The U.N. is coming for your guns - Update #402

20 PAWS said:
You do know that Snopes isn't an organization right ? It's a husband & wife team who are Democrat Liberals.

You do realize that Factcheck.org came to the same realization as Snopes and was used by the previous administration to refute attacks by the Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck
Click to expand...
The NRA has done a 180 on how likely this thing was to pass in the past few months. Whatever prior conclusions of foil hattery may have been made, the situation has clearly changed WRT UN willingness to put their finger in our eyes.

This should not have been a surprise as the UN is always trying to do this which is why it should be dismantled.

The mistake was dismissing the threat of this years ago when it came up.
 
This is Agent Weebs reporting from Checkpoint 603. Sitrep to follow:

No Blue Helmet activity at this location.

All quiet.

Possible perimeter breach 07/15/12 at 1100 hours ... further investigation and visual ID revealed that intruder was Squirrel (Gray).

Situation normal. Supplies manageable, except for shortage of Item #4576; Paper, Toilet, 3-Ply. Request resupply. Preferably via air.

Weebles out.
 
Mr Weebles said:
This is Agent Weebs reporting from Checkpoint 603. Sitrep to follow:

No Blue Helmet activity at this location.

All quiet.

Possible perimeter breach 07/15/12 at 1100 hours ... further investigation and visual ID revealed that intruder was Squirrel (Gray).

Situation normal. Supplies manageable, except for shortage of Item #4576; Paper, Toilet, 3-Ply. Request resupply. Preferably via air.

Weebles out.
Click to expand...

Better check that squirrel again. Could be an infiltrator.

Reference recent thread on robotic flying cat.

helicopter_cat.jpg
 
Mr Weebles said:
This is Agent Weebs reporting from Checkpoint 603. Sitrep to follow:

No Blue Helmet activity at this location.

All quiet.

Possible perimeter breach 07/15/12 at 1100 hours ... further investigation and visual ID revealed that intruder was Squirrel (Gray).

Situation normal. Supplies manageable, except for shortage of Item #4576; Paper, Toilet, 3-Ply. Request resupply. Preferably via air.

Weebles out.
Click to expand...


Reminds me of this....

(Credit to: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/07/subject-toilet-paper.html)


Transcript

U.S.S. SKIPJACK

84/18/S36-1
11 June, 1943

From: The Commanding Officer.
To: Supply Officer, Navy Yard, Mare Island, California.
Via: Commander Submarines, Southwest Pacific.

Subject: Toilet Paper.

Reference: (a) (6048) USS HOLLAND (5184) USS SKIPJACK Reqn. 70-42 of July 30, 1941; (b) SO NYMI cancelled invoice No. 272836.

Enclosure: (A) Copy of cancelled invoice; (B) Sample of material requested.

1. This vessel submitted a requisition for 150 rolls of toilet paper on July 30, 1941, to USS HOLLAND. The material was ordered by HOLLAND from Supply Officer, Navy Yard, Mare Island, for delivery to USS SKIPJACK.

2. The Supply Officer, Navy Yard, Mare Island, on November 26, 1941, cancelled Mare Island Invoice No. 272836 with the stamped notation "cancelled — cannot identify". This cancelled invoice was received by SKIPJACK on June 19, 1942.

3. During the 11-1/2 months elapsing from the time of ordering the toilet paper and the present date the SKIPJACK personnel, despite their best efforts to await delivery of subject material have been unable to wait on numerous occasions, and the situation is now quite acute, especially during depth charge attacks by the "back-stabbers".

4. Enclosure (B) is a sample of the desired material provided for the information of the Supply Officer, Navy Yard, Mare Island. The Commanding Officer, USS SKIPJACK cannot help but wonder what is being used by Mare Island in place of this unidentifiable material, one well known to this command.

5. SKIPJACK personnel during this period has become accustomed to the use of "Ersatz" the vast amount of incoming non-essential paper work, and in so doing felt that the wish of the Bureau of Ships for "reduction of paper work" is being complied with thus effectually "killing two birds with one stone".

6. It is believed by this Command that the stamped notation "cannot identify" was possibly an error, and this is simply a case of shortage of strategic war material, the SKIPJACK probably being low on the priority list.

7. In order to cooperate in war effort at small local sacrifice, the SKIPJACK desires no further action to be taken until the end of current war which has created a situation aptly described as "War is Hell".

J.W. COE
 
Observations from the conference:

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16104977,00.html

The US vehemently rejects any proposal to put ammunition under any restrictions, likewise equipment used by the police and security forces...

Russia and the US have been joined in their opposition to stricter regulations...

Doesn't sound like we are "on board" with treaty provisions.

And from the link I posted earlier:

Without a stunning change in positions by one side or the other, we are forced to accept that this conference will in all likelihood end in failure.

Not a very up-beat assessment by a pro-treaty observer. He also seems to ding the US by suggesting that next time the conference be held in any number of other places where a conference "properly organised and based on serious rules of procedure" could get things done.

On another note, this is not a "small arms" treaty, it is a "conventional arms" treaty (not nuclear or chemical, which already have treaties). The proposed scope includes tanks, military vehicles, artillery systems, military aircraft, military helicopters, naval vessels, missile and missile systems, small arms, light weapons, ammunition/military munitions, and parts for the aforementioned.
 
Sounds like some of the other world powers don't think this is top bright either.

Have a good time getting mine, if this ever comes to pass and the blue hats or local LEO militia come a looking for dem fully loaded semi automatic weapons in the arsenal.
 
I for one welcome our blue helmeted overlords, globalization for all! Spread the wealth!

I maybe should find it odd the UN was once organized to stop governments who endorse policies like the ones they're proposing now. Then again, this is what happens eventually to every organization with power. It's been about 75 years, that sounds about right.
 
Hey, how'd we get a long gun sales reporting mandate for FFL's on the SW border? Reversal of immigration laws/implementation of dream act for under 30 illegals? Welfare work requirements? Drones killing U.S. citizens? Obamacare? Fast & Furious?

All backdoored.

I'm not worrying though, I'm sure the Senate/Congress will stop him if he tries to implement anything. [rolleyes]
 
MichaelJR said:
You raise a good point here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't take any comfort in this or any Senate we are likely to see in our lifetimes being rock solid on turning this down. Show me a Senate that would be willing to impeach the president for signing anything violating the BoR and then maybe I will tell you there is no serious threat to our liberties in this process.
 
When Hillary signs the treaty, there will be only two ways to beat the Treaty and its threat of UN imposed gun control – take back the Senate or beat Obama.

The fact that the NRA has succeeded in getting fifty-eight Senators to sign on opposing the Treaty is irrelevant. If Harry Reid won’t bring it up on the floor, it won’t get a vote. And, in the absence of Senate disapproval or a renunciation by the president, the United States is bound by the Treaty under the provisions of the Vienna Convention which we have both signed and ratified.

Nor will the Second Amendment offer us any protection. The Supremacy Clause in our own Constitution provides that treaties are the “law of the land” akin to a constitutional provision.

The answer is to beat Obama and give the Republicans a majority in the Senate. Either will suffice to kill the Treaty. A Republican majority leader would certainly bring the Treaty up for a vote and it would certainly be defeated, ending its power over the U.S. and a President Romney will doubtless renounce the Treaty on taking office.

Voting for anti-gun control Democratic candidates for Senate won’t work. Their leader would refuse to bring the Treaty up for a vote, regardless of how his members felt.
 
Acujeff said:
.....

The answer is to beat Obama and give the Republicans a majority in the Senate. Either will suffice to kill the Treaty. A Republican majority leader would certainly bring the Treaty up for a vote and it would certainly be defeated, ending its power over the U.S. and a President Romney will doubtless renounce the Treaty on taking office.

........
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

OMG. Can't.stop.laughing.

Romney ain't doing shit. He supported the AWB ban in 94 and well...we all know his legacy here in MA.
 
Son of Sasquatch said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

OMG. Can't.stop.laughing.

Romney ain't doing shit. He supported the AWB ban in 94 and well...we all know his legacy here in MA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Why change whats working so well for the country at this point. Lets just give Odumbo 4 more[frown]
 
gene said:
Yeah, Why change whats working so well for the country at this point. Lets just give Odumbo 4 more[frown]
Click to expand...

Mittens doesn't have a chance in hell. He didn't win against McCain who lost against Obama. Romney couldn't even effectively organize his primary delegates.

I'm a realist.
 
Acujeff said:
When Hillary signs the treaty, there will be only two ways to beat the Treaty and its threat of UN imposed gun control – take back the Senate or beat Obama.

The fact that the NRA has succeeded in getting fifty-eight Senators to sign on opposing the Treaty is irrelevant. If Harry Reid won’t bring it up on the floor, it won’t get a vote. And, in the absence of Senate disapproval or a renunciation by the president, the United States is bound by the Treaty under the provisions of the Vienna Convention which we have both signed and ratified.

Nor will the Second Amendment offer us any protection. The Supremacy Clause in our own Constitution provides that treaties are the “law of the land” akin to a constitutional provision.

The answer is to beat Obama and give the Republicans a majority in the Senate. Either will suffice to kill the Treaty. A Republican majority leader would certainly bring the Treaty up for a vote and it would certainly be defeated, ending its power over the U.S. and a President Romney will doubtless renounce the Treaty on taking office.

Voting for anti-gun control Democratic candidates for Senate won’t work. Their leader would refuse to bring the Treaty up for a vote, regardless of how his members felt.
Click to expand...

This is erroneous info on how the US treaty ratification process works, but as this thread is mostly fiction it fits right in! [grin]
 
gene said:
Yeah, Why change whats working so well for the country at this point. Lets just give Odumbo 4 more[frown]
Click to expand...
Come on Gene you can do better than that. Just because someone points out Romney's numerous faults hardly means they support Obama. There is very little difference between the two when you compare illegal immigration, gun control, healthcare, and big government spending.
Romney only has one thing in his favor that makes him better than Obama, he's not Obama. Other than that most real conservatives see him for the POS he really is.
 
mx250man said:
This is erroneous info on how the US treaty ratification process works, but as this thread is mostly fiction it fits right in! [grin]
Click to expand...

Well, in fairness, our government has lately shown some latitude in it's interpretation of the Constitution and law.

So, without going so far as to say that the president or Congress would actually act against the law, still, would anyone really be shocked into a heart attack if they did?
 
Acujeff said:
Nor will the Second Amendment offer us any protection. The Supremacy Clause in our own Constitution provides that treaties are the “law of the land” akin to a constitutional provision.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it applies to UN Treaties, maybe a constitutional law expert will stop by to clarify.
 
mcb said:
I don't believe it applies to UN Treaties, maybe a constitutional law expert will stop by to clarify.
Click to expand...

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
 
mcb said:
I don't believe it applies to UN Treaties, maybe a constitutional law expert will stop by to clarify.
Click to expand...
IANACLE [wink], but this road has been traveled...

Treaties are no different than federal laws. They MUST adhere to the constitution as it is understood and interpreted by the supreme court or they are null and void.

There is no special bypass of the requirement of constitutional convention to modify our constitution via treaty. As above, a treaty is no different than a federal law.

To be fair to those who bring up this debate, the language is confusing at best and has been from day one owing to complications with ongoing treaties and negotiations as this nation was being formed. Ultimately though, the court has already spoken:

Justia.com said:
As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.
....
Controversy over the Holmes language apparently led Justice Black in Reid v. Covert to deny that the difference in language of the supremacy clause with regard to statutes and with regard to treaties was relevant to the status of treaties as inferior to the Constitution. “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result
Click to expand...
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

This topic does make for some fascinating historical reading BTW...

There are also other cases where this has come up and the answer was the same. All off that said, we get the government and courts we deserve... So caveat emptor. They will do whatever they can get away with. We decide the limit.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

What is your oldest firearm?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
726
dhaze3
D
Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Buck F
Buck F
5 shot after Maryland high school senior skip day turns violent: 'What is the world coming to?'
Replies
7
Views
257
SpaceCritter
SpaceCritter
Is this a new term? Zombie guns.
Replies
9
Views
394
hminsky
H
Missouri law being passed: If you home school, your home is now considered a school and you can't own guns
Replies
17
Views
659
Nhusa
N
Back
Top Bottom