Proposed U.N. Treaty, A Second Amendment Threat

Should the U.S. terminate it's U.N. membership & evict the U.N. from the U.S. ?

  • Total voters
    137
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lambo

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
299
Location
Bel Air, Maryland
I seriously believe that we have already been & continue to be victimized by a secret compliance with this non-sense! Take Import Bans & Restrictions for 2!
Now that there being so overt about it one has to wonder if it isn't already a done deal!
The Whole Treaty itself should be completely rejected!
~Lambo

~Snip
Senate Considering Treaty That Could Affect Gun Rights
-- Ask your Senators to support the "Second Amendment Protection" Amendment

Gun Owners of America
E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

It turns out that Washington might soon be giving an arm of the United
Nations jurisdiction over the import, export, and oceanic transport of
GUNS and AMMUNITION.

You would think that even Washington politicians would not be so stupid

as to give people like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Burma's despotic
military junta, the Sudan's genocidal strongmen, or Cuba's Fidel Castro

the right to interfere with our Second Amendment rights on American
soil, right?

Well, what makes sense to the common person isn't always the reality in

Washington.

The Senate Foreign Relations committee will soon be debating the
ratification of a treaty that bears the appropriate acronym of LOST
(Law of the Sea Treaty). LOST would put the ocean's resources in the
hands of the UN's International Seabed Authority -- and yes, that
spells trouble for our Second Amendment rights.

First, there are concerns that the International Seabed Authority might

close firing ranges based on the bogus argument that runoff from these
ranges pollutes the world's oceans.

This battle over lead run-off is one that gun owners have already
fought in this country. We shudder to think that we could one day
find ourselves fighting this battle at the global level as well!

But, even more frightening, Article 88 of the treaty stipulates that
the high seas are "reserved" for peaceful purposes. And
this provision would be enforced by the Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.

What does this mean? It clearly doesn't mean that the U.S. or any
other country is going to shut down its navy. But, on the other hand,

it would be foolish to assume that the UN will not eventually try to
use this provision to prohibit the oceanic transport of all firearms
and ammunition -- except, of course, for guns and ammo bound for
murderous dictators.Make no mistake: The United Nations is composed
of hoards of heavily-armed genocidal tyrants. And the last thing
these people want is for firearms and ammunition to fall into the hands

of "peons" like you and me.

And the UN has shown no reluctance to try to strip the U.S. of its
sovereignty and interfere with our Second Amendment rights. Just
consider the several attempts they have made over the last decade to
sucker the United States into a binding treaty that would call for
greater gun control restrictions inside our own country.

Peter Leitner, who was the Representative to the Law of the Sea
negotiations in Geneva during the 1970s and a key witness at the
hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee, is not only
an authority on the LOST treaty, he is concerned about the danger it
poses to individual rights.

He says, "The inherent danger in this Treaty is the fact that
nothing is set in stone and broad matters of interpretation will be the

province of the 'one-nation/one-vote' Assembly. We will have no
leverage, veto-power, etc., in that forum." And then there's the
term "Peaceful Purposes" in the treaty. Leitner says that
this is "one of those extraordinarily vague terms that lend
themselves to political manipulation."

If the US can claim that LOST allows US ships to board foreign ships
and look for weapons of mass destruction, he argues, "then other
nations can interdict cargoes they find offensive as well. I think
the [Second Amendment] gun guys have a very legitimate concern!"

Another opponent of this treaty is John Bolton, the former US
Ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton almost single-handedly kept
the US from signing onto anti-gun treaties sponsored by the UN. Now
he is making the rounds on Capitol Hill, reportedly lobbying
conservative senators against LOST.
~Snip
 
The LOST treaty was discussed on Fox News "Special Report" last night. The general consensus was that while Dubya is :scrutiny:...unfortunatly, in favor of it, the repubs in Kongress are against it and the demos won't be able to ratify it.
So, although it's a horrible treaty, we don't need to get riled up about it ......yet.
 
Boot them out.

The only reason the UN exists today is to give two-bit dictators a comfy place to spew their vitriol against the US.

With a HotelTango to Correia, I give you this from his blog...says everything in my view. http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/this-week-in-the-news-oct-24th-2007/

In world news, Happy United Nations Day! No kidding, it really is. The 24th of October is when we celebrate all of the awesomeness that comes from the UN, and all of the great things that they’ve accomplished for the world, like, uh… well… hmm… that’s a tough one. (scratches head). They bring us great public speakers, like that one evil dictator, and that crazy psychopath, and that other evil dictator, yeah, that’s important. And they’ve prevented wars, like, uh… well, I’ll think of one eventually. And they’ve halted genocide and famine… Nope, must be something else.

They do issue a bunch of resolutions, and then wet themselves in fear when somebody actually does something. Yep, that’s good. Plus, it is a valuable place for special committees, like the Human Rights Committee, made up of Syria, Libya, North Korea, COBRA, Mongo, and Belgium, to meet and issue resolutions about how America sucks.

<snip>

Nope, the UN exists chiefly to p*** sane people off. The only good thing there was John Bolton, and he’s gone, so I figure we should just bulldoze the place and send them to the Azores where FDR originally thought about putting them. Except that really isn’t fair to my relatives over there either.

So, Happy UN Day everybody! Hip-hip-fricking-hoo-ray!
Click to expand...
 
It is sad to think our country is involved in any way, shape or form with them and their Global enslavement mentality...
 
So, what makes you think that the United States is suddenly going to ratify a treaty that has not be ratified already for over 25 years through multiple changes in government?

Those parts the United States finds important it complies with as "customary international law". Those parts the US objects to are ignored.
 
even if we never listen to what they say, they are still useless wastes of money and producers of hot air.
 
The UN originally started out as something useful: A place for all the countries to get together, and discuss things.

Since then, its involved into another huge useless bureaucratic blackhole that sucks the life out of anything it touches. Its far past time to kill it off. Other existing organizations (Nato, ASEAN, Group of 8, etc) will fill the UN's roll just nicely.
 
well the UN does ship alot of soldiers out world wide to "keep the peace" in unstable places, afrika afghanistan and such...

this has nothing to do with you americans of course, but im really [realllyyy] scared that the UN people are gonna get norway in on these kinds of things. (I want to play with guns when i grow up!!...and i want my kids to do the same) the norwegian government is made out of largely..well..wusses, as far as im aware of, we do pretty much everything the UN asks us too...

the only one i have alot of faith in is our defense minister (Female btw, just like the last one :p)
 
this has nothing to do with you Americans of course
Click to expand...

Sure it doesn't.

Who do you think funds most of the U.N.?

Or provides its most of its "Peace keepers"?

The only countries i can think of off the top of my head that aren't leeching off of the U.S. armed services is China and Russia. We're either providing cover for or fighting almost everyone else.
 
I'm kind of saddened to see this kind of response. This whole 'boot out the U.N.' business doesn't seem very High Road to me. It certainly makes us look like a bunch of reckless gun-wielding maniacs who have no regard for international law or the democratic system. Don't give the antis ammo.

That's why I voted NO.
 
I think we should kick them out of the US, but we should retain some relationship. Retain our seat in the Security Council, give up our seat in the General Assembly, but maintain an observer status.

Maintaining a seat and veto in the Security Council could keep them from invading someday.
 
We have far more control over what goes on in the UN (irrelevant though the Organization is) by retaining our current position (and its location in NY) than we ever would have by quitting it and kicking it out of the US.

Political savvy should probably trump ideological imperatives in this situation.

Jim H.
 
Great... :rolleyes: another alarmist agenda-driven "RKBA" alert with only the tiniest bearing on RKBA...

Meanwhile, in the Medellin case the executive is arguing that they can enforce a treaty without the consent of the Senate that is not self-enforcing; but hey, let's focus on stupid stuff like LOST; because clearly the cutting edge danger that an international treaty on seabeds might spill over into RKBA is worthy of an announcement.

Seriously, gun owners are starting to develop a real talent for looking under the bed for the boogeyman while ignoring the breaking glass noise coming from the living room.
 
what i meant was that it had nothing to do with you americans, as i was talking about Norway.
 
It certainly makes us look like a bunch of reckless gun-wielding maniacs who have no regard for international law or the democratic system.
Click to expand...

How exactly do you equate voicing opposion to a Congressional vote on a controversial treaty to disregard for the democratic system?? It IS the democratic system! I understand there is much we can gain from cooperating with other nations on maritime issues, and I understand that much of the traditional opposition no longer has much relevance given the paramount strength of our navy. But since this beast first reared its head we've had measures such as Magnuson-Stevens that have adopted some beneficial aspects of UNCLOS without going whole hog into it. Absolutely nothing prevents us from engaging in state-to-state treaty making to conserve joint fisheries and other assets, or from preserving our own EEZ. We've even joined in with other nations in fighting illegal fishing on the high seas. These efforts can continue without signing onto the treaty.

While I'm not paranoid about blue helmets boarding boats, I really don't see anything good coming out of approving this treaty that can't be done other ways. Much of the treaty is in fact bizarre and outdated. UNCLOS was drafted back in the 1970's when discovery of the so called manganese nodules spurred belief that there would be a boom in deep sea mining. The kleptocrats saw their chance and demanded that a huge portion of profits be set aside for the developing world. An international tax scheme, if you will, on production of a totally unproven resource. Leave it to the UN to tax an industry out of existence before it even existed, but that's what they did. So there's no mining, but there's a whole heap of paper pushers sucking up millions in UN funds to write reports on the subject.

Ted Stevens of my state only recently endorsed ratification, based on concerns that the Rooskies are going to steal the North Pole. But I tend to think his earlier position of caution was wiser. In an effort to block Putin we may seriously undercut our own authority on the high seas. Stevens himself noted how vague some of the general principles in the treaty are (typical of any UN document) and there's nothing preventing them from being interpreted very broadly indeed. We could be signing up to give some future enemy pretext for a war our children will have to fight. It's not a wise idea. Look at how the anti-war folks overseas have latched onto the general principles in the UN founding documents to claim our current wars are illegal? Whether their position is right or wrong, we can safely ignore it for now. But what about in 2075 when the President of the EU sends his troops to stop us on the same pretext? What about when the UN becomes an international parliament? It's not worth the risk. The organization should be destroyed now while we can still destroy it.
 
I voted yes, not because of the alarmist bovine fecal matter the GOA has been spewing lately, but because I have NO respect for international "law". Now why would I say such a crazy thing? Because the UN is full off bliss ninnies and dictators, both of which would LOVE to take our guns away by passing a treaty banning trading of arms unless they're going to the military/police. Giving up our sovereignty by respecting international "law" like that would be foolish, to say the least.
 
I'm still surprised to see that so many people think that the U.N. is going to take over the world and/or become a world government. Even if the U.N. does start to become a world government, we in the US have nothing to fear for the most part, because without US support the U.N. has little military power. I don't think any other members of the Security Council would be willing to risk aggression against the United States. They wouldn't risk any large scale aggressive action because it would result in the nuclear destruction of their nation-no doubt about it. Plus, no one is going to 'invade' the US, because we have the US Navy to prevent just such a thing.

If the U.N. starts doing things that we don't like, then we should withdraw from it. But we should not dismantle it if others want it around. We can't make these kinds of decisions for other people.

Cosmoline- I was referring to the notion of dismantling/destroying the U.N., not the opposition to the treaty (people still have a right to opinions). Plus, our recent wars ARE illegal, under current international law. Bismarck's era of realpolitik ended in 1914.
 
The UN was a failure for a long time(since it let the Soviet Union and China become part of the Security Council defeating its purpose and making the organization the sick collective joke it has been since). I've heard of the LOST treaty a couple of years ago. I wonder why people are just starting to notice it now? This treaty is another which undermines sovereignty of the US.

Our current conflicts illegal? Are you for real?
 
well the UN does ship alot of soldiers out world wide to "keep the peace" in unstable places, afrika afghanistan and such...
Click to expand...
UN's incompetence in "peace keeping" missions has caused the slaughter of many innocent people. Sierra Leone and Rwanda just being a couple of examples.
 
I'm still surprised to see that so many people think that the U.N. is going to take over the world and/or become a world government. Even if the U.N. does start to become a world government, we in the US have nothing to fear for the most part, because without US support the U.N. has little military power.
Click to expand...

It's true, but all they need is for someone to open the back door for them. The American people will gladly do that if they think it'll save the latest bleeding heart craze in some other third world country.
 
we in the US have nothing to fear for the most part, because without US support the U.N. has little military power.
Click to expand...

Today that may be true, but if history teaches us anything it's how fast the top can become the bottom. We won't always be the most powerful, and if some day we're weak the UN may decide we need to be punished for our sins. Who knows. It's just not worth the risk. We get almost nothing out of that body now that the Cold War is over. We have more than enough diplomats overseas to negotiate any needed treaties, we certainly don't need the kleptocrats and tyrants at the General Assembly. The Security Council may have been useful decades ago but it's just a roadblock for us now. Let's get out and boycot the whole operation.

Cosmoline- I was referring to the notion of dismantling/destroying the U.N., not the opposition to the treaty (people still have a right to opinions). Plus, our recent wars ARE illegal, under current international law. Bismarck's era of realpolitik ended in 1914.
Click to expand...

I think we should do that, as well. And it would be perfectly lawful for us to exit the treaty. We can break any treaty we care to in the national interest, at least at this point. Maybe in 50 more years we won't have the power ot do so anymore.

As far as illegality, under a broad reading of the UN charter you're probably right. Indeed most of our wars would be deemed "illegal wars of aggression" under a broad reading of that charter, including the War of Independence and the Civil War. That's all the more reason to give it the finger and break the entire treaty, booting the whole mess into the Atlantic. I'm not in favor of waging a bunch of overseas wars, but I'm even less in favor of giving authority to some batch of kleptocrat scum to decide whether we can wage war. The Founders would be very disturbed by the military industrial complex, but they'd be red with rage at the notion of our Secretary of State ASKING the security council for PERMISSION to wage war.

We have to decide--do we want to be a nation, or do we want to be one vote in a world community equal in every respect with tyrant nations and beholden to European states for permission to conduct our foreign policy and trade.
 
I voted yes. I dislike the idea of One-World Government, and that is exactly how the UN dreams.

I distrust anything that has made attempts to encroach on any nation's sovereignty.

-- John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top