up in prison for treason." Oh god the comments ahaha
One world government. Wouldn't be surprised if we saw something like this in the future. Say good bye to your semi/auto assault rifles and submachineguns. We're gonna have to take it to the streets with molotovs and rocks :pwn: [editline]Wow[/editline] Ninja
"Wake up people! This is nothing more than the globalists on a mission to unite the world into the New World Order of Communism. America is OVER… The purpose of our gun rights has nothing to do with protecting yourself or hunting although it helps with that. The Founding Fathers put such into the Constitution for one reason: It’s there to allow people to defend themselves against the government if it becomes necessary. Governments cannot be trusted to correct themselves after they have gone bad. You should own a gun." [editline]9th July 2012[/editline] "NO US PARTICIPATION IN “WORLD GOVERNMENT!” An end to gun rights in the United States would mean civil war, and God, I hope so. The leftists need to be contained or purged/ THIS COUNTRY NEEDS AN ENEMA!"
These things are so funny, they're just crazy. If you look in to it, Obama has done more for gun rights than he has against them.
I'm sorry but these comments should be enough to stop any sane person siding with them. Seriously have a read. There hundreds like this. America is fucking scary.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;36682010]This is incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE] Holy shit guys, is anyone recording this? Someone just called a democrat's actions stupid. [i]On facepunch[/i]. [sp]a joke please don't hurt me[/sp]
Even if this is as bad as this editorial says it is, it won't get anywhere in the US because it needs at least a 2/3 majority vote in the senate, plus presidential approval. And with a majority of senators opposing this, along with lobbying from gun rights advocates and firearms manufacturers, this will go no where in the US. Secondly, the UN has no authority over the Constitution. TL;DR: this is a silly right wingnut opinion piece that should be taken with quite a bit of salt.
"This whole “only criminals carry” approach isn’t working. I was robbed at gunpoint in front of my apartment a week ago. We really need to take approaches: Increase gun ownership in law-abiding citizenry and make it possible to carry at all times and places (I can’t because I work/study at a university)." When the problem is guns, the only solution is more guns.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36682131]"This whole “only criminals carry” approach isn’t working. I was robbed at gunpoint in front of my apartment a week ago. We really need to take approaches: Increase gun ownership in law-abiding citizenry and make it possible to carry at all times and places (I can’t because I work/study at a university)." When the problem is guns, the only [B]solution is more guns[/B].[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.wickedfire.com/image.php?u=83043&dateline=1319125931[/IMG]
This shit is so stupid that Canada is actually opposing it more than the US is, that's saying something, both about this treaty and the Democrat's opinion towards it, seeing as the Democrats are the ones who tell their UN ambassador what to say for them.
[img]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5223/nutjobs.jpg[/img] author nutjob confirmed
-snip- Misread article about gun ownership.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36682231][img]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5223/nutjobs.jpg[/img] author nutjob confirmed[/QUOTE]Well, there goes all credibility. Reading up on this ATT, it would only help regulate international trade of small arms, such as preventing countries that violate serious humanitarian laws, etc.. It won't affect arms trade within countries or prevent citizens from buying guns.
so how come no one has complained that this article is over a year old?
Because it's still hilarious.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;36682010]This is incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=342386&dateline=1341358750[/img] I like :3
[QUOTE=Gordon Frohm;36682298]so how come no one has complained that this article is over a year old?[/QUOTE] ...Oh. Well, nevermind then.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;36682123]Holy shit guys, is anyone recording this? Someone just called a democrat's actions stupid. [i]On facepunch[/i]. [sp]a joke please don't hurt me[/sp][/QUOTE] Facepunchers criticize Democrats and the Obama Administration all the time. More often than you'd find Republicans here criticizing the Republican Party.
This is cool and all, except for the fact that U.S. constitutional law overrules any foreign treaty we sign. Sensationalism at it's best.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;36682291]Well, there goes all credibility. Reading up on this ATT, it would only help regulate international trade of small arms, such as preventing countries that violate serious humanitarian laws, etc.. It won't affect arms trade within countries or prevent citizens from buying guns.[/QUOTE] False, the treaty actually expressly prohibits transferring a gun to a "non-state entity," which technically includes civilians (say goodbye to cheap European surplus guns, at the very least). The fact that it also outlines that of the times a gun should be marked with a UN stamp, two of those times are "At time of confiscation" and "at time of deactivation/destruction," indicates the treaty is either a prelude to or geared towards confiscating arms from civilian ownership. Moreover, the rebels in Libya were considered "terrorists" by the Libyan government, as are the current rebels in Syria, but without access to firearms they can't oppose the regime in power. This treaty is largely geared towards barring private ownership of firearms, and trying to ensure that every gun is meticulously, yet inefficiently, tracked. It fails to recognize legitimate sporting uses for firearms, or their use for self-defence, and focuses only on their criminal use. This treaty, due to the fact that it will be disobeyed by criminals and terrorists, and that you can make a gun with shit you can find at Wal-Mart, and that registries about guns are inefficient, incomplete, ignored by criminals, only recognize where the gun is [i]supposed to be[/i] not where it [i]actually is[/i], cost a shitload, and are completely ineffective at helping stop or even solve crime in the slightest, will fail completely and waste a crapload of money, and will seek only to impede hunters, sportsmen, and self-defence practitioners internationally, rather than to actually stop oppressive regimes or terrorist/criminal cells from acquiring firearms.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.