obama surrendering our sovereignty to UN - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

obama surrendering our sovereignty to UN


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-30-2010, 09:08 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrumJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Here in the holler....
Posts: 4,823
Liked 1617 Times on 945 Posts
Likes Given: 1894

Default

The most frightening phrase I've heard over the last few years is "a few common sense regulations". Just who's common sense should we listen to and metamorphose into the gospel? Obama's? maybe members of the Congress that payed no attention for the will of the people? And just how many of these common sense regulations are we to be subject to before you draw a line in the sand and say enough! So much more is at stake than the 2A. I know that's all some think about but you have to look at the big picture. Don't like a law or amendment in the Constitution? Just treaty it away! Who cares what the people say or want. They will thank me later because I"m using good common sense.

It's as simple as this boys and girls...There is no reason to give a rats ass what any politician thinks. That's not within his/her job discription. THey are only to represent the people..Not think for them. It's been going on so long no one even pays attention anymore. Except the ones using that apathy to their advantage. It works out so well for both sides. People don't want any real responsibility so they don't have their fragile self esteem bruised. and the powers that be want more power...So it's a win win right? This must not be as right as it used to be because people are seeing too many rights impaired in one way or another and are starting fight back. So now we're back to who's common sense should these regulations come from? The answer is pretty simple really. Our forefathers thought about all this in the beginning. That is why there is a process to altering the Constitution. It's that document that gives us the laws of the land. Any treaty, new law, etc. has to adhere to that document. It don't matter what you think or believe. What matters is the law of the land is adhered to or you are breaking it. Also take into consideration the rights of the states. This all compiles into a heaping helping of what the hell are you thinking???

Personally I don't see this treaty thing as anything else but hot air. It couldn't get through Congress even a couple years ago. But for the sake of argument lets say it does. I foresee a lot of honest law abiding men and women becoming criminals overnight.
__________________
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
DrumJunkie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2010, 09:16 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrumJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Here in the holler....
Posts: 4,823
Liked 1617 Times on 945 Posts
Likes Given: 1894

Default

While I'm thinking about ti I want to ask about all these weapons that are being bought in the U.S. then used in the drug war in Mexico. I see pictures of AK's and the like..All full auto. At what gun show or shop where they sold from? Who was the seller? The buyer? I'm finding just a little hard to believe that full auto AKs where sold to Mexicans from some gun shop or show and with no paper trail. OK..What about all those Five Sevens? I hear those are pretty big over there too. That's what CNN and MSNBC tells me anyway. They fall off a truck? There's no paper trail on none of these guns that we keep hearing about because more than likely they come mainly from someplace else.

I'm sure there are illegal guns from the U.S. but is there enough to squeeze the American people? In reality no matter the number of illegal weapons going over the border the answer is no. Because the Constitution states that we where given by our creator the right to protect ourselves.Not only from banditos but from the very government that says a few common sense regulations is what we need to preserve our freedoms
__________________
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
DrumJunkie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2010, 10:52 PM   #23
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
I can see your point, but I think you're over-generalizing it.
Well, I prefer to look at it as "keeping it simple". What works on the small scale often works the same way on a larger scale. When county legislators make it hard for law-abiding citizens to get a handgun permit, they don't make it any harder for a criminal to get a handgun. If the U.N. tries to make it harder for people to get firearms, only those inclined to get them legally will feel pain; criminals won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
Considering how very little the UN has affected or currently affects everyday US life (OPEC has a more direct impact, for example), I'd say that either you're wrong, or that they're so ineffective that I don't find time to worry about it.
I have to wonder that had the U.N. come clean on the Oil-for-Food scandal BEFORE we invaded Iraq...might that have saved American and Iraqi lives?

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
Except, the proposed treaty WOULD NOT EFFECT the situation you're naming, which I assume is the process of how a person walks into a gun store in the USA and purchases an AK 47. (I don't know, I'm not sure what a 4473 is)
A 4473 is a standard form you fill out when purchasing a firearm. The commercial seller calls in the info off the form and it's checked out against a database. If you're not a felon, haven't been charged with a felony pending a ruling, and haven't been institutionalized against your will then you can purchase the firearm.

But I'm not talking about the stuff that's already in the U.S. I'm talking about stuff that is imported daily from overseas by small, private firearm dealers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
Remember, this treaty only would affect the international sale of arms, going off the information that is in the proposed treaty language.

If Dealer has a soviet AK in his shop he wants to sell FTF, he would not be affected.

If person wants to buy a soviet AK 47 from a dealer in russia, he would be effected (possibly, depending on the specific language of the treaty that, I feel I should point out, is not even past the "we're gonna discuss it" phase.
And that's a problem. Today, we enjoy (relatively) free trade. When the U.N. sticks its nose in this, it is clear our freedom will evaporate with regard to purchasing firearms made overseas that we wish to import.

You might want to do a little research on the very large number of firearms imported from foreign nations gets sold here each year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
What the UN is calling for is an international standard for the sale and transfer of arms between international lines. Also, it is a treaty, which means that any member state can choose to reject it. Your point about "UN coercion" I get, but I don't see that happening. Maybe I'm naieve, maybe you're paraniod, probably a little bit of both.
Again, I point you to the intricacies of Oil-for-Food and ask you if I'm being paranoid. Do you want me to dredge up more unforgivable crap the U.N. is responsible for, or are you adept at using Google yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
I'm not saying that the illegal arms trade would suddenly stop. But I think taking measures to impede it are well worth looking into.
Again, why would you say this? Under what circumstances has legislation ever significantly impeded the sale of any prohibited item for long on the black market? Do you have some solid, convincing evidence we all can read right here right now that shows laws impede criminals who don't obey or are impeded indefinitely by laws?
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2010, 11:07 PM   #24
JTJ
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 7,298
Liked 2879 Times on 1580 Posts
Likes Given: 810

Default

The large majority of weapons going into Mexico are from or through Honduras. The Mexican government only turns over the 10% or less weapons they know will trace back to the USA. The drug lords are not going to buy full auto and military grade weapons here at up to 100x the price. The drug lords do have a penchant for Colt 1911's though as seen in some of the raid photos and those are obtained here.
__________________
Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
I was taught to respect my elders but they are getting harder to find.
JTJ is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 02:21 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Saint Louis,Missouri
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post

Again, why would you say this? Under what circumstances has legislation ever significantly impeded the sale of any prohibited item for long on the black market? Do you have some solid, convincing evidence we all can read right here right now that shows laws impede criminals who don't obey or are impeded indefinitely by laws?
Because my point isn't "laws make us safer." It's "having the ability to enforce well-written laws makes us safer."

Say, for example, that right now, it is totally legal for, say, a "vendor" in North Korea to sell 50,000 AK-47s to a buyer in Afghanistan, and doesn't need to do any type of background check, prove they are a real gun dealer, etc. Essentially, let us say that the laws of North Korea and Afghanistan are such that Joe Korea can sell as many firearms as he has to Adam Afghan, and nobody in either country bats an eye.

Essentially, let's presume that there is no law in place to prevent Dude A who has a crapload of guns he can't offload in his country, but can sell to Dude B in a country that doesn't have well-regulated gun sale laws (pre-US Afghanistan, for example).

If there are no laws to enforce, what recourse does the international community have if, say Dude A is knowingly providing weapons to a terrorist organization, or to a warlord in Sierra Leon that is using his newfound firepower to enslave his people, or to some minority group in western Europe who decides it's time to do some ethnic cleansing; Dude A just says "Hey, not my fault, I'm just selling them to Dude B, what he does with them isn't my problem, never mind that I know that that's where the guns are going."

With no laws to enforce, we can't do **** about it, even though we know that the situations that I just posed are demonstrably wrong. People have the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their nation, not to oppress their nation, not to commit mass murder, not to use to frighten others.

Now, the situation I am envisioning, and which I'd like to see any international arms treaty move towards, is to provide a legal framework that allows Interpol or the US or whomever to go to a nation like Russia or Vietnam or North Korea and say "Hey, we have proof this guy is knowingly providing arms to a genocidal sociopath that is killing anybody that doesn't agree with him/to kill everyone who doesn't practice his religion/who doesn't look like him" and actually have the ability to get something DONE. At the VERY least, make it impossible for that person to export arms, scaling to the possibility of an extradition treaty that we can try those people who knowingly, repeatedly, and willfully supply arms to be used for criminal activities.

I hope you get what I'd LIKE to see. I know that it's really tricky water, as well; how do we prove that someone is knowingly supplying arms to a terrorist organization, for example? I'm not saying I know that. That's what lawyers are for. I fix computers, not international policy.

As to your point about "tell me when laws have had a significant effect on human behavior," like I said, I know laws aren't going to discourage those that would break them anyway. What I'm saying is that laws give us a framework that allows us to deal with the people who would break them.

Real world example: Say that we have no laws against selling cocaine. What would suddenly happen? Cocaine dealers would be out in the open, not a care in the world, because no cop can touch them, they're doing their crap legally.

Now, the laws aren't going to make them stop, that's why we still have cocaine dealers in the US. But the fact that we DO have laws against them means that cops can do something about it when they catch them. Does it stop every one? Does it prevent the crime from happening (barring the realization that without a law there is no crime)? No. But I bet you a LOT more people would be selling cocaine if it wasn't illegal.

Bottom line of what I'm driving at: just because laws themselves don't make problems magically go away, doesn't mean that there is no point in having the laws. Laws give us the ability to enforce them, and deal with those who would choose to break the law.
__________________
There are two types of idiocy: Believing everything one is told without question, and never listening to what others have to say.

Last edited by corrinavatan; 12-01-2010 at 02:28 AM.
corrinavatan is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 04:24 PM   #26
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

That's fine. Thanks for posting. You and I have diametrically opposed views on how things work and should work in regard to U.N. authority and arms trade.
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 07:37 PM   #27
JTJ
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 7,298
Liked 2879 Times on 1580 Posts
Likes Given: 810

Default

corrinvatan; Your signature says a lot. Gun ownership is both a right and a responsibilty. I agree with the second part of your signature.
Our President has already started the process of allowing the UN to take control of this country. He has subjugated our sovereignty by requesting the UN to question our so called domestic human rights violations. He also considers the actions of AZ to be a human rights violation even though AZ has been illegally invaded by armed and dangerous Mexican Nationals that have murdered US citizens. The Federal Government has allowed this invasion by failing to fulfill its responsibility of protecting the border. The Mexican activists calling for the boycott of AZ are actually trying to take over the southwest states. They want the Gringos out. By the way check out Mexico's immigrtion laws. The truth is that Mexico has been dumping their surplus population on the USA for decades.
Further I offer this quote of Hillary Clinton our Secretary of State.
"The United State is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards."

The third quote in my signature applies to any government that tries to disarm the populace.
__________________
Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
I was taught to respect my elders but they are getting harder to find.
JTJ is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 08:11 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Saint Louis,Missouri
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTJ View Post
He also considers the actions of AZ to be a human rights violation even though AZ has been illegally invaded by armed and dangerous Mexican Nationals that have murdered US citizens. The Federal Government has allowed this invasion by failing to fulfill its responsibility of protecting the border. The Mexican activists calling for the boycott of AZ are actually trying to take over the southwest states. They want the Gringos out. By the way check out Mexico's immigrtion laws. The truth is that Mexico has been dumping their surplus population on the USA for decades.
I'll say something about the arizona law: I would support it whole-heartedly if it wasn't so vague and left police officers and citizens in a place where they could feel that they are being racially profiled/have to racially profile. As it stands, I think it puts police in a position where they've just been set up to be sued.

My only problem with it is that the officers are to ask for proof of citizenship "if they have reason to suspect" that they are there illegally.

Tell me, what would make you think someone is a foreigner that shouldn't be here? Even the legislators that made that law couldn't answer, because they didn't want to to draw attention to the fact that most of those methods would require profiling based on perceived race (skin color, accent, appearing ethnically hispanic)

Considering that arizona has a large illegal mexican problem, the thought is that anyone of hispanic/mexican descent would be targeted by the law, but if someone with a celtic accent gets pulled over, and is actually an illegal from Ireland, they'd never have a problem.

I mean, the police department union of arizona was against the law because it was too vague about what constitutes "reason to believe they are there illegally."

The entire damn controversy could have been eliminated if the law was just "All police officers have to check for proof of legal residency during any police interaction."

Boom. Celtic-Irish dude would get busted just as easily as Spanish-Mexican dudes. There is no case to say that the law puts officers in a position where they MUST

Also, Obama and most democrats have gone on record that their only problem with the legislation was the "reason to suspect" clause, which to me is just them worrying about lawsuits that are INEVITABLY going to happen. One day, a cop is going to slip, or someone will find proof that that person turned a blind eye to people who didn't look "mexican", and taxpayers are going to have to pay for someone's trust fund because some arizona legislator couldn't create an adequately-worded law that treats everyone the same.
__________________
There are two types of idiocy: Believing everything one is told without question, and never listening to what others have to say.

Last edited by corrinavatan; 12-01-2010 at 08:15 PM.
corrinavatan is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 10:09 PM   #29
JTJ
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 7,298
Liked 2879 Times on 1580 Posts
Likes Given: 810

Default

Considering that arizona has a large illegal mexican problem, the thought is that anyone of hispanic/mexican descent would be targeted by the law, but if someone with a celtic accent gets pulled over, and is actually an illegal from Ireland, they'd never have a problem.
Not true. My wife has a German accent and she has been asked for ID. There ae a lot illegal Asians here too. There are a lot more than Mexicans coming across the border. Virtually anyone that wants to sneak into the US can get in through Mexico the border is so loose. The Feds dont want it publicized but there have been links to muslims, Prayer rugs and other identifying materials leading to a number of nationalities. Terrorists are coming accross the border with impunity. The Border Patrol is doing all they can but they are hindered by a Government that really does not want the immigration laws enforced. That would cost them the Latino vote.
As an asside, the CA penal code requires all law enforcement to check the ID and detain any suspected illegal immigrants for the Feds. Of course CA ignores their own laws and the constitution. The CA law is as stringent as AZ's but it is ignored. The AZ law was not that vague until the courts got through with it.
The politicaly correct approach is going to be our downfall. We are so afraid of offending anyone that we dont do anything but harass our own citizens. The overwhelming percentage of illegals in this country are Latinos but we cant ask them if they are legal as it might offend them. This is lunacy.
__________________
Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
I was taught to respect my elders but they are getting harder to find.

Last edited by JTJ; 12-01-2010 at 10:16 PM.
JTJ is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2010, 12:55 AM   #30
JTJ
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 7,298
Liked 2879 Times on 1580 Posts
Likes Given: 810

Default

The often quoted statistic that 90% of guns used by criminals in Mexico come from the US is false. It has been stated by Hillary Clinton, CBS newsman Bob Schieffer, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and William Hoover, a BATF official, and of course in several newspapers and news broadcasts.

A Look at the Numbers



In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S. But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.



In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.



So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:



-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.



-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.



- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.



-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.



-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.



-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.



These Don't Come From El Paso



Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S. "These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S." Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."



Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World. The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.



"Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.



Boatloads of Weapons



So why would the Mexican drug cartels, which last year grossed between $17 billion and $38 billion, bother buying single-shot rifles, and force thousands of unknown "straw" buyers in the U.S. through a government background check, when they can buy boatloads of fully automatic M-16s and assault rifles from China, Israel or South Africa?



Alberto Islas, a security consultant who advises the Mexican government, says the drug cartels are using the Guatemalan border to move black market weapons. Some are left over from the Central American wars the United States helped fight; others, like the grenades and launchers, are South Korean, Israeli and Spanish. Some were legally supplied to the Mexican government; others were sold by corrupt military officers or officials.

The exaggeration of United States "responsibility" for the lawlessness in Mexico extends even beyond the "90-percent" falsehood -- and some Second Amendment activists believe it's designed to promote more restrictive gun-control laws in the U.S.



Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. The official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.



Of the guns actually traced to US gunshops, a large fraction were hunting rifles, shotguns, single shot rifles, etc, basically not the kind of weapons any cartel gunman would care at all about owning. If it doesn't have a large magazine and isn't capable of automatic firing or at least very rapid firing, to a cartel member it's about as attractive as a small pickup truck is to a guy looking for an 18-wheeler.
__________________
Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
I was taught to respect my elders but they are getting harder to find.
JTJ is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Mexican President and Chicago Mayor call for end of U.S. Sovereignty. Kimber45 Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 09-01-2010 02:09 AM
State Sovereignty Kage0113 Politics, Religion and Controversy 3 08-06-2009 10:52 AM
Obama Administration Begins Opposition To States Claiming Sovereignty And Gun Rights IGETEVEN Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 07-29-2009 09:32 PM
MONTANA Gun Sovereignty canebrake Politics, Religion and Controversy 11 05-09-2009 02:29 AM
NH sovereignty, more states possible? supergus The Club House 11 03-27-2009 07:54 PM



Newest Threads