Hey folks.
I think I know where most of you will come down on this issue, but as a courtesy I'm going to post this as information.
Apparently the US is about to sign the small arms treaty with the UN. Known as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) it is seen my opponents as an end-run around the 2nd Amendment.
Signing it means nothing - the US Senate must ratify the treaty before it becomes official.
However, the vote for the ratification is supposed to be scheduled during the lame duck session in January. That has me mildly concerned because anyone who has been voted out of office no longer has the incentive to worry about pressure from their voters. They can vote simply to spite them. Which means that the treaty *could* be ratified.
I'm surprised this isn't getting any discussion here since there are strong opinions on the issue.
Strong opinions? What strong opinions? ;)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2012patriot.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F07%2Fun-helmet-molon-labe.jpg%3Fw%3D570&hash=366b9d573429c541394123299914cb7ca9c3c8da)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 11, 2012, 11:00:24 AM
Strong opinions? What strong opinions? ;)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2012patriot.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F07%2Fun-helmet-molon-labe.jpg%3Fw%3D570&hash=366b9d573429c541394123299914cb7ca9c3c8da)
I've gotta say that while I've toyed with the idea of getting more guns, I have yet to do so. But this would cause me to reconsider the urgency.
I cannot fathom why we would sign this with so little public discussion; the scheduled lame duck ratification makes it even more suspect.
^time to stop toying with the idea, and time to start buying!
Its obvious why the current administration would entertain this meaningless nonsense, but thankfully, there is almost no chance it will pass in the house/senate.
Still, if we get another 4 years of BHO, you can bet your bippy he will launch strong attacks on the 2nd Amendment.
what exactly is a "bippy"?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 11, 2012, 11:39:54 AM
what exactly is a "bippy"?
A jocular euphemism for ass.
thankfully "scoring a piece of bippy" never caught on as a catchphrase
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 11, 2012, 11:47:55 AM
thankfully "scoring a piece of bippy" never caught on as a catchphrase
Same goes for "I'm going to kick your bippy!"
Gentlemen, I'm sorry to sound so pessimistic, but every day that goes by convinces me that the end of the American experiment is nigh. This is yet another example that I was not aware about.
No one seems to be able to stop this monster from intentionally destroying our beloved country.
The upcoming election is perfectly able to remedy whatever ya don't like :)
I know my friend. My fear is that there will not be enough of us at the voting stations to make a difference. People have really changed since I was a kid. Plus, I live in Assachusetts, kingdom of communism supreme. I'm surprised I haven't been shipped off to a gulag as one of the few conservatives left in this state.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and risk reprisals...but I thought the ATT solely governed the large-scale sale of firearms to and / or between government (and non-government) authorities?
So buying an FN-FAL from the local gun shop, gun show, sporting goods store or fellow shooting enthusiast = okay...but FN selling guns to the Shebab or Hamas = not so okay.
It's no secret that the proliferation of cheap firearms within certain sub-Saharan African countries is one of many factors that has contributed to on-going unrest, and it's also no secret that most of those weapons came from certain former Warsaw Pact countries that have / had little sense or concern about stability (and who may in fact have been pumping weapons into the region in order to foment insurrection and instability). I just don't see this act ever affecting the US or Britain or Sweden or Belgium as state actors...but it could admittedly affect an individual (most likely - it will substantially increase their profit margin) within those countries who intends to sell weapons to interationally recognized terrorist organizations.
Or am I just one of the sheeple that is beguiled by the obfuscation of the UN Illuminati?
Jack "Queen of Diamonds" Nastyface
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on July 11, 2012, 05:18:32 PM
Or am I just one of the sheeple that is beguiled by the obfuscation of the UN Illuminati?
Yes.
In all seriousness, the treaty's details are still under discussion, so nobody really knows how it could ultimately effect the US civilian market or the 2nd Amendment. However, the treaty could have other potential problems. It could restrict U.S. foreign policy to the point where we could not arm allies such as Taiwan and Israel.
As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, there have always been concerns that the treaty may end up giving foreigners access to U.S. gun-ownership records. Additionally, the UN has consistently refused to remove civilian firearms and ammunition from the scope of the treaty. to some, this amounts to a declaration that only governments should be gun owners.
Let's not forget that the UN has used "excellent" judgment in appointing Iran to a key role in the drafting of the treaty. Why we as a nation would want to have anything to do with this joke of an organization is beyond my simple mind.
Speak of the devil...I just got this in the mail...
Quote
CRAIG,
Today I went to New York to testify before the United Nations to stop the Arms Trade Treaty...a treaty that could ban every rifle, pistol and shotgun you own...a treaty that could turn our God-given Right to Keep and Bear Arms into a U.N.-regulated privilege...
...A treaty that has the full support of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who are eager to COOPERATE with the U.N.
With the stroke of a pen, Obama invited Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and the world's worst tyrants and dictators to rewrite our Constitution and lay waste to the Second Amendment.
After the U.N. delayed my testimony and tried to deny me a chance to speak out on behalf of gun owners like you...I stood up to those tyrants and said there will be NO COMPROMISE. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment freedom...period!
But my words fell on deaf ears. Thanks to the Obama administration, this treaty is marching forward, and I need your help to stop it.
First, take a moment right now to sign your Declaration of Independence from the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty today. This declaration demands that your Senators defend freedom and block this dangerous treaty when it reaches the United States Senate.
With Obama's unilateral support for this freedom-destroying treaty, we must rely on the United States Senate to defend our Constitution and refuse to ratify this international gun ban. And your signature on this declaration is the most powerful tool in our arsenal!
Second, after you sign your Declaration, help NRA rally every American gun owner against this U.N. assault on our freedom by making an emergency contribution of $10, $15, $20, $30 or more today.
I want to make sure law-abiding Americans like you will never be forced to kneel before the altar of the U.N. and surrender your constitutional rights!
I want to make sure every American knows that Barack Obama has willingly surrendered our sovereignty and our birthright that generations of patriots have died defending.
With your immediate contribution of $10, $15, $20 or $30, NRA will blanket the country with ads and mailings that expose the truth that Obama is working with the U.N. to attack our Second Amendment freedoms.
And NRA is taking this fight head-on...at U.N. headquarters in New York...on Capitol Hill...and in all 50 states!!!
But we can only win if millions of American gun owners unite and add their voices to this fight. So please, sign your Declaration of Independence and make an urgent gift of $10, $15, $20, $30 or the most generous amount you can afford to NRA now.
Time is running out. The U.N. will vote on this treaty on July 27! Please stand with me and draw your own personal line in the sand against the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty before it's too late. Thank you.
In Liberty,
Wayne LaPierre
P.S. Please forward this call to arms to every family member, friend, co-worker, and gun owner that you know!
Batted around somewhere in my Inbox is an email to a link where (IIRC) Dick Morris asserts that a treaty bears the same legal weight as an amendment to our constitution.
So in a very real sense this treaty indeed seems to be a possible circumvention of the normal legislative process.
Now I'll be the first to tell you that I am not sure about the claim that a treaty has the same weight as an amendment...but it sounds right.
......
Further to JH's point, why the heck would we sign up to a treaty that isn't specified yet?
And why we'd put Iran as a leader to this party is, well, stupefying to say the least.
Snopes updated its entry on this topic (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp) on 9 July 2012.
I hope Snopes is right.
Quote from: Greybriar on July 11, 2012, 06:29:28 PM
Snopes updated its entry on this topic (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp) on 9 July 2012.
I hope Snopes is right.
The Snopes article is interesting but doesn't exactly help.
The first three paragraphs are more or less irrelevant: the treaty hasn't been signed (yet) and hasn't been ratified (yet). It's my understanding that our secretary of state is on her way to finish the negotiations and then sign it. Not much to be done there.
Ratification is another issue. One of my Senators (a Democrat) sent me a boilerplate response to my boilerplate email that was rather lukewarm in its response. My local congressman shared "concern" (which is fine) and the other senator...no word yet, though he is a Republican and is likely to oppose it.
The last note Snopes makes is the relevant one: it has to do with the substance of the treaty. We don't know the details. It's unlikely to be anything like a full gun ban. Nevertheless, it bears watching. Anything which even partially touches the internal workings of the US, especially dealing with our Bill of Rights, needs to be closely examined and jealously guarded. It certainly shouldn't be considered without a broad discussion in the public arena before any commitment is signed, let alone ratified.
That discourse has not happened to date. Draw your own conclusions as to why.
Personally, I think it's a political maneuver designed to align voters against Obama.
Quote from: LongBlade on July 11, 2012, 06:40:42 PM
We don't know the details.
Sounds like the Affordable Health Care Act, we need to pass to find out what's in it >:(
Quote from: OJsDad on July 11, 2012, 07:45:20 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on July 11, 2012, 06:40:42 PM
We don't know the details.
Sounds like the Affordable Health Care Act, we need to pass to find out what's in it >:(
Boy, I hope not. We've already bought one pig in a poke.
Rather than get more slug throwers, consider getting a case of ammo instead. Just be prepared for sticker shock.
8x57mm corrosive surplus used to be a nickel a round five years ago, now it's a quarter each.
Surplus 5.56 and .308 now brings around 50 cents a round, plus shipping.
not in Florida.
Quote from: eyebiter on July 12, 2012, 04:45:58 AM
Surplus 5.56 and .308 now brings around 50 cents a round, plus shipping.
More specifically, 5.56 purchased in bulk quantities is roughly .35 cents per round, while .308 is on the average .65 cents. :D
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on July 12, 2012, 06:38:31 AM
not in Florida.
One thing I've learned about Florida...at least, South Florida, is that prices for guns, magazines and ammunition are surprisingly very high.
it doesnt seem like it. :o
a box of 100 .40 fmj is about $40 at walmart and ususally more at a gun store.
Jeez this is getting like those 2nd amendment domestic extremest sites i visit ;D
Dudes, be sure DHS will have you all on the red list for such extremist talk.
http://americanmilitiamovement.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Resistance-Movement/39065407500
heres some chris geo for ya.. enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iJHEMSnrRI
and a short film "land of the free"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkPVGB6uQ0k
I could only wish that my industry was as successful at selling fear like the gun industry
I am buying stock in their companies these guys are marketing geniuses. Every four years they ramp up the branding and communication through proxies that guns are going to be banned/outlawed/take your pick and every four years they get a massive wave of panic buying.
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904331904577323730425704426.html
Follow the money people...that where the real control is
Con
^Naive and cynical.
Perhaps cynical but I dont think that naive...the cycle is there for people to see who invest and like I said our elections bring in a great built in marketing opportunity that it would be foolish for these corporations to not exploit.
Though Jarhead might be right maybe I am being too cynical...this article shows that the real reason we are seeing such a surge in gun and ammo sales is Zombies....so its time to blame the walking dead for your ammo costs! ;D
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/06/19/must-be-an-election-year-bullets-are-flying-off-the-shelves/
Con
Admittedly, the content of Wayne LaPierre's note is innaccurate, and the language is certainly...alarmist...but such is the way with any lobbyist. I can't help but notice that he asks for "emergency", "urgent" or "immediate" donations three times in his note. Considering that the ATT was started in 2006, I am inclined to think that asking for money at the last freaking minute is more a call-to-money than a call-to-action.
FWIW...MUCH of the language of the ATT is obviously directed towards "less robust" regions / governments where federal or state agencies have little to no effect in enforcing legitimate guidelines and policies regarding the manufacture and outside sale of small arms. I could be wrong about this, but I tend to think they are probably referring in part to former Warsaw Pact and other 2nd world / 3rd world nations where organized crime and corrupt government has comprised even the most basic concepts inherent to responsible commerce. I have personally witnessed the cottage industry weapons industy in NW Pakistan and I can guarantee you that local arms manufacturers and dealers have zero interest in doing background checks on their customers.
And more to the point of the UN: I'd like to know if there is now, or has there ever been, a UN agreement which has severly impinged on the rights of US citizens? IIRC, the US didn't sign the landmine act, and I can't recall the US stance on the thermobaric and clusterbombs limitations acts.
Respectfully,
Jack Nastyface
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on July 12, 2012, 11:16:49 AM
And more to the point of the UN: I'd like to know if there is now, or has there ever been, a UN agreement which has severly impinged on the rights of US citizens? IIRC, the US didn't sign the landmine act, and I can't recall the US stance on the thermobaric and clusterbombs limitations acts.
Respectfully,
Jack Nastyface
For better or worse landmines seem to not be included in the 2nd amendment.
Speculative in scope, but there's good news:
QuoteWhile the treaty's details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel, said Greg Suchan, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs from 2000 to 2007.
Suchan also highlighted ongoing concern that the treaty may end up giving foreigners access to U.S. gun-ownership records.
On that score, LaPierre, who serves as NRA executive vice president, warns that the "UN's refusal" to remove civilian firearms and ammunition from the scope of the treaty amounts to a declaration that only governments should be gun owners.
But he revealed he was set Wednesday to tell the UN gathering that 58 U.S. senators had signed a letter saying that they would refuse to ratify any treaty that includes controls over civilian guns or ammunition.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics
Further insight into what signing the treaty would mean:
Apparently once signed, there is already a treat in effect which says the US will honor and act as though the treaty is ratified until such time that it is approved or disapproved.
That's a bit crazy, but apparently true.
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-end-run-on-gun-control-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Is Dick Morris overweight, or is that just his tinfoil underwear bunching up under his shirt?
A cursory review of the protocols of the 1969 Vienna convention clearly states that that "It applies only to treaties concluded between states, so it does not cover agreements between states and international organizations or between international organizations themselves". So the idea that the US would be bound to honor this treaty because of the 1969 convention appears not to hold water.
BTW...A second Vienna convention (1986) that governs state and international org treaties is not ratified, nor is the US a signatory.
No matter how much you/we may hate and / or detest the UN, there still does not appear to be ANYTHING in this treaty or underpining conventions etc that would allow a UN-enforced compromise or surrender of the 2nd Amendment.
I'd be more than willing to bet a copy of "name of pc game of your choice here" that IF this treaty is passed and ratified, your rights as US citizen will remain completely unhindered (unless, of course, you happen to be a US citizen who sells weapons to narco-lords and terrorist organizations...in which case the bet does not apply).
Any takers? How about we put a 1 year limit on outcomes?
Jack "blue beret" Nastyface
You can keep your game...but hopefully, you'll do some more research and see this treaty for the threat it is to American national security and sovereignty. The threat of this type of treaty is not only on how it will permit foreigners to influence or control our own domestic and foreign policy, but on how it will be used by the Obama administration to implement its undeniable goal of eviscerating the 2nd Amendment.
This is not fear mongering. This is an overt, highly publicized goal of Barak Hussein Obama and the cronies he has placed in positions of power throughout our government. One can deny it, one can ignore it...but its still the truth.
Quote
...So let's review some recent history and see if gun owners and other Second Amendment defenders might have very good reasons to take issue with this treaty. Actually, we don't have to look back very far at all.
Consider the Fast and Furious debacle, an operation that was represented to be all about targeting bad guys who are committing violent crimes on both sides of our border with Mexico. There can be no remaining doubt that the program was really aimed at border gun shops and their right to conduct legal civilian firearms sales.
And after the 2010 Republican House cleaning dashed President Obama's dream of a carbon cap-and-trade program, he wasted no time finding a way to circumvent that pesky obstacle. His EPA is gleefully pursuing that same anti-fossil energy agenda. Meanwhile, Congress sits idly by and allows this breach of its constitutional responsibility established by separation of powers to continue.
Then there's the currently proposed, Obama-endorsed, Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If ratified by Congress, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights. As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.
The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it... for free. And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe...all current voting members of LOST.
Both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush supported the treaty during their tenures, yet they never sent it to the Senate for ratification because of opposition over concerns that it will limit commerce and allow international bodies to wield control over U.S. interests. During W's term of office, then-Senator Joe Biden introduced LOST before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he chaired in 2007, yet it was never brought to the floor for a vote.
Steven Groves, an international law fellow at the Heritage Foundation, believes that opposition from Republican members of Congress who have objected to LOST reflects a legitimate deep-seated distrust of the United Nations and other international bodies, observing: "This seems to me a bit of a Trojan Horse for the ability of one country to affect another country's environmental policy. That's generally something we do not like as conservatives and Americans."
Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry and other proponents have been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive.
But, like LOST, the Arms Trade Treaty can't be enacted unless Congress ratifies it. Right? And, of course, they would never approve any global agreement that will infringe upon our constitutional Second Amendment protections. Right? Well, let's assume for argument's sake that they won't. But now consider another possibility, something called a "soft law".
Remember that sustainable development agenda mentioned earlier that the European foreign ministers want to incorporate into the treaty provisions? Originally intended to be implemented in connection with a U.N. treaty, an "Agenda 21" plan was enacted as a soft law in 1993 creating a nongovernmental organization, the "International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives" (ICLEI), by Executive Order after the Clinton administration was unsuccessful in getting Congress to ratify the program. They wouldn't approve the treaty because it would transfer massive regulatory control over broad aspects of U.S. energy production and consumption. In 2003 the NGO's name was changed to "ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability" to emphasize "local" and diminish concerns about "international" influence and associations with U.N. political and financial ties. ICLEI's are now active in most of our counties On its web page, "ICLEI: Connecting Leaders", the organization explains that their networking strategy connects cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies.
Agenda 21 envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption. A summary version titled AGENDA 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993), calls for "...a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced—a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources." The report emphasizes that "This shift will demand a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
ICLEI's web page states that its Local Agenda 21 [LA21] Model Communities Programme is "designed to aid local governments in implementing Chapter 28 of Agenda 21, the global action plan for sustainable development." As Gary Lawrence, a planner for the city of Seattle and an advisor to the Clinton-Gore administration's Council on Sustainable Development and to U.S. AID commented at a 1998 U.N. Environmental Development Forum in London titled "The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium", "In some cases, LA21 is seen as an attack on the power of the nation-state." He went on to say, "Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process will very likely bring out many...who would work to defeat any elected official...undertaking Local Agenda 21 ...So we will call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."
And so they have. "Comprehensive planning", "growth management" and "smart growth" (which is Agenda 21 with a new name). All mean pretty much the same thing... centralized control over virtually every aspect of urban life: energy and water use, housing stock and allocation, population levels, public health and dietary regimens, resources and recycling, "social justice" and education.
So this time the U.N.-sponsored ATT initiative, whether enacted by Congress or through a soft law Executive Order, can be expected to receive an appealing identity as well. Most likely it will purport to protect us from "terrorism", "insurgency" and/or "international crime syndicates". Perhaps, without saying so, it will be pitched to protect us even from ourselves.
Don't forget that an Illinois senator named Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. That was after he served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago which contributed large grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
But then, as a former lecturer in constitutional law, wouldn't he certainly realize that the U.N.'s gun- grab agenda violates our sovereign rights? Perhaps the answer to that question warrants some serious reflection!
Full article here...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/)
Breaking news headline on Foxnews.com: UN Fails to Reach Agreement on Treaty to Regulate Global Arms Trade
^That's a good thing. I wonder if that means we've dodged the bullet (pun intended) at having our 2nd Amendment taken from us?
Quote from: W8taminute on July 28, 2012, 07:54:21 AM
^That's a good thing. I wonder if that means we've dodged the bullet (pun intended) at having our 2nd Amendment taken from us?
Sort of.
Again, according to what I read, an international treaty has the same force as a constitutional amendment.
However, the details of the arms treaty were never public - they may never have been close to finalized (we don't know).
So the short answer is that we dodged buying a pig-in-a-poke.
Obama has endorsed the new version of the treaty.
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/21875-obama-endorses-un-arms-trade-treaty-massive-gun-control-effort-underway/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/21875-obama-endorses-un-arms-trade-treaty-massive-gun-control-effort-underway/)
A treaty on arms trade implies crossing national borders. That has nothing to do with your 2nd amendment.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on November 12, 2012, 03:03:54 AM
A treaty on arms trade implies crossing national borders. That has nothing to do with your 2nd amendment.
Perhaps, but why take chances? Especially when he promised in one of the debates to attempt to curtail the 2nd Amendment. This needs to be watched closely to ensure it does what he says it does.
Hasn't there been a lot of extra-judicial seizing of firearms in the US lately? I've only heard anecdotal evidence but what I've heard is that many states are circumenting the law by simply declaring a firearms owner (or prospective owner) to be mentally unfit and then prohibiting them from owning firearms.
Quote from: Kushan on November 12, 2012, 01:37:52 AM
Obama has endorsed the new version of the treaty.
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/21875-obama-endorses-un-arms-trade-treaty-massive-gun-control-effort-underway/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/21875-obama-endorses-un-arms-trade-treaty-massive-gun-control-effort-underway/)
Did you read the comments from some of the readers at the bottom of this article?