UN Attempted Encroachment on 2A Rights

longlane · June 7, 2011, 08:17 PM

The following link leads to Larry Bell's recent Forbes article on the United Nation's (UN) attempt to reduce if not remove our (US) second amendment rights: http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/20...rs-up-in-arms/

With the ongoing national and international anti-gun environment, what do folks think?

Is this as Bell asserts a national sovereignty issue and therefore larger than 2A?

Is this the dreaded perfect storm used to stir donations by the NRA?

I'll say that I don't think that this has a very good chance of passing our senate, and, if it does, I don't see things going well for those elected officials involved should they seek re-election. However, I don't think that fans of the constitution and/or the 2A can ignore this UN proposition.

If anyone has any additional insights re: this UN action, please share it here. I'd most appreciate hearing from anyone who's had a chance to talk with their senator about this proposal. I plan to email and call my senator re: my concerns. I urge others to do the same.

I'll post any add'l info as I have it.

Micahweeks · June 7, 2011, 08:40 PM

The fatal flaw is that U.N. resolutions do not preempt U.S. law or the local laws of any other member nation. That is glaringly apparent when considering the number of member nations in gross violation of the resolutions passed by the Human Rights Council. I think it's alarmism. Hell, it took them a month to decide to act in Libya in the middle of a wholesale slaughter. I think the author gives the U.N. too much credit.

**Mike Irwin** · June 7, 2011, 08:54 PM

And even IF this were ratified by the Senate and the US became part and parcel to it, does anyone really think that there would be a ghost of a hope of passing the kinds of restrictions that are hypothesized on the first page of the article?

And even if the United States does become a party to the treaty, what recourse does the United Nations have if the US fails to pass the restrictions that are supposedly required of it?

Pretty much none, really, considering that the United States provides the lion's share of UN funding.

This is the most recent that I could put my hands on easily...

"According to the U.S. State Department:

In 2001, the U.S. paid $612 million toward the operating budget, $716 million toward peacekeeping and $2.2 billion toward voluntary contributions.

In the normal operating budget, the U.S. covered 22% of the budget. Other big contributors: Japan (19.6%), Germany (9.8%), France (6.5%), the U.K. (5.6%), Italy (5.1%), Canada (2.6%) and Spain (2.5%)."

Japan's contributions, I suspect, are WAY down the last couple of years.

Twinsig · June 7, 2011, 08:56 PM

ditto on alarm-ism, BUT, if the situation requires us to give up our guns and ammo....give up the ammo first.

TeamSinglestack · June 7, 2011, 08:56 PM

Quote:

With the ongoing national and international anti-gun environment, what do folks think?

Individual rights fall under the jurisdiction of the United States constitution, and can only be changed by changing the constitution.

The day our politicians think they can deny our constitutional rights to appease the U.N., or any other foreign entity, will be the first day of their eventual down fall.

GoOfY-FoOt · June 7, 2011, 08:58 PM

Quote:

BUT, if the situation requires us to give up our guns and ammo....give up the ammo first.

Definitely, but I am only giving them the projectiles, one at a time...

kozak6 · June 8, 2011, 03:00 AM

This is silly. It's not even good fearmongering. Nothing is going to happen.

Gun control is too volatile an issue to approach in recent times. Consider the outcry when Obama suggested some "common sense" gun control measures.

Trying to sneak something like this past just doesn't work.

And all of this "cold dead hands" business really seems silly in the face of a nonexistent threat.

Micahweeks · June 8, 2011, 05:06 AM

Agreed, kozak. I call it alarmism with a side of grandstanding.

Twinsig · June 8, 2011, 05:45 AM

It seems the leftys want to stir everyone up, their own blind followers will rally against anyone who believes 2A, and the rest of us (some) get all riled-up. Its one of their favorite plays in the book.

Double Naught Spy · June 8, 2011, 05:49 AM

Reposted bunk yet again. Not true and not happening. Too bad Forbes's blogger is so far behind the times.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...ns+gun+control

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...ns+gun+control

thallub · June 8, 2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Reposted bunk yet again. Not true and not happening. Forbes's blogger is so far behind the times.

Exactly.
Yesterday and this a.m. folks posted this stuff is all over the web. It's all distortions and lies: It's been debunked thousands of times. Too bad that Forbes posted such trash. i'll call Forbes today and cancel my subscription.

BTW: There is a UN Resolution that states the UN will not interfere with the gun rights of member countries.

Quote:

UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…

Al Norris · June 8, 2011, 07:45 AM

Let's loosen those tin foil hats, folks.

Closed.

June 7, 2011, 08:17 PM	#1
longlane Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 162	UN Attempted Encroachment on 2A Rights The following link leads to Larry Bell's recent Forbes article on the United Nation's (UN) attempt to reduce if not remove our (US) second amendment rights: http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/20...rs-up-in-arms/ With the ongoing national and international anti-gun environment, what do folks think? Is this as Bell asserts a national sovereignty issue and therefore larger than 2A? Is this the dreaded perfect storm used to stir donations by the NRA? I'll say that I don't think that this has a very good chance of passing our senate, and, if it does, I don't see things going well for those elected officials involved should they seek re-election. However, I don't think that fans of the constitution and/or the 2A can ignore this UN proposition. If anyone has any additional insights re: this UN action, please share it here. I'd most appreciate hearing from anyone who's had a chance to talk with their senator about this proposal. I plan to email and call my senator re: my concerns. I urge others to do the same. I'll post any add'l info as I have it. __________________ In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. -T.W. Last edited by longlane; June 7, 2011 at 08:21 PM. Reason: fix typo

June 7, 2011, 08:54 PM	#3
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,381	And even IF this were ratified by the Senate and the US became part and parcel to it, does anyone really think that there would be a ghost of a hope of passing the kinds of restrictions that are hypothesized on the first page of the article? And even if the United States does become a party to the treaty, what recourse does the United Nations have if the US fails to pass the restrictions that are supposedly required of it? Pretty much none, really, considering that the United States provides the lion's share of UN funding. This is the most recent that I could put my hands on easily... "According to the U.S. State Department: In 2001, the U.S. paid $612 million toward the operating budget, $716 million toward peacekeeping and $2.2 billion toward voluntary contributions. In the normal operating budget, the U.S. covered 22% of the budget. Other big contributors: Japan (19.6%), Germany (9.8%), France (6.5%), the U.K. (5.6%), Italy (5.1%), Canada (2.6%) and Spain (2.5%)." Japan's contributions, I suspect, are WAY down the last couple of years. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

June 7, 2011, 08:56 PM	#4
Twinsig Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2009 Location: East Alabama Posts: 235	ditto on alarm-ism, BUT, if the situation requires us to give up our guns and ammo....give up the ammo first. __________________ I also have Fire Extinguishers, hope I never need those either.

June 8, 2011, 05:45 AM	#9
Twinsig Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2009 Location: East Alabama Posts: 235	It seems the leftys want to stir everyone up, their own blind followers will rally against anyone who believes 2A, and the rest of us (some) get all riled-up. Its one of their favorite plays in the book. __________________ I also have Fire Extinguishers, hope I never need those either.

June 8, 2011, 05:49 AM	#10
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX Posts: 12,717	Reposted bunk yet again. Not true and not happening. Too bad Forbes's blogger is so far behind the times. http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...ns+gun+control http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...ns+gun+control __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

June 7, 2011, 08:40 PM	#2
Micahweeks Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2009 Location: North Mississippi Posts: 854	The fatal flaw is that U.N. resolutions do not preempt U.S. law or the local laws of any other member nation. That is glaringly apparent when considering the number of member nations in gross violation of the resolutions passed by the Human Rights Council. I think it's alarmism. Hell, it took them a month to decide to act in Libya in the middle of a wholesale slaughter. I think the author gives the U.N. too much credit.

June 8, 2011, 03:00 AM	#7
kozak6 Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2005 Location: AZ Posts: 3,113	This is silly. It's not even good fearmongering. Nothing is going to happen. Gun control is too volatile an issue to approach in recent times. Consider the outcry when Obama suggested some "common sense" gun control measures. Trying to sneak something like this past just doesn't work. And all of this "cold dead hands" business really seems silly in the face of a nonexistent threat.

June 8, 2011, 05:06 AM	#8
Micahweeks Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2009 Location: North Mississippi Posts: 854	Agreed, kozak. I call it alarmism with a side of grandstanding.

June 8, 2011, 07:45 AM	#12
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Let's loosen those tin foil hats, folks. Closed.