UPDATED : U.N. Arms trade treaty talks and DC gun control

[BSG 75]

You have way too much faith in the jackases in black robes. How many idiotic and illogical decisions must they put out before you realise that you'd be better off letting the graduates of clown college decide what is constitutional and what is not.

Do you think DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago were "idiotic and illogical decisions"? That's what the gun-hating anti-gun rights crowd at Huffington Post thinks, you sound just like one of them. Would you rather have had clowns deciding DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, with different outcomes? Those "jackasses in black robes" gave us (by "us" I mean we pro-gun people, maybe you don't include yourself in our group) awesome wins in Heller and McDonald. Those decisions drove a stake right through the heart of any hope for a broad gun ban that the anti-gun rights crowd had. Those decisions crushed their dreams.

 

[A10Driver]

Seriously BSG, you sound like an extreme left winger, don't you have a pride march or sierra club meeting to go to? If you want the gun treaty to go through go donate some money to the DNC and leave here.

 

[boxer13]

Seriously BSG, you sound like an extreme left winger, don't you have a pride march or sierra club meeting to go to? If you want the gun treaty to go through go donate some money to the DNC and leave here.

Who the hell do you think you are telling someone to leave here that contributes to this board and discussion and been a member since 2009? While you have only 4 posts and (this being one of the four) with a join date of Feb 2012, less than six months ago.

This forum has and will always be non-partisan and if you can't accept that then maybe you should be the one finding a different forum that only lets people who share your viewpoint post. The nerve of some people.

OT: Always fun to see some of the members of this board absolutely begin to pee their pants at the fear-mongering the gun-community stirs up for itself. Thankfully, there are some reputable sources that don't resort to lies, half-truths, and misinformation in its detailing of what the treaty really means: What the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Means to You - Guns & Ammo

But continue to cry wolf just like the gun community did in 2008, Or in 2011 with Saiga shotguns being "banned". I love paying a premium on guns and ammo.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

I think it is important to keep an eye on things. That doesn't mean flying off the handle, one way or the other. I have no faith in either party...absolute power corrupts absolutely, someone once said.

This is much smoke and mirrors about nothing, though. As has been said, more than once, NO TREATY TRUMPS THE CONSTITUTION, regardless of what people on the left or right might believe....that's just the way it is.

Further, this will never get 66 votes in the Senate.

 

[A10Driver]

Who do I think I am?? Someone who gets POed when someone marginalizes my RIGHT to own firearms. Do I think UN ATT will pass the senate? NO, but it makes me very angry when someone even attempts to steal my RIGHTS, and yes if it would happen to pass now or in the future your rights have been violated.

 

[BSG 75]

Seriously BSG, you sound like an extreme left winger, don't you have a pride march or sierra club meeting to go to? If you want the gun treaty to go through go donate some money to the DNC and leave here.

I hope you are/were better at hitting the target when you are/were flying that Warthog. I am such an "extreme left winger" I voted for Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. I even went to the trouble of trying to see Bush during the 2000 campaign when he had a rally at the Portland Memorial Coliseum. My wife and I didn't get in but Bush rode right by us in his limousine as we stood on the sidewalk and he waved at us. I haven't voted for a Democrat for any office since the 1980s. I'm an independent. I would consider voting for a Democrat except most are anti-gun, and I won't vote for any anti-gun candidate, especially a known, proven gun-banner like Romney.

You're so off-target I hope you're not still flying (or shooting for that matter).
Just kidding.

 

[deen_ad]

I won't vote for any anti-gun candidate, especially a known, proven gun-banner like Romney.

So that means you won't be voting for any presidential candidate this year especially now that we know Obwan is a gun runner?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Since the treaty hasn't been finalized you haven't read it either. You're just parroting fear-mongering and hysteria from people trying to manipulate you. Don't fall for it.

Hmmm, interesting.
So you find it acceptable to label me as hysterical and a fear mongerer, yet we have a president and secretary of state that are endorsing a treaty that by your own admission, ISN'T WRITTEN YET?!?
And you want us all to believe there is nothing about it that could be harmful to our interests. Despite the fact that you have no clue as to it's content either.

So is this like a N. Pelosi thing? You know:
"We have to pass this bill so we can see what's in it!?!"
WTF?

The gun restriction proposals floated by the U.N. and their ilk thus far have been as anti-2ndA as it gets. I for one, am not so delusional as to believe this one will be much different, if at all.

Similar to the folks that came up with the CIFTA treaty, the U.N. has a history of holding the 2ndA and US sovereignty secondary to their ideology.

Very much like their Law Of the Sea Treaty, that surrenders numerous aspects of US sovereignty and taxpayer dollars to the whims of a UN panel/committee.

I am basing my opposition to the signing and ratification of this treaty on what I have seen come out of the UN up to this point, and on the people they have in place to make the decision(s) on it's content, and implementation.
Big clue here, Iran is not our friend politically, economically, or ideologically.

So, go ahead and retire to your ivory tower, and endorse the signing and ratification of a treaty you don't know the content/terms of.
In the meantime, I will continue to decry the UN as a body of tyrants, thugs and fools that want nothing more than to see the US and it's citizens knocked down another notch, and see the world disarmed in their efforts to subjugate free people everywhere.
I am NOT alone in this, as many on both sides of the political aisle here in the US believe the same.
In short, we're not expecting "the leopard to change it's spots."

If you want to adopt a "wait and see" stance on endorsement, we might agree.

But arguing for the signing and ratification of a treaty that isn't written yet, but is being authored by the likes of the U.N., is perfectly symbolic of what is wrong with this country currently.

Endorsing and/or electing someone based on what they say, or their "stated intent" instead of what their previous actions provide as proof of their REAL intent, is what has led us to where we are.
Odd that you would use Romney's actions as governor of MA to highlight this, and then ignore the premise in your arguments FOR ratification of this treaty.

You may like the ideology of the U.N. and it's advocacy of a singular world order and laws.
I don't.
And I'll defend my country's right to sovereignty 'till my dying day.

One more thing:
If you *think* for a minute that the anti-gun forces in this country (congress, courts and executive) won't use any/all restrictions in the UN Arms Trade Treaty as the basis for increasing gun restrictions here in the US, then i believe your personal world lies somewhere in fantasy land.

 

[Dave Workman]

This forum has been well penetrated by the anti-American "Progressives".

They must all be from around Tigard.


Oh, and BTW, nicely done Jamie!

 

[fd15k]

They must all be from around Tigard.

 

[fd15k]

The Hill

<broken link removed>

"...The United States will not allow the United Nations to impose any restrictions on Americans' gun rights, the Obama administration declared Friday, as the first week of negotiations on an international arms trade treaty came to a close. "The Arms Trade Treaty will not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense," Acting Under Secretary of State for Ams Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said..."



United States Department of State official statement, including "Key US Redlines" that the US will not tolerate any final treaty to violate. Lots of links in the text taking you to other significant US policy documents.

<broken link removed>

"KEY U.S. REDLINES

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.

There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.

The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.

There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.

There will be no lowering of current international standards.

Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.

The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.

There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT."

taken here :
News RoundUp for UN Arms Trade Treaty 7-6-12 - Calguns.net

 

[Jamie6.5]

Great fd, so we know what the obama admin SAYS they want from the U.N. with regard to this treaty.
(But will they "bargain away" some aspects, in favor of others, in their efforts to "compromise" on it?)

So, whaddaya say we wait until it's finalized before we, as citizens and voters, decide whether or not we want it as much as the admin.

Shall we wait and see?
Or jump on board and place our full faith and confidence in a president and secretary of state that are in favor of an AWB, and a Senate that has been known to thwart the will of the people?

 

[DMax]

The Hill

<broken link removed>

"...The United States will not allow the United Nations to impose any restrictions on Americans' gun rights, the Obama administration declared Friday, as the first week of negotiations on an international arms trade treaty came to a close. "The Arms Trade Treaty will not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense," Acting Under Secretary of State for Ams Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said..."



United States Department of State official statement, including "Key US Redlines" that the US will not tolerate any final treaty to violate. Lots of links in the text taking you to other significant US policy documents.

<broken link removed>

"KEY U.S. REDLINES

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.

There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.

The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.

There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.

There will be no lowering of current international standards.

Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.

The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.

There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT."

taken here :
News RoundUp for UN Arms Trade Treaty 7-6-12 - Calguns.net

Great as long as its just a mandate and not a tax I am good with trusting these dirtbags in DC Nothing to see here just go back to sleep. LOL

 

[BSG 75]

Hmmm, interesting.
So you find it acceptable to label me as hysterical and a fear mongerer, yet we have a president and secretary of state that are endorsing a treaty that by your own admission, ISN'T WRITTEN YET?!?
And you want us all to believe there is nothing about it that could be harmful to our interests. Despite the fact that you have no clue as to it's content either.

So is this like a N. Pelosi thing? You know:
"We have to pass this bill so we can see what's in it!?!"
WTF?

See, this is what I mean about getting hysterical, calm down. I'm not worried about the specifics in an INTERNATIONAL arms trade treaty because I'm not involved in INTERNATIONAL arms trade - and neither are you, unless you are a part-time international arms dealer.

The gun restriction proposals floated by the U.N....blah blah blah

You seem to be awfully afraid of the toothless UN. The UN has no power to affect US domestic gun laws. Period.

You should be more worried about the people in this building



rather than the people in this building

So, go ahead and retire to your ivory tower, and endorse the signing and ratification of a treaty you don't know the content/terms of.

I never endorsed that treaty, please don't put words in my mouth. Just because I'm not wasting time getting all worked up over it doesn't mean I'm endorsing it. That treaty is useful as a source of amusement, watching some people get all worked up over it.

In the meantime, I will continue to decry the UN as a body of tyrants, thugs and fools that want nothing more than to see the US and it's citizens knocked down another notch, and see the world disarmed in their efforts to subjugate free people everywhere.

You do that, that is your First Amendment right. Want a cookie?

I am NOT alone in this,

Yeah, I know. I see those signs when I'm driving out in the country. Maybe one was in front of your house.

If you want to adopt a "wait and see" stance on endorsement, we might agree.

If you agreed with any position of mine, I might have to seriously reconsider my position!

But arguing for the signing and ratification of a treaty that isn't written yet, but is being authored by the likes of the U.N., is perfectly symbolic of what is wrong with this country currently.

What did Ronald Reagan say? Oh, yeah "there you go again".

I never "argued for the signing and ratification of a treaty". I just don't care about it.

Odd that you would use Romney's actions as governor of MA to highlight this, and then ignore the premise in your arguments FOR ratification of this treaty.

You must be confused or have poor reading comprehension. Again, please show any "arguments FOR ratification of this treaty" that I have made. I'll save you the trouble of looking for some, there aren't any.

You may like the ideology of the U.N. and it's advocacy of a singular world order and laws.
I don't.
And I'll defend my country's right to sovereignty 'till my dying day.

Now you're going beyond claiming I endorsed and argued for a treaty I never endorsed or argued for, and are now claiming I "like the ideology of the U.N. and it's advocacy of a singular world order and laws". Do you believe you can read people's minds?

One more thing:
If you *think* for a minute that the anti-gun forces in this country (congress, courts and executive) won't use any/all restrictions in the UN Arms Trade Treaty as the basis for increasing gun restrictions here in the US, then i believe your personal world lies somewhere in fantasy land.

Is fantasy land anywhere near Paranoia Land?

Those anti-gun rights forces might try, but they will fail. The Constitution trumps all treaties.

By the way, after reading your novel, here is your Quote for the Day:

Oh, and BTW, nicely done Jamie!

You are very easily impressed!

 

[Jamie6.5]

I never endorsed that treaty, please don't put words in my mouth. Just because I'm not wasting time getting all worked up over it doesn't mean I'm endorsing it. That treaty is useful as a source of amusement, watching some people get all worked up over it.

For someone who isn't "wasting time getting all worked up over it" you sure have put in the time and effort trying to get people to ignore it.

It seems you are a part of the problem. Ridiculing and belittling those that take an interest in, and support the efforts to preserve our sovereignty, and citizen's rights.
Lobbing insults at the vigilant.
[sarcasm_alert] Good strategy !! [/sarcasm]

It also seems to me, that if you were really as "unconcerned" about "the toothless U.N.," that you'd be elsewhere, instead of participating in this thread, and stop trying to dissuade conservatives from voicing their displeasure over the current admin supporting this fiasco, and the U.N.'s further efforts at small arms restriction and registration.

I never "argued for the signing and ratification of a treaty". I just don't care about it.

Suuurre you don't. I believe that I just pointed out how much you apparently do.
Of course, I have your many contributions to this thread to support my contention.

Is fantasy land anywhere near Paranoia Land?

Is that all you have? Ridicule, belittlement and accusations of paranoia? (lemme see,... Who's strategy was that again?)

Tell you what BSG, (does that stand for what I think it stands for btw?), why don't you prove that you don't care about this treaty, and any ramifications it may have for US gun owners, and just quietly back yourself out of the discussion(s)?

Or at least notify Forbes The NRA-ILA, The SAF, et al that you have all the answers, and assure them that their objections to the U.N. worldwide gun registration efforts are completely unwarranted.

Then all the gun owners on this site and other gun forums, can all go back to napping, secure in the knowledge that BSG is on the case, and will let us know if things go awry at the U.N.

 

[BSG 75]

For someone who isn't "wasting time getting all worked up over it" you sure have put in the time and effort trying to get people to ignore it.

It seems you are a part of the problem. Ridiculing and belittling those that take an interest in, and support the efforts to preserve our sovereignty, and citizen's rights.
Lobbing insults at the vigilant.
[sarcasm_alert] Good strategy !! [/sarcasm]

It also seems to me, that if you were really as "unconcerned" about "the toothless U.N.," that you'd be elsewhere, instead of participating in this thread, and stop trying to dissuade conservatives from voicing their displeasure over the current admin supporting this fiasco, and the U.N.'s further efforts at small arms restriction and registration.

Again, it is purely for entertainment value, seeing people get so worked up they post stuff like this:

So is this like a N. Pelosi thing? You know:
"We have to pass this bill so we can see what's in it!?!"
WTF?

Suuurre you don't. I believe that I just pointed out how much you apparently do.
Of course, I have your many contributions to this thread to support my contention.

You haven't proven anything. Go ahead, show actual quotes where I "argued for the signing and ratification of a treaty" as you accused. Go ahead, let's see your "evidence". There isn't any. You claim I said this and that, and then attack things I never said. That's called attacking a straw man.

Is that all you have? Ridicule, belittlement and accusations of paranoia? (lemme see,... Who's strategy was that again?)

Again, I think you have a reading comprehension problem. "All I have"? Hardly. My very first post in this thread included the relevant Supreme Court decision:

Reid v. Covert


Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.

The Court found that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."

Reid v. Covert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell you what BSG, (does that stand for what I think it stands for btw?), why don't you prove that you don't care about this treaty, and any ramifications it may have for US gun owners, and just quietly back yourself out of the discussion(s)?

How transparent. You can't out-debate me so you want me to go away so I'll stop pointing out your silliness and straw-man arguments. No way, winners don't quit when they're winning!

 

[Stomper]

If anyone mentions they have "tiger blood", I'm going to shoot you..... Winning!

 

[Bam]

You really going to believe anything a politician says during an election year?

 

[Grunwald]

Do you think DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago were "idiotic and illogical decisions"? That's what the gun-hating anti-gun rights crowd at Huffington Post thinks, you sound just like one of them. Would you rather have had clowns deciding DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, with different outcomes? Those "jackasses in black robes" gave us (by "us" I mean we pro-gun people, maybe you don't include yourself in our group) awesome wins in Heller and McDonald. Those decisions drove a stake right through the heart of any hope for a broad gun ban that the anti-gun rights crowd had. Those decisions crushed their dreams.

Just because a few decisions get decided the right way does not negate the fact that they are jackases in black robes who make horrible decisions. How about the Obamacare ruling, and the twisted logic of Roberts?
That decision just gave the federal gov. whole lot of new powers to put the screws to us, as long as they attach a tax to it.
Did you like the decision in the New London CT eminent domain case? You city can now take your real estate and give it to a private developer if they think it will give them more tax revenue.

I stand by my statement. When it comesto the supreme court we cannot accept anything less than100% correct decisions because they are our last line of defense.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

When it comesto the supreme court we cannot accept anything less than100% correct decisions because they are our last line of defense.

Um...By definition, whatever the USSC says *IS* 100% correct. And as I pointed out before, the reasoning you decry that was used to uphold the ACA could just as easily be used to negate a confiscatory tax on firearms or ammo aimed at eliminating the 2A. Don't be so quick with that knee and quit listening to the fundraisers' hysteria at the NRA. It's the same scare tactic that the enviro and AR whackos use to raise funds from an uninformed public.