What The Un Wants To Do With Your Guns

glad to see my man LaPierre is being vigilant. tell me this,all, when the shooting starts i know not all you will fight in this war like solders usualy fight in war but you will fight like i will, sneak to a good position take some pot shots at the tyrants then sneak out and go home kiss your loved ones good night do the same thing over and over again as often as you can. that is how the next war in this country will be like.
 
<If the U.S. Supreme Court...were to decide that the Second Amendment is only a government right and not the individual right>

Not likely hold up on appeal.:cool:
Click to expand...

Appeal to who?? The Hague??
 
People keep saying that, but gun control people already have a bunch of excuses. I just don't understand why another anti-gun lobby, in this case the UN, is going to make any difference or be any more motivating.


We'll change our laws when WE want to, and not a moment sooner. The UN has less ability to affect legislation in the US than illegal aliens do.
Click to expand...

Sorry Handy, but that's not the case. As I said in my post above:
LaPierre says that while a formal treaty needs two-thirds of the Senate to get approved, the damage to gun ownership rights can be done with a simple agreement, which requires only a simple majority in the House and the Senate.
"That is how President Clinton passed NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement]. The U.N. can do it with a simple agreement - if someone like Hillary Clinton ever becomes president.


"Here is the nightmare scenario on that: Yes, our Supreme Court has said the U.S. Constitution trumps treaties. But say Hillary Clinton becomes President in 2008 and gets a couple of Supreme Court appointments. The policy of her husband when he was president is that the Second Amendment applies only to the government and not individuals. Individuals have no right to own guns - only the government.

"If the U.S. Supreme Court, stacked with Hillary Clinton appointments, were to decide that the Second Amendment is only a government right and not the individual right, there would be nothing in the Constitution then to prohibit this U.N. treaty from taking effect," LaPierre said.
Click to expand...
It would require help from people within the U.S. government, but with people in office that are willing to destroy the Second Amendment, it would be relatively simple to get the UN's gun ban enacted.

As 2nd Amendment said above:
So, in short, most of your "remote" happenings are actually either already reality or very likely to become such soon. Why place so much trust in government? It has done nothing thoughout all history but demonstrate itself to be evil and unworthy of such, whatever the level.
Click to expand...

And as I have said till I'm blue in the face - Politicians like Clinton and Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kenndey, Schumer, Feinstein, McCain and Giuliani who have demonstrated that they are antigun/antifreedom bigots cannot be trusted with political power - ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENCY.
 
There's an awful lot of if's in your scenario there, steelheart, even if Clinton was elected.

History has amply demonstrated that the UN has little to no sway over the conduct of American law or life, as Handy demonstrated quite capably several times in this and other threads on the subject.

History cannot be denied, as you yourself frequently say, steelheart.
 
A good and timely link. The LaPierre video is good and could inspire some non-NRA member prowling around here to join.
Click to expand...




You just reminded me to do something I've been meaning to do for a while.

I'll be watching my mailbox.
 
You cannot discount the possibility of LaPierre's 'nightmare scenario' coming to pass, Leif.

There's an awful lot of if's in your scenario there, steelheart, even if Clinton was elected.
Click to expand...
Not really. As 2nd Amendment said:
in short, most of your "remote" happenings are actually either already reality or very likely to become such soon. Why place so much trust in government? It has done nothing thoughout all history but demonstrate itself to be evil and unworthy of such, whatever the level.
Click to expand...
All it would require woudl be an antigun bigot - like Clinton - in the White House and an antigun bigot majority (read DEMOCRAT majority) in the House and Senate. Both of these events are not at all outside the realm of possibility (much to your merriment, I'm sure).

And yes, history cannot be denied. You however overlook one critical point: These events have not yet come to pass - due to that fact, the past does not equal the future as far as the UN's influence over our Second Amendment right to arms; at this point, the 'nightmare scenario' is very possible.

And as I said earlier,
Politicians like Clinton and Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kenndey, Schumer, Feinstein, McCain and Giuliani who have demonstrated that they are antigun/antifreedom bigots cannot be trusted with political power -ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENCY.
Click to expand...
Regarding our right to arms, Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted - period.
 
Excuse me for not joining the call to arms...

Exactly how is a UN resolution banning guns going to affect our right to keep and bear arms? Even if the UN did pass such a resolution, it's not binding on the United States unless and until it's approved by the president and two-thirds of the Senate. Since a "gun ban" would impact the Second Amendment, a constitutional amendment would be required, which requires the approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures. This is such a long shot, it's not even worth worrying about.

Although I'm a member of and support the NRA, I think Wayne's being a little disingenuous here...
 
Exactly how is a UN resolution banning guns going to affect our right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...
Jay Cee, read my post #13 (above) which explains it:
LaPierre says that while a formal treaty needs two-thirds of the Senate to get approved, the damage to gun ownership rights can be done with a simple agreement, which requires only a simple majority in the House and the Senate.

"That is how President Clinton passed NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement]. The U.N. can do it with a simple agreement - if someone like Hillary Clinton ever becomes president.
Click to expand...
Although I'm a member of and support the NRA, I think Wayne's being a little disingenuous here...
Click to expand...
LaPierre is being disingenious, but Hillary Clinton is not with her desperate bid to bury her leftist/socialist past??

Wake up, Bub.:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
leif, after the way Kofi and his band of thugs(UN) gave they'er favorite dictator(Saddom Insane) billions in what was to be aid, you and handy can have em all.
 
Steelheart...

NAFTA is a free trade agreement; it doesn't supersede or alter existing US domestic law or affect constitutionally guaranteed rights of US citizens. The same thing is true of a UN sponsored gun ban...it would have no effect on the rights of US citizens. In case you've forgotten, our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the United States Constitution, which can only be amended by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Neither the president nor Congress can enter into treaties or agreements that abrogate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If they could, the Second Amendment wouldn't be worth much, nor would any of the other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
 
Why place so much trust in government? It has done nothing thoughout all history but demonstrate itself to be evil and unworthy of such, whatever the level.
Click to expand...

I now understand the problem with UN threads. Wow, how did I miss that one.
 
2nd Amendment said:
Let's say that the UN attempts to impose its "law" on the US - Doesn't need to impose anything. All we have to do is sign on...
Click to expand...
And how many times have we gaffed off the UN?
2nd Amendment said:
Let's say that the question comes before the Supreme Court. - Possible, but what if the SCOTUS simply refuses to hear it...
Click to expand...
Quite improbable. The matter goes directly to the heart of interpreting the 2nd Amendment, which is what they're there for.

2nd Amendment said:
Now - who here thinks that the Supreme Court is going to be standing by - ready, willing, and able - to set the precedent that UN Regulations supercede the Constitution? - They've already said treaties and international laws can influence or even supercede US law. That's a done deal.
Click to expand...
However, they were quite selective in their language, always reserving the right to tell the international community to piss off - which we have done before.

2nd Amendment said:
Beyond that, the Supreme Court would have to reverse precedents set forth in previous 2nd Amendment cases that define the 'militia' as being comprised of primarily citizens. - Only takes a new SCOTUS decision to erase all that came before.
Click to expand...
The longer a precedent stands, and the more decisions made based on that precedent or in support of it - the more difficult and/or unlikely it is that it will be reversed. Contrary to how you present it, it is not "simply" a single decision process.
2nd Amendment said:
So, in short, most of your "remote" happenings are actually either already reality or very likely to become such soon. Why place so much trust in government? It has done nothing thoughout all history but demonstrate itself to be evil and unworthy of such, whatever the level.
Click to expand...

JayCee beat me to it:
Even if the UN did pass such a resolution, it's not binding on the United States unless and until it's approved by the president and two-thirds of the Senate. Since a "gun ban" would impact the Second Amendment, a constitutional amendment would be required, which requires the approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures. This is such a long shot, it's not even worth worrying about.
Click to expand...

It's not that I place an undue amount of trust in the government, it's simply that I don't jump onto every doomsday prophecy to come my way. This is indeed something that we need to be aware of and take steps against, but we're talking about a CULTURE CHANGE -- let's be honest with ourselves about the possibilities before we scream that the sky is falling.

Possible IS NOT Probable.
 
Steelheart,

The scenerio you describe is no different than any bill. Again, how is it that the UN is more likely to get a majority out of both houses than HCI or Charles Schumer?

There is a danger here, but that danger exists in OUR government. A UN mandate isn't any more likely to pass than any other legislation in front of Congress. And if Congress wants to ban guns, they don't need the UN to tell them to do it.


All of that stuff you posted is about how our government functions, not about how the UN is going to "make us" do anything we already didn't want to do.


I am quite fearful of what the wrong Congress and President might do, especially after all the damage Bush has done to the Republican party. But I think scapegoating the UN is a distraction - our own people are the enemy - the UN is immaterial to our policies and laws, and that isn't going to change.
 
JayCee -

In case you've forgotten, our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the United States Constitution, which can only be amended by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Neither the president nor Congress can enter into treaties or agreements that abrogate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment is not as off limits to encroachments as you seem to think it is. If it were, we wouldn't have NFA '34 and GCA '68. We would not have had Clinton's asinine and unconstitutional gun ban. The citizens of DC would be able to own and carry firearms for their own defense. There would be no .50 cal. rifle and "assault" weapon ban in CA. Concealed carry would be a way of life in New York City, Chicago and San Francisco. The post Katrina gun confiscation in New Orleans would have never happened.

We have a crop of control freak antigun bigot politicians in this nation to whom the Second Amendment means nothing. They will gut it any way they can.

The UN is infested with the same type of vermin. They want a disarmed citizenry on a global basis. The domestic and international antigun/antifreedom bigots will work hand in hand to achieve their goals, if given the opportunity.

We cannot afford them that opportunity by letting a leftist/socialist antigun bigot like Hillary Clinton become President - period. We cannot allow the leftist/socialist antigun bigots to control Congress. If those events come to pass, our right to arms will be in grave danger of being gutted or eliminated altogether.

Our right to arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but that does not mean it is safe from the enemies of freedom, whether they are foreign or domestic.

The evidence of that is everywhere, and it is undeniable.
 
Handy -
The scenerio you describe is no different than any bill. Again, how is it that the UN is more likely to get a majority out of both houses than HCI or Charles Schumer?
Click to expand...
There is an election in November of this year. If the antigun bigots - that would be leftist/socialist Democrats and their RINO lap dogs, like McCain - take control of the House and the Senate, they will be able to get the majority vote needed to gut our right to arms. I doubt that a weak-kneed Bush would have the backbone to veto any antigun legislation sent to him, such as another "assault" weapon ban.

The only reason the antigun bigots have not been able to do so in recent years is because Republicans have controlled both House and Senate. If not for that, the "assault" weapon ban would have never died. It would have been extended and expanded.

The fact is 95%+ of Democrat politicians cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting our right to arms - their history proves this - and RINO lap dogs like McCain are just as guilty and worthless.
 
Correct. Now what does that have to do with the UN?


The UN does not elect our politicians. The UN does not vote on our laws. The UN does not sit on our Supreme Count. How is the UN going cause our government to do something that they wouldn't do already?
 
When will people learn that banning firearms only hurts the responsble citizens. I'm all for keeping guns off "the streets". But out of the arms of concerned citizens... that just doesn't make any sense.

A ban will have little to no, possible even a negative effect on that of the "bad guys". Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it.
 
Correct. Now what does that have to do with the UN?
Click to expand...
Here's what it has to do with the UN:
We have a crop of control freak antigun bigot politicians in this nation to whom the Second Amendment means nothing. They will gut it any way they can.

The UN is infested with the same type of vermin. They want a disarmed citizenry on a global basis. The domestic and international antigun/antifreedom bigots will work hand in hand to achieve their goals, if given the opportunity.
Click to expand...
The antigun bigots in the UN and the antigun bigots in our own Senate and House are singing the same song. They all want the same thing - a disarmed citizenry.

And as I said above, I still maintain that
We cannot afford them that opportunity by letting a leftist/socialist antigun bigot like Hillary Clinton become President - period. We cannot allow the leftist/socialist antigun bigots to control Congress. If those events come to pass, our right to arms will be in grave danger of being gutted or eliminated altogether.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top