Breaking my silence for a good reason: our world may just end in 2012 (UN Ban/Grab)

[tes151]

Enough said.......

[thefirstndsecond]

No they may not directly take your guns, but don't you think arms manufacturers sell out of this country?

Do you think this will hurt their business?

[Connal]

It will hurt all the manufacturers of fire arms. The ones outside of the US that we import, and the ones inside the US that they export. But, when does the govt worry about the economy?

Personally, if they try to take any of my guns. The old bumper sticker comes to mind. From my cold dead hands.

[MDJschool]

I have no idea from where the above sort of "from my cold dead hands" sentiments come.

The US needs no treaty to take your guns...to control when, where, why, how, and if you're armed. They have been disarming you for what is quite clearly at least 100 years, to not even speak of the wrongs before that.

UFA, NFA, GCA, FOPA, AWB. To speak most directly, post 86 machine guns: banned. Did that take a treaty? Can't a NICS or PICS check at a whim temporarily or permanently prevent you from acquiring arms from a willing storeowner? A patchwork of schools set 1000 feet part could disarm a state except maybe for those person who begged for a permission. Your arm is assembled with foreign parts -- a no go. Isn't sporting and has too wide of a barrel? A no go. Your rounds are incendiary? No.

Some of us weren't alive for the NFA but the NFA harms us today; even if the gun you already have isn't taken, it's a gun you may now never have, and I cannot see the difference.

All of this, without a treaty. Forget the UN, our government is our own worst enemy.

[Curmudgeon]

I have no idea from where the above sort of "from my cold dead hands" sentiments come.

The US needs no treaty to take your guns...to control when, where, why, how, and if you're armed. They have been disarming you for what is quite clearly at least 100 years, to not even speak of the wrongs before that.

UFA, NFA, GCA, FOPA, AWB. To speak most directly, post 86 machine guns: banned. Did that take a treaty? Can't a NICS or PICS check at a whim temporarily or permanently prevent you from acquiring arms from a willing storeowner? A patchwork of schools set 1000 feet part could disarm a state except maybe for those person who begged for a permission. Your arm is assembled with foreign parts -- a no go. Isn't sporting and has too wide of a barrel? A no go. Your rounds are incendiary? No.

Some of us weren't alive for the NFA but the NFA harms us today; even if the gun you already have isn't taken, it's a gun you may now never have, and I cannot see the difference.

All of this, without a treaty. Forget the UN, our government is our own worst enemy.

...sig worthy!

[Chazman321]

I hope the UN has the common sense not to send the French, they surrender too easily... No fun in that... In fact, I don't think anyone would come... If I have nothing to lose, does that make me less dangerous or more dangerous? The UN would almost certainly have to ask US forces to do it, and with us currently fighting 2 wars and with North Korea being pissy all the time, I doubt that would happen. And I don't think our own military is going to pull the trigger on a US citizen protecting their constitutional rights. Can they sign the treaty? Sure. I can sign a treaty too, doesn't mean anything... Then they can go right back to the UN and say "They said no, and really, really meant it"... lol

-Chaz

[leeam]

I don't understand why everyone thinks that a treaty signed by the president or secretary of state is unenforceable. Sure you're right in terms of what they're allowed according to the constitution, but since when does the government follow that? How much other unconstitutional crap with respect to firearms have they allowed? A lot has already been named in this thread. What about executive orders and regulations/requirements made by agencies that are in effect laws, but have never gone through congress? My point is that just because a treaty isn't valid doesn't mean the gov't won't try to enforce it.

[thebearpack]

I doubt politicians would be so stupid as to try an all-out ban or gun grab. Personally I'd worry more about crushing taxes on ammunition or bullets or powder. Or maybe a yearly "fee" required per firearm. Or another capacity limit sort of law. The idea would be to make ownership legal but impractical.

The death of private firearms ownership won't come all at once. It will be done in 1000 slices, all in the name of "common sense".

[ungawa]

Jesus Christ.. Not this shit again..

No treaty made after June 21, 1788 can supersede the Constitution, and since our right to Keep and Bear is constitutionally protected - ...

How's that working out?

They don't give a shit about the Constitution. They only refer to it when it suits their purposes. It's kind of like the Flag.

[whoshisface]

SCOTUS would turn this on it's head. This has been discussed 1000 times here. The treaty could never happen and it would be unenforcable. the vast majorit of congressmen would run the other way.