Defensive Carry banner

United Nations Threat Continues

3K views 44 replies 22 participants last post by  SelfDefense 
#1 ·
NRA-ILA :: Legislation

Friday, July 18, 2008


Over the past 7 years, the United Nations (UN) has been working to reach agreement on an international treaty on the trade in small arms. A "Meeting of States" has occurred every two years on the topic, and is going on once again in New York City. The threat this poses to our Second Amendment rights is real. Thanks to the efforts of U.S. officials, its progress has been delayed, but, unfortunately, not stopped.

The "Programme of Action On Illicit Small Arms Trade" is the working group in the UN trying to create an international agreement to regulate firearms worldwide. The scope of that regulation is being debated, along with how far that regulation would intrude on the domestic policies of member nations. Former U.S. Representative to the UN John Bolton made it clear that the U.S. would not accept any agreement or treaty—or even participate in any effort that would result in an agreement or treaty—that would threaten the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Even after his tenure at the UN ended, Bolton's influence over U.S. policy remains, and has greatly hindered the ability of this group to advance its agenda.

It is vital to note that the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the primary driving force behind these activities. IANSA is led by radical international anti-gun activist Rebecca Peters. Peters formerly worked for George Soros' Open Society Institute and maintains close ties to the rabidly anti-gun Soros. Their anti-gun agenda includes the imposition of domestic gun control regulations on all nations, and includes broad scale bans on gun ownership, as was masterminded by Peters in Australia.

This radical anti-gun agenda has been held at bay by the policies set in place by the Bush Administration, but those policies may end on January 20, 2009. On that day, a new U.S. President will be inaugurated, and it will be his policies that are advanced. If Barack Obama wins the White House, it is a near certainty that the men and women he will appoint to key positions at the State Department will cooperate with the anti-gun agenda of groups like IANSA. The imposition of a treaty, if approved by the Senate and signed by the President, could undercut the gains made with the Heller decision, and make the Second Amendment rights of Americans subject to international restriction.
A president has powers that go far beyond his authority to sign or veto legislation. The appointments he makes to cabinet offices and ambassadorships will play an enormous role in shaping U.S. policy. Under President Bush, the appointments of men such as John Bolton, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have made the difference that has protected and advanced our individual liberties. Under a President Obama, all that could be lost due to the appointment of men and women who oppose our Second Amendment rights.
We've been protected from these fools for 8 years, but that protection may run out soon.
 
#20 ·
You are not mistaken.

The US Supreme Court settled this in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957):

''There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in 'pursuance' of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights--let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition--to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.''
Matt
 
#3 ·
true, but we're dealing with the prospects of a person getting into the white house who is backed by anti-gunners and who has a very open anti-gun stance. not to mention, the party this man represents is very pro-UN.
 
#4 ·
We just need to get rid of that criminal organization all together. I'm sure NY needs the space for parking!

They never do what they embargo, they steal more than they help, and not to mention that most of them are a bunch of panty waist liberal/socialists or thugs that prey on those who they are supposed to be protecting.

Reclaim the land and deport/jail the lot of them.

Rant over, please continue.
 
#5 ·
Paco,

How do you REALLY feel now that you've sugar-coated it? :hand5:

Seriously, I agree quite a bit with what you say. Can't figure out where they are helping the world much.
 
#6 ·
The sooner we give the U.N. the 'boot'...the sooner the world will be a better place.
This international 'corrupt' organization is a disgrace to the world.

Stay armed...drop out of the U.N. and give the building to the homeless:blink:...stay safe!
 
#8 ·
The United Nations is one of the most corrupt and despicable organizations on the planet. They do /some/ good but it is far outweighed by the atrocities that their members commit and sweep under the rug. Their record on Israel, the Balkans, China, Iraq and Africa as a whole is just deplorable. They have financed terrorism and under-the-table pay-offs from Saddam Hussein have been traced all the way up to Kofi Annan. Under the UN flag, Dutch troops cooperated in the slaughter of thousands of people in one night in Bosnia.

Their stance on our rights is no surprise considering they don't care about the rights of anyone in any nation as long they can go on telling themselves that their [brown] doesn't stink.
 
#10 ·
Be prepared to see blue. Light blue.
 
#18 ·
This might be straying away from 2A politics to more generalized politics...


-B
 
#24 ·
you're 100% right. it's another reason why we need originalists on the supreme court.
More in the legislature would be more useful.


-B
 
#26 ·
now, let's say that we get a pro UN, lap dog govt. next year who obviously wipes their rear-ends with our constitution and sees the UN as necessary...what can be done to stop UN encroachment on our lives and liberties?
 
#28 ·
Here is a article that discusses the U.N., their gun policy and the Senate Bill Obama is sponsoring to give U.N. and the world more of our money and rights
Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more

The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.


Barack Obama

S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

WND previously reported the proposal demands the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending "subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years, he said, would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A recent statement from Obama's office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

Another critic, however, has been commentator Glenn Beck, whose YouTube video critique can be seen.
"Not one dime would go to fixing America," the commentary said.

Obama has continued to lobby for such massive expenditures on his campaign stops. During an address as recently as last week, he said, "I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease."

Beck and Kincaid pointed out that the plan not only commits the U.S. to the anti-poverty spending proposal, it also adopts for the U.S. the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which includes a variety of treaties and protocols advocated by the U.N.

Objections have remained strong. Duane Lester, writing at the All American blogger, warned that the U.S. has yet to be able to win its own war on poverty.

"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared "all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States." This "all-out war" would last through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. We have spent billions of dollars fighting this war, and what have we achieved?"

He continued, "Very little. In 1964, there were 36 million Americans living in poverty, or about 19 percent of the population. In the 40 years between 1964 and 2004: ... poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor."

Despite that performance, "Obama is ready to take the fight global," said Lester.

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," he wrote.

Tom DeWeese at NewsWithViews said the plan "is very telling" about what Obama would do as president.

DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, warned the over-arching plan includes the ideals of consolidating all international agencies under the U.N., regulation by the U.N. of all corporate environmental issues, license fees charged by the U.N. to use air, water and natural resources, a restructuring that would give hand-picked non-governmental organizations huge influence, authorize a standing U.N. army and require registration of all arms.:aargh4:

:rant: I don't know about the rest of you, but I spent alot of money and energy fighting the last bunch of anti gunners in the early 90s.
I was hoping not to do this again and still leave my kids and grandkids a 2nd Admendment intact. Don't think this is a important election to vote in? Think again, skippy.:buttkick:




.
 
#29 ·
That's not 2A-related. Important, yes, but a great way to lock a topic. :nono:


-B
 
#30 ·
I'm sorry BAC. Hubby just explained to me my mistake.
I was so focused on the last line about "and require registration of all arms" I thought it was germane. I thought quoting that line alone wouldn't make much sense without the rest of the article.
Any time I hear "U.N." coupled with "registration of all arms" red flags go off for me. I was going to delete the entire thing, but hubby said it would mess up thread. I will be more careful in the future. Thanks for the heads up.
I am confused by ANY American politican who says they believe in the 2nd Admendment Rights, but is working to give them over to the U.N.
 
#36 ·
The UN really only has one goal.

One World Government.

They will do whatever they feel necessary to achieve that goal.

Firearms are not part of the equation. Army's of nations aren't even part of the equation.

Their goal is to have a standing U.N. Army that puts down rebellions,insurrections and uprisings all over the world by people that don't want to play their game.

You can not control people that have firearms.Its that simple.


Does anyone actually think that the recent restrictions of gun ownership in Canada,Australia or Britain in the last decade or so have happened by accident? Or that the constant battle for our right to bear arms will ever go away?



We are but one President away,one Congress away from that ever happening.
 
#38 ·
Gun Control at the UN

Daily Herald - Gun control at UN

Gun control at UN Print E-mail
Daily Herald

Another reason we need to do everything in our power to keep any Democrat out of the White House is the risk of what will likely change at the United Nations with leftist support from the U.S.
For example, the UN is again attempting to disarm us right now. They are currently meeting in session to facilitate that very real possibility.

I attended and participated in the first United Nations meeting on the Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons several years ago in New York.

Ambassador John Bolton and his assistant Don McConnell were strong in their stance against any restrictions on limiting the manufacture, sale, and transfer of legal weapons -- threatening even to walk out if these issues were brought up.

Many of the UN member nations and IANSA (a rabid anti-gun NGO) were very angry with the U.S. for standing its ground on this issue; and because of the consensus nature of resolution passage at the UN, fortunately nothing was agreed upon. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan lamented at the end of that conference, "We failed this time, but this is just the beginning."

A Democrat U.S. president might just hand them that victory.

•Jim Green,

Cedar Hills
would our govt. allow a foreign body to override our constitution? Something tells me yes.
 
#44 ·
Either of them? Damn, first link still no-go, but the pdf still works fine for me. I'll edit my prior post to include only the pdf until I find a way to link the bill text itself.


-B
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top