UN Arms Treaty (MERGED)

UN Arms Treaty (MERGED)

This is a discussion on UN Arms Treaty (MERGED) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; UN Arms Trade Treaty Eyes "Legally Owned Weapons" - Leah Barkoukis Opinions??? (I dont know enough about this to comment yet. I am not a ...

Page 1 of 20 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 286
Like Tree149Likes

Thread: UN Arms Treaty (MERGED)

  1. #1
    Member Array catt101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kansas City Area
    Posts
    67

    UN Arms Treaty (MERGED)

    UN Arms Trade Treaty Eyes "Legally Owned Weapons" - Leah Barkoukis



    Opinions???




    (I dont know enough about this to comment yet. I am not a big fan of the UN to start with. Looking for those who have a little knowledge to help me out.)


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,986
    Much ado about nothing.
    BenGoodLuck likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    The Supreme Court has already decided many years ago that a treaty does not supersede the Constitution.
    DoctorBob, ArmyMan and Sig 210 like this.
    "People who take an Internet handle of a great warrior, are usually the first to go fetal when crunch time comes." - Me

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Chad Rogers View Post
    The Supreme Court has already decided many years ago that a treaty does not supersede the Constitution.
    Yes, but that is the exact opposite of what it says in our constitution.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #5
    Ex Member Array oldrwizr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Durham, N.C.
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Much ado about nothing.
    Waaay too much.

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Not sure we can trust that the SCOTUS will do the right thing anymore.

    That aside, even if it does not affect us legally, it could impact the international gun trade market which would be very bad for quality and quantity of competition, cost and supply of guns and ammo.
    ErnieNWillis likes this.
    Walk softly ...

  7. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,936
    Previous administrations have more or less told the UN to go pound sand when it came to talking about guns.

    Just yesterday, there was a U.N. conference held here on our turf that discussed this very thing. One thing about it was different. Our beloved Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton,offered totall cooperation in the implementation of this plan to outlaw private ownership of weapons.

    Make no mistake, the threat is more real now than it has ever been. We have an administration that is hostile to the Constitution that so many of us cherish and our own people has pledged to make it a treaty possible, in spite of the various protections afforded by the Constitution.

    You naysayers had better wake up. In the last 3 years, things have changed dramatically. We now have socialized healthcare, some centralized control of private industry, felons that have been apointed as "czars" that have oversight of many branches of goverment ...all of which as little as 4 years ago had many of us saying that "could never happen here".

    Some of you still beleive that this Administration actually gives a rats ass about the Constitution and the ideals in it.

    For those that doubt, for those that continue to keep their head in the sand, and for those that still beleive it cant happen here, read some of these links and see just how close we are.

    U.N. Pursues a Global Weapons Treaty - WSJ.com

    Talks begin at UN on global arms trade treaty

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/...owned-weapons/

    And this. If its not a "real"threat, then why would our own people see it neccesary to inform the President that they dont agree with it? Here is the "letter"

    http://kelly.house.gov/sites/kelly.h...T%20Letter.pdf

    This but one shot over the bow. There are many more like it.

    Opposition to UN arms treaty heats up - The Hill's Global Affairs

    Its time to wake up.
    Hoganbeg, msgt/ret, niks and 11 others like this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    ...from my cold, dead hands.
    JDE101, Spidey2011 and GhostMaker like this.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

  9. #9
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes, but that is the exact opposite of what it says in our constitution.
    Actually, no. At best, the supremacy clause can be interpreted to say treaties are equal to the Constitution (although this is a misinterpretation, IMHO).

    As equals, treaties cannot modify the Constitution (which would be a superior position).

    This is well-settled law, since the 1957 Reid v. Covert case.
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array rammerjammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Posts
    3,517
    OP- thanks for passing on the same email rumor.
    Last edited by Rock and Glock; July 6th, 2012 at 02:58 PM.
    Sig 210 and Sig35seven like this.
    "Was there no end to the conspiracy of irrational prejudice against Red Ryder and his peacemaker?"

    Revolvers, “more elegant weapons for a more civilized age.”

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,986
    Aside from Reid v Covert, lets not forget the requirement of two thirds of the senate to ratify a treaty. And what is the specific language of this treaty that folks find so objectionable? If we believe the Huffington Post article linked by HotGuns to be credible,
    Led by the United Kingdom, nations have worked to create a treaty that would promote transparency and accountability in the arms trade and prevent international transfers of arms that contribute to serious human rights violations, armed conflict, U.N. sanctions violations, organized crime and terrorist acts. It would not ban the sale of any kinds of guns.
    And
    In April, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, reiterated U.S. support for a treaty, but not one that regulates ammunition.
    "We want any treaty to make it more difficult and expensive to conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms," he said. "But we do not want something that would make legitimate international arms trade more cumbersome than the hurdles United States exporters already face."
    So if they are correct we would still be able to buy guns, and we wont support a treaty regulating ammunition.
    And we wont support anything that puts further burdens on our manufacturers.
    So can anyone show me the actual wording of the treaty they find so objectionable? I am not talking quotes from an article. If you notice the Heritage piece has to resort to creative editing to make their point. That stuff about weapons that were misused. Why not give it to us unedited and in context? I would like to see the actual text of the treaty that is supposed to be such a threat.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes, but that is the exact opposite of what it says in our constitution.
    Article 3 of the Constitution states:

    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority
    "People who take an Internet handle of a great warrior, are usually the first to go fetal when crunch time comes." - Me

  13. #13
    Member Array catt101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kansas City Area
    Posts
    67
    Dear RammerJammer:

    First off.. I did not repost some "email rumor".. In fact, I have seen at least two news articles in the past week from two respected, mainstream news sources. The link I posted was just for the basic information on the matter. The removal of MY RIGHTS is a subject that concerns me in our current political climate.

    Second, If you had actually and completely read my post, it clearly states that I do not have a lot of information about this issue. However, I do know that there are a fair amount of knowledgeable people on this forum who DO know the story. I was simply asking for their opinions.

    I belong to exactly ONE gun forum. This one. The reason I registered was that I felt that I could get good information without all the BS. I "lurked" on this (and a few others) before registering. What I saw here was a group of intelligent people who help each other. The questions I have asked on this forum have been answered in a respectful and helpful manner.
    I might lurk on other forums, but I choose not to register with them because of egos, attitudes, lack of knowledge, and woman-hating manners.

    I am not a conspiracy theorist. I did not post the question to inflame passions or irritate. I am not a troll. I posted for the simple want of information. Yes, I am fairly new to these issues. But how else is someone to learn?
    Yes, I did make a post a while back that confirmed a "conspiracy theory". But, if I had not asked the question, how was I to know?

    If my post irritated you, I am sorry. However you did not have to respond in a tired and condescending manner.

    By not asking questions and getting factual information is how a conspiracy theorist is created.
    Last edited by Rock and Glock; July 6th, 2012 at 02:58 PM.
    niks, oakchas, sid1 and 4 others like this.

  14. #14
    Member Array catt101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kansas City Area
    Posts
    67
    Yes, I agree that the link I posted was not the best. However, it did give the responders a point of reference. It was better than me saying 'Hey! What ch'all think 'bout that UN gun thingie'!!!!
    Unfortunately, I do not have the scope of knowledge to figure out what is true or not yet on this issue.
    I was just referencing the treaty and idea itself.

    Thanks for your responses and extra links!!!!

    Catt

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array RKflorida's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Deltona, Florida
    Posts
    824
    The senate said last year that there was no way that treaty would pass. And this is a Democrat controlled senate! Of course that was then, this is now. Never know with these slimeballs.

Page 1 of 20 1234511 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

ammo prices rising because of treaty
,
did clinton sign the att
,
did hilary sign small arms treaty
,
did hillary clinton sign a treaty july 27
,
did hillary clinton sign the small arms treaty with the un
,

did hillary clinton sign the un small arms treaty

,
freedom from war
,

freedom from war snopes

,
politifact small arms treaty
,

un at&t treaty

,
un small arms treaty forum
,
would reid v. covert deny the small arms treaty
Click on a term to search for related topics.