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

NOT wearing a tinfoil hat and NOT blocking every move to the extent possible results in passage of obscenities such as the Gun Control Acts of 1927, '34, '38, '68, '86 and '94.

But since we've never actually HAD oppressive gun control laws enacted in this country I guess I don't need to worry about them.

^ This. We should be forever vigilant. They may not take OUR guns, but neither do we want to give the Feinsteins of the world any hope they'll take our childrens' or our grandchildrens' guns, either.
 
I was kinda skeptical about gun control in Obama's second term, but restarting that UN thing does make me very nervous. I have a feeling the end result will be less bad than it could be, but I think there is cause for concern.
 
I was kinda skeptical about gun control in Obama's second term, but restarting that UN thing does make me very nervous. I have a feeling the end result will be less bad than it could be, but I think there is cause for concern.
Now is the best time to push through crap that you can't do when the opposition is motivated.

People are exhausted politically (more like !@#$ing tired of this crap). The NRA is going have a much harder time mustering resources now than they would have a month ago.
 
I guess that makes me a 1% but not financially.

That's actually the sad irony here, because I suspect that only the top 1% (financially) will be left alone just as it is now in places like NY and DC when it comes to issuing licenses... I guess you only have the right of self protection if you're wealthy enough...
 
Link this UN initiative with the potential changes in the the supreme court and I see a way "watered down" arms treaty suddenly ursurps the second amendment. [tinfoil]
 
I see a way "watered down" arms treaty suddenly ursurps the second amendment.
The real issue here isn't that complex of conspiratorial - the question is whether they can get 2/3rds in the Senate? It is far easier for them to do that with the coming Senate than it is with the current or many prior.

If they can get 2/3rds in the Senate then all they have to do is claim that no new laws are required and that all enforcement of the treaty can be accomplished with existing regulatory powers of the ATF (whether or not that is actually true).

At that point, Congress can stop it by de-funding specific action of the ATF enforcement (as they have and do frequently - there are a number of regulatory powers of ATF that Congress routinely de-funds), but that protection is weak and largely symbolic unless Congress goes further and de-funds the entire agency.
 
Last edited:
The real issue here isn't that complex of conspiratorial - the question is whether they can get 2/3rds in the Senate? It is far easier for them to do that with the coming Senate than it is with the current or many prior.

If they can get 2/3rds in the Senate then all they have to do is claim that no new laws are required and that all enforcement of the treaty can be accomplished with existing regulatory powers of the ATF (whether or not that is actually true).

At that point, Congress can stop it by de-funding specific action of the ATF enforcement (as they have and do frequently - there are a number of regulatory powers of ATF that Congress routinely de-funds), but that protection is weak and largely symbolic unless Congress goes further and de-funds the entire agency.

Why edit the quotation?
 
Why edit the quotation?
I didn't intend to leave the foilhat or the last sentence - my point was that it does not need to "usurp," but rather just get 2/3rds of the Senate. No violation of protocol required - just willful ignorance of the Constitution. (I suppose you could call that usurping too...)

Then we are forced to take the long march to the courts where we find mainly lack of foes and few friends.
 
Last edited:
And once in place it would be much easier to make a few 'corrections' in the language to significantly impact 2A.

After all, who really reads these bills anyways? We know they didn't read the HC law before passing it.
 
This thread reminds me of a really cool "target" I found accidentally the other day while shopping some gun accessory site. It was a blue spandex type material with the UN logo on it that was designed to stretch over any type of hardhat to resemble the blue helmets for target practice. Now I wish I had bookmarked that page for those who are bored with regular paper targets.
 
This thread reminds me of a really cool "target" I found accidentally the other day while shopping some gun accessory site. It was a blue spandex type material with the UN logo on it that was designed to stretch over any type of hardhat to resemble the blue helmets for target practice. Now I wish I had bookmarked that page for those who are bored with regular paper targets.

20942_0.jpg


Google "helmet cover un" and you'll find about 16 trillion sites selling them.
 
If they came and tried to take my guns I can promise that shots will be fired and blood will be spilled because the only way they would take my guns is if I was dead

- - - Updated - - -

and anyone in the US armed forces that would support this "IF" it ever happened and helped enforce this is anti-America and should be ashamed of calling his or herself and American
 
There's a lot of anger here (understandably) but I'll just leave this right here: in MA, some licensing authorities do look at the interwebs when processing LTC applications. If they can ever place a name to a handle, well...

Decide what you will or won't do in a confiscation situation, prepare for it, and keep your mouth shut about it whatever you decide.
 
The timing of the release of this latest news is what should be worth noting. He's making a statement.

It is an "In your face!" type of thing.

Now is the best time to push through crap that you can't do when the opposition is motivated.

People are exhausted politically (more like !@#$ing tired of this crap). The NRA is going have a much harder time mustering resources now than they would have a month ago.

So, a month ago, were they so sure that this was not going to happen, that they never bothered to push for helping pro-gun candidates, and against anti-gun candidates? I never heard much from them this election cycle, and even less from GOAL. Did they all give up?
 
It is an "In your face!" type of thing.



So, a month ago, were they so sure that this was not going to happen, that they never bothered to push for helping pro-gun candidates, and against anti-gun candidates? I never heard much from them this election cycle, and even less from GOAL. Did they all give up?

GOAL did lots.

Did you not see GOAL's Romney love fest on their site?

Plus it's hunting season soon.
 
Now is the best time to push through crap that you can't do when the opposition is motivated.

People are exhausted politically (more like !@#$ing tired of this crap). The NRA is going have a much harder time mustering resources now than they would have a month ago.

I'm sure the nra will find a compromise to protect our hunting rights.
 
I think it's the president and 2/3rds of the Senate to ratify a treaty , no ? What's the score in the senate now ? 55 + Joe Biden , right ? So 11 Republican Senators out of 45 are all that are protecting us from the UN.

I'm not feeling real good about that.

That whole " May not violate the Constitution " clause doesn't reassure me much either , since we now have a government that feel it's sort of a flexible , Living document sort of set of suggestions at this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom