UN Small Arms Treaty date 7/27

[jspeligene]

Hadn't seen this posted lately. Thought some might be interested. Check out this link http://list.dickmorris.com/t/237380/1379797/1788/8/
The basis of the story is that if Hillary Clinton signs the treaty, the US will be bound to enforce it until it is Renounced by the President or vote of the Senate...which is unlikely if the President is re-elected.
Anybody know if this is all true?

 

[Jackary]

I know any treaties entered into by the US have to pass a 2/3 senate vote before they are valid, and there is no way around the constitution without further amendments being made

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

 

[threegungeezer]

I don't know but this looks like a mechanism for enforcement prior to ratification. (from the Vienna Convention)




Article 18

Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force

A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:

(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty;

 

[jspeligene]

Here is a link to the UN website and a copy of one of their documents that refers to tracability requirements for small arms. I'm not much good at legal-ese. a Maybe some of our members can comment on whether this would be a legitimate threat to some of our 2nd amendment rights.

http://www.netvibes....eapons#Treaties

 

[poopgiggle]

My understanding is that this treaty is intended to prevent trafficking of arms into places like Mexico and Africa where gangs/militias/rebels use them to slaughter people. Any THEIR TAKIN OUR GUNZZZZ stuff is election-year fearmongering.

 

[McGuire]

Uh Im fairly sure this treaty is also slated to include langauge regarding how many firearms you can legally posess and a number on rounds of ammunition in your posession at any given time....allows for support and enforcment under the National defense thinga-ma-jig that lets them confiscate your stuff and hold you indefinetly if deemed a terrorist....sounds like a little more than "fearmongering"...just my opinion...The NRA and pro-gun groups wouldnt be screaming at us if their werent some civilian implications involved in the treaty. Its been admitted that they plan to include limitations on civilian ownership and commerce in firearms and ammo.

 

[poopgiggle]

Uh Im fairly sure this treaty is also slated to include langauge regarding how many firearms you can legally posess and a number on rounds of ammunition in your posession at any given time....

Do you have a source for this? Everything I can find on the treaty that isn't something like "Joe Bob's Blog About Guns and Tinfoil Hats" says that the scope of the treaty only includes international trade, which would have no effect on arms ownership in the US.

allows for support and enforcment under the National defense thinga-ma-jig that lets them confiscate your stuff and hold you indefinetly if deemed a terrorist....sounds like a little more than "fearmongering"...just my opinion...

The fact that people have been claiming that the treaty has provisions for this sure is fearmongering, because it doesn't include these things!

The NRA and pro-gun groups wouldnt be screaming at us if their werent some civilian implications involved in the treaty.

Yeah they would. The NRA is the big kahuna of 2nd Amendment rights defense but they also have a habit of getting people worked up in order to increase donations and/or just to hurt Democrats.

Its been admitted that they plan to include limitations on civilian ownership and commerce in firearms and ammo.

By whom? You do have to remember that in the countries that are targeted by this treaty, "civilian gun ownership" basically means rebel groups that drive around in technicals and steal children and wipe out entire villages.

Also there's like half a century of Supreme Court precedent that says that the US Constitution overrides any treaty we may have signed, and with SCOTUS stacked the way it is I have absolutely no doubt that any purported "UN gun grab" would get headed off at the past pretty quickly.

 

[poopgiggle]

tl;dr all of the freaking out about this is standard THE DEMMYCRATS ARE TAKIN OUR GUNS hysteria combined THE UN IS TRYING TO FORM A FASCIST NEW WORLD ORDER hysteria. people need to turn off the Alex Jones and take a deep breath.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

 

[sefentress]

"where money is the object, truth is in great peril" an old axiom but ALWAYS true and you can insert the word power for money if you like! Pooper if you are using snopes as a vetting site "fa gedda bout it" they are not at all reliable.

 

[poopgiggle]

The court cases covering the Constitution's supremacy over treaties are matters of public record. It's not like Snopes can just make that elephant dung up.

Also in today's political climate anything that even LOOKS like a gun grab is political suicide so IDK why people think that anyone would attempt some super-sneaky backdoor gun ban.

Seriously there are so many reasons that "UN treaty as gun grab" doesn't make any sense that I don't get why people believe it.

I would normally not care, and just let people bury guns in their backyards for the UN BLUE HELMET INVASION, but this kind of tinfoil-hat conspiracy nonsense makes gun owners look like paranoid wackjobs. I can't think of anything that the anti-gun crowd wants more than to paint us that way.

 

[aeropb]

bring it

 

[jspeligene]

Quote from the UN document posted above....
5. For the purposes of this instrument, “tracing” is the systematic tracking of illicit small
arms and light weapons found or seized on the territory of a State from the point of
manufacture or the point of importation through the lines of supply to the point at which they
became illicit
Sooooo, how do you determine when it becomes illicit without the government regulating and tracking all firearms sales?I read the document and it concerns me. I think I'll go find my tinfoil hat and then bury all my guns :O

 

[McGuire]

Poop you are extremely intent on disproving the possiblity that these agendas ARE on the table and ARE possibilities. When in history would any American think that a socialist health care bill would pass in congress, but it did. Just becasue both sides are screaming that it is, or isnt happening doesnt deter me from the fact that the signs point to the "Conspiracy theory-gun-nut-wackos" being right...President Obama is a snake, and he has proven this, he will lie, bluster and take any position to further his political gains. The world in large is disarming itself, he is giving his support to follow suite. You tell me Im foolish and insinuate that the idea that a Government trying to take my guns is idiotic, a government whos expressed position in politics is BIGGER government, MORE control. That control is threatened by free citizens who are armed. No one thought Australia would surrender their arms, but they did, or britain, or the countless others. We are simply the most difficult nut to crack in the anti-gun agenda, and if you think there isnt some other motive behind taking our guns you are a fool, do you really think its becasue they want to STOP wars in cambodia, burma, darfour, mexico etc...They dont give a elephant dung about those wars, if nothing else they want those to CONTINUE so they can profit from it. They want our guns because as long as free men are willing and capable of standing up and resisting they are a danger. WE are the single greatest threat to their expansion of power.
Plato said that the price for ignorance in public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Look at the country, look at the ignorance of the millions being corraled by sly words and empty promises. Perhaps I am not the one who needs to examine my outlook...

 

[poopgiggle]

I'm kind of confused about how you went from "Obama wants to make sure that all the sick people in America can go to the doctor" to "Obama wants to take our guns and become a dictator."

 

[Troy]

Surely you're not suggesting that some or many in our own government DON'T want to take our guns, it's pretty obvious they do. And please tell me your not suggesting that many of those in the UN don't want to take our guns, because I think we have enough proof that they do want to see us disarmed. Those who are in control of our government that DO want to take our guns at this moment obviously have taken note that what they have done up to this moment to take our guns is not working, so why not go to the international community. I'm concerned about the treaty, why? Because there is not going to be a word in the treaty that will be of ANY benefit for us and the second amendment, but an increased cry from the international community to see our rights taken away.

 

[poopgiggle]

I am also confused about how people think that the evil government gun grabbers would try a super-secret plot that anyone with access to Wikipedia could tell you won't work.


Also there are other countries in the world. A lot. At least, like, 15. In a couple of those countries, gangs of bad guys armed with illicit weapons go around and murder babies. That's not a rhetorical device, they literally murder babies. The stated goal of the UN treaty that's currently being discussed is to try and stop those guys from murdering babies. Your response to that is, "I am against this treaty because it does not benefit our country directly and also I have constructed this bizarre alternate reality where it could affect my ability to buy ammo (but it couldn't do that in actual reality)."

 

[poopgiggle]

So far people just seem to keep saying "the government wants to take our guns and the government is doing a thing, therefore that thing the government is doing must be an attempt to take our guns." Even if I grant you the "gov't wants to take our guns" premise, the logic doesn't really hold.

 

[sefentress]

Pooper, consider the name obama as a substitute for the money/wealth redistribution, greed and total power crowd and it may be easier for you to visualize and assimilate all that is happening at an ever increasing pace. Gun stuff is just a sticking point for them in case they have to force us to do something, which so far they have not. (They just buy off different groups with entitilements, kickbacks, slush funds," its for your protection" etc,etc.)

 

[threegungeezer]

So let me see, You are trusting the source of several thousand illegal firearms that got sent across the border and lost (Fast and Furious) to know what would stop illegal trafficking. Please read the Vienna Convention article 18 that I referenced in my previous post. All that has to be done to effectively accept the treaty is for an authorized signatory to sign it(Hillary). Do you honestly think that the Senate would even bring it up for ratification. I also know of no way that that could be compelled in the current political climate.

As to socialized medicine(Obamacare), Have you ever lived long term in a country that has it. I have and it is NOT pretty. Also if it such a good thing then why is Congress exempted from it. Also I wonder what you will think of it when you start seeing the bank transaction tax in your bank statements(2014)

Snopes is not perfect either.

 

[dennishoddy]

As to socialized medicine(Obamacare), Have you ever lived long term in a country that has it. I have and it is NOT pretty. Also if it such a good thing then why is Congress exempted from it. Also I wonder what you will think of it when you start seeing the bank transaction tax in your bank statements(2014)

Snopes is not perfect either.

I haven't lived in a country with socialised medicine, but we had some folks from Italy come to our business. I talked to them about socialized medicine.
They said that if you needed a heart transplant, you got it. You couldn't specify who was going to do it though.
I asked if all social spectrums recieved the same treatment.
they said that it was across the board unless you wanted to hire a private doctor that was exempt from the law.
Folks with money went with the private doctors, and the masses had no choice.

Thats Italy, not the US