Letter sent to Obama on UN gun treaty

[Damn Yankee]

The letter has 130 signatures.

Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty

 

[Donn]

Due respect, but this letter to the President makes about as much difference as spitting in the ocean. He'd love to disarm us and this gives him that opportunity as well as someone else to blame.

 

[badge]

Write and or call your representatives as they commies running this country don't care a wit what we or the founding fathers think.

 

[McBear]

It is a shame that 130 congresscritters didn't take the time to actually read the language within the Arms Trade Treaty. If they had they would have seen the very specific language that says...

"Respect for the sovereignty of state-parties and non-interference with "internal affairs" or "constitutional provisions;"

In other words...it in no way affects the 2nd Amendment or ANY gun rights for those of us in the United States.

The unfettered spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Dread is a dangerous thing and one of the most harmful diseases to a democrazy [or Constitutional Republic].

 

[ladder13]

We have to pass the Treaty first to find out what's in it.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

It's so very comforting to know that UN gun control won't affect our 2A rights. Our own government does enough of that already.

 

[StatesRightist]

The US does not need to sign it, period. We can debate all day long whether it affects US citizens or not, but the bottom line is anything that allows the UN to alter US policy or acknowledges they may have a right to in the future is a bad thing.

 

[JJEH]

Due respect, but this letter to the President makes about as much difference as spitting in the ocean.

"Small livestock makes manure too..."

This is a German saying and it's right. If everyone would do something - not just sitting there and complain, I mean DO SOMETHING - then the people would have way more power than it is right now...

 

[jlrhiner]

So, all you all think the UN is gonna come take our guns?

Based on their past success?

I hope they send some of those Arab peacekeepers I've been hearing about. This should be fun.

Or wait, do you think "they" are going to outlaw guns? Based on all the pending legislation to overturn the Second Amendment?

I've said this before, I'll say it again. Be vigilant, be very vigilant. But the UN small arms treaty will have NO effect on the United States of America! PLEASE! Prove me wrong.

 

[StatesRightist]

So, all you all think the UN is gonna come take our guns?

Based on their past success?

I hope they send some of those Arab peacekeepers I've been hearing about. This should be fun.

Or wait, do you think "they" are going to outlaw guns? Based on all the pending legislation to overturn the Second Amendment?

I've said this before, I'll say it again. Be vigilant, be very vigilant. But the UN small arms treaty will have NO effect on the United States of America! PLEASE! Prove me wrong.

Precedent...look it up. As I stated above the issue of acknowledging the UN has any authority regarding any type of arms etc is not something the US needs to do.

Many well educated pundits, the NRA, multiple congressmen, Ex-Presidents and the former US ambassador to the UN all think it's a bad idea.....so unless you are maintaining your a better educated, more intelligent than that entire lot of them and better informed on the subject, I think we can assume there is more to this than you apparently think.

 

[jlrhiner]

I doubt it. I'm not trying to argue with you, we are on the same side mostly. But YOU go and read the resolution. I did. Soverign nations are EXEMPT!! It is targeted to stop "illict" (their word, not mine) trade in small arms. If you'll notice, every time this rears it's ugly head some one wants money. Join my group, send money so we can fight the UN, vote for me. This is a non issue.

 

[StatesRightist]

I doubt it. I'm not trying to argue with you, we are on the same side mostly. But YOU go and read the resolution. I did. Soverign nations are EXEMPT!! It is targeted to stop "illict" (their word, not mine) trade in small arms. If you'll notice, every time this rears it's ugly head some one wants money. Join my group, send money so we can fight the UN, vote for me. This is a non issue.

A healthy dose of cynicism/caution is the sign of an seasoned mind, I appreciate your point. I agree, we are on the same side of the gun equation and need to stick together. My biggest issue is I wouldn't trust the UN with a outhouse pot and the only UN move I would support is out of the US. They are corrupt through and through and I oppose our getting involved with them in anything. Have a good weekend.

 

[jlrhiner]

Will do. You do the same.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

So the UN says Al Qaeda can't have guns. Oh... okay... I'm sure that will work. Please...

Just take a look at how we go about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. We do that by attacking the gun rights of the law-abiding. How's that been working? Who thinks UN gun control will be any different on a global scale?

While America is busy complying with the UN, what do you think arms suppliers in Russia and China will be doing?

"Illicit" sales? What's that? Is that kinda like selling arms to drug lords in Mexico? Will the UN have jurisdiction over these issues, or can we still sell to mujahideen and alike if we feel like it?

I haven't read anyone saying that blue helmets are coming to America to confiscate our guns. What I have read in various articles are intelligent, thoughtful concerns about gun-control advocates in Washington using the treaty to help further their domestic gun control agendas. Plenty of blue-helmet minded folks already in Washington...

 

[jlrhiner]

Phil, read the original draft proposal done, I believe, in 2008 or 2009. THAT was written to control small arms dealers supplying arms illegally to sanctioned actors. It did not address private sales, or even governmental supplies.

The UN is supposed to meet this month to draft the language for the proposed "ban". Once its done and if it says we can't buy and sell our firearms, I'll join you and we can go and tar and feather them rascals.

I think the part that upsets me the most is that it is pro 2nd Amendment folks that are spreading this bull. At this point, what has all the money contributed been used for? What do these intelligent, thoughtful defenders of the Bill of Rights use the money being asked for to do? Send out more requests for money?

I'm sorry. This whole thing just confuses me. Someone trying to stop all the cheap AK's from being sold out of former Soviet block barracks and armories to places that can't even afford to feed their people suddenly becomes a multiple million dollar rallying point in my strategy to protect the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights!

I'll start the tar boiling, but I don't think I'll pluck any chickens just yet.

 

[frog289]

my dying mother told me to never give up my guns don,t trust the UN

 

[jlrhiner]

my dying mother told me to never give up my guns don,t trust the UN

Or people that run around screaming the sky is falling

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

It's a safe bet there won't be specific language in the treaty that states American's will no longer be be able and buy and sell guns. While that may satisfy some, there are others with a longer view.

I think Former UN Ambassador, John Bolton, sums up general domestic concerns quite well. I particularly agree with Bolton when he says (paraphrasing) that the current administration knows they can't get much done with just a domestic gun control sales job, and will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise.

 

[jlrhiner]

How would that work? Where was the precedent set that a trade treaty altered the Constitution? How is an international organization, which as a sovereign nation we are not subservient to, going to compell the United States to alter the Constitution? Regardless of the President (and it has to be the President, Hillary can't sign it) signing it, dosen't it have to be approved by a two thirds majority of Congress?

The tar is boiling, but we're using up a lot of resources keeping it that way.

 

[McBear]

Precedent...look it up. As I stated above the issue of acknowledging the UN has any authority regarding any type of arms etc is not something the US needs to do.

Many well educated pundits, the NRA, multiple congressmen, Ex-Presidents and the former US ambassador to the UN all think it's a bad idea.....so unless you are maintaining your a better educated, more intelligent than that entire lot of them and better informed on the subject, I think we can assume there is more to this than you apparently think.

Many well educated pundits, _______, multiple congressmen, Ex-Presidents and the former US ambassador to the UN all think it's a good idea.....so unless you are maintaining your a better educated, more intelligent than that entire lot of them and better informed on the subject, I think we can assume there is more to this than you apparently think.

And therein lies the problem. There are a whole bunch of folks who do not have a kneejerk reaction to everything the UN does and automatically against it.

And on another post you said..."the issue of acknowledging the UN has any authority regarding any type of arms etc is not something the US needs to do."...Why? Do you feel it is in our best interest for China or N. Korea to sell Silkworms to Iran who can then use them to tie up the Straits of Hormuz? Or Bob's First world country [let's say Germany] sell state of the art H&K to Third world countries in which we are in conflict, or in which we have criminal issues [say Mexican cartels].

Sometimes it is nice to have an international treaty in the back pocket to smack someone in the ears with when necessary to get their attention.