Gun control info. which I just ran across

[guitar1580]

My friend routinely forwards emails to me, jokes, aricles, etc., which go around the net. Some I believe, and some I don't, and I don't usually take the time to forward them, some I don't even read.

I got one earlier, which I'm including a part of below, about the new administration and gun control. I'm not sure how big of a deal it is, so I thought I'd post it and get some opinions from those who are more up to date on the situation than I am. After the healthcare takeover, nothing would surprise me.

JP


http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q92009101514 Nov. 2009

<http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015>

 

[P&R Fan]

This has been around before. Barry doesn't have the power by himself to do this. I believe it takes at least a 2/3 majority of the senate to pass. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please.

 

[oldRoger]

In addition to the 67 votes in the Senate which BHO could not get at present, there would be many court challenges. I do not doubt that the “progressives” would like to go this way that is why we must make sure that many "congressional progressives” have to look for work after November.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

The UN Treaty on Small Arms contains many provisions of concern. While it appears true that there would be conflicts with the Second Amendment here in the U.S., resolving such conflicts would require considerable effort in the courts over several years, during which time the government might be able to impose bans and restrictions on a very broad level.

Also of concern are the treaty's limitations on arms storage, ammunition, reloading, and other aspects that might be deeded to be outside of Second Amendment guarantees. For example, there are limitations on the types and quantities of ammunition any person may possess, and there are requirements for licensing of anyone who reloads ammunition and reporting requirements on ammunition so produced.

In short, even if outright bans or broad restrictions on individual ownership of firearms are successfully overturned, there are plenty of other provisions in the treaty with which the government might impose "reasonable restrictions" as a means of discouraging the ownership and use of firearms to a point where a majority of our population will find it too burdensome and/or expensive to continue exercising our rights.

The Heller decision, while affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, also speaks at length about the government's lawful exercise of "reasonable restrictions".

I think that the UN Treaty could become a large part of back-door efforts to undermine our rights.

The war is not over. The anti-gun crowd will not stop, so we cannot stop. Each new battle lays the groundwork for the next assault on American liberties.

 

[oldman45]

Some say firearms are dangerous and should be banned.

I say this Administration is more dangerous and should be watched very closely.

The email mentioned by the OP is old hat and been around a long time. Even so, it is something to be aware of that could happen if WE let it.

 

[DonD]

I think our "Fearless Leader" has more than enough on his plate that he won't touch such an assinine project. Far too many Democrats have lost elections because they opposed gun rights, Al Gore was one of them.

The Democrats have lost a lot of credibility with the electorate over the health care, jobs and the financial meltdown. We may strongly disagree with many Democrats on 2nd Amendment issues but most aren't stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot and give the USELESS UN control over internal US issues.

Should the current adminstration go that route, I think it would invoke an immediate SCOTUS challenge and if that happened, I think even some of the liberals who voted against Heller would object to UN interference and strike down any such under the table treaty. Wouldn't bet the farm on all this but it's my brand of logic. Don

 

[oldman45]

I think our "Fearless Leader" has more than enough on his plate that he won't touch such an assinine project. Far too many Democrats have lost elections because they opposed gun rights, Al Gore was one of them.

The Democrats have lost a lot of credibility with the electorate over the health care, jobs and the financial meltdown. We may strongly disagree with many Democrats on 2nd Amendment issues but most aren't stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot and give the USELESS UN control over internal US issues.

Should the current adminstration go that route, I think it would invoke an immediate SCOTUS challenge and if that happened, I think even some of the liberals who voted against Heller would object to UN interference and strike down any such under the table treaty. Wouldn't bet the farm on all this but it's my brand of logic. Don

This sounds good and I hope you are right. There have been things done lately that Dems knew would be a death to their political employment and they did it anyway. It seems they do not use logic in their thinking.