Obama Administration to work with UN on "Small Arms Treaty"

Discussion in 'Firearms' started by Falcon15, May 26, 2011.


Page 5 of 7
  1. robin48

    robin48 Monkey+

    That makes me feel better. Thanks for the correction.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
     
    robin48, Jul 18, 2012
    #81
  2. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    That requirement was put in place so the states would all have an equal voice that would affect all of the independent states (13 at the time.) That same reasoning was behind the original requirement that the states would select their senators, since superseded by popular elections within the states. Anyway, two thirds of the states must consent, or the president cannot ratify a treaty. One more reason to take down Reid's cohorts this year.
     
    ghrit, Jul 18, 2012
    #82
    Seawolf1090 likes this.
  3. robin48

    robin48 Monkey+

    They all need to go. The Senators from my state of Tennessee, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander are in bed with Obama. Corker voted with Obama 61% of the time. And they call themselves conservatives.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
     
    robin48, Jul 18, 2012
    #83
  4. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    Part of this is a repeat of a post I made on another thread:
    ---------------------
    After SecState signs the ATT, the White House promulgates an Executive Order saying that in the interim period until the treaty is ratified, all agencies of the Executive Branch shall treat the provisions as if they have been ratified.

    If you don't believe that the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. would pull such a stunt, you have been sleeping for the last 3 1/2 years.

    On July 27th Clinton is going to sign the UN small arms control treaty.
    Then the Senate goes in a lame duck session and ratifies it ?
    Or is there an "emergency" and the Senate gets suspended ?

    They have already given plenty of evidence that they have no respect for constitutionality.
    ------------------
    The executive branch includes all Federal LEO's and the military.
    Some US military did participate in the disarmament of New Orleans after Katrina, so do not believe that all will not obey unconstitutional orders.
    The BATFE has obeyed unconstitutional orders since 1934.
     
    TwoCrows, Jul 18, 2012
    #84
    oldawg, Seawolf1090 and Brokor like this.
  5. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    The corporate government has already proven time and again that it does not follow or obey the Constitution.

    The American People remain divided and preoccupied, as well as ignorant. All that will be necessary for these illegal acts to continue is for us to do nothing. Simple.
     
    Brokor, Jul 18, 2012
    #85
  6. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    Since they have already given themselves the authority to shut down the internet and other means of communication, the first you may know about this is when the troops kick down your door at night.
     
    TwoCrows, Jul 18, 2012
    #86
  7. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Only if you live in a large City... There are NOT near enough Feds, and Military, to Knock On every door, or even roll thru 75% of the country, even if the .Gov could convince these so called "Troops" to try such a stupid thing. Just look what is happening in Syria, the .Gov only controls the cities, and the country BELONGS to the resistance. It would be the same here, if the .gov tried the same STUPID civil suppression. The word would get out, and the Resistance would build, very fast, outside the Population Centers. Rural Folks will NOT be effected, much past the Grocery & Fuel Trucks stop moving. The internet is't the only way folks can communicate... .....
     
    BTPost, Jul 19, 2012
    #87
    oldawg and Brokor like this.
  8. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    You mean like they "convinced" (aka ordered) the US Army and National Guard "try" (successfully) to disarm citizens in New Orleans after Katrina ?

    Rural folks will be much easier to isolate and disarm or kill one at a time.

    The .gov also gave themselves authority to control other means of communication.
     
    TwoCrows, Jul 19, 2012
    #88
    TheEconomist likes this.
  9. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    There was not ONE US Army Command in New Orleans that confiscated a firearm. I am not sure about National Guard Units, but NO US Army did that... the local Cops DID, a few of the State Troopers DID, and some of the Out of State LEOs DID, but No US Army Troops ever did.... You just have no idea about the numbers of Troops it would take to do, what your talking about.... There just are NOT enough of them (Feds and Cops) to even control the cities, let alone the country. It has been this way in every civil conflict, since time began.... Kings, Presidents, and Tyrants, have all tried to do what your talking about and they ALWAYS have failed.... There is a reason for that.... and it is "The Numbers".....
     
    BTPost, Jul 19, 2012
    #89
    oldawg likes this.
  10. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Yes, I wouldn't argue this too heavily myself. It's pretty cut and dry to me. Let's look at this from another angle, if not to promote some type of settlement here, then to offer another point of view...

    What we are attempting to discuss is a type of "hard kill", as opposed to a subtle method, or "soft kill". Let's say there's a biological or radiological hazard. Perhaps an outbreak of some kind queues the need for drastic measures to be taken. This would severely impact cities, but not the outlaying suburbs and countryside. We would still have people who won't be controlled by ANY size military/LEO presence. America is quite vast, so the only way this could work is for numerous impacts to occur steadily. Perhaps an EMP to curb the resistance which may spring up, too. This is all hypothetical, of course...but if I were the invading force, I would hit where it would do the most damage and offer my services to "assist and keep the peace". Not too many will fight if they are sick, hungry, cold, without communication, and in need of rescue. Now, let's say all things go according to optimal procedure --what are we left with? We will still have pockets of resistance in the outlaying areas, fronts will be drawn, and we will still have guerrilla warfare. Honestly, perhaps this is why it hasn't been done yet, who knows? I see how only an official martial law declaration and heavy military presence could keep enough pressure on to perpetuate control. The perceived enemies of the government (see also terrorists) would be kept in check with similar tactics employed in the Middle East. Almost ironic how that works, right? With time and an seemingly endless budget (notice how much it's costing us to run numerous wars already) the military can establish a fair degree of order, but there will be a price to pay. Fast forward a few months into the battle. On the government front, entire cities have been reconstructed to include cement barriers and checkpoints. Citizens are kept safe, but an occasional explosion aimed at unarmed women and children by the "terrorists" incites anger. This promotes unity within the cities, rallies all who are left to assist and "do their part". In time, just as we see in Iraq, the cities will be able to police themselves and continue living. Even though a few million have died in the catastrophes and a few hundred thousand more in battles, the cities are "safe" and "secure" with the guardians of the watch in their armored trucks passing through. Now, the guerrilla fighters will have to fight the military, law enforcement, private contractors, foreign troops, and the civilians. How does one fight against the very people they were once trying to protect? I don't know about you, but ANY civil war in this country in the modern era would be absolutely brutal.

    In every battle, it is wise to attempt to divide the enemy, create diversions and isolate the strongest element. We see all of this right now and not one shot is being fired. (soft kill)
     
    Brokor, Jul 19, 2012
    #90
    TheEconomist likes this.
  11. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    From

    http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/6317

    Ratification, however, is secondary to becoming a signatory to the treaty. Becoming a signatory carries its own obligations, which requires the U.S. to participate in the treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. That is, we are legally obligated to do nothing to counter or otherwise interfere with this treaty while ratification is being considered, regardless how unlikely the prospect of ratification might be.
    Therefore, by simply being a signatory, the Obama/Hillary anti-gun, anti-second amendment position threatens our constitutional right to possess firearms for hunting or self-defense without even appearing to be antagonistic to the U.S. Constitution.
     
    TwoCrows, Jul 20, 2012
    #91
    Brokor likes this.
  12. TheEconomist

    TheEconomist Creighton Bluejay

    Good thing the UN is still a non-binding organization. I actually worked on the small arms light weapons treaty a few years back and wrote a 93 page proposition for it. My topic focused mostly on weapons tracking in Africa but did cover who would do the policing.

    The problem lies in exactly wat BTPost was saying... "The Numbers" It would take a multinational front to enact something like this and our own Senate would have to ratify the document as well. I for one see this being completed fairly easily. Once they have our guns the scenario presented by Borkor will not be as nasty or bloody as he states. However a resistance that has the will to fight on will always find a way to cause disruption.
     
    TheEconomist, Jul 20, 2012
    #92
  13. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    An international treaty is binding and takes effect when signed, until ratified.

    A treaty signed by the member nations of the UN is an international treaty.

    This is a treaty among nations not a treaty with the UN.

    If Congress (which includes the Senate) is in recess or suspended due to war or "civil unrest" it remains in effect.
     
    TwoCrows, Jul 20, 2012
    #93
  14. Kingfish

    Kingfish Self Reliant

    I just wrote my senator. She has always voted in favor of our 2nd amendment. I hope she stays on our side. KF
     
    Kingfish, Jul 20, 2012
    #94
  15. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Retired Curmudgeonly IT Monkey Founding Member

    Lead trumps paper....... [patr]
     
    Seawolf1090, Jul 20, 2012
    #95
    Quigley_Sharps and oldawg like this.
  16. TheEconomist

    TheEconomist Creighton Bluejay

    Not if its constitutionality is in question, in which case it would be pending judicial review. We cannot simply agree to something at the UN and make it law here. Just doesn't happen. Countries break treaties ALL THE TIME.
     
    TheEconomist, Jul 20, 2012
    #96
  17. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    Until the Senate ratification, and maybe Supreme Court ruling, it will be treated as the law.

    This administration is even less interested in constitutionality than previous.

    Argue all you want, but that is how it works.

    And governments do not break treaties that they like.
     
    TwoCrows, Jul 20, 2012
    #97
  18. TheEconomist

    TheEconomist Creighton Bluejay

    I will argue all I want. I have extensive experience with UN issues.

    Article 25 of the Charter says that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter".

    However The UN cannot circumvent peremptory norms and its resolutions are subject to judicial review. Article 103 provides that in the event of conflicts with other treaty obligations, the members obligations under the Charter prevail. There is consensus that the treaty-based powers of the Security Council are limited to preemption of other treaties. Which leads us back to the fact that the UN cannot curcumvent preemtory norms. Which in this case is the Constitution of the United States.

    They DO have to undergo judicial review FIRST.

    There are only three situations in which the resolutions are considered absolute and binding:
    1. Actions in respect to threats to the peace
    2. Breaches of the peace and,
    3. Acts of aggression
    Which is all listed in Chapter VII of the charter



    http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/5/879.full

    http://untreaty.un.org/cod/repertory/art24/english/rep_supp6_vol3_art24_e.pdf


    I mean, we probably will never agree. But facts are facts
     
    TheEconomist, Jul 20, 2012
    #98
  19. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    This is NOT a UN resolution, it is an International TREATY

    Those DO have force of law.
     
    TwoCrows, Jul 20, 2012
    #99
  20. PAGUY

    PAGUY Monkey

    If and when it is put in place our Supreme Court has already ruled that our constitution trumps international treaties.
     
    PAGUY, Jul 21, 2012
    #100
    TheEconomist and Seawolf1090 like this.
Page 5 of 7
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7