GUNS/RLTD UN Arms Trade Treaty to go into effect Dec. 24
- Thread starter Looks Harmless
- Start date
Looks Harmless
Bite Me
It could be the Wolf Creek Pass of our future...
"and we woke them chickens up"
Looks Harmless
"and we woke them chickens up"
Looks Harmless
Kook
A 'maker', not a 'taker'!
My beloved Kookette and I have discussed this and are agreed: We will go down fighting rather than be slaves, and rather than be refugees. We die on our little Kookstead rather than give an inch or to run for it. We're too dang old to make it on the run in the woods anyway, and maybe I can take out a couple of them before I'm sent to be with my Savior. It's good to have a brave and like minded woman by your side. Makes it easier to stand your ground. She's not a good shot, but she can keep my magazines full for me!
Doomer Doug
TB Fanatic
Doomer Doug would hate to be the Zambian, Bhangladesh, or other third world soldier the UN sends to get any American's guns. LOL
The UN Peacekeepers are rented from the country that deploys them for about $10 a day, with most of it going to the corrupt officers.
The UN really has no idea of what is going to happen if they try to forcibly disarm the American people.
The UN Peacekeepers are rented from the country that deploys them for about $10 a day, with most of it going to the corrupt officers.
The UN really has no idea of what is going to happen if they try to forcibly disarm the American people.
energy_wave
Has No Life - Lives on TB
No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#IrJhEvUskpuLlSSi.99
The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#IrJhEvUskpuLlSSi.99
Nowski
Let's Go Brandon!
^^^^THIS^^^^
There is plenty of case law regarding treaties and their affect on our Constitution.
Article VI, par. 2, also called the supremacy clause indicates that no treaty can override.
Also as has been stated earlier, the senate has not, and will not ratify this treaty.
It is meaningless to the USA, because of our Constitutional protections, not so much for other countries
who do not have the same type of rights.
The liberals in this country will keep pushing and pushing the gun issue, until the people push back.
How I hate this administration.
Regards to all,
Nowski
Last edited:
Christian for Israel
Knight of Jerusalem
I am truly not saying this to be a downer. I hear many of us saying "bring it on", "Try and take them", "you'll never get my guns", etc.
But I sometimes wonder if there was a massive army and tanks sighting down at us and our loved ones (friends and family) what in fact would we REALLY do? How many of us would really fight to the death for our rights and beliefs knowing it would cost the lives of our friends and family?
Yes when I hear of these threats it scares me. I hope I would be strong and fight for my rights, this country, our strong beliefs. But I can also honestly say if the life of my friends and family was going to be taken if I didn't give up my guns. Would I have any other choice than to give them up?
Don't be fooled, they won't "play" fare. When have they ever?
Or would we take less or no rights so we could have our family at least for a bit longer.
Many here have put themselves in harms way to serve our country and would gladly do it again (my husband & son to name a few) but what about a lot of us "average joes"? When the rubber meets the road and we have to walk the talk, who will really follow through? I don't know, I really don't know. Just thinking..
what you have to remember is, they'll never believe you when you say that's all the guns you have, even if it's the truth. they'll still arrest everyone of you and tear your house apart looking for the 'hidden' ones. and even if they don't find any more they'll likely arrest and detain you to convince you to give up the rest and threaten to torture or kill (or actually do it) your family members to convince you to 'come clean'.
and all this time, when you realize that you SHOULD have fought back to begin with, you won't be able to because you will have given up the tools you needed to do so.
remember, THEY are the ones violating your GOD given rights to begin with. what makes you think they give a damn about you? truely, as a gun owner you will be looked upon as the enemy even if you comply. as the enemy your life and well being will be forfeit with no questions asked.
as my sig line says, "The ONLY rights you have are the ones you're willing to fight (and possibly die) for".
Phil412
Contributing Member
Christian,
I do not dispute ANYTHING you have said, I agree. My point is if and when it comes down to it; Will I have that courage, will the "average joe" who posts such things as "let them come and try to get my guns..."... Will they walk the talk? Especially in light of our family members being threatened?
I pray God will give me the courage and wisdom to do the right thing should I ever have to live through it in my life time.
I guess what I am trying to say is: It's easier said than done. I can say what I believe I would do, but will I follow through when the time comes? I hope so.
Thanks for your comments.
Christian for Israel
Knight of Jerusalem
i can't speak for others but as i see it, when they come i'll already be dead (along with my family) or in a position as to make death enviable. by the time they're at the door we'll ALREADY be charged and convicted. at that point we only have one choice...resist or go peacefully to the gas chambers. that's an easy choice for me to make.
jed turtle
a brother in the Lord
our Rights are not "given to us by government" but are inalienable (cannot be given away) gifts from our Creator God.
our Constitution created a government that is instituted to PROTECT the God-given rights of the citizens.
among those, are the right to bear arms.
when the government attempts to limit or eliminate our right to arms (or any other of our rights), it has gone rogue and needs to be "put down" in the most intense and immediate manner possible. like a robot gone out of control, until it is incapacitated, no life is safe until it is permanently stopped.
our Constitution created a government that is instituted to PROTECT the God-given rights of the citizens.
among those, are the right to bear arms.
when the government attempts to limit or eliminate our right to arms (or any other of our rights), it has gone rogue and needs to be "put down" in the most intense and immediate manner possible. like a robot gone out of control, until it is incapacitated, no life is safe until it is permanently stopped.
Sleeping Cobra
TB Fanatic
Everyone needs to keep their gun for protection. Don't ever give up your rights.
Sleeping Cobra
TB Fanatic
Mark ALL Senators who vote for gun confiscation.
Suzieq
Veteran Member
Christmas Eve to Deliver U.N. Gun Control Treaty — and It Has Some Pro-Firearm Advocates in the U.S. ‘Worried’!
Second Amendment advocates are concerned that the Obama administration will use a United Nations treaty as a basis for executive action on gun control.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is set to take effect on Christmas Eve. Though the United States delegation to the U.N. has supported the treaty, it has very little chance of being ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. But there is still reason for concern, said Catherine Mortensen, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association.
“We are worried about an end-run around Congress,” Mortensen told TheBlaze. “Barack Obama or a future anti-gun president could use ATT and international norms compliance to rationalize enacting gun control policies through executive actions, especially in the import and export realms.”
“Even now, with an existing appropriations rider prohibiting action to implement the treaty unless it is approved by Congress, administration officials are publicly professing support for international efforts to bring the treaty into effect. That’s outrageous,” she added.
The U.N. General Assembly adopted the treaty in April 2013 with a vote of 154 to 3. The State Department points out that only Iran, Syria and North Korea opposed it.
“Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans citizens to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution,” Secretary of State John Kerry said a few months after the passage of the treaty.
Still, the treaty has some very unsavory supporters, said Mortensen of the NRA.
“The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is an attempt by other countries – including some despotic regimes – to try and infringe on our constitutional rights,” Mortensen said. “While the NRA and a bipartisan majority of pro-gun Senators have succeeded in blocking this treaty’s ratification in the United States, this treaty is a very real threat.”
The parties are required to establish export and import controls for combat vehicles, aircraft and small arms and light weapons. The treaty further says that “Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.”
It further says that “Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate.”
“The United Nations is trying to establish what they call basic norms and bring international pressure on the United States to eviscerate our Second Amendment Rights and they have found willing allies in the Obama administration and John Kerry,” Mortensen added.
Investor’s Business Daily editorialized this week warning that Obama could use it as a basis for executive action on guns, even if it is not ratified by the Senate.
“All treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, and that’s not about to happen in the case of the unratified Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), particularly after the 2014 election that gave the GOP Senate control,” the editorial said. “The same, of course, could have been said about the Kyoto Protocol and other climate change deals that mandate that governments tie their economies in knots to meet arbitrary emission goals to save the planet. The Senate has not and won’t ratify any of those either. Yet a president who pays no attention to Congress or the Constitution has through Environmental Protection Agency regulations sought to impose Kyoto and cap-and-trade through regulation and fiat.”
Alabama voters adopted a state constitutional amendment to guarantee for the right to bear arms after lawmakers cited the threat of international agreements that could limit gun rights.
*(Fair Use)
Link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ome-pro-firearm-advocates-in-the-u-s-worried/
Second Amendment advocates are concerned that the Obama administration will use a United Nations treaty as a basis for executive action on gun control.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is set to take effect on Christmas Eve. Though the United States delegation to the U.N. has supported the treaty, it has very little chance of being ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. But there is still reason for concern, said Catherine Mortensen, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association.
“We are worried about an end-run around Congress,” Mortensen told TheBlaze. “Barack Obama or a future anti-gun president could use ATT and international norms compliance to rationalize enacting gun control policies through executive actions, especially in the import and export realms.”
“Even now, with an existing appropriations rider prohibiting action to implement the treaty unless it is approved by Congress, administration officials are publicly professing support for international efforts to bring the treaty into effect. That’s outrageous,” she added.
The U.N. General Assembly adopted the treaty in April 2013 with a vote of 154 to 3. The State Department points out that only Iran, Syria and North Korea opposed it.
“Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans citizens to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution,” Secretary of State John Kerry said a few months after the passage of the treaty.
Still, the treaty has some very unsavory supporters, said Mortensen of the NRA.
“The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is an attempt by other countries – including some despotic regimes – to try and infringe on our constitutional rights,” Mortensen said. “While the NRA and a bipartisan majority of pro-gun Senators have succeeded in blocking this treaty’s ratification in the United States, this treaty is a very real threat.”
The parties are required to establish export and import controls for combat vehicles, aircraft and small arms and light weapons. The treaty further says that “Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.”
It further says that “Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate.”
“The United Nations is trying to establish what they call basic norms and bring international pressure on the United States to eviscerate our Second Amendment Rights and they have found willing allies in the Obama administration and John Kerry,” Mortensen added.
Investor’s Business Daily editorialized this week warning that Obama could use it as a basis for executive action on guns, even if it is not ratified by the Senate.
“All treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, and that’s not about to happen in the case of the unratified Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), particularly after the 2014 election that gave the GOP Senate control,” the editorial said. “The same, of course, could have been said about the Kyoto Protocol and other climate change deals that mandate that governments tie their economies in knots to meet arbitrary emission goals to save the planet. The Senate has not and won’t ratify any of those either. Yet a president who pays no attention to Congress or the Constitution has through Environmental Protection Agency regulations sought to impose Kyoto and cap-and-trade through regulation and fiat.”
Alabama voters adopted a state constitutional amendment to guarantee for the right to bear arms after lawmakers cited the threat of international agreements that could limit gun rights.
*(Fair Use)
Link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ome-pro-firearm-advocates-in-the-u-s-worried/
AzProtector
Veteran Member
If the Senate brings it up for a vote.
It's game on.
If the Executive Branch decides to end run The Senate, same thing, game on.
It's game on.
If the Executive Branch decides to end run The Senate, same thing, game on.