Forums / Gun Discussion / NATO Gun Ban Treaty

hope it helps............

I have to admit that I don't know much about this treaty. How can they approve a treaty without the Senate voting to ratify? How can they limit the 2nd amendment and avoid a supreme court challenge? How would they enforce it on us when we have more guns then people in this country?

The UN has a binding treaty on saving the whales, and whales are still being killed. Is this a paper tiger?

ain't gonna happen.2/3rds of congress would have to pass this and it is unconstitutional. go http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/un-arms-trade... and read about the treaty.

I was reading up on it, and one of the things I read was that they were considering not imposing the ban on firearms here, since or companies already jump through miles of red tape, but putting stricter regulations on ammo. Will try and find the piece I read and post it.

Friday, 06 July 2012 15:12
Soros Promotes UN Control Over Gun Ownership

Written by Joe Wolverton, II

George Soros is financing the fight to give the United Nations control of your guns.

Through his Media Matters organization, Soros is dumping pro-UN gun control propaganda into the mainstream media to coincide with the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York July 2–27.

In a blog post published on July 3, Timothy Johnson of Media Matters describes the notion that the United Nations would ever try to take away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms “laughable.”

Johnson goes on to promote the passage of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as a means of “curtailing the illicit arms trade” and thus cracking down on those who use these weapons to deny others their “human rights.”

The blog post assures citizens concerned about the potential eradication of the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution that they have nothing to fear from the UN’s gun control treaty.

Top officials from the United Nations, the United States, and other high profile supporters have repeatedly and clearly said that the treaty does not aim to restrict anyone's "freedom to own" a gun. Indeed, the UN General Assembly's resolution on the treaty makes clear that countries will "exclusively" maintain the right within their borders to "regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownerships."

Constitutionalists will instantly notice a couple of red flags raised by Media Matters’ word choice.

First, there need be no quotation marks around the phrase freedom to own a gun. Americans should enjoy the unqualified right to bear arms and it is not some antiquated idea or some unicorn-like mythical creature that requires special punctuational treatment. Americans are well aware that an unarmed citizenry is easier to subdue and will rightly resist all efforts to abridge that right.

Second, the citizens of the United States do not need the permission of the United Nations to maintain the “exclusive” right to own a gun. This right, as with all others protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, comes from God, not man, and may be neither given nor taken away by any government.

Undaunted, however, Soros will continue to use his mouthpieces to promote the globalist agenda, including the incremental dismantling of the U.S. Constitution and the sovereignty it protects.

The current draft of the ATT mandates that the governments of member states petition the United Nations for approval of any contract to sell weapons to any nation where there exists a “substantial risk of a serious violation” of human rights.

While the end of reducing the abuse of human rights is laudable, the means to achieve that cannot lawfully include the requirement that the Congress of the United States ask for permission from the UN overlords before it passes a law, including one authorizing the sale of arms to another country. That is a direct assault on American legislative sovereignty, and an indirect attack on the sovereignty of the American people who elect the members of Congress who vote on such measures.

In the text of the ATT, the United Nations specifically calls for the passage of a legally binding instrument that will impose international standards for the ownership, trade, and transfer of weapons.

In another section the ATT includes “controls on a comprehensive list of weaponry, including small arms and light weapons.” Predictably, all these controls are couched comfortably in talk of “human rights” and ending senseless killings by rogue regimes.

In order to avoid being labeled a “human rights abuser,” the United States (along with all member states) is ordered by the UN to comply with the ATT. To compel this compliance, the ATT empowers the UN to force Congress to:

• Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans

• Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the U.S. government to keep theirs

• Ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of semi-automatic guns

• Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America

On this point, in 2011, the UN’s General Assembly declared “that disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation are essential.” In other words, if world peace, the protection of human rights, and the disarming of violent regimes could be achieved through the confiscation of personal firearms, then so be it.

Make no mistake, however, Soros and his fellow globalist gun controllers don’t have in mind (at least at first) to march blue-helmeted UN soldiers into the homes of Americans with orders to seize their guns and ammunition. Rather, through the passage of binding international treaties and UN resolutions, they will force the national governments of the world to do the dirty work for them.

Sadly, officials of our own federal government, including President Obama, are pushing Congress to sign off on this treaty.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the Obama administration is working with the UN to lean on Congress to consent to the ATT.

Clinton has pushed the treaty as an "opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes."

There is little doubt that the scope of those “legitimate purposes” will be determined by Soros, Clinton, Obama, and the rest of the globalist gang who have much to fear from an armed and educated citizenry.

For now, the resistance to ratification of such a treaty is strong in the United States. Last July Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and 44 other senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton encouraging them to stop pushing for passage of UN gun control treaties. In the letter, Moran wrote:

Our country’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations. Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.

George Soros, through his Media Matters outlet, promises that “U.S. gun owners have nothing to fear” from the ATT or from similar UN agreements to restrict the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms. The globalists’ only goal, they maintain, is “the maintenance of international peace and security.”

For those whose fears are assuaged by such gentle words, we offer this competing comment from Benjamin Franklin written in a letter penned in 1755: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Screw the UN. The number of UN resolutions and treaties that are disregarded are too numerous to list. If it came down to it, we outnumber and out gun them. The majority of the military have no love for Obama, Clinton, or the UN. The senate does not have filibuster proof majority and many democrats fear the NRA. The house is ours, and the supreme court has been very pro gun lately. The real threat is from not the outlawing of guns , but the restriction on their use. The affirmative defense of self defense is being weakened. Also, they could severely restrict the manufacture and sale of ammunition. Just lean on the congress to not ratify and this goes the way of Kyoto.

But have you not noticed that Obama is passing stuff like this by "executive order" without the need for legislative approval? This is coming unless we can get him out of office. The day after the election if he's still in power our gun rights are gone.

My gun rights will never be gone. Right is the operative word.

May be the right of Congress to make laws should
be questioned.

If the Constitution is going to be rewritten lets be sure
its rewritten correctly

the people have the responsibility to replace that govmnt in what ever way is necessary so maybe in 30-50 years "the people" will finally get disgusted and REALLY kick the bums out.

But would someone explain to me why we are kissing the ass of the UN.... we are their main funding. And these idiots want to put IRAN in charge of this proposal. WTF?????

can't quite keep up on all assaults on our rights these days,but i find it funny that the same government that ran fast and furious,and other programs like it wants to enter into a treaty aimed at "closing gaps in existing regional and national arms control systems"

This is al part of the UN's continuing effort to establish itself as the one world government.

The UN is a broken institution. First we need to suspend all payments to it and then withdraw from it. While were at it, suspend all foreign aid. That will get there attention.

We need to have all member countries paying up a fair share to keep up operating costs. Use it only as a common place for diplomats to meet to discuss solving problems. Keep some UN programs like World Health Org. Tell them quit wasting time making resolutions that rogue countries laugh at, and disband UN peace keepers who in reality are only observers at best.

We can't control how much the other countries contribute. But we can control what we pay. Cut off the funding and the UN will fall in on it's self.

I for one am sick of us being the only country paying the tab for the UN and it's communist agenda. it should be a very simple thing, you don't pay, you don't play.

We just need to pull out altogether.

Such a shame Kenny Rogers' Roasters went out of business but the UN won't.

Check out this Supreme Court case. Reid v. Covert. They found that treaties and executive agreements cannot violate the constitution.

last week. It adds impetus to the opinion that Clinton's predicted 7/27/12 signiture approving the UN's ATT on behalf of the USA, would be null and void, based upon that 1957 SCOTUS precedent, plus the fact that our existing law REQUIRES advice and consent by the Senate, which will not have been obtained.

.....the constitution supercedes international treaties----EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF THOSE RATIFIED BY THE SENATE!!!! That is why the law now provides that ahead of ANY full Senate vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee MUST analyze every proposed treaty for the possibility that it might violate the constitution. That provision in present law, is there, so as to avoid the embarassment of a colossal mistake, on the part af a full Senate approval vote.

My guess is-- regardless of a Clinton signiture and/or an Obama sign off-- the first order from the UN, for the US to implement required confiscation, will be met with litigation in the federal courts for injunctive relief based upon the fact such action would be unconstitutional---and then further litigation which might last decades.

Why does an inalienable right need to be decided, for millions of dollars, by attorneys?!!!!
Because they can and they run the world.
Shakespeare was right. Off the bastards.

An almost imponderable question, and a reasonable answer from a very frustrated observer. I am not so sure that the devine Willie was correct for all times, however. Our founders, knew that in writing the constitution [especially from experience in the British system] that they could not produce an infallible document to cover all things for all people,for all time, so they too, designed a Judicial branch. That, of course, serendipitously produced the legal "industry".

Possible litigation surrounding an inalienable RIGHT, seems stupid to me also. BUT we are a government of law, not of personal opinion, so I am reasonably predisposed to operate that way. I believe the Obama administration is NOT so disposed, and is attempting to push the limits and force NEW law in heretofore illegal ways. I am content that the PEOPLE will ultimately win that battle, either through due process OR blood letting, if the latter is unfortunately necessary.
That being said, the litigation I predicted will be paid for by the dues paying members of such organizations as NAGR and NRA. I do not consider that in the realm of lawyers running the world. Also, we do, in our jurisprudence, provide for Pro se litigation. So, IMO, we should put our money where our mouths are, and forget about big attorney fees. ;>))

I bet after the Aurora massacre the Senate will approve this thing.

Unless they amend the constitution, they can't. The court has held that the 2nd amendment protects our rights own guns. If they did pass it, it would be challenged and beat. The UN is not the worry here. It's our own people and there views on the 2nd amendment. You are going to see a big push from the left to redo the gun ban of 94. This guy in Colorado makes us look bad. It doesn't matter if he is a crazy nut job that we ourselves hate. He used an ar-15 with 30rd mags. They will use this to push thier agenda. We all see that had someone like us were there, things might have been different. We might not have taken him down with our CCW gun of choice, but maybe less people would have died. We have to be smart and understand how others perception of us affects the debate.

I wonder if the theatre had one of those signs that they didn't allow guns on the premises. I do think even one armed citizen could have saved many lives. usually these perps are cowards who seek out places where there aren't any armed citizens. The anti gun people are in a frenzy now over this shooting. Same old mantra, we must ban assault weapons, Larry King wonders how did this guy get a machine gun, mayor Bloomberg says he will hold Obamas feet to the fire until he gets stricter gun control,Washington Post wrote there is no rational basis for people to own assault weapons, they are not necessary for hunting and not needed for self defense, etc. Texas Representative Gohmert asked " it does make me wonder, with all those people in the theatre, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?" Can you guess what political party he belongs to?.

I read a lot of people writing.."if the people had been allowed to carry guns", and here is where I want to post my question.... While I have had lots of training and low-light shooting experience, what about the average person? I'm not only talking about this group, but Joe Snuffy with his CHL. What would have been the true outcome of that day? How many people in a rush to stop the "bad guy" would have added to his tally? And how would the media have spun THAT outcome? While I agree that even 1 TRAINED carrier could have made the difference, what are the chances that that person was in the audience? Maybe something to think about to add to your training cycle...

the survival potential of everyone at the scene of a attempted mass murder.
All speculation aside, all what ifs aside.
A person begins shooting as many innocent targets as they can, one person uses their gun to put bullets into the perp.
We all hope there will be no accidental hits on non-perps. Without creating a scenerio all I can do is say I'll trust the armed total stranger to do the best they can.
Will they crouch behind a seat and wait 'till the bad guy is in range? Will they circle around? Will they stand up and John Wayne the hell outta the bum or will they fire 18 rounds, miss 18 times?
Won't know until the fat lady sings.

It's like he used to say in the Academy, anything you say is all talk until you're there. Nobody really knows if they can do it when the pressure is on until the pressure is on, kind of a catch-22.

One of the things i missed most last month was not having my gunsluts "read" .. i have, do, and will continue to belive that our site has the most interesting, and entertaining voices on the net.. The thoughts of all on this thread make great reading and make me proud to be a part of this group.. I've read and reread all, and a great thread.

I wont argue with those who belive it was even better last month.. sigh.. but i want to vent on this thread.. the UN thing is predictable, as will be our (NRA etc) response, i understand gun sales our up (per Fox this date) some 30% in the area around Denver..

My irratation is that no one stood up and stoped the obvoious copy cat inspiring display of bright red hair on the shooter.. The fact that copy cat shootings are real and not just media hyped has to be dealt with.. Is it that hard to have leadership and make some basic rules.. the shooter would have been at the impresionable age of 10-12 when the Columbine event happened.. Hair dye is NOT allowed in the Prison (yep know he's in Jail.. same thing) system for obvious reasons.. His bright orange/red hair only adds to the emotion for those who would be C C candidates.. Someone should have said.. "make him rinse it out", it's an escape risk" Fact is, IT IS!!.. On top of that it adds to the media circus atmasphere, and i can't belive some sad minds out there arent going to find his look "inspiring" .. There was no reason for it.. On a related note i would like to see a media black out on shooters names.. Why.. There's no sense in any arm chair (usta be a doc) Phil throwing out some phycobable about motive.. sorry for the spck.. but good to get this vented.. later all.

He could never have afforded $20-30,000 worth of equipment [estimated cost] on his own. It was provided to him by those who wished to try another form of "FAST and FURIOUS"----that is---someone who wanted to further inflame the anti-gun movement and the populous, prior to election time.

NOTE: I DID NOT SAY IT IS MY THEORY!!!!!!!

I have not heard of this theory yet.I have heard that he got a 26,000 grant and used that money and credit cards to aquire the "equipment".Reports i have read place the value at around 6,000.00.

You got to know he charged it on a CC that his parents pay for while he is in college

~