Isn't this the reason we have the right to bear arms? To protect ourselves from those (gov't) that wish to take our freedoms away?
The UN isn't a government, or a body with any governing authority.PackerfanXD said:Isn't this the reason we have the right to bear arms? To protect ourselves from those (gov't) that wish to take our freedoms away?
True, but they have the power to tell a government what to do. We are not safe from the UN. If they pass a resolution to ban all small arms, all member nations must comply with that resolution. Meaning bye bye to the 2nd.Tom357 said:The UN isn't a government, or a body with any governing authority.
Don't think they can pass anything like this without our concent. We hold a permanent seat and can veto anything we don't like.Lumberjack98 said:True, but they have the power to tell a government what to do. We are not safe from the UN. If they pass a resolution to ban all small arms, all member nations must comply with that resolution. Meaning bye bye to the 2nd.
This is a huge deal and must be watched closely.
Wayne LaPierre: U.N. Out To Get Your Gun
NewsMax
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America, has said of the U.N. conference, "Dictatorships, terrorist states and so-called `free` nations of the world plan to meet on our home soil to finalize a U.N. treaty that would strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/27/91047.shtml
U.S. Rejects Limits On Personal Guns
Washington Times
The United States will oppose any international effort to limit access of U.S. civilians to legal firearms but supports stronger controls on arms imports and exports, a senior State Department official says.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060627-103617-7798r.htm
******* Repairs said:I have been looking ( fruitlessly so far ) for the LaPierre Peters debate that was televised ( yea i know nra is selling it lol ) if anyone happens to see it , or even an honest transcript ( all i have seen have been edited ) let me know please .
Tom357 said:The UN isn't a government, or a body with any governing authority.
Not so. No treaty may modify the Constitution. So such a UN treaty would not in itself be an immediate ban on firearms ownership in the US.Lumberjack98 said:True, but they have the power to tell a government what to do. We are not safe from the UN. If they pass a resolution to ban all small arms, all member nations must comply with that resolution. Meaning bye bye to the 2nd.
This is a huge deal and must be watched closely.
Sorry Matt...but you're wrong. The mechanism is built into the Constitution and as a part of the Constitution from the start it is already legal....right along with both the Formal and Informal Amendment process and the CON-CON (Constitutional Convention) process which could actually scrap the whole document to start over from scratch. This is why we must NEVER allow any contemporary politician to issue a call for such a CON-CON. I know it's been tried in the recent past, but like any Constitutional Amendment, it has a distinct time limit to expire. It requires (IIRC) 38 states to ratify the convention within a seven year period. In the 1980's we got to 35 before the time ran out.MattLarson said:Not so. No treaty may modify the Constitution.Matt
I agree that it needs to be watched closely, but the UN does not have governing (or super-governing) authority over member nations. If the UN passes a resolution, member nations don't have to comply, although there may be enormous peer pressure to do so. While the Constitution provides for amendment, such modifications would originate from within our government, not imposed by the UN.Lumberjack98 said:True, but they have the power to tell a government what to do. We are not safe from the UN. If they pass a resolution to ban all small arms, all member nations must comply with that resolution. Meaning bye bye to the 2nd.
This is a huge deal and must be watched closely.