United Nations worldwide gun ban

C

Corn dodger

New member
Senator Vitters amendment not to fund any foreign organization that would violate American rights (ie gun rights) including the United Nations, passed Friday 81-10. With 9 not voting. I have found out that Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy and Schumer (no surprises yet) voted against the Vitter amendment. Does anyone know the other six voting against the amendment?
 
The UN has made a few stabs at international gun control.

Here's an article on the subject.

For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
Click to expand...
 
If it did pass , it would never be enforceable! Who would enforce it? Who would control it! Most of it is coming from Africa and they are the brunt of the prolbems........

How meny AK's in the U.S. ,,,,,,How meny A.Ks in Africa??????

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!
 
Who will enforce that resolution?

What makes them think they will be successful?

Where do they think the money to fund this will come from?



Sounds like they need mighty stupid men with little blue helmets, who have brains that resemble BBs bouncing around inside box cars.

They can try it with the USA. It is ill advised, but they can try.

UN bans firearms in the US. :rolleyes:
 
It would not be the UN that "enforces" a gun ban in the US. It would be your federal, state, and local (depending on the state and county/city you are in) law enforcement personnel that would do the "enforcement."

This would come (if this ban happened) through a "treaty" signed by the US government. The US laws would then be subject to this treaty and international law would become domestic law. Enforcement would be carried out at the order of the US government, and since federal law supersedes state and local law LE everywhere would be bound to enforce it or not receive any appropriations from the state because the state would get penalized by the feds. The magic money carrot would be waved on down the line....

It would likely not involve an all-out confiscation anyway.... it would happen every time you go to the range and get pulled over..... or every time your neighbor calls the cops over an issue at your home..... or every time some nameless person "sees you" with anything resembling a gun.

These grabbers are not all stupid.... they are patient and they make plans that will use creeping incrementalism to achieve their goals.


Who will enforce that resolution?

What makes them think they will be successful?

Where do they think the money to fund this will come from?



Sounds like they need mighty stupid men with little blue helmets, who have brains that resemble BBs bouncing around inside box cars.

They can try it with the USA. It is ill advised, but they can try.

UN bans firearms in the US.
Click to expand...
 
I don't have any alliance with the United Nations , Do You? My constitution is not Aliened with them. What you talking about Wilbur????

There was a Kid that had not Alliance with them. He was in the U.S. Army. He refused to where the Blue helmet and be ruled under there rules. He won. He pleaded allegiance to the United States. Not a foreign government. Now the paper work states that you will comply. His did not.

I think they would have a major problem inforcing a law created by a outside force.
 
Any treaty would have to be ratified by the Senate and signed by the President. Theoretically the UN could sign off on a security council resolution but the US has veto power on that too. Only takes one member to veto a resolution.

I wonder if the SCOTUS has any authority in matters of Treaties?

Any input Ken?
 
Not saying there wouldn't be issues.... however, people are stupid and they forget easily. If you would have told people back in the 20's that there would be an "assault weapons ban" at some point in the future they probably wouldn't have believed you. As well, if you told somebody in the 1800's that the courts would one day be debating the meaning of a clearly-written document (2A) they probably would have laughed.

"Collective right for states only" could very well mean that an all-out private ban is "constitutional" in the eyes of many courts. I'm pretty sure the 9th circuit would agree. The UN does not want to ban all guns.... they just don't want the people to have them......This presents a problem for the power-hungry elitists that run the UN.... the peasants can fight back. That's never good for a global power grab.

I'm also not saying that, in the event of a ban/treaty all LE would participate. I know where I'm at the LE would be on the side of the people. Back in CA I'm pretty sure it would not be the same mindset......
 
Any treaty would have to be ratified by the Senate and signed by the President. Theoretically the UN could sign off on a security council resolution but the US has veto power on that too.
Click to expand...

These "free-trade agreements" sure made it without too much hassle.... nearly anything that can be disguised as "for the public good" has a chance anyway.

I don't recall NAFTA being ratified since it's not technically a treaty although it is very similar to a treaty. There are ways around everything for those determined to get there......
 
I don't doubt they would use the slow boil method. That has been the MO of gun grabbers for a very long time. The problem is that Man is very adaptive and will become as water.
 
NAFTA was an "agreement" and was passed with a simple majority in both houses. Now lest one think it is therefore of lesser import than a treaty please remember we now have Mexican trucks long hauling in the US because of an agreement. The administration says we have to allow the trucks in yet Canada refuses to comply. The "agreement" is merely the excuse to enforce an unpopular initiative.

Back to gun control. Anti-gunners lose in legislative attempts. They are in the process of losing in the courts. The last "legal" avenue is international treaties and "agreements".
 
People will argue that a treaty with the U.N. cannot supersede the Constitution. While this is true in theory I wouldn’t want to bet on it as fact. Treaties take effect if passed by the Senate and signed by the President. If it were to contravene the Constitution it would be up to the SCOTUS to strike it down. Considering some of the rulings from the “nine wise men” in recent times I wouldn’t want to bet on the outcome. SCOTUS will actually have the final word regardless of what it says in the Constitution. After that people will either have to live with it or take it to the streets.
 
All I can manage to say to this is that it disgusts, frightens, enrages, and nauseates me. Anything else I would say to and about those responsible for this is simply unprintable and not possible to convey without large screaming at a volume above that of a jet engine :barf::mad::mad:
 
Here ya go

Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Menendez (D-FL)
Schumer (D-NY)
Reed (D-RI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

Not voting were:

Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY) <--
Dodd (D-CT)
Obama (D-IL) <--
McCain (R-AZ) <--

Notice the "<--"... not a good image for the voters if you show any interest at all in this...

here is the HR: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02764:
 
I'm confused? What do you mean the constitution has no meaning? Congress, The president, The judicial can not alter it with out a amendment. Until then, I live by it!!!!!!!
 
Who would enforce it?
Click to expand...

The cops. Who do you think? Sure, illegal guns would still exist in Africa. They'd exist here, too. These laws aren't intended to control criminals. They're intended to control you.
 
I swear that makes me want to punch those people in the face. Sorry, it's just intolerable to simply let them sit there and do that. Is there ANYTHING you can do to these clowns legally that can effectively damage them? Write an expose? Seriously, I can't bring myself to ignore something like this...it's so horrible I just can't stand not being able to do more than just sit here and let them skate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top