UN Ban on guns...

Status
Not open for further replies.
ok I did it. (added my own personality to the letters a little.) Took about 5 minutes and $1 in postage.
 
The UN would never be able to support such a ban in this country. If they tried to use military force to support such a ban, it would cost them many lives to take our guns away. Anything they do is in vain (hopefully).
 
Thanks Doggieman!

50 Cal, I am with you and hope it never happens, but I am making sure beforehand that those f*ckers who think they can take away my right are sadly mistaken.
 
The problem is that the Constitution has a loophole in it.

Ratified treaty with other nations/organizations has the force of the Constitution.

An anti president and an anti senate could ratify a gun ban treaty with the UN and it might have the force of law. It would be a very intersting court battle to see how such a treaty would stack up against the 2nd Amendment. This, among any number of similar battles is why the Democrats are so opposed to allowing Bush to have his way with Federal court appointments.

Stuff like this comes down to them

Foolishly, the founders didn't consider that future presidents or Congress would want to use treaties to undermine the Bill of Rights.

If such a treaty came to pass, and the courts failed us, I'd hope enough of us are willing to...

Nevermind. :( I'm not going to finish that thought.
 
Gotta wonder about Rebecca Peters of IANSA:
Rebecca Peters said:
Women need to be protected by police forces, by judiciaries, by
criminal justice systems. People who have guns for self-defense are
not safer than people who don’t . . . having a gun in that situation
escalates the problem.
Click to expand...
I know women who have used guns in seperate incidenrts to drive off
- a home invader attempting to steal a VCR and fighting a woman,
- an ex-husband who showed up after a year with three drinking companions for god knows what,
- an abusive boyfriend,
- an estranged husband and his drinking buddy lurking on a neighbor's porch,
and even a couple who held a burglar at gunpoint for arrest by responding officers.
None of these women would have felt safer without their guns,
In each of these incidents, having the gun de-escalated the problem,
sometimes in less time that it takes to say "Exit, stage left."

If these women had to wait for Rebecca Peters, Kofi Anin or George
Soros and the UN blue helmets to save them they would have been
robbed, beaten and violated physically and/or psychologically.
 
Last edited:
Ratified treaty with other nations/organizations has the force of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

This is not true; no treaty can override the constitution. International treaties can however override domestic law.

A UN ban on civilian ownership of guns is just not going to happen in the US. For this treaty to affect the United States, first the US must sign the treaty, then it must be approved by the Congress, and then finally be signed by the president. Then if it somehow does pass through all of the previously mentioned steps, it would have to pass judicial scrutiny, and in this instance would be in conflict with the constitution. The chances of such a treaty getting through all of those steps successfully are extremely low. Could the UN unilaterally impose a resolution banning guns? No, this would violate the sovereignty of the member states. As much as some want to make the UN into some powerful world government, it is not. As a whole it is a very weak institution that has a very hard job constraining states. The UN does some thing well, but creating and enforcing a ban on civilian ownership of guns is not something it has the institutional or political capacity to do. I support the NRA's efforts however, I just do not want people thinking the sky is falling.
 
I'm LOL at the Idea that the UN could do ANYTHING on our own soil (except double park and loot their own cafeteria).
It it WE that provide the bulk of their funding. It is WE that provide the bulk of their military might. It is WE who would ****can the idea via Security Council veto.
And it is We the People that will stop it dead in its tracks, by exercising rights enumerated in the Constitution of this Nation.
 
I despise the UN. They don't do anything about the actual problems in the world, yet they have the time and funds to try and trample our civil rights. I'm sending the letters.
 
Let's say the UN DOES pass a resolution banning private gun ownership.... like anybody follows UN directives anyway... people like Gadaffi and Saddam ignored UN resolutions on large scale. Like we would ever allow UN troopers to take our guns away! Any US troops would most likely revolt and refuse to follow that order. Who would they send in, French? Please....the UN refuses to deal with a soveriegn nation's internal problems even when those problems result in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of that nations' citizens. Like they would ever do anything about US gun owners.
 
There are 2 major flaws in some of this discussion.


#1, no treaty trumps the Constitution or Bill of Rights. A treaty is a law, a Constitution is an agreement between the people and the government. Rights cannot be legislated away, or taken away via treaty or agreement. The courts should easily shoot that down, and if they don't, then they are party to the tyrannical activity of the State and should be considered an enemy of the free people of the United States.


#2, the UN would not do anything at all to enforce it. Your own government will do it for them. They will enforce the gun ban to comply with the UN agreement. (or at least they'll try) There will be no blue helmeted thugs on APC's conducting a confiscation. Instead, you'll see your local sheriffs deputy with backup knocking on your door. At this point, you'll have to make a serious decision about what to do with your fellow countrymen.


Most likely, it will not happen like this. An all out in-your-face ban and confiscation would create an uproar and violent resistance in America. Instead, they will prohibit types of firerms one at a time. Prohibit ammunition import. Put gun manufacturers out of business. Tax the industry to death. Bombard our schoolchildren with lies and propaganda. Two pronged attack. One is the cultural assault, where they use media (TV, Hollywood, magazines, papers and public education) to kill the gun culture in America over the next generation. The second is to kill off the gun culture by making it less accesible. I wish I had a dime for every person I meet that thinks it is illegal to buy an AR-15 (and this is in FLORIDA!!). Less and less hunting lands. Less and less ranges. More restrictions. More hassles. One by one people get out of the sport. Less and less children are taught to appreciate it...
 
???

I really don't understand? The web site asks you to send three letters. Two of them are to foreigners, and one is to John Bolton who is an appointee.

None of these people are your elected representatives. None of them care what you think. Why should they care what you think? Why should they even open your letter? I just don't understand the thought process here.
 
Wayne La Pierre for his part is not just watching the UN but is already out doing what he can to derail a Hillary Clinton presidency. "She will probably be the most anti-firearm Second Amendment candidate to ever run for President of the United States." This is without a doubt. His fear is the UN will ban private gun ownership, getting around the US Congress and that Hillary might have the chance to appoint two Supreme Court Justices. Ginsberg has been in poor health for some time and Justice Stevens is getting up in his years. "If the U.S. Supreme Court, stacked with Hillary Clinton appointments, were to decide that the Second Amendment is only a government right and not the individual right, there would be nothing in the Constitution then to prohibit this U.N. treaty from taking effect," LaPierre said.Making matters worse, adds LaPierre, is that in his opinion, Supreme Court Justices are increasingly looking to international custom and international law – a phenomenon the U.N. is counting on. This is a nightmare scenario so we all must do our part to make sure a Hillary Clinton Presidency does not happen in 2008.
 
The courts should easily shoot that down, and if they don't, then they are party to the tyrannical activity of the State and should be considered an enemy of the free people of the United States.
Click to expand...

Ah! That is the question now, isn't it? Are the most powerful people in the US government, who are appointed for life, enemies of the free people of the US? If you believe that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then how could they not become enemies of freedom, eventually? The only question is "will they die or resign before turning to tyranny?"

The big difference between now and two hundred years ago, with regard to judges and politicians, is how much longer we live now. The founding fathers never imagined judges spending 25 - 30 years on the Supreme Court or politicians spending 50 - 60 years in Congress. It's only common sense that this is much too long to resist corruption.
 
Don't forget about the track record of our judicial system. We live in a day when the judges decide to take property from people just to increase the tax base. They decide to allow abortion/murder to take place daily. They attempt to remove any reminder that this country was founded to provide for freedom of religion. Don't believe that they will not attempt to legislate away our right to prevent a tyranical government from ruling the people instead of being ruled by the people.
We the people need to get out of the UN and get the UN off of our shores.
I'm not sure the letters going to the addressees will have any affect but suppose the letters are sent to our Pres., Senate, Congress and Supreme Court Judges.

How many people who are afraid to pray in public will be willing to fight to return this country to freedom??
 
This thread looked into the question of the supremacy of the Constitution and BoR over treaties pretty extensively,

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=196330

and essentially concluded that treaties were powerless in the face of the Bill of Rights.

The problem that remains is the same one we have today is that of the erosion of the B of R to the point where it's meaning and force is of dubious reliability, as a result of a "perverse outcome" of our political process.

Accordingly, we must work the "soft war" to prevent that perverse outcome, using Ballot and Soap Boxes.

But if that outcome should come to pass, then, frankly, it'll be time to honestly take note that the "soft war" is over.
 
Just Yesterday I read the issue of American Rifleman with this story in it. I was going to get on THR this morning and find as much info or start a thread about it but I see others are just as outraged. For those of you who dont think this can happen you are derainged. This could easily happen. I personally dont think its going to but the fact that it has gotten this far and the fact that the conference is during the week of the most important day of this country and is taking place in this country is a F'ing outrage. Regardless if you think this is going to happen send the letter for the fact of them even trying to pull this crap. It is a spit in the face in many ways. If it did happen it would be little things at a time being taken from us. Most recently the UN tried to ban guns in Brazil and that didnt fly so what makes them them think they could even talk about trying to do that crap here. I know how far Im willing to fight for my rights. How far are you willing to go?
 
Thank you everyone for bumping this thread up, and for taking part of the letter campaign!

2 days ago, I drove down to Miami to get a copy of my Natrulization Papers. I as 12 years old when I became a citizen, funny, as I considerd myself an American for as long as I could remember, my parents brought me over at 4.

I'm as apple pie, red blooded american that has served my country during Desert Storm, and beyond. My parents wanted the American Dream for themselves, and for their children. We embraced it like many immigrants before us.

With that said, I would rather die than give up my rights. I do what I can now to protect them, whether it's wriitng a letter to some UN rep or emailing my Representative on where I stand on their policies.

Over 200 years ago, similliar men felt strongly about their freedoms, and died for them. It stands the same for me, today.
 
I think he wants you to send the letters to those people because he expects that you've already inundated your representatives with tons of letters in the past and wants some new eyes to see your displeasure.

If you're like me you write stuff to your local reps and senators and state senators fairly frequently.
 
..... you'll see your local sheriffs deputy ......

Probably NOT. There are things like "support and defend the constitution"
"obey lawful orders" and the consequences of violating the constitution
or enforcing unlawful orders.

County mounty would be within his training and oath to refuse to
enforce a UN treaty.
 
The founding fathers never imagined judges spending 25 - 30 years on the Supreme Court or politicians spending 50 - 60 years in Congress.
Click to expand...

John Marshall served on the supreme court from 1801-1835, William Cushing served from 1790-1810, and Bushrod Williams served from 1799-1829.
 
You know, this thread reminded me of something....


[pessimist mode on]



The gist here is about treaties or agreements trumping the BOR/Constitution, or at least going around it in such a way as to delegitimize the Constitution, or render it impotent.


When faced with that question, my brain flashed back to all of those "street interviews" where a camera goes around American cities and places and asks people simple questions like who was the 1st president, or what is the BOR, or better yet - where do you get your rights from (where most answer "da gubmint")...


I'd have to wager that 3/4 of this nation is completely ignorant of our political system, let alone simple facts about rights or the constitution.

How are we, as a nation, suppose to fend off tyrannical attacks of our liberty when the majority of the population has no clue what the constitution even says, and is too busy drinking coke and watching american idol?

The government has won. The socialists knew what they were doing when they forced public education on the populace. These government-run propaganda camps have succeeded in not only producing an ignorant mass, but the little that they do teach is is designed to undermine liberty and prosperity as well as set the foundation for the socialist structure. Not only do people not defend themselves and their liberty and their wealth, but they OPENLY DEMAND that the government take away their wealth, take away their liberty...


amazing.
 
My $.02

human nature is consistent from age to age and culture to culture. Now, having said that, the REAL reason the US is still the country it is , is because 65,000,000 of us are armed and THEY know it.

Neither Hillary nor the UN is going to succeed because they are afraid of an armed population, not that we mean any harm to anyone.

The key is .... NEVER give up your GUNS. We have a moral right to defend ourselves, our lives and our property. NO legislation is going to change that.

If I must be an outlaw, then I will be an outlaw at whatever the cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
What *you* can do about the UN gun ban summit
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
SIOP
S
G
  • Locked
U.N. Global gun ban
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
1911Tuner
1
D
  • Locked
So what about this UN gun ban on the 4th of July?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Carl N. Brown
Carl N. Brown
E
  • Locked
A Meeting at the UN next week.
Replies
0
Views
300
ESB
E
W
  • Locked
UN Gun Ban Vote
Replies
11
Views
731
Don't Tread On Me
D
Back
Top