reports end run 2nd amendment by UN small arms treaty

[Hmac]

This is old news, has been hashed out thoroughly on this and several other boards. If your tinfoil hat isn't on tight enough, it's certainly possible to get really, really worked up, especially if one reads some of the whack job conspiracy scenarios posed by various whack job commentators. There never was a treaty proposed, only scaremongering about what might be in such a treaty by a variety of special interest groups, including the NRA. On the positive side (as was the purpose of the scaremongering) the NRA raked in a ton of money in donations.

Anyway, it's a dead issue. As is typical of the the UN, they couldn't get their act together enough to figure out what to order for breakfast let alone put together a divisive treaty like this. They may try again next year or some other year, but they aren't going to get any farther unless they get smarter. In other words, it ain't gonna happen .

[falgore]

You totally change the meaning with the one line quote that is out of context

You seem to be under the impression that a UN treaty without a 2/3rds approval from the Senate will be enforceable in the US. I'm not sure if we can debate if we don't start under the same rules set up by the US Constitution.

Or maybe you think the Constitution (specifically the 2nd Amendment) applies to US arms sold overseas?

I am not talking about firearms being sold overseas. I am talking about, companies like Remington setting up the main plant in china to make firearms to be sold to us here in the USA

OK next 3 explanations are the same written different ways try to help you understand my point.

explanation version 1:
The UN which we are a part of, votes and says get rid of small arms despite the USA voting against it. The UN can enforce their rule outside of the USA borders NOT inside USA borders. 2nd amendment only applies to all areas within USA borders and territories. UN will tell china that china can not sell small arms to America for the citizens to purchase. Thus UN did end run by cutting supplies to USA

explanation version 2:
1. UN can not do anything inside the USA regarding the 2nd amendment.
2. However UN can and will enforce the treaty in china and forbid china from selling or importing small arms in USA. (this is the end run of the 2nd .) doesn't matter if the headquarters is located in the USA
3. They starve our market, as a result, making the availability so diminished and prohibitively expensive it denies the vast majority of people the right to bear arms. thus without ammo and parts we can not exercise our rights.

Explanation version 3:
Just because the USA votes NO, regarding the treaty at the UN, the UN can override the vote. If they get a certain number of yes votes by other countries. The key is they will not enforce in the USA they will enforce anyone shipping arms in to the USA meaning our supplies dry up. NO supplies me we can not exercise 2nd amendment.

[Heffay]

I didn't read that, but I just wanted to say that it already got shot down by the UN, so it's a completely moot point.

[tman]

I think the only country that follows the UN mandates IS the United States...

[falgore]

This is old news, has been hashed out thoroughly on this and several other boards. If your tinfoil hat isn't on tight enough, it's certainly possible to get really, really worked up, especially if one reads some of the whack job conspiracy scenarios posed by various whack job commentators. There never was a treaty proposed, only scaremongering about what might be in such a treaty by a variety of special interest groups, including the NRA. On the positive side (as was the purpose of the scaremongering) the NRA raked in a ton of money in donations.

Anyway, it's a dead issue. As is typical of the the UN, they couldn't get their act together enough to figure out what to order for breakfast let alone put together a divisive treaty like this. They may try again next year or some other year, but they aren't going to get any farther unless they get smarter. In other words, it ain't gonna happen .

Yea I use to be in your boat, when the whole issue of the protest regarding NAFTA and destroying the USA economy by outsourcing so many jobs to china etc. was in its infancy. Our leaders called them whack jobs. Guess what Those whacks were absolutely right to every letter of there preachings.

I use to think, people didn't want to do me harm. Only to have someone commit arson to my body.
I use to think someone wouldn't try to do bodily harm to me. only to have someone successfully break my arm maliciously out of the blue.
I use to think that the Americans with disability act would always stay intact to protect our civil rights. Only to have the key part, that protected me, stripped and lost my civil rights as result.
The three things Is not victimization, I was simply point it out, as things, that actually happened. Victimization is in perception not actualization.

Point is just because we believe a certain way doesn't mean the opposite isn't true.

I know I linked to a few nut job by some people standards . My ignorance was to believe people would look past that nuttiness and look at the actual content and cross reference.
Just because the Eye witness on a "so called whack job site" told their "first hand view" of the new Orleans disarmament debacle doesn't make it any less true. If you are saying that the witness was a whack job for just appearing on the "alex jones" then you insult the USA ARMY, and their screening process to keep whack jobs out.

And as I pointed at the beginning, I did not mean to open something that was closed. The "search" on this site is something to be desired and is not so intuitive. I had used key words and phrases only to get a whole lot of junk not even related to the subject.

I also joined this site because of the relevance to me being a Minnesotan. I am not an active member of many boards. only this one. in that most questions I have would be related to Minnesota. IN that I do not intend being anywhere else other than Minnesota.

PS I never donated to NRA and I am not a member, I am considering taking up membership with local gun club. Which would be full circle, for me, being that My mother was the care taker for our local gun club, when I was 1 year old. We lived right next to the gun range. In some ways I was born into the gun circle for grassroots gun enthusiast. Also met an older couple who later became "honorary adopted grandparents" of 38 years and counting. I have photos No I am not sharing them. If I did I would give them to the gun club, as part of its heritage and history.

My point is I am not any kind of nut about it. I just have a deep very personal connection to "right to bear arms" that has had a major impact on my life and who was/is part of my life as a result.

[Hmac]

Yea I use to be in your boat, when the whole issue of the protest regarding NAFTA and destroying the USA economy by outsourcing so many jobs to china etc. was in its infancy. Our leaders called them whack jobs. Guess what Those whacks were absolutely right to every letter of there preachings.

I use to think, people didn't want to do me harm. Only to have someone commit arson to my body.
I use to think someone wouldn't try to do bodily harm to me. only to have someone successfully break my arm maliciously out of the blue.
I use to think that the Americans with disability act would always stay intact to protect our civil rights. Only to have the key part, that protected me, stripped and lost my civil rights as result.
The three things Is not victimization, I was simply point it out, as things, that actually happened. Victimization is in perception not actualization.

Point is just because we believe a certain way doesn't mean the opposite isn't true.

I know I linked to a few nut job by some people standards . My ignorance was to believe people would look past that nuttiness and look at the actual content and cross reference.
Just because the Eye witness on a "so called whack job site" told their "first hand view" of the new Orleans disarmament debacle doesn't make it any less true. If you are saying that the witness was a whack job for just appearing on the "alex jones" then you insult the USA ARMY, and their screening process to keep whack jobs out.

And as I pointed at the beginning, I did not mean to open something that was closed. The "search" on this site is something to be desired and is not so intuitive. I had used key words and phrases only to get a whole lot of junk not even related to the subject.

I also joined this site because of the relevance to me being a Minnesotan. I am not an active member of many boards. only this one. in that most questions I have would be related to Minnesota. IN that I do not intend being anywhere else other than Minnesota.

PS I never donated to NRA and I am not a member, I am considering taking up membership with local gun club. Which would be full circle, for me, being that My mother was the care taker for our local gun club, when I was 1 year old. We lived right next to the gun range. In some ways I was born into the gun circle for grassroots gun enthusiast. Also met an older couple who later became "honorary adopted grandparents" of 38 years and counting. I have photos No I am not sharing them. If I did I would give them to the gun club, as part of its heritage and history.

My point is I am not any kind of nut about it. I just have a deep very personal connection to "right to bear arms" that has had a major impact on my life and who was/is part of my life as a result.

There are so many other things to be paranoid about that are far more likely and far more dangerous. Good lord, half the country thinks Obama would be a good president for another 4 years. A UN treaty that materially affects US constitutional rights just isn't going to happen. It would be far more realistic to obsess over the prospect of 4 more years of Obama.

[Heffay]

There are so many other things to be paranoid about that are far more likely and far more dangerous. Good lord, half the country thinks Obama would be a good president for another 4 years. A UN treaty that materially affects US constitutional rights just isn't going to happen. It would be far more realistic to obsess over the prospect of 4 more years of Obama.

It's like the amount of time people argue about which caliber is the best for home defense, when their life would be far more improved by going out and running 10 miles.

I think goalie said it best:

After all, most members of this BB are much more likely to be attacked by type II diabetes than a mugger. Plus, you can never change the mugger's mindset, but you can change your diet and activity level.

Prioritize your fears better. The UN and Obama are pretty far down the list.

[xracer390]

If manufacturing weapons was banned everwhere but here could you imagine the number of jobs that would be created here ? This could be a good thing.

[falgore]

If manufacturing weapons was banned everwhere but here could you imagine the number of jobs that would be created here ? This could be a good thing.

tend to agree with you. just so long as it is not sudden. it takes time to set up alternative factory.

Honestly I would prefer it all to be done here, including the fabrication of metals etc.

_____________________________________________________________________

For those who think other things are higher, Consider, that in my shoes , some of the stuff you mention are very gradual. On other hand the erosion of second is far more sudden.

I am in the bracket of society who is already loosing rights left and right, by the actions of others, With no power to control our own fate. One day had the rights and the next the rights were stripped.

How do you know that I am not already following the other issues? like fraking, citizens united, Keystone XL, arctic oil drilling, oil trying to destroy clean energy, attack on water, and air, food safety,
CCD die off linked to pesticides , habitat destruction, soil nutrient depletion, etc.

Then this is a gun forum which is the reason I was bring up gun issues here, but not the other pressing issues in societies.

[goalie]

I think goalie said it best:

After all, most members of this BB are much more likely to be attacked by type II diabetes than a mugger. Plus, you can never change the mugger's mindset, but you can change your diet and activity level.

Prioritize your fears better. The UN and Obama are pretty far down the list.

Damn, that is sig-line material there.

[falgore]

Ok this is a quote from one of the links provided by another member here
Quote:
"Treaties are signed for the United States by the president and his agents. As a result, any international obligations that the United States would incur as a result of signing a treaty would be triggered by unilateral executive action. This sort of unilateral executive authority, however, appears to be in tension with the process specified in Article II of the Constitution for making treaties, which requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate. As I will explain, this tension is not eliminated by the existence of the president’s power to enter into “sole executive agreements.” Whatever its precise scope, the sole executive agreement power must be significantly narrower than the power to enter into Article II treaties."

Is this saying: president can sign based on "sole executive agreements" but it has comes in to conflict with the 2/3 senate vote rule?

Could this be applied to the small arms treaty? that allows president to sign without consent of the senate? Ohh not sure want one person with that kind of power.

[goda0301]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... TR20130318

they are coming... not just here in this state but every where...

[tenmilmag]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/18/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE92H0TR20130318

they are coming... not just here in this state but every where...

This is quite A L A R M I N G

alarming present participle of a·larm (Verb)
Verb

1. Cause (someone) to feel frightened, disturbed, or in danger.
2. Be fitted or protected with an alarm: "this door is locked and alarmed between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.".

[minnhawk]

The UN small arms treaty is about gun running by nations and companies into areas of conflict around the world. AKs and anti-tank missiles into Syria, arming dictators in 3rd world countries and so on. Our government is as guilty of gun running as the Rooskies or the ChiComs or Iran. Even a strong UN treaty would do nothing to stop it, because there is not one country who can enforce it on the others. If Russia is committed to helping an ally fight insurgents, they are going to send the weaponry. Same for the United States.
As far a weapons manufacturing overseas, I agree that an embargo would create thousands of jobs here in the US. Despite rumors to the contrary, we are a manufacturing powerhouse with the technology, machinery, and skilled work force to build anything. We are in better shape than our manufacturing capacity in 1940, and both Germany and Japan totally underestimated that capacity to build the "arsenal of democracy" back then. Remington building trigger groups in China? Do you really think it would be a problem for them to shift building those trigger groups to a company in Minnesota in about 2 weeks? CAM and CnC machines program very quickly.

Relax.

[FJ540]

Something mentioned as a negative outcome (cutting us off) would be a freaking BOON for the US economy!

What would happen if the UN put sanctions on US trade? We'd in-source production of everything we needed. That's jobs folks. Lots and lots of jobs!

We'd stop exporting medical devices and prescription drugs. The rest of the world's grandma's die. Bummer

We'd stop spending money on military bases and wars in other countries, as well as bribes for other countries to be nice to us (foreign aide). Big move towards balancing the budget. Why is this a bad thing again??

Certain minerals would be problematic, as they're not readily mined in the US, but life would go on.

Meanwhile, we stop exporting steel and food, and china grinds to a halt.

This ain't happening. No matter how wonderful it would be.