obama surrendering our sovereignty to UN

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by lobster, Nov 23, 2010.

  1. lobster

    lobster New Member

    Just recieved the Rifleman publication from the NRA. In the "Standing Gaurd "section there is an article written by LaPierre explaining how obama has aggreed to "aggresivly pursue participation in the creation of a U.N. Gun ban treaty" there by circumventing our 2nd ammendment rights. Well folks this is very upsetting. He promised the American people that he would not go after our guns and he is doing just the opposite !! Every American needs to be made aware of this plot to upsurp our constitution and demand our representatives in gov't denounce it.
  2. 1bigtarge

    1bigtarge New Member

    the thing is the treaty is useless unless ratified by two thirds of congress and i personally dont care what the u.s or the president sighns my right to bear arms is stated in the supreme law of the land witch happens to be the constitution i will never surrender my arms

  3. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    I warned people about this before he was elected and I have been warning them ever since. If his lips are moving, he is lying. He will try to get this through before new senators take office. If he suceeds in getting it passed it will probably be civil war as quite a few states will likely seceed over it. There could also be a general uprising. In any case it will be SHTF time. Any senator that votes for the treaty should be declared a traitor along with Obama and his whole cabinet. I would be looking hard at the Democratic National Commitee too.
    I have been hearing some noise about his own party trying to oust him.
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2010
  4. bkt

    bkt New Member

    And don't worry about a treaty being the Supreme Law of the Land because historically any treaty that would nullify part of the Constitution without due process (via an amendment or Constitutional Convention) is null and void.
  5. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    and why are you surprised?? this is a liberal dream since the UN was created by a bunch of socialists in the first place.
  6. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    The administration is going to do a detour around the Constitution, they are trying it with Cap & Trade and newest crap in the news is Net Neutrality. The Courts no to the FCC and even the Congress. I would not be surprised if administration will navigate the same way! :mad:
  7. billdeserthills

    billdeserthills New Member

    Are you guys telling me to get my no-knock warrant guns ready for use?
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2010
  8. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    You mean....they're not:eek:!!!
  9. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    And I have yet to actually find tin foil. I learned earlier that aluminum foil won't work that the actual tin is the key. Anyone know where I can get some?
  10. iNCNF

    iNCNF New Member

    Norming Guns Away: Why We Need to be Concerned About the UN

    And you should see Dillon Precision Products, 800-762-3845, www.DillonPrecision.com; The Blue Press, Dec 2010, Pg 48-49; Reprint; "Norming Guns Away: Why We Need to be Concerned About the UN." They too are on-the-ball, on this issue.

    Norming Guns Away: Why We Need to be Concerned About the UN

    by Paul Gallant, Alan Chwick, and Joanne Eisen

    We American gun-owners need to become more familiar with the process of “norming.” The “norm” of civilian disarmament already surrounds our country and has the potential to nullify our Second Amendment right. When global firearm-prohibitionists speak about “norming,” they are actually discussing the process wherein society becomes increasingly hostile to the possession of arms in the hands of civilians.

    This standard, or ‘norm,’ was deliberately created during several decades of lies about the safety and use of firearms, their benefits to society, and the kind of people who possess them. And yet, we gun-owners remain unaware of its ramifications and its dangers.

    During the creation of this norm, we have seen the prohibitionists lie time and time again, magnifying the costs to society of private firearm ownership, minimizing their benefits, and creating widespread fear in the process. We know we’re on the side of truth because we don’t need to manipulate the facts to fit our philosophy, as do the prohibitionists. In two decades of firearms research and experience, we have never seen a deliberate attempt by unbiased firearm researchers to obfuscate data.

    The more people who accept the norm, the stronger the norm becomes. Owen Greene of Saferworld, an anti-gun non-governmental organization (NGO), elaborated: “It is generally agreed that controls on possession by civilians of Small Arms and Light Weapons [SALW, an ambiguous group of weapons that includes ordinary firearms] are a critical element of national controls to prevent, combat, and reduce SALW trafficking, proliferation and misuse.”

    Greene is secure in the knowledge that this norm already has extremely vigorous and widespread global support.

    The new norm does not allow for self-defense, as government intends to provide that service for us. Even if one might actually comply with strict regulations and even if one might actually be permitted to keep his/her sporting gun at home, instead of being locked up at the local range, these guns will never be available for emergency use.

    One of the most damning ramifications of the new norm is that those few remaining gun-owners will be looked upon with disdain.

    This is the norm that is presently being codified into a global legally-binding Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that will encompass all conventional weapons.

    It might be possible for our laws to be changed because of this treaty, even without a Presidential signature, or Senate ratification. The ATT is set to become the global norm, and the global firearm-prohibitionists would only need to wait for an opportune time to act. We expect that 175 of the approximately 200 nations in today’s world would sign onto the ATT. Although many of these nations will sign with no expectation of complying with its provisions, this will not affect the strength of the norm.

    According to attorney Joseph Bruce Alonzo, “gun control laws could affect United States parties in the event that gun control becomes a customary international law [i.e. becomes a norm]…. Non consensual customary international law may arise as a result of international practice. This international practice may be evidenced by events not approved by the United States but eventually held binding on the United States.”

    That’s how this norm, or soft law, has the potential to trump the Second Amendment.

    John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, recognized the norming process, and rejected it as being destructive to our Constitution. Expressing his displeasure, he wrote: “Much of the development of norming comes as a result of people who are dissatisfied with political outcomes they have achieved at the state and federal level and who are determined to take their argument into the broader international context, who see the norming process as the way to constrain the United States.”

    There is another norm—our norm—which was bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. Ed Laurence of the Monterey Institute of International Studies complained : “An opposing norm that favors continued high levels of arms sales—based on the belief that citizens have the “right” to buy guns for self-defense, self-determination, entertainment, or to provide for their families—is preventing the development of a global consensus on small arms policy.”

    We are the last remaining hope for the sovereignty of individuals and the civilian possession of firearms. U.S. civilians own about 270 million firearms, about 30% of the total global stockpile of 875 million firearms. But we estimate that only about 5 million people, out of approximately 70-80 million American gun-owners, have joined in one or more activist groups that have been formed to protect our right to private firearm ownership.

    This simply is not enough. We must get gun-owners out of the closet and actively working hard with us.

    How undamaged we and our rights emerge from this United Nations firestorm, that will engulf us for the next 5-10 years, depends upon how willing we all are to accept our responsibilities today.
  11. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    Sigh... none of you even bothered to read the proposed treaty, did you?

    The treaty SPECIFICALLY STATES the following:

    "Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory..."

    The treaty specifically states that it is about the international gun trade, and that each state will retain the ability to regulate "internal transfers of arms (selling guns) and national ownership (the right to keep and bear arms, in the case of the USA)". The treaty specifically states that it is NOT meant to have anything to do with the sale, transfer, or rights regarding firearms.

    Seriously, everything that people are turning into mindless rabid dogs about this treaty is completely false. The entire point of the treaty is to create "parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms."

    The treaty is about creating laws that will regulate the ability for, say, North Korea to buy arms from Cuba, not for regulating whether or not US citizens can buy arms within their own country (or North Korean or Cuban citizens, for that matter).

    The only people who might be affected by the treaty are gun collectors that obtain their weapons from overseas.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  12. bkt

    bkt New Member

    In light of the sculpture outside the U.N. building...
    ...and the general disapproval the U.N. has shown in the past toward personal ownership of firearms, the reaction here is not unreasonable.

    If you have a link handy to the text of the treaty, please post it. It's worth reading.

    While we do make a bunch of firearms in the U.S. there are many made overseas that people enjoy buying. Will the treaty curtail one's ability to buy these firearms? What does it say about foreign-made ammo? What about buying replacement parts for foreign-made firearms?
  13. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    Hrm. I don't see that sculpture as a declaration of "take guns away from people." I see it as a sculpture that reinforces an image that the UN was created to promote peace and well-being, and not warmongering. But I can see where a

    I can understand the reaction. I just figured that people posting on the legal forum would do some digging before going into a stereotypical "The Democrats are comin' to get mah guns and the UN is gonna take over the world!"

    Believe me. If someone wants to try to take away gun ownership rights from US citizens, I'll be right there fighting against them, despite my personal views on handguns, for example.

    But I find it discouraging when speaking to my friends about firearms, when they constantly point to people who take any type of arms limitation, even rational ones, as signs that the US government is trying to abolish ownership of guns entirely and this is the end of civilization because of it. Literally, lots of people can't take us seriously because of how quickly some of our camp will descend into a rabid madness at the mention of any type of arms restrictions, even if those arms restrictions will have (such as in the case of this treaty), absolutely no effect on them, unless they're buying guns from overseas.

    I mean, it's truly frustrating, as there are plenty of people who would be willing to listen to our camp if there weren't so many of us constantly over-reacting and spouting conspiracy theories at the slightest provocation.

    In re: the document you requested, if you click the link that says "UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28:" on this page, you can download the PDF of the UN resolution in question.

    Some nice tidbits from it that show how much people are over-reacting, in my mind:
    For those of you who can't read legalese, the above states that, despite this treaty being a treaty to limit and regulate the international arms trade, it is not meant to infringe upon the rights given to nations by citizens for having firearms. It's also talking about legal guns being provided and bought ILLEGALLY to promote terrorism, conflict, and tyranny.

    Tell me how any of that is bad?

    On top of that, there's no way that 2/3rds of congress would ratify a treaty that prevents US citizens from bearing arms, and if a treaty is not ratified, no US citizen could be found in violation of the treaty/law.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  14. bkt

    bkt New Member

    I'm curious to know what sort of arms limitation is rational juxtaposed to 2A.

    Certainly, if a sovereign nation refuses to export its arms to the U.S. or any other nation, that's its business. But when the United Nations, comprised of appointed -- NOT ELECTED -- officials seeks to curtail free trade, regardless of the product in question, that's wrong.


    It's unlikely anything but a lame-duck Congress that has nothing to lose would ratify such a treaty.

    Even if they did, states have the right of nullification and the SCOTUS can nullify a treaty if it modifies our Constitution. No worries there right now.
  15. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    Having a treaty that standardizes the sale and transfer of arms internationally could give nations more legal leeway to pursue people obtaining arms illegally, such as, for example, Mexican cartels who are obtaining US weaponry illegally and shooting up people both north and south of the border.

    Laws that make it harder for criminals and terrorists to obtain high-powered automatic weaponry, I would generally see as "rational," taking steps to prevent them from being able to do so and giving participants of the treaty the right to pursue violations of the treaty outside of their own borders, or other methods of giving member nations "teeth" as it were, to enforce the treaty.

    Regardless of the product in question? Really? Always?

    Is the UN adopting measures to prevent Blood Diamonds from being bought and sold in an effort to stop slavery and the funding of genocides wrong?

    Is the UN imposing sanctions on nations that export dangerous toys that contain lead and end up in the mouths of our children wrong?

    Is the UN imposing sanctions against nations that use forced labor in sweatshops, which forcefully take away the human rights of the workers, wrong?

    Now, I am playing devil's advocate here. I agree that the UN should not have the right to simply prevent free trade.

    However, putting forward measures to prevent and reduce the severity of an illegal international gun trade does not strike me as "wrong". That's like saying it's wrong to make laws that punish people for selling illegal drugs, only because the people who made the law was appointed. Also, it's important to note that while the UN is appointed, Elected Officials (Congress in our case), need to ratify the treaty for it to become part of US law/policy.

    What I mean by that, is that the UN can propose treaties all day long; but it is elected officials to bring those treaties into effect.

    The proposed treaty isn't trying to ban the sale of arms between nations. It is trying to curtail the illegal international gun trade, which itself helps fuel terrorism, infringes upon people's human rights, and promotes crime.

    I don't think there would ever be such a lame duck congress that they would try to revoke the 2nd Amendment. The damage they would do to their party would be horrendous. I know plenty of people who would cross party lines for such an offense, even if they don't personally agree with gun ownership.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  16. bkt

    bkt New Member

    Really? How? Has banning certain drugs made it more difficult for people who want them to get them? Did banning alcohol make alcohol go away in this country?

    Laws only make it more difficult for the law-abiding, not for criminals.

    Prohibition never works.

    "High-powered automatic weaponry" is only difficult for the average everyday guy to get because, being law-abiding, he must apply for a Class III license, get approved, and pay exorbitant fees to make a purchase.

    Yes, it's wrong. The U.N. is not a trade arbitrator and should not be looked upon as such. Let individual nations -- and the consumers in it -- make the decisions.

    Do those measures work?

    Respectfully, you sure seem to be.

    Whenever subjective terms like "reasonable" are introduced into an argument (or legislation or treaties), the definition is left to the current office-holder or judge.

    If the premise that there's such a thing as an "illegal weapon" or "illegal drug" were correct, you'd be right. But the premise is demonstrably invalid.

    You cannot disarm those who wish to be armed and will operate outside the law to become armed. Laws created with the intent of disarming criminals don't work -- look at our own country -- but they do impede law-abiding citizens. You can fight crime and criminals, however.

    Yes, that's true, and that serves us as far as it takes us. But it doesn't address other nations that might bow to U.N. pressure...say, ratifying such a treaty in their own nation in exchange for aid from the U.N. So while the U.S. may not be bound by such a proposed treaty, nations we currently do business with may be, which cuts off our supply of firearms we had been able to import from them in the past. It also may limit to whom we may export firearms.

    It may not ban sales from government/military to government/military, but what about private importers? Doesn't it affect them?

    Have you SEEN the current congress? Do you know what damage the majority have done to their party? Never say never.

    I'm not suggesting it's likely they'd try to pass an amendment to nullify 2A, but they might well ratify a treaty that would further curtail our options around procuring firearms and ammunition.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  17. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    So, because prohibition didn't work, we should make no effort to prevent Mexican Cartels, Taliban insurrectionists, etc. from getting their hands on weaponry they intend to use in a criminal manner? We should obviously just let them buy as many stinger missiles, assault weapons, tanks, jets, yeah, whatever they want to buy.

    Only if those laws do not give the law enforcement body the tools needed to properly enforce those laws.

    I agree. The treaty isn't asking for that, though. It's looking for ways to better regulate. Completely different.

    You just finished making an argument about how criminals aren't going to do things legally, then turn around and say "let the consumers handle the decisions.

    Having a single set of international standards for an arms trade makes it easier for countries to agree on prosecution, and makes sure that arms trading is harder. As it stands right now, with no international agreement on the arms trade, there are hundreds of loopholes that allow the sales of bulk arms internationally, which makes it hard for international and national security forces to do their jobs.

    Quite a few of them have. The Kimberly Process came about partially due to UN pressure on the blood diamond situation, for example.

    Respectfully, your argument isn't consistent. You constantly point out that criminals aren't going to obey the law, and your "solution," as far as I can tell, is to let each nation sort it out themselves, which I think is a bull**** answer when you look at how many of our US troops are being shot at by American and Russian-made assault weapons, which I see as a direct result of the current world policies on a gun trade.

    Fair enough. You don't like the term "reasonable". I don't like sitting around on my *** waiting for over 100 nations being unable to enforce any type of laws that would prevent a terrorist from getting their hands on a cache of surplus AK 47s from North Korea and shooting at friends i have overseas.

    A firearm you obtain illegally is an illegal weapon. That is what I mean by "illegal weapon". Please demonstrate to me how the "premise" of a illegal weapon is invalid.

    So you're saying we should do nothing in any way, shape, or form, to prevent criminals from getting their hands on weaponry illegally.

    Please tell me if I'm not following your argument.

    Outside of gun collectors, most firearms sold within the United States are manufactured within the United States, and on top of that, I'm pretty sure that the treaty would address LEGAL PURCHASE OF ARMS BETWEEN NATIONS. Again, read the proposed treaty. It states QUITE CLEARLY that nations have the right to have guns for many different purposes, and in NO PLACE AT ALL implies that guns should be banned entirely, only that there should be a set of international standards regulating the sale and transfer of arms across national borders.

    Again, see my point about "legal purchasing of arms". I'd bet money that the purchase of arms by collectors over international borders will still be possible, they just might have to do a bit more paperwork if they want to get that soviet-era AK.

    I don't think any party really has the political clout to even attempt modification of the constitution, and they realize that enough that they don't bother trying.

    And unfortunately, we're in a world where, quite frankly, I don't want everyone and everyone being able to buy as many guns as they want whenever they want. I do firmly believe that, if someone wants to, say, buy 400 assault weapons from overseas, that there should be enough international communication, laws in place, and enough of the government notified to figure out if this is a viable threat to the US (for example, it is a gun dealer providing arms to terrorists within the US?) and to respond accordingly.

    Am I expecting this to solve any problems? No, there will always be criminals, and the BEST defense against criminals is a vigilant and active civilian counter-measures; but just because laws don't always prevent everyone from committing crimes, doesn't mean we should just throw laws out the window.
  18. bkt

    bkt New Member

    First off, corrinavatan, thank you for putting up with me. I enjoy an intelligent conversation. We're probably talking past each other a little bit in some ways.

    Here's my take in a nutshell.

    1. Trying to deny bad guys access to the stuff they want through legislation doesn't work because bad guys don't give a hoot about laws. That's why they're bad guys. Laws like that only end up hurting good guys by making it more difficult, more expensive or outright impossible to get stuff they want and would not use to anyone's detriment.

    2. The U.N. is a terribly corrupt organization that does not have the interest of the individual at heart. It is interested in it's own consolidation of political power.

    When a treaty like this comes along which seems innocuous, consider all the angles and how it could affect Americans adversely. For example, you say someone "might have to do a bit more paperwork if they want to get that soviet-era AK". Well, today they don't have to. They walk into a gun store, fill out a 4473, and walk out with their AK or WASR10 or whatever. What's the nature of the paperwork? Would they still be allowed to sell it in a face-to-face sale like it is now? If not, then that impedes our freedom. If so, then it makes the treaty pointless.

    3. Local and national laws should impede or permit the flow of goods and services, not the U.N. When the U.N. has control, there is no sovereignty. So I stand by my statement: "Let individual nations -- and the consumers in it -- make the decisions."

    4. Regarding our troops being shot at with U.S. and Russian-made weapons, do you really think that would stop with this U.N. treaty? Arms smuggling is big business today. It's illegal but it happens. With the treaty in place...smuggling would continue.

    Now, I object strongly to our troops being put in harm's way for no good reason (and political posturing is not a good reason!), but the politics around Iraq and Afghanistan are beyond the scope of this thread.
  19. collegekid20

    collegekid20 New Member

    I really have to agree with bkt here and say that no form of prohibition in this country has ever worked or will ever work. The U.N. has no place to tell any country what it can and can't do regarding trade, manufacturing, or anything else for that matter. If an individual country has a problem with what another is doing then that's between those two countries. While I do understand that the U.N. is trying to stop people like viktor Bout who sell arms to terrorists and rebel groups who then kill innocent people. But what we must really ask ourselves is, is it the business of the U.N. to be stepping on the liberties of individuals and nations by creating these bans. I personally believe that if nations have a problem with each other then it is between those two nations and no one else has any right to say what it's people can or can't do. If a nation wants to sell arms to drug cartels, so be it. let individual nations dish out the punishment but overall bans are NOT the way to do this.
  20. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    Same here.


    I can see your point, but I think you're over-generalizing it.

    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.

    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)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    I didn't mean to go into that. All I meant is that, when Americans are killed by weapons that are obtained illegally through international channels, I think it's absolutely insane to go into an absolute denialist, foaming-at-the-mouth reaction about how 2nd amemendment rights are going to be curtailed...

    when the treaty we're talking about is a PROPOSED treaty that isn't even finalized, and whose proposal has all the language in it that I would expect from a treaty that almost looks like someone said "guys, we need the USA to sign onto this treaty, and we know for DAMN sure they're not going to give up their own guns, so you better put a clause in here making sure we don't violate their rights or this thing is dead in the water."

    I mean, literally, all Obama has said is "We'd be willing to discuss it". That =/= Obama is going to come into my house and take my gun away.

    I mean, what is he supposed to say? "Oh yeah, I know I won a Nobel Peace Prize, but I'm totally going to brush of the UN when they make a request for discussions about an international arms sale treaty."

    I mean, come on. I'm not asking peple to like the dude. But at least don't act like stereotypical gun nuts who go off on conspiracy theorist rants about a treaty that hasn't even been made yet, especially when the language of the treaty proposal literally undermines those rants.

    I guess that's whey the first page of posts got to me so bad. I think it's total over-reaction, as we don't even know what the proposed measures will be.

    I mean, literally, all it COULD be is that the treaty says that arms sales have to be kept on an internationally-recorded and visible database to track the sale of arms between nations and who is providing arms to terrorist groups and the like, and any violators that can be shown to have actively and directly provided arms for illegal purposes can be thrown in jail/ tried for war crimes/ tickled with feather dusters until they expire.