UN Gun Treaty concerns

Ranger Rick

Ranger Rick

Member
Has anyone been reading about the Treaty being considered at the UN?

From an article in Forbes magazine:
"While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights."

See the full article at: http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
 
Small Arms Treaty Nothing to Worry About

The Forbes article is nothing but fear-mongering. The UN's efforts are directed toward unregulated stockpiling, international transfer, and use of small arms in support of terrorism and other oppressive actions. We have a highly regulated scheme of small arms control in the U.S. that makes the vast majority of small arms sales transparent and highly unlikely to aid in any terrorist action or large organized oppression. Moreover, the proposed treaty states in part: "Reaffirming the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations." Article 51, which recognizes the right of individual and national self-defense in the face of aggression (such as the 9/11 attack on the U.S.), states in part: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations . . . ." Our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is wholly consistent with these provisions which is no surprise since the U.S. is a founding member of the UN and had great influence in the drafting of its charter. Finally, even if the U.S. Senate should ratify the Small Arms Treaty, treaties are not regarded in the U.S. as "self-executing," that is of legal effect within the territory of the United States without the enactment of legislation by Congress. There would be no reason for Congress to enact such legislation because we have a comprehensive legal scheme in place to regulate small arms, and the recent McDonald and Heller decisions make it clear that the 2nd amendment means that individuals have a right to keep arms. So UPFers, don't lose any sleep over this.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand the UN has pronounced that access to the Internet is a "basic human right". So who knows what goofy legislation may come from them.
 
oldandnew said:
On the other hand the UN has pronounced that access to the Internet is a "basic human right". So who knows what goofy legislation may come from them.
Click to expand...

I would feel my rights of expression were violated if I were prohibited from reading and posting in this forum so I am all for the UN's declaration regarding internet rights.
 
Brit, A well written reply. Still, I worry about the current Socialist trend to accept UN doctrine and foreign law as potential law in this country. After all, how much credibility can we give to an organization that has Libya sitting as Chair of the Human Rights committee, and other such nonsense. I also think too many privilages are called "rights", but agree that cutting off the internet access for the populus would be the first thing any tyranical regime would do. they've stopped protest movements from building steam in places like China and Iran by cutting off the internet. Take away our personal firearms and limit our ability to communicate and we'd be toast. A well informed citizenry is the biggest obstacle tyrrany. Paul Revere used a horse and went door to door, but that was then, this is now. I'll write back more when I've heard from my Senator with his take.
 
Were it not for the dangers the UN poses, they would be considered a huge failure and joke. Corruption, inefficiency--just like any big government. Why don't they do something in Dafur? There is little question they are a world organization with the goal of pre-empting our Constitution and others. Have you heard the term "carbon tax"?
 
I'm sure the intent is to preserve the right to social media. As we have seen,the use of internet based socialmedia has been instrumental in Egypt, Libya, and China in fighting repressive regimes. A better version might be "free speech" shall not be infringed, ecompassing all media. Sound familiar. Title makes the issue sound like we should all subsidize free web service, world wide.
 
Why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would we want to adopt any UN Treaty for any reason on guns.
We have our own laws. Our own country. Our own system works pretty well
if we bother to follow the constitution as intended by the founders.
Why would / should we allow any of our Sovereignty (?) to be displaced by UN
mandates?

You can keep the change!
You can also keep the UN out of our domestic affairs!
 
This UN Gun Treaty crap comes up every few months, and then goes away. The Senate would need a 2/3 yes vote to have BamBam sign it to be in effect. Unless everything goes in the dumper in Nov 2012, it's not gonna pass.
 
There is not even any evidence Bam Bam wants to sign it. Last I saw he was touting the WIHA and Fishing access programs as intrumental in fighting obesity in youth! In politics your friends are your enemies and your enemy could be your friend!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top