Does anybody know the straight story behind the U.N. Small Arms Treaty?

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by bluesea112, Mar 20, 2010.

  1. bluesea112

    bluesea112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,326
    Location:
    West, TX
    I am wondering if anybody knows the actual true story behind the U.N. Small Arms Treaty? I hear a lot of hype on Facebook, but most of what I hear is coming from "alarmists" or from other conspiracy theorists.

    I want to know the facts behind this alleged treaty, and I want to know if there is a real chance that it may be signed by a majority in congress.

    I am fully aware that the "sky is falling" and that "The Clinton and Brady gun grabbing machines are paying the top brass at the U.N. to introduce the Small Arms Treaty", so I don't need to hear that information again. Thank you though.

    With that said, does anybody have some factual information they can share to put my mind at ease.....or that will give me a full blown heart attack?

    Thanks
  2. petesusn

    petesusn New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    614
    Location:
    San Joaquin Valley, Ca.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2010
  3. Kestral

    Kestral Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2008
    Messages:
    406
    Location:
    Guernsey Channel Islands
    Dont know if my problem has any bearing on the UN ideas,but as from the end of 2009,no freight co,shipper.or postal authority will ship any firearms or componants etc from either the UK or the EU to the Channel Islands.If I wish to import a pistol from Germany,which I have done many times in the past, the only way is to go and collect it personally,and in effect escort it back.When you take into account all the paperwork & travel costings its just not on.Its certainly a good way for those in authority to control who has what from now on.
  4. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,703
    Location:
    NE Ar. W. of Black River
    bluesea, brace for the heart attack. Most of the nations of the world have signed on.

    The Dems. in the Congress are going to be hammered in the next election for voting for one of the current iterations of the Health Care Bill. You can be sure that if it passes they will move on as surely as night into day and grant amnesty in time for the Nov. election, that along with universal registration is the only way they think they can hold onto power.

    If they are thrown out I suspect the U.N. Arms Control Treaty will be their parting shot at the electorate as soon as they become lame ducks.
  5. CMfromIL

    CMfromIL New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    IL
    Relax it's not going anywhere. Here is some info I pulled for another board.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/

    And some quotes from the article.


    Here is some more to chew on. This 'treaty' is to prohibit the sales of arms to various nations. Not to limit domestic consumption of firearms. Meaning, (In my reading) this treaty is designed to stop nations from selling arms to the likes of North Korea, Iran etc.

    In my opinion, as gun owners we should concentrate on serious threats to our liberties. This is not one of them.
  6. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,703
    Location:
    NE Ar. W. of Black River
    Newshooter, maybe you should look at some of the gun banners websites on this Treaty. They believe the provisions in the Treaty will disarm America and you can bet this administration will push every provision that would disarm the citizens of America. They will start with the registration provisions. Next step, confiscation. Look at England, and Australia.

    The NRA/ILA web site points out the dangers of that treaty.
  7. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    15,052
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    UN agendas for the elimination of private ownership of firearms are disguised as calls for international arms control to stem the flow of illicit military weapons. They say a picture is worth a thousand words! Does this look like a military weapon? The UN's signature piece of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel. Donated by Luxembourg ten years ago, this piece was created by the Swede Fredrik Reuterswärd and is called 'Non-Violence'.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Mar 25, 2010
  8. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    Get. US. Out.

    I'm an American. Not a UNian.:mad:
    They have no laws that pertain to me.

    I do like their shiney blue helmets though.;)
  9. CMfromIL

    CMfromIL New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    IL
    Actually, it only points out the possible danger of international treaties. It doesn't specifically address this particular treaty as being any more OR less dangerous than numerous others that have come and gone.

    As I said in my post, IMHO I don't see this going anywhere fast. All participating nations are required to be 100% on board. There are 152 nations represented including several active in arms trading. To accept would be cutting their own throat.

    Its been written as a showpiece "Oh look we are tough on guns" without any actual hope of passage.

    As a gun owner, I think we should concentrate on legislation that has an actual chance of passage. This treaty does not.
  10. dge479

    dge479 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Haskell NJ
    Regardless, of what it states, there is no need at all for a treaty with anybody at all for what goes on in the boarders of our country.
    we do not need them to tell us what we can/cant do, buy shoot reload or trade with other nations. and this does not end with guns, these people need stay out of all of our affairs, I would like to see them out of this country and us out of them. they have no place in our affairs at all in any way.
  11. deen_ad

    deen_ad New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Problem is that Obama can use his "emergency powers" to sign any treaty WITHOUT Congressional approval. And Clinton has already stated they the U.S. WILL support an arms treaty. You can bet that the Gov. will use a treaty in any way they can to register, limit, or confiscate guns. Look whats happening with Mexico after OB signed an arms treaty while "visiting" there. Gun shows are being blamed for RPGs and automatic weapons in Mexico. Gun owners are being "visited" by BATF agents to ask about what weapons they have just because they live close to the border.
  12. TimeTraveler

    TimeTraveler New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    14
    I will add the following fact:

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/s...s/treaties.htm


    Article VI of the Constitution is VERY clear on this.
    Quote:
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Quote:
    HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

    1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
    2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

    3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

    "This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17


    TT
  13. lentz

    lentz Former Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I agree with you 100%.And I hate Iran,But shouldn't Iran feel the same way about their nuclear program?
    JUST A QUESTION:)
  14. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,125
    Billary is anti-gun, but this treaty thing is a myth. Hasn't materialized - yet, and even if it did, as the guy above stated, it does not in any way have an authority over the US Constitution. Laws of self-preservation overrides the laws of obligation in others.

    My best advice - vote for anyone but the Democrats any chance you get.
  15. JLA

    JLA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    18,236
    Location:
    Heart Of Texas
    even if something like this does come into effect I hope they are prepared to pry the weapons from lots and lots of cold dead hands over lots and lots of their own cold dead bodies. I can think of about 100 people personally, Myself included, that will absolutely not willingly give up their guns to a tryant government. no matter what lunatic is in charge. I can see such an attempt being the cause of a full scale uprising that would probably cast a huge shadow over the civil war itself. I pray it never comes to this. I pray these bleeding heart libs come to their senses and leave well enough alone, but i fear they do not possess the sense to...
  16. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    15,052
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    I would like to add one more thing to this discussion: Since when has the Constitution ever stopped a determined Demoncrat (Socialist)?
  17. lentz

    lentz Former Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Absolutely and in answer to cnfromil's post,nothing obama has done is LEGAL thus far.
    IMO!
  18. JLA

    JLA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    18,236
    Location:
    Heart Of Texas
    But you have to ask yourself honestly... Does 'Legal' or 'Illegal'really mean anything to the HNIC???
  19. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,125
    No it does not mean anything.

    With all due respect to whatever politicians or past presidents you guys liked, Richard Nixon said he wasn't a crook. It was pretty obvious he was behind the Watergate burglary.

    Or take Bill Clinton. His Assault Weapons Ban technically was unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms does not say WHICH arms you can and can't keep and/or own. It just says we have a right to keep and bear arms. Arms is traditionally thought of as "firearms." Now taking away certain ones all together would be infringing upon the 2nd amendment. The even more boneheaded part of it was that it really did nothing with regards to preventing crime. And many of the supporters had no clue what constituted an "assault weapon," nor did they even know what they were banning. More or less, it was "this gun looks scary and looks like an M16 or an AK47 so let's put it on the banned guns list."

    People in the government have this illusion that they are above the law. Like Ollie North. The man should have gone to jail over the Iran-Contra scandal. Now he's got his own show. Bill Clinton should have gone to jail for lying to a Federal Grand Jury over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Never happened. Or J. Edgar Hoover. He was spying on many people including American citizens.
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2010
  20. JLA

    JLA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    18,236
    Location:
    Heart Of Texas
    fantastic point hogger;)
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Does Anybody Know If It's Legal Sep 22, 2010
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum CARRYING A FIREARM IN AN OPEN-CARRY STATE DOES NOT CREATE REASONABLE SUSPICION Mar 19, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Texas Does it Again. Feb 25, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Shooting at school that doesn't fit their agenda Feb 3, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Texas Doesn't Mess Around Jan 17, 2013