What The Un Wants To Do With Your Guns

*sigh*.... OK

The UN passes a resolution. The US signs on to it, thx to President Clinton and her Dem Senate. The ATF then chooses to apply it in the most Draconian fashion possible. The SCOTUS either refuses to hear it, just as they have avoided other 2A cases before, or worse, upholds it based on the established premise that international law in the modern world must at times be honored as superior to the US Constitution.

There is no where to appeal this to at such a point. A single case such as this IS all that is needed to establish the law of the land regardless of past precedents. You disagree? You don't like it? Really? You think society or our "social structure" will do something about it? What are you going to do about it now? It'll already be the way things are...

This is how things happen in the "Global Community". This is how our future can go. If it does we won't do a thing about it. Give up and submit or go to jail, branded as extremist nuts by "society" more than likely. So NOW is the time to get excited and wound up and take a stand and raise hell. And if it turns out to be nothing, or never happens? I'd remind you of Y2K, which was NOT a non-event that we didn't need to worry about. It was a nightmare waiting to happen, which we avoided because of a lot of dedicated people and a lot money invested. The fact some people wound up with generators they didn't need and 10 years worth of canned goods is beside the point...
__________________
Click to expand...

So, you're saying it's inevitable. You're saying it's COMING. You're saying there's nothing we can do about it. You're preaching that we must NOT vote for Hillary or any other Liberal Democrat.

  1. I don't think anyone here is going to vote for either Hillary or a Liberal Democrat - so you're preaching to the choir
  2. If it's inevitable, why are we getting so worked up about it in the first place?

You offer us a worst-case scenario with no alternative outcome. So, again - what's your point? You do not offer any solutions, nor any actions one may take - all you offer is rhetoric.

steelheart said:
See above. Read. Reread. Reread. Reread. Reread. reread again -as many times as it takes to sink in.

The UN threat to our right to arms is real. All the denial in the world will not change that fact.
Click to expand...

Nobody is DENYING it, for crying out loud. I'm just not running around screaming like my hair is on fire over the whole thing. I'm not even trying to convince you that it's NOT going to happen. I'm simply offering some logic on the obstacles that such a thing would encounter.

Come on, guys. Do more reading on Constitutional Law and International Law than what one source offers in an article that was specifically designed to elicit an emotional response.
 
My method of opposing it now is to oppose Hillary. To oppose leftist politicos regardless of party label. To contact moderate and conservative politicos and let them know we are concerned about this and we won' be very pleasant if they even let something like this in our doors.

An ounce of prevention, etc...

The Constitution is a pice of paper. So is the BoR. They are nothing more than that UNLESS there are enough of us out here raising hell and making certain there are enough politicritters in DC who agree with our views. Right now we are dangerously close to NOT having enough politicos in DC to make the Constitition and BoR alive. My monicker, while originally nothing more than a response to some leftist hacks on a long defunct board, is these days one small way of raising the necessary hell.

But I'm not dumb enough to believe those pieces of paper, by themselves, offer us anything at all.

Quoting Constitutional law is a baseless effort IF you don't have enough people in your corner. IF we fail to oppose such things now and they come to pass later then it doesn't matter what that piece of paper says. What matters will be the government thug on your doorstep. Quote the Constitution to him, ok? At that point, though, there'll be no need to come back and tell me I am right. First, I already know I am, second, it'll be too late anyway.
 
Nobody is DENYING it, for crying out loud. I'm just not running around screaming like my hair is on fire over the whole thing. I'm not even trying to convince you that it's NOT going to happen. I'm simply offering some logic on the obstacles that such a thing would encounter.
Click to expand...

Nobody was. Why the need to misrepresent the discussion this way? It was a discussion of potential events and nothing more. Having such a discussion is not "running around with hair on fire". Meanwhile, you are not offering logic because your obstacles are not obstacles. They are non-issues at that point. It has to be stopped before then, or, while I have in fact NOT said it's inevitable, it WILL be too late then.
 
My method of opposing it now is to oppose Hillary. To oppose leftist politicos regardless of party label. To contact moderate and conservative politicos and let them know we are concerned about this and we won' be very pleasant if they even let something like this in our doors.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. This is what we all should be doing, NOT defending and voting for leftist/socialist antigun bigots like Hillary Clinton and her socialist comrades who keep getting reelected to the House and Senate with the help of gunowners.
 
I think at this point I shall simply agree to disagree with you.

You are telling members of a Pro-Gun forum that we must not vote for people who would try to take away our guns. This is nothing new.

You are telling us that the U.N. wants to take away our weapons. This has been in their charter from the beginning, ever since it replaced the League of Nations in 1945. They have consistently been of the opinion that the only military should be the UN military and that soveriegn nations should only be allowed to keep a police force. This is nothing new.

You are telling us that the President can override the Constitution by a single vote in Congress, that this was how NAFTA was created. Well, NAFTA was neither sponsored by the U.N. nor was it ever brought before the U.N. NAFTA was a treaty between three soveriegn nations. This is nothing new.

Here's what I know about International Law -
Soveriegn States have the right to employ force in self-defense against an offending state. States may also use force in collective self-defense, where force is used against another state.

This means that the US as a soveriegn state is afforded the legal right to defend itself. Self defense of a nation requires a military. This, by referencing our Constitution, also means that we are afforded a "militia" which, according to U.S. v. Miller is made up primarily of "civilians"...

Contrary to what you say, this is the logic of the matter. You are grossly over-simplifying the issue by deliberately disregarding the entire structure of our legal and political system that was set up by: The Constitution. If we cannot have faith in that piece of paper, then why worry about it at all? Because at the end of the day you are depending on that piece of paper to uphold the very political process which you wish to influence.
 
You are telling members of a Pro-Gun forum that we must not vote for people who would try to take away our guns. This is nothing new.
Click to expand...
You ignore the inconvenient fact that there are many here who do vote for antigun politicians.
If we cannot have faith in that piece of paper, then why worry about it at all?
Click to expand...
I do have faith in "that piece of paper." The fact is there are politicians who would burn the Constitution tomorrow for their own selfish and corrupt purposes - if they could get away with it.

I'm saying if we can't trust politicians to uphold the 2nd Amendment, they are unfit for public office - DON'T VOTE FOR THEM because the UN needs their assistance to disarm the people of this nation.
 
First, reading this thread has given me a deja vu headache with the redundancy and all.

I agree with Steelheart's stated and re-stated statement (:D ). I also agree that the UN being directly responsible for our disarmament is unlikely.

Keep in mind that the same crowd in Congress and Senate who agree with the disarmament of the globe and Americans are the same as those who are currently arguing we should not have gone to Iraq without the UN. They opposed Bolton going to the UN because they didn't want him to offend the UN. They believe in allowing the UN more power over US policy than "the other side".

NAFTA and GATT are examples of our leadership signing onto international policy even with overwhelming disapproval among the American people. Even though these two trade agreements were signed onto during the BC admin. It wouldn't have mattered since Republican and Democrat leadership were bent on signing on.

The Clinton admin. attempted to push the 2nd Amendment group too far. The result was local militias, weapons/ammunition stock piling, and the O.K.C. bombing. Look for another attempt by a different means in the future.
 
UN Resolutions are not the law of the land...

UN resolutions, by themselves, have no impact on the national laws of the United States. They deal with the relationship of the United States with other members of the United Nations. The only way in which a UN resolution could become the law of the land is if the Congress passes legislation adopting the resolution and making it part of US law.

If a gun hating president and Congress come to pass, why would they need to rely on a UN resolution to propose gun ban legislation? If they have a majority in Congress, they can always pass such a law, whether there's a UN resolution or not. Of course, any law Congress approves has to pass constitutional muster, and my understanding of the accepted 2nd Amendment legal scholarship leads me to believe that a universal gun ban is unconstitutional. Of course, I suppose you could have a Supreme Court that disregards the Constitution...

All these scenarios are far-fetched in my opinion...I think most politicians have come to the practical realization that a gun ban is not going to be enforceable. Are you and your friends going to turn in your guns because Hillary tells you to???? I didn't think so...

The NRA's existence depends on getting new members and keeping those it already has in the fold. One way to do this is to use scare tactics to make people think that their guns are in imminent danger of being taken away. While I support the NRA and its mission, I've learned to take some of their more radical positions with a grain of salt. I'm just not worried about UN gun bans, and you shouldn't be either.
 
steelheart said:
You ignore the inconvenient fact that there are many here who do vote for antigun politicians.
Click to expand...

No, I just remember the fact that there are a million issues and platforms and only a few people running for office. I doubt that people here vote for anti-gun politicians because they're anti-gun. My guess is that there is another issue (or issues) that takes priority for some people.

steelheart said:
I do have faith in "that piece of paper." The fact is there are politicians who would burn the Constitution tomorrow for their own selfish and corrupt purposes - if they could get away with it.

I'm saying if we can't trust politicians to uphold the 2nd Amendment, they are unfit for public office - DON'T VOTE FOR THEM because the UN needs their assistance to disarm the people of this nation.
Click to expand...

And THAT gets right to the heart of the matter, without all the fire and brimstone. THIS I can agree with.
Unfortunately - for the reasons I stated above - there are only so many choices come election time, and it's near impossible to find a politician who agrees with us on every controversial issue. There are only three options for those of us wishing to have an impact:
  1. Vote for the lesser of evils
  2. Abstain your vote
  3. Run for office

Right, wrong, or indifferent - I would imagine that sometimes the anti-gun politician who supports tort reform or cutting gov't spending will be more important to voters than the anti-abortion pro-gun politician.

So often the politicians that support one of our views comes down squarely on the other side of the fence on other issues that we also hold important, and unfortunately 2nd Amendment support often gets buried under the plethora of CRAP that our House and Senate produces to try to convince us they're really working hard up there.

I guess that's all I'm saying, is that the 2nd Amendment isn't the ONLY important thing going on - and that if we get to the point where the U.N. has successfully disarmed the U.S. citizens, then we have much bigger problems - and you're right...it will be too late then.

Fortunately, we have the NRA and millions of people who hold a vested interest in maintaining our freedoms under the 2nd Amendment - which is something that those European countries didn't have. And that explains why they just rolled over and gave up.

I seriously can't see America giving up it's guns as long as there are countries out there who also have privately owned firearms...countries that DON'T fall under the U.N. authority.

EDITED: One last closing thought - JayCee brought up a good point. The level of effort it would take to enforce a unilateral gun ban would be astronomical. I think our politicians realize that they can't realistically make it happen. All they can do is try to take away your bayonet lugs and hi-cap magazines.
 
Why the hell would anyone vote for a politician that wants to take more of their money, and take away the best form of defense against these same politicians?

If you tell me because it's more complicated than that. You deserve to have ALL of your money and your guns confiscated by your government.

Gathering our phone calls while we leave the boarder open. DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Can I pay more taxes too:rolleyes:
 
carbiner said:
Why the hell would anyone vote for a politician that wants to take more of their money, and take away the best form of defense against these same politicians?
Click to expand...

Those are your words, not mine. I think you misread my post.

I have laid out point after logical point - and your rebuttal is to suggest that I deserve to have ALL of my money and guns confiscated by our government.

If that's the extent of your argument, I think your productive participation in this debate has run its course.
 
Of course, any law Congress approves has to pass constitutional muster, and my understanding of the accepted 2nd Amendment legal scholarship leads me to believe that a universal gun ban is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
JayCee, do you really think that ALL laws that Congress makes pass Constitutional muster? If they don't pass Constitutional muster, do you really think they are immediately stricken down?

That's the way it is supposed to be - it is not the way it is, though. Congress takes no pause in passing unconstitutional laws - they do it all the time. Clinton's asinine gun ban was as blatantly unconstitutional as it gets, yet Congress passed it anyway. Same with NFA '34 and GCA '68.

When it comes right down to it, "lawmakers" (most of them) despise the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why? These documents are the choker chain around their throats. These documents say to them, "This far and NO FARTHER." These documents exsist to keep "lawmakers" in check, to keep them from trampling our rights for their own personal gain of power and money.

"Lawmakers" that do not submit to the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be put in their place - that is, on the street - by We The People. The reason so many politicians are both bold and corrupt enough to circumvent and trample the Constitution is that We The People have been asleep at the switch for far too long. "Lawmakers" no longer fear the wrath of the voters and the loss of their precious positions of power.

It is time for We The People to wake up, grow a pair, and say to the politicians, "Don't even THINK of screwing with MY rights!"

The line has to be drawn somewhere. I draw it at the Second Amendment and our right to arms - as should ALL gun owners. We can work on the rest as we go along, but we must demand that the politicians "get their minds right" regarding our right to arms starting NOW.

This begins with voting against antigun bigot politicians - such as Hillary Clinton and her antigun comrades.
Of course, I suppose you could have a Supreme Court that disregards the Constitution...
Click to expand...
We already have that. The Supreme Court upheld McCain's so-called "Campaign Finance Reform Law" which is nothing more than a gag order on free speech within 60 days of a general election. This "law" is outrageously unconstitutional, yet the Supreme Court upheld it - and they answer to no one. They are appointed, not elected - and they are appointed for life.

We must keep antigun bigots like Hillary Clinton out of the White House if we are to keep our right to arms; we must vote their asses out of the Senate and House. We must say "NO MORE." We must stop compromising.

We cannot allow people like Clinton to wield power and to appoint other antigun bigots to openings in the Federal Court system and the Supreme Court. If we are to keep our Second Amendment rights, it has to stop, and it has to stop NOW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top