Why are people scared of the UN?

**tes151** · March 7th, 2009, 04:06 PM

Every now and then I read something about the UN going to try to do away with out 2A rights. Since the USA is a souvereign nation with its own constitution ( which overrules the UN ), why does anyone believe such a thing could even happen? If Hillary agrees with some crap the UN thinks is a good idea, what does that have to do with us, we the people? Am I missing something here? As far as I know, I'm bound by the US constitution, not foreign laws. Personally, I think the UN is really insignificant anymore.

**imperialism2024** · March 7th, 2009, 04:17 PM

Because people are scared of everything. It's the fuel of politics in America.

**Philbert** · March 7th, 2009, 04:46 PM

The UN is a place where countries try to agree on things. It's not inconceivable that anti-freedom interests would use that forum to pressure the US and other free countries into agreeing to give up gun rights. Just like certain countries in the UN are trying to get people to abandon the principles of free speech for the "protection" of religion.

But ultimately, you're right, it's the US politicians who will decide on these matters. The UN just gives someone like Obama or Clinton another reason to side with anti gun freedom allies. The idea of blue-helmeted troops arriving to take your guns is pretty out there.

**tl_3237** · March 7th, 2009, 05:35 PM

IMO - Many were/are concerned with the UN being able to eliminate our 2A rights because of Article VI of the Constitution:

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.

Before Heller the issue of individual vs. collective 2A rights was undefined. The concern was/is that Congress could, at some point, enter into a treaty through the UN that stripped away individual 2A rights. Even with strong state 2A constitutional rights, such as Pa’s, a treaty would nullify all such state level protections per Article VI.

Post Heller that risk is somewhat diminished since any such treaty would arguably run afoul of the US Constitution's 2A as now defined and, in theory, Congress could not legally ratify such a treaty. Unfortunately Heller never addressed the ‘not infringed’ clause so a treaty that would put onerous procedures and processes to own individual firearms could conceivably be implemented. I have no illusions that SCOTUS, especially with O appointees, would be able to find a way for an anti-2A treaty to be adjudicated constitutional.

The UN is well-known for anti-gun policies and American anti-gun organizations have been espousing the adoption of several anti-gun UN proposed treaties. If adopted and once past the US 2A hurdle, then all state laws to the contrary are rendered null and void.

The President has the power to make treaties with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate.

**Legion_Prime** · March 7th, 2009, 05:40 PM

Afraid of the UN? Fuck that shit, everyone I know wants to kick those cocksuckers out and send them back to Europe.

**Philbert** · March 7th, 2009, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Legion_Prime

Afraid of the UN? Fuck that shit, everyone I know wants to kick those cocksuckers out and send them back to Europe.

Back to Europe? It's always been here. The US is a founder member.

**Brick** · March 7th, 2009, 06:29 PM

I don't think it's really a matter of being "afraid" of the UN. The problem is that if we enter into a treaty with the UN or anyone else, once the treaty is approved by the Senate, it becomes a U.S. law.

So if the U.S. agrees to the Mine Warfare Treaty, it becomes illegal for the U.S. to use land mines anywhere (even though all of our minefields including "point minefields" are documented and recorded and only installed under authority from the higher chain of command).

I haven't read the current version of the "Small Arms Limitations" treaty (?) so admittedly I don't know it's real provisions. But, lets suppose the treaty calls for the national registration of all privately own firearms, once it is signed by the Pres (or Sec'y of Sate) and accepted by the Senate, national registration becomes a requirement of U.S. law. And you can't object to it. Your only hope would be getting the Senate to disapprove the treaty.

**jt0311** · March 7th, 2009, 10:35 PM

i think the reason people are scared of the UN is because if the government decides to confiscate guns they are the force that would be called upon to do it . when i was in the military i discussed this with a couple of people.

say your a marine and your told to go to your dads house and ordered to take his guns. i'll tell you right now the command structure is going to breakdown. but if your from germany or france you won't have a problem taking this guys guns. your just doing your job.

I personally don't think this will happen in our lifetime on a national scale. the politicians that would have to enact it would be commiting political suicide(you thought "gun crime" was bad before). i do think it is possible in a catastrophe situation like katrina. but you can't dismiss this possibility.if our guns are taken it will be "death by a thousand cuts" and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. thats why we have to scrape and grind to keep the rights we have now. i'm not fighting for MY gun rights. i'm fighting for my children and grandchildrens gun rights. take a look what's happened in great britain and the erosion of gun rights.

**son of the revolution** · March 7th, 2009, 11:26 PM

First they have to get around this

H.R. 5013, the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act,"

Its now law , precisely to prevent another Katrina type seizure