Proposed U.N. Treaty to Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns for U.S. Gun


Oldgrunt

Active member

This seems to have been coming down the pike for quite a while and even our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has been alleged to be one of the backers along with the Pied Piper. The sovereignty of our country is being undermined and we are slowly being subjugated to the UN. We should get rid of the UN in this country and tell the rest of the world to back off. This will be an acid test for our Congress and our President (if we had one). One of these days, someone is going to knock on our doors asking for our guns, knives and slingshots. That is one good thing about being old, I may not live long enough to see it but it is coming. If I do live long enough, I hope that there enough like minded people left to fight with me. That will be my last opportunity to stand up as an American citizen!
 

Terminal Lance

New member
If something like this gets passed I'll just have to bury my guns in the backyard till after they come looking. And report them stolen. I don't know. I can't believe that this is even being considered. Criminals will get guns no matter what so why are law abiding citizens being punished. Its especially hard to swallow for me having fought in Iraq and protected our rights like so many before me. I spit at this administration.
 

Nightmare45

NRA LIFE MEMBER
Actually under the constitution no other country can regulate crap, buzz off UN, come and take it. Based on your past history you losers will get your butt kicked.
 

JoshJ10

New member
I saw this here, and sent my state Senators an email via the provided link. I got this response from Democratic Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown:

Dear Mr. Johnson:



Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding a possible ban of firearms by the United Nations.



In 1999, the United Nations made a commitment to address the illegal trade in small arms and light weapons. The main purpose of the UN program is to promote the restriction of illegal small arms and light weapons and to coordinate international vigilance against their spread. The program is not intended to negotiate a global gun ban or to deny law-abiding U.S. citizens their right to bear arms.

I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Should legislation regarding this issue come before the Senate, I will certainly keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me.



Sincerely,



Sherrod Brown

United States Senator
 

CapGun

New member
If something like this gets passed I'll just have to bury my guns in the backyard till after they come looking. And report them stolen. I don't know. I can't believe that this is even being considered. Criminals will get guns no matter what so why are law abiding citizens being punished. Its especially hard to swallow for me having fought in Iraq and protected our rights like so many before me. I spit at this administration.
There are far more law abiding citizens.= "the masses". Those are the ones that need to be controlled in order for "them"to maintain power. Have no fear, when there are none left but the "lawless" they will be eliminated en mass by the "regime". Plus you "treasonous" individuals that will not march in lockstep will suffer the same fate as the other criminals! The rest of the brainwashed PC "sheeple will applaud this!
 

CapGun

New member
Last month a U.N. committee met in New York and signed off on several provisions, including the creation of a new U.N. agency to regulate international weapon sales, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide.
Isn't it interesting that it always seems to be about MONEY? So as long as mass murdering dictators rule a country that does not manufacture guns bear no liability for their atrocities. I guess the quote "The sword does not commit the murder and the sword maker bears no sin" has just been rendered meaningless.

I challenge you out there to list the reasons in a separate thread that there are those out there that want to do something that is impossible to do except to "law abiding citizens", that being the complete disarming of anyone except police and military.
Saying that they want to take over is not good enough to explain why an American Citizen would agree to this and what they really expect to happen. This is something my small brain "does not compute!" Conspiracies, theories and rational thought out guesses welcome!

Read more: Proposed U.N. Treaty To Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns For U.S. Gun Makers | FoxNews.com


R
 

walt629

New member
Actually under the constitution no other country can regulate crap, buzz off UN, come and take it. Based on your past history you losers will get your butt kicked.

Here is what Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.

The above was selected from: The Constitution --- Plain and Simple: Treaties

There is a lot to read on the subject after and during the above statements. The article starts off reassuring us that treaties are not the law of the land and then goes on to confirm that issue. But if I'm reading it correctly it is all up to the Senate to make the final decision to the legality and constitutionality of the treaty.

All that having been said, If somehow 2/3 of the Senate agree and ratify a treaty, it does in fact become 'Law of the Land'.
 

walt629

New member
Last month a U.N. committee met in New York and signed off on several provisions, including the creation of a new U.N. agency to regulate international weapon sales, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide.
Isn't it interesting that it always seems to be about MONEY? So as long as mass murdering dictators rule a country that does not manufacture guns bear no liability for their atrocities. I guess the quote "The sword does not commit the murder and the sword maker bears no sin" has just been rendered meaningless.


Read more: Proposed U.N. Treaty To Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns For U.S. Gun Makers | FoxNews.com


R

I'd say it was all about the money. If you read the treaty, the key point is to affect those countries producing arms for export. Not too many of the member nations of the UN have any kind of indusrty let alone an industry capable of producing fire arms. I would say this is aimed at producing nations like The US, Russia and the European nations.

One of the key element is to have the producing nations set up a "fund" to pay reparations to the nations that 'suffer' from the sale of arms that get from the offending nation into the offended nation. Sounds like extortion on a global scale.

Now would be a good time to pull out of the UN like Bolton wanted to do years ago. But that's not gonna happen until the WH, Senate and Congress are controlled by representatives that actually have a set of stones and will stand up for the best interest of the US and tell the UN and all the tin horn dictators to pund sand!

Why yes Martha! Your vote does count!
 
Last edited:

gunnerbob

PEW Professional
All of this makes feel better about buying my guns & ammo as fast as I can.... If I got the $$, I'm getting the gun. I believe that sometime, in the near future(my lifetime) we as a country will be fighting for our freedoms again from our government.
 

Unfettered Might

Μολών λαβ&
Here is what Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.

The above was selected from: The Constitution --- Plain and Simple: Treaties

There is a lot to read on the subject after and during the above statements. The article starts off reassuring us that treaties are not the law of the land and then goes on to confirm that issue. But if I'm reading it correctly it is all up to the Senate to make the final decision to the legality and constitutionality of the treaty.

All that having been said, If somehow 2/3 of the Senate agree and ratify a treaty, it does in fact become 'Law of the Land'.

No THEY do not have have the final decision on anything, WE THE PEOPLE do.
Now as far as the legal side of things, Congress only has the powers vested in it by the US Constitution. Yes they have stretched those boundries, mostly by use of the commerce clause, but by no measure of the written word can they ever think they have the legal standing to eliminate anything in the Bill of Rights. The first part of the paragraph in both that article and your post have omitted, "The Constitution and the laws of the United States, WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF..." If the treaty doesnt pursue or goes against the US Constitution, it is invalid.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,688
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top