Results 1 to 10 of 13
Thread: U.N. conference?
-
June 14th, 2006, 10:01 PM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
-
Levittown,
Pennsylvania
(Bucks County) - Posts
- 423
- Rep Power
- 104209
U.N. conference?
A Harrisburg radio station was talking about a conference at the U.N. in July with the aim of banning all firearms in the USA. Has anyone else heard of this or have any other info? Mike45
-
June 14th, 2006, 11:26 PM #2Originally Posted by Mike45Dan P, Founder & President, Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Purchase a Forum Subscription • Buy some PAFOA Merchandise • Help PAFOA's Search Engine Ranking
-
June 15th, 2006, 05:18 AM #3
If the UN votes on a Treaty outlawing personal handguns the US Senate must ratify it for it to become law. We already have signed a treaty that force's us to enforce in our country any other treaty we sign. So if the UN passes a gun ban treaty and a future president signs it then we have a gun ban. Or could. Just on the signature of the president. So the next time after the treaty passes that we have a liberal in office we lose our rights. The treaty could over rides the constitution. That part we are not sure of but if some Supreme Court has too many Lib's the the treaty wins over the constitution.
-
June 15th, 2006, 09:35 AM #4Originally Posted by SiobhraDan P, Founder & President, Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Purchase a Forum Subscription • Buy some PAFOA Merchandise • Help PAFOA's Search Engine Ranking
-
June 15th, 2006, 09:58 AM #5Originally Posted by danp
I understand and completely agree with your point, Dan. But, also understand that the UN can achieve its goals without requiring the US to violate/rewrite/amend the Constitution. Putting serious restrictions, licensing, registration, etc. on guns, handguns or long guns, would be a de facto ban on weapons that wouldn't necessarily violate the 2nd Amendment. It all depends on how all three branches of govt. decide to interpret the 2nd Amendment at that time. The current administration, in the form of the US's UN rep, John Bolton, has stated in-session at the UN that the US will not accept any resolutions which will infringe upon American's basic right to keep and bear arms. However, a new administration (especially a Democratic one) may not feel the same way. The UN is waiting with bated breath for the outcome of the not only mid-term elections, but the next US Presidential election. And the Executive Branch conceding to any weapons ban opens the door for the UN. Yes, the Legislative/Judicial Branches could still stop it, but it becomes an uphill battle at that point. Don't even open the door, I say.
I admit that they will have an uphill battle here, as we're the only country which has this right written into a Constitution. However, there's a reason the next meeting to discuss this issue was held on the 4th of July. It's a slap in the face to Americans, and they are symbolically attempting to convince everyone that on this important, and distinctly American holiday, our rights as Americans are less important than the will of the UN.
Although we shouldn't knee-jerk react to this, don't summarily dismiss it either. The UN, in the form of Rebecca Peters, is looking to enact a wordwide ban on weapons. It's been done in many countries in Europe, and the UN just recently pressured Australia to do the same. It wouldn't hurt for all of us to write to our respective US Senators and Representatives and make sure they hear our voices on this, as well as find out if anything is being done to prepare for the potential "attack".
Rant overLast edited by ChamberedRound; June 15th, 2006 at 10:00 AM.
-
June 15th, 2006, 10:00 AM #6
I am not a lawyer. I just gave the worse case fall-out of what's going on. If the treaty is signed and the court is mostly liberals then they could rule that it is legal because private gun ownership is not a right in the Constitution.
While it is unlikely it is possible. And it will become more fuel for a ban. As well as making it harder for other nations to get their rights back.
-
June 15th, 2006, 10:10 AM #7
My Feelings on the subject..
I'd say this is pretty self explanatory.
-
June 15th, 2006, 11:25 AM #8
Well, there will always be what the law says and what the government does anyway, that's a fact of life.
The only question that matter is:
When the bluehats show up at your door asking for your guns, what will your response be?Dan P, Founder & President, Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Purchase a Forum Subscription • Buy some PAFOA Merchandise • Help PAFOA's Search Engine Ranking
-
June 15th, 2006, 11:44 AM #9Originally Posted by danp
And by ready I mean.. bury the cache, hide the ones you need really well and tell them.... "Officer.. I dun't know nutting."
If all else fails, there's always South America.==============
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
~Samuel Adams
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
~Thomas Jefferson, 1791
-
June 15th, 2006, 06:21 PM #10
I seriously doubt that this would ever happen but if it does go ahead and try to take my guns, I DARE YA!
Bookmarks