UN Gun Control Coming to Your Neighborhood?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by KalashnikovJosh, May 19, 2010.

  1. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    Here is a FACTUAL report on the issue from GOA-

    Written by Erich Pratt
    Tuesday, 04 May 2010 00:00

    Having been stymied in their efforts to enact more gun control at home, U.S. politicians are going global in a back door effort to restrict the firearms of American citizens.

    Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is spearheading an effort to get the World Court to do what the courts in our country have refused to do -- namely, find gun makers guilty for the damages caused by their products’ misuse.

    Chicago’s frivolous lawsuit was dismissed by a liberal Supreme Court in Illinois six years ago. So now, Mayor Daley is trying to get the international court to go after U.S. gun makers.

    Daley compared guns to poison saying, “If we ship over poison to a country, don’t you think we should be responsible for it?”

    The Chicago Sun-Times reported on April 27 that Daley has managed to convince more than a dozen mayors from around the world to join him in approving a resolution urging “redress against the gun industry through the courts of the world.”

    Not to be outdone, President Obama is also trying to stick it to American gun owners.

    According to Bloomberg News, the Obama administration voted “aye” late last year at the United Nations in support of continued talks that are aimed at regulating firearms. The Obama administration’s vote reversed the Bush Administration’s strong opposition to any arms control treaty that would impact the rights of American gun owners.

    To be sure, gun owners can expect any UN small arms treaty to limit their rights.

    The Heritage Foundation, a think-tank based in the nation’s capital, has followed the arms control discussions at the UN very closely. They report that a UN small arms treaty would require all signatory nations to adopt the “highest possible standards” in keeping guns away from criminals and terrorists.

    But as the think-tank notes, this standard is intended as an assault on the Second Amendment right of all Americans because, ultimately, “there is no guarantee that any privately held gun in the U.S. will never be used in criminal activity.”

    Hence, Americans could expect to see licensing restrictions, bans on most semi-automatic firearms, an end to private sales at gun shows, and much more.

    President Barack Obama made promises to protect Second Amendment rights during his campaign. But he seems perfectly happy using the United Nations to enact gun restrictions that he cannot otherwise get passed in the Congress.

    Remember the President’s startling proclamation during the State of the Union speech in January? When the Senate voted down a commission he wanted, he said this: “Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward.”

    In other words, the Separation of Powers be damned! “If Congress doesn’t give me what I want,” he seems to tell us, “then I’ll just go around them using my Executive Order pen.”

    There is no regard for the Separation of Powers; no desire to limit himself to the boundaries set by the U.S. Constitution, a document he swore to uphold. For Obama, the United Nations has become a convenient surrogate to get his anti-gun agenda enacted.

    One hopes that if an international arms treaty were to pass, our country could just ignore its edicts. That would be the best-case scenario.

    Of course, there will be many in Congress and at the White House who will then dust off their copies of the Constitution (which they love to ignore) and argue that treaties are the supreme law of the land, according to Article VI. We will then see anti-gun liberals -- and the rest of the world -- use the treaty as a stick to beat us into compliance.

    The worst-case scenario for gun owners involves the United Nations directly enforcing compliance. As noted by the Heritage Foundation, the International Criminal Court could be “an alternative avenue of enforcement.”

    The Foundation states that this World Court could investigate and charge U.S. policymakers who, wanting to help freedom fighters in other countries, vote to send them arms. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Could we see the international court rule against gun owners for refusing to lock up their firearms? What happens if one of our guns is stolen and is later used in a crime or the gun is smuggled south of the border?

    Americans are not used to seeing UN Peacekeepers donning their blue helmets in our country. For most Americans, the presence of international troops here would not be welcome.

    The enforcement question is a huge question mark and necessitates that gun owners continue to watch these arms control talks very closely and hold their policymakers accountable.
  2. bkt

    bkt New Member

    Now there's an understatement.

  3. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    I file this one right next to the "factual" report of the Army training special troops to be deployed before the November elections. The sky could fall tomorrow but I ain't staying up all night watching for it...
  4. mcramer

    mcramer New Member

    This makes me sick

    ALSGUN New Member

    I agree with your assessment of this factual story, we must always be vigilant about our rights, but this one....
  6. freefall

    freefall New Member

    Foreign troops under arms on American soil is an Act of War.
  7. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    Yep, all your guns will be confiscated and you will be whisked away in those huge covered train cars to FEMA internment camps. Hillary Clinton will be in charge of all those camps. The female UN guards all have fetishes for tattoos. The skin of well tattooed inmates will be made into lamp shades.
  8. luke1249

    luke1249 New Member

    Don't forget the subcutaneous RFID chips.

    By the way, saqr = hawk, right?
  9. mcramer

    mcramer New Member

  10. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    "Oh,but....but....Its not possible!!!"

    Said the Jews in the 'deportation' trains as they were shipped to the death camps.......

    Denial-Its not just a river in Egypt.


    So these items aren't factual?

    Is he NOT up to this?

    So Obama didnt do this?

    Does this shed any light on the facts-


    Not to mention that this report isnt coming from anyone less than the Gun Owners of America.

    Last edited: May 20, 2010
  11. Dzscubie

    Dzscubie New Member


    Well, this is one way to get rid of the gang bangers :D
  12. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    I got 20 dollars that says that if something like this ever happened-the gangbangers would be the ones guarding the camps.....

    IGETEVEN New Member

    Well, lol...I don't think them "gang bangers" will be that agile, let alone able to run or holster a weapon when wearing "their" choice of clothing uniforms.....



  14. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

  15. Bigcountry02

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

    Some said, that the drudge had a link that the UN is backing off the UN Small Arms Treaty. I asked if they had a link, so more to follow on that.

    Another recent post from Oathkeepers asking Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions reply:

    MzHi'ry recently signed a UN Arms
    Trade Treaty - in effect, world-wide gun control.
    I asked Sen Jeff Sessions (R-AL) about this — here's part of his reply;

    The United Nations is encouraging member states to begin working on a treaty to establish international standards for the import, export, and transfer of firearms. However, I would not be in
    favor of the ratification of such a treaty because it has the potential
    to diminish the authority of our Constitution and subject our citizens
    to overly prescriptive international laws.
    "As your United States senator, I will continue to passionately defend
    our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This constitutional
    right, and our heritage of using firearms for sporting or self defense
    purposes, does not have to be sacrificed to reduce gun-related
    violence. There are many who would like to undermine the meaning of the
    second Amendment; however, I will continue to oppose these efforts and
    any future legislation that proposes unnecessary gun restrictions. We
    can best address the issue of gun violence by enforcing laws already on
    the books and by focusing our attention on criminals who use guns
    illegally, not on law-abiding gun owners."

    Any treaty Obamasiah, MzHi'ry or any of the myriad others, favors or signs, must be ratified by the US Congress
  16. WannaGator

    WannaGator New Member

    One World Gov't Coming Soon

    I tend to expect the worst from Politicians and rarely am I suprised.
  17. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    Sometimes, yes. alsaqr is usually translated as falcon.
  18. G36Girl

    G36Girl New Member

    It's a nightmare

    The U.N. Arms Treaty IS a looming nightmare. I've studied all of the documentation, including the meeting notes and timelines.

    Before you dismiss it I suggest you do some homework on the issue.

    It IS Total Disarmament.

    And the clintons are all for it. hillary agreed to "negotiate" with the cretins at the U.N., giving up VETO RIGHTS for the United States.

  19. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    How many times does this "Total Disarmament" saber have to rattle?!

    I can see a new thread in my head taking shape....