Tell me again why the U.N. isn't a threat?

[Chik a Boom]

Have been seeing and reading more noises about a U. N. gun ban treaty that can sidestep the 2nd amendment and has been passed by the Senate. Nothing from the usual lamestream media, but if you Google/Bing un gun ban treaty 2013 there's several write-ups. I know we went through all this last year, but would like to know the validity of this report. Hopefully, someone with more wisdom than I can shed more light on this? Thanks.

 

[GBertolet]

No gun ban treaty has been actually presented by the UN yet. It is still in the works. The advertised intent is to control international trafficing in weapons. There are some parties involved who want to include domestic regulations and restrictions on ownership of firearms, to be determined by UN bureaucrats, as they see fit. They can't stand the fact that we have the right to own firearms here. They are trying to insert language in this treaty that does exactly that. Last year when this was attempted, 51 Senators sent a letter to the President, stating if domestic firearm regulations were to be a part of this treaty they would oppose it. The treaty negotiations fell apart, with the agreement to try again this year. To ratify a treaty, there must be a 2/3 majority. That means 67 Senators must vote yes if it is to become law. Any ratified treaty can and will supercede the US constitution. It is doubtful that something like this, containing domestic restrictions would be ratified by the Senate. Still, we must be vigilent on this. It is usually considered an embarrassment for a President to sign on to a treaty, only to have it rejected by the Senate.

 

[animal]

This treaty applies to the international trade of weapons only, and has no bearing on civilian domestic ownersip of firearms. Furthermore, no treaty can supercede the Constitution, nor can the second amendment be "sidestepped" absent an additional constitutional amendment. This treaty would not change U.S. law or practices. Rather, it will bring the rest of the world in line with existing U.S. practices.

 

[KdF]

FactCheck.org : Still No International Gun Ban Treaty

This was back in July

 

[Hapworth]

This treaty applies to the international trade of weapons only, and has no bearing on civilian domestic ownersip of firearms. Furthermore, no treaty can supercede the Constitution, nor can the second amendment be "sidestepped" absent an additional constitutional amendment. This treaty would not change U.S. law or practices. Rather, it will bring the rest of the world in line with existing U.S. practices.

This covers it well. I'll add that the treaty aims to bring unregulated nations in line with arms trade best practices that the U.S. largely created and already holds itself to.

Some of the more hysterical claims about it involving language designed to regulate domestic firearms use are unsourced and dubious at best. The idea that a U.N. treaty can supercede the U.S. Constitution as it applies to American citizens living in the United States is absurd.

Here's a good read from Fox: UN reopens talks on NRA-opposed arms trade treaty | Fox News

 

[eb07]

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional

 

[Harrison]

I for one do not trust the UN. The fact that Sec. Kerry, Hillary before him and our president fully support this unwritten treaty does not convince me it is a good thing.

 

[Delos]

Have been seeing and reading more noises about a U. N. gun ban treaty that can sidestep the 2nd amendment and has been passed by the Senate. Nothing from the usual lamestream media, but if you Google/Bing un gun ban treaty 2013 there's several write-ups. I know we went through all this last year, but would like to know the validity of this report. Hopefully, someone with more wisdom than I can shed more light on this? Thanks.

What was it, the 1990’s when the free trade agreement included language that prohibited us being told where our meat was imported from. I never thought of that as a freedom that could be taken away.

It staggers the imagination that I cannot ask a butcher where the meat came from?

For the UN to dictate gun control to us would require more? Perhaps require us to burn food in our vehicles (gasohol) to run up the price of food and gasoline. Some left wing types in control that put restrictions on our few industries that are still in this country. And then plans to reduced our military because we cannot afford it? Hmm…. Get everyone broke enough and hungry enough? Fortunately oil shale was found on private lands that our government could not quickly control. Lots of natural gas is also locked up in oil shale it seems.

 

[jlrhiner]

How about because of the great success of all their other endeavors?

 

[Chik a Boom]

I appreciate the replies. Am trying to make some sense of this before I panic.

 

[25elk]

Don't panic OP but remain constantly vigilant. Despite some of the naysayers here there are powerful people who are diligently trying to change the manner in which these treaties will apply to the US despite our constitution; Obama, Clinton and Kerry are among this group and are not going away anytime soon.

 

[Hapworth]

Despite some of the naysayers here...

Nice...facts, reason, legal and historical precedent -- these are the things that make "naysayers".

 

[eb07]

Dead issue. Next conspiracy.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.

Read more: Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty - The Hill's Floor Action
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[James&theGiant1911]

this is in forbes

1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation - Forbes

so tell me again how it is a non issue.

 

[vikgorr]

This treaty applies to the international trade of weapons only, and has no bearing on civilian domestic ownersip of firearms. Furthermore, no treaty can supercede the Constitution, nor can the second amendment be "sidestepped" absent an additional constitutional amendment. This treaty would not change U.S. law or practices. Rather, it will bring the rest of the world in line with existing U.S. practices.

I hope you are right, but my experience tells me otherwise. The treaty will bring USA in line with the rest of the world: permission and registration for every gun and round purchased. The reason for absence of primers on the market most probably being upcoming background check for the purchase of ammo. See Connecticut.
It is needed to bring USA in line on let's say gas prices - $8/g, and wages - they went down with wages in Europe quite a bid under pretense of fighting deficit. Ours deficit is out of control.

 

[dougb1946]

this is in forbes

1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation - Forbes

so tell me again how it is a non issue.

ammo purchases | Military Times GearScout
Look up IDIQ contracts on google.
The ammo purchase issues, the MRAPs for DHS, all turn out to be data taken out of context, that is puffed up and twisted to enflame the masses. And we are part of the masses people are trying to enflame with fear. It is really easy to get people heated up with just a touch of truth, presented the right way.
(I tried to avoid saying people are lying about the facts to push personal agendas, as we all know only the liberals in congress do that)

 

[beemerphile]

Some light reading on the subject...

http://saami.org/PubResources/SAAMIMinorityReportISACSFinal.pdf

The cost of complying will make any imported small arms and ammo cost prohibitive. It is the camel's nose under the tent Guess what happens next? If we had booted the UN off our shores when the John Birch Society first suggested it, we and the world would be much better off.

 

[James&theGiant1911]

it is not just the UN it is everything about our society has gotten to greed and money on the state level to the government.


There was a time in our country that we were isolationists, we worried about our own and not illegal minorities or people who want to destroy us but yet want our money.

So Sept 11,2001 happened and then boom come on in America is for everyone except what happens when the middle class tax payers can no longer fund programs and healthcare for the illegal citizens, who pay no taxes mind you, then the deficit increases, more people depend on the government for jobs and food and hyper inflation occurs limiting what you can actually buy with those less dollars than you made 5 years ago. Politicians want to give them the Dream Act and allow them to go to Universities here and pay in state tuition and qualify for scholarship programs. The schools want the students cause more students for them means more money for them and they could care less if they have a job upon graduation or not. Hell work at the 7-11 for all they care so that devalues education.

America is on a collision course with a deficient it can not pay and greedy politicians sponsoring programs that they can no longer support. It may all be in their master plan to transfer power, control people and reduce population through another Civil War. One thing is for certain this level of government is unsustainable and something will eventually happen.

 

[guitar1580]

The UN arms treaty is not really a conspiracy theory. It was just passed by the UN this week, and the United States voted yes. Let's hope that the Senate does not ratify it in this country. It could very well provide a back door opening for gun control in the US. Maybe that is why the NRA has been fighting hard to oppose it. Please read the following article, and notice that it does include "small arms and light weapons". Think that affects any of us here on the forum? I do. Does anyone want international bureaucrats to have a say in our 2nd Amendment rights? I don't.

Please support the NRA. They are our strongest voice.

Senators vow to oppose UN arms trade treaty | Fox News

 

[andrewstorm]

UN treaty bull hoggy

Agenda 21 (1960) requires gun confiscation worldwide,only morons belive The un cares about violence or children,the agenda is world domination,thru collectivisation.