United Nations

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BGutzman

New member
As a understand it there were two bills in the United Nations, one concerning the Environment (This last environmental conference Mr. Obama attended) and containing clauses that would have placed our privately owned firearms in the same class a nuclear weapons. The second bill as I understand it is just a out right ban on personal weapons as selfdefense is not a recognized right as a the United Nations sees it. Apparently Hillery speaking on the behalf of the president is promoting this second agreement.

I am NOT a lawyer. Does someone know more about this then the feeble information I have above and if so, is it true that our constitution right to bear arms could be bypassed under international treaty and not subject to review by the Supreme Court?
 
They'd really like to do it, & have been toeing the line for a long time. What they are not ready for is the resulting civil unrest (revolt) that it would trigger. That's why they are picking away at our rights little by little.
 
Bills in the United Nations? Never thought of the UN as a legislative body. As for international treaties, they fall under both the need for senate confirmation and judicial review.
 
As for international treaties, they fall under both the need for senate confirmation and judicial review.
Click to expand...
That was the problem at Copenhagen. They realize that there was no way the Senate would sign off on it so they were trying to get it going as a "international agreement" that Obama could sign and hopefully get the gutless SCOTUS to sign off on it. Of course all the 3rd world countries were going to sign it because they get free money out of it from the west.

They are running out of options as far as the whole "Global Warming", "Climate Change", "whatever you want to call it" scare is concerned. People are starting to actually look at the science and realize that we don't have a problem and they are being lied to. There is a reason why the Vikings were farming in Greenland and they were growing grapes in Scotland during the middle ages. There is also a reason why those Viking graves in Greenland are now under permafrost and it's hard to grow anything in Scotland.

They always try to scare you into believing there is a massive problem that only they can fix.
 
Same with any law, ordnance, rule, regulation, edict, etc....

You can make them all you want, but do you have will and the ability to enforce it???

Are the UN officials so arrogant to think I really give a rats @$$ about what they want.
 
Never thought of the UN as a legislative body. As for international treaties, they fall under both the need for senate confirmation and judicial review.
Click to expand...
+1. Before subscribing to any moonbat theories about UN conspiracies to take away our rights, I suggest looking a little further into the underlying principles of international law, and into the politics of international diplomacy.
  1. Besides the need for Senate confirmation and judicial review, any international treaty is only as binding as the countries signing the treaty want it to be. There is no international Globocop overseeing the whole world to make sure all countries meet their treaty obligations. (Some people pretend that the UN is this cop. It's not. Any UN force consists of forces from individual countries.) It's up to the countries signing the treaty to voluntarily enforce it, and when one country abrogates the treaty, the others may retaliate, but their avenues for doing so may be limited. Ask any Native American what happens when the country holding all the cards decides that it's going to ignore a treaty. :rolleyes:
  2. International politics is very complex, and sometimes involves taking uncomfortable stances on one issue in order to gain favor with countries whose help you need on another issue. (Read: "NATO Troops in Afghanistan")
  3. Pretending that you want to help and then inserting a "poison pill" provision into the final treaty language, thereby rendering the whole treaty unpassable or impotent, is a time-honored tradition in international politics. Of course, we all know that US diplomats would never do something like this in full knowledge that the US Senate will overwhelmingly reject it. Nope, never. ;) ("I'm so sorry Mr. Ambassador Sir, but I had no idea that the Senate would do that. It's out of my hands. So sorry.")
 
But glenn!!!

Un!!!!

Rights...!!

Loss!!...!!!

Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One world gubmint!!!!!!!!!!

Ack! Arrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!
 
OK, how's this:
Here is a link to the U.N.'s Disarmament site. If you want the info straight from the source, it is here: http://www.un.org/disarmament/

Links include:
Conventional Arms
Small Arms / Armed Violence, Arms Trade Treaty, Transparency Registers, Ammunition, Landmines, Certain Conventional Weapons & Cluster Munitions

Should provide the info the OP requested. Although, there may be a boat load of questions about the international legalize used.
 
How Old is Old?

This is all backed by AI. Heck they have a website and having been working on it for years:
http://www.controlarms.org/en

This is what they want:

http://www.controlarms.org/en/docum...rts/global-principles-for-intl-arms-transfers

This is what that have gotten so far:

smiley-toilet05.gif
 
This is another one of those urban legend things that happens either because someone is paranoid, or because they don't understand the definition of "international arms smuggling," or both.

That was the problem at Copenhagen. They realize that there was no way the Senate would sign off on it so they were trying to get it going as a "international agreement" that Obama could sign and hopefully get the gutless SCOTUS to sign off on it.
Click to expand...

That's not how laws work.
 
But Glenn!

For 3 years I gave up candy on Halloween to walk the hills of Priest Lake with my little Unicef change bucket. Was I duped:eek:.

Made of for the lack of adequate sugar highs latter in life.:)

Good Luck & Be Safe
 
When I trick or treated for Unicef, I dressed as soldier with a plastic tin pot and a realistic 1911 that shot plastic bullets. That was a different time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top