reports end run 2nd amendment by UN small arms treaty

[falgore]

Sorry If this thread been already started let me know its title. I am trying to get the hang of this site search tool which functions different than most I have used in past.

I can't link yet sorry.
I been reading reports that our government is doing an end run on our 2nd amendment through the UN small arms treaty Most reliable source I hard it from being the NRA itself.

What I been reading is that our government is saying they will not sign any treaty that destroys the 2nd amendment. The government would be truthful, if not for the fact that, if enough countries signed it, it would not matter what our government said or did , it could be forced on us by UN, leading to the loss of our 2nd amendment. The government would be absolved of any wrong doing by claiming that it was UN fault for loss of 2nd amendment! All can say is we are up poo-tang creek.

Couple of story titles you can use to search

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... p-in-arms/ Forbes

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/11157598 ... amendment/ FoxBusiness video

focus on the facts with a grain of salt. And you can see the dots being connected. When reading the following: I tried to find the official documents on the government historian website. maybe people better versed could locate the relevant documents and link to them so people can see and decide for themselves, the meaning and connection of the relevant info. I am starting to get paranoid about this and when I try to search the site for historian it burying the relevant info in broad groupings even when doing specific document title searches.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forci ... mament.htm

another perspective who looks at UN refusal to defined terrorism and using that as the means to disarm the individual
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/07/ ... terrorism/
By refusing to define terrorism, they basically say anyone possessing firearms or any other tool that could be used as a weapon would be a terrorist. because of the fundamental definition of terror, : Anything that causes extreme fear in another. So my walking out the door holding my 10 inch knife as I put it on my belt, would cause fear in a person, that totally does not know me, because they think my intention is to use it against them. Thus I would be a terrorist for spreading fear in another.

If the UN forced it. Think about this, how many manufactures do we still have, that is not made over seas? The other countries could justify cutting off everything That is made outside of the USA, This includes china, Iran, other anti American countries. NOT SO FRIENDLY countries who are in key roles of this UN treaty movement.

Yes we get goods from China but they are NOT OUR ALLIES.

what comes to mind is SOFT KILL. we loose 2nd the rest of the constitution can be steam rolled under with little or no resistance.

By the way, this is coming from a person, who has LOST civil rights by end runs by our government. It was called strengthening the American with disability act only to have my rights gutted by saying I couldn't use a service animal Due to his species. DID NOT matter that this animal could actually preform task relevant to the disability in which he helped and had been doing for 6 years prior to the change.

I really really wish I was being paranoid about this.

We Americans are so delusional . That no harm, can never come to us by those abroad. That we allow our rights to be systematically stripped. While we are told its for our own good.

I personally know first hand, what it is like, to be on the receiving end of tormentors who have absolutely no fear from me doing harm to them in self defense. The one time I got in a fight with a tormentor they stopped then and there, never to repeat it. After I got in that fight, for self defense, I was told never to fight back ever again. What was the result? I became the schools defacto punching bag. I have had several "criminal expulsion level events" happen to me once the tormentors knew I would not fight back. I have had bodily arson done to me and my fore arm broken as the two worst instances with chronic everyday torment thrown in. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN AGAINST THE TORMENTORS DESPITE MANY WITNESSES.

My lesson was NO ONE is going to defend you when it actually matters. You can not rely on other people for your own defense. If it happens and they do Great but as a rule, You can only rely on yourself.
Anyone trying to take away your ability to protect yourself is in defacto the group that wants you harmed. Directly or indirectly.

Back to the run around of the 2nd via the UN treaty. The only way we keep our rights is to pull out of the UN or we get less than the critical numbers of countries that approve the treaty. I can't remember but I believe it was 96 countries vote and it can be forced on us

How could it be enforced the countries making our fire arms like china could be told not to sell to us. embargoes Sanctions, banning of selling critical things as means to get us to submit and soft kill us.

here is something to read over
http://archive.org/details/FreedomFromWar do a search in google Core is only government will be allowed guns look what happens when UN is only one with guns. UN ABUSES THE PEOPLE.
I really don't, like infowars so take a grain a salt when watching this just listen to what he is quoting, not side dialog.
http://www.infowars.com/troops-ordered- ... n-in-guns/ Part that scared the crap out of me, was the section starting 8.24 minutes in It is in reference to "the Alex Jones show" date 7-17-2012 and the disarmament of the citizens, by our military, right after Katrina. They disarmed People who were defending their homes from looters and such! Along with every one else!

Info wars was able to link the 1961 "declaration of disarmament" with the "UN small arms treaty" up for vote now. the current treaty is a step in the process of the declaration of disarmament.

Think about this, I know many of you believe this will never happen, I want to believe it will never happen. So did the people after Katrina believed it would never happen. And the sick thing is it happened anyway to those after the Katrina disaster. as pointed out in the Alex Jones Show date 7-17-2012 disarmament of Katrina citizens by the US military.

only reason those citizens were not killed was our constitution was still intact along with majority of states government.

When I see this I really want to cry. I did not survive the years of torment by peers, to live to see this day coming. It is a sick sadistic joke, that I believed, the future would be a better place. That bullies would not get their way : control over me, with no way for me to fight back and defend myself. and all those other honest people out there who just want to live peacefully with the ability to defend themselves and their families..

I am really truly understanding what our forefathers meant by "freedom is only for those willing to fight and die for it." represented by liberty holding a sword up in the air.

I come to honestly believe that our leaders are not in their position because they care about the people. especially in a world of 7billion plus. I believe the vast majority are there purely for themselves with the philosophy that everyone slaves to them http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist every day people are slaves to their whim. And the only way for them to do that is make it so we can not fight back(African slaves in the USA) when we have to bend over so far backwards that our own health and family health is sacrafised or killed in process.

How do those elitist manage to do it under our noses. As honest people we are not wired to think in those terms and therefore we do not know how to recognize actions that would or will do harm to us as result (our enslavement or death)

I wish putting on a tinfoil had would make this a delusion. I wish that holing up in my apartment would prevent elitist (bullies) from effecting in a negative way my safety and right to pursuit of happiness. I wish I was insane. Because if this is reality I can't see a light at the end of the tunnel without a lot of good people dying or being in abject misery for the rest of their lives. because of the whims of a few who thing they are better than everyone else and that we are their slaves.

Falgore

PS. guess I can link thought it was disabled till you had 12- 20 posts or so

[Heffay]

Not this again...

Edit: Allow me to be more helpful. It isn't going to happen. It's not even a remote possibility. The only people pushing this horrible "story" are manufacturers who sell guns and ammo, and people who don't understand how treaties work.

[falgore]

Not this again...

Edit: Allow me to be more helpful. It isn't going to happen. It's not even a remote possibility. The only people pushing this horrible "story" are manufacturers who sell guns and ammo, and people who don't understand how treaties work.

yea the treaty works as a certain number over a critical number vote in favor, it goes into effect. I been trying to find the link in which it was thoroughly explained in how this can be done. since you say not this again which thread was it that was talking about it So I can read over it add etc?

by the way I was in process of editing when you posted.

The people in new Orleans when Katrina hit thought it wouldn't happen but it did. the military confiscated small arms firearms. Anything is possible, especially now days with and extreme few holding the vast majority of wealth.

Just to point out am trying to be objective about it http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fact-ch ... gun-rights

Since you seem to follow this, mind linking to official documents that ensures it wouldn't happen.

Just because we believe it will never happen doesn't make it reality.

my issue is I would be in the boat with you if not for the fact that ( This is not a shout I am simply point to a fact :(TOO MUCH OF OUR MANUFACTURING IS DON OVER SEAS) This is how they can enforce it if the majority of the UN votes in favor and also consider IRAN is on the planning board setting this up.

[Heffay]

yea the treaty works as a certain number over a critical number vote in favor, it goes into effect. I been trying to find the link in which it was thoroughly explained in how this can be done. since you say not this again which thread was it that was talking about it So I can read over it add etc?

Yes, the number of votes it requires to pass a treaty is 2/3rds of the members of the US Senate.

[Heffay]

Oh, and as for a thread about it:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=32839

It's already dead.

Also, slightly older with more debate:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=32274

[falgore]

yea the treaty works as a certain number over a critical number vote in favor, it goes into effect. I been trying to find the link in which it was thoroughly explained in how this can be done. since you say not this again which thread was it that was talking about it So I can read over it add etc?

Yes, the number of votes it requires to pass a treaty is 2/3rds of the members of the US Senate.

I wasn't talking senate, I was talking UN vote the countries that vote on it. If USA votes against it it doesn't matter if the majority of the countries in the UN vote in favor they can enforce it upon us. Overriding USA

meaning all firearms manufactured outside the USA is subject to UN control and thus the end run on the second.

The second is only enforceable from within, we can not control what happens outside our borders. This is the "an-chilies heel" of world trade of our goods outside our borders. if our guns are made in china we can not control it, but UN can being UN is international. As a result UN can deny sending small arms related goods to the USA. By doing so, We can not use our guns because we have no ammo or parts. This is how they hit it by removing the supply. Those who think reloading your own ammo is going to save you think twice. Where does your primer come from, that you buy?? or the shell casings? If its located overseas its UN CONTROLLED.

[BBeckwith]

The people in new Orleans when Katrina hit thought it wouldn't happen but it did. the military confiscated small arms firearms. Anything is possible, especially now days with and extreme few holding the vast majority of wealth.

Didn't this board just go over this like 5 days ago? The military did not confiscate weapons in New Orleans. In fact because the Gov. would not sign the paperwork the US military was not allowed to enter to help until five days later. On top of that it is a Federal court that found that action by the police as unconstitutional.


Yea found the link and I won't link to that thread, because it got locked. I have a feeling this thread is going to wind up in the same predicament

[falgore]

Now that I think about it, the management manufacturing of firearm related goods ,who decided sending it over seas was good for their bottom line should be charged and tried for treason.

If they had not sent SO MUCH of our firearm infrastructures overseas, NONE OF THIS, would even have been an issue, in that all the manufacturing would have been under our direct control and the second amendment would have been enforceable.

[falgore]

The people in new Orleans when Katrina hit thought it wouldn't happen but it did. the military confiscated small arms firearms. Anything is possible, especially now days with and extreme few holding the vast majority of wealth.

Didn't this board just go over this like 5 days ago? The military did not confiscate weapons in New Orleans. In fact because the Gov. would not sign the paperwork the US military was not allowed to enter to help until five days later. On top of that it is a Federal court that found that action by the police as unconstitutional.


Yea found the link and I won't link to that thread, because it got locked. I have a feeling this thread is going to wind up in the same predicament

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkl3rpUuaU

ok can you debunk this? Chris 45th infantry brigade testamony

[Heffay]

I wasn't talking senate, I was talking UN vote the countries that vote on it. If USA votes against it it doesn't matter if the majority of the countries in the UN vote in favor they can enforce it upon us.

Yeah... sorry. No.

[falgore]

I wasn't talking senate, I was talking UN vote the countries that vote on it. If USA votes against it it doesn't matter if the majority of the countries in the UN vote in favor they can enforce it upon us.

Yeah... sorry. No.

You totally change the meaning with the one line quote that is out of context In context was showing how UN can enforce it by controling our goods being sold to us by other countries

[Heffay]

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?

[BBeckwith]

The people in new Orleans when Katrina hit thought it wouldn't happen but it did. the military confiscated small arms firearms. Anything is possible, especially now days with and extreme few holding the vast majority of wealth.

Didn't this board just go over this like 5 days ago? The military did not confiscate weapons in New Orleans. In fact because the Gov. would not sign the paperwork the US military was not allowed to enter to help until five days later. On top of that it is a Federal court that found that action by the police as unconstitutional.


Yea found the link and I won't link to that thread, because it got locked. I have a feeling this thread is going to wind up in the same predicament

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkl3rpUuaU

ok can you debunk this? Chris 45th infantry brigade testamony

Easy... Alex Jones is a **** Whack job. Anything said on that radio show is worthless.

[jdege]

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.

http://www.harvardilj.org/2007/06/issue_48-2_bradley/

Under contemporary treaty practice, a nation’s signature of a treaty, especially a multilateral treaty, typically does not make the nation a party to the treaty. Rather, nations become parties to treaties by an act of ratification or accession, either by depositing an instrument of ratification or accession with a depositary (for multilateral treaties) or exchanging instruments of ratification (for bilateral treaties). The signing of treaties under this practice is at most an indication that the terms of the treaty are satisfactory to the executive institution in that nation charged with negotiating and signing treaties and does not constitute a promise that the nation will become a party to the treaty.

Despite the modern separation between signature and ratification, many international lawyers and academics contend that when a nation signs a treaty, it is bound to refrain from actions that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it makes clear its intention not to become a party to the treaty. This obligation is reflected in Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (“Vienna Convention”), a treaty that itself governs the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties. Although the United States is not a party to the Vienna Convention, many commentators claim that Article 18 reflects customary international law that is binding on nations that have not joined the Convention, a claim that the United States has not denied. In addition, some commentators have made broad claims about the content of the object and purpose obligation, arguing that it either binds signatory nations not to violate a treaty at all or that it binds them not to violate any of the “core” or “important” provisions in the treaty. These claims are frequently made, for example, in connection with the U.S. signature of human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

Code: Select all

Article 18

Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force

A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:
(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or
(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed.


Simple truth is that the internationalists among us - particularly the transnational progressives who infest far too much of our federal government - are horrified at the idea of letting archaic restrictions like the advise-and-consent clause stand in the way of progress towards their inevitable collectivist utopia.

Treaties that have been signed, that have not been ratified, and have not yet been explicitly rejected, do have legal force in the US.

[falgore]

Easy... Alex Jones is a **** Whack job. Anything said on that radio show is worthless.

I use to think the same thing about the protestors who protested against NAFTA And the loss of our jobs over seas

He may or may not be a wack job. Thing that comes to mind is people prefer to believe a simple lie over a complex truth.
I do not believe everything he says or talks about what I am looking at is the footage and trying to cross reference with other groups that are on the other side of the fence.

Look not trying to get people riled up or anything. Just trying to show how it would be possible for the UN to do a end run on us by influencing control on countries that sell us our small arms goods.


As long as all firearm related goods are made entirely in the USA I am in the boat with you about UN not doing and end run on our 2nd.

Here is the crux of it its, the stuff that gets imported , doesn't matter if the headquarters is in the USA What matters is the physical plants location. IF it is overseas That is where the UN will hammer us on the 2nd amendment.

2nd amendment only applies to what we control within our borders.

Since freedom group bought up the bulk of the biggest American manufacturers. I hope they get smart and make all their" subsidies local only" NOTHING from overseas. That way, they are protected under the 2nd amendment. And can't be undermined by an end run using the UN to bypass it, by any anti gun group.