< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms  (Read 2279 times)

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« on: July 07, 2011, 07:32:26 PM »
From the NRA's Wayne Lapierre



Dear Friend in Freedom,
The U.N. is conspiring to destroy your gun rights.
And Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are using the U.N. for their "under the radar" program for gun control in America.
 
The "Small Arms Treaty" now being negotiated at the U.N. is a TROJAN HORSE disguised as an effort to combat international gun trafficking.
In reality, it's a sinister ploy by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and foreign bureaucrats to thrust a dagger deep into the heart of our Bill of Rights!
  A recent FORBES article confirms that if passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the treaty "would almost certainly force the U.S." to:
 
  • ENACT DRACONIAN GUN LICENSING, making it next to impossible for you to purchase and own a firearm.
  • CONFISCATE and DESTROY all "unauthorized" firearms as determined by foreign bureaucrats.
  • BAN THE TRADE, SALE AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of all semi-automatic firearms.
  • ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY, opening the door to "full-scale gun confiscation" in the U.S.
You can see the FORBES article for yourself by clicking here.
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline ScottC

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Norfolk, NE
  • Posts: 33
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2011, 12:18:07 PM »
The UN is the most worthless organization on the face of the earth.

Where else do a bunch of mucky-ups from a group of 3rd world, can't-get-our-crap-together nations think they can tell countries that subsidize their very being how they should and shouldn't do things?  (Tell me, who's countries work and who's don't?  But they know better than US?)

It's got my vote for the dumbest situation on the planet.

We ought to send them all home and bulldoze the building.

(I know, you all want to know how I really feel.)

Offline bkoenig

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 3677
  • Aspiring cranky old gun nut
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2011, 07:03:29 PM »
Can't say I disagree with you there.

Offline Mark B

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Location: Northeast Nebraska
  • Posts: 100
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2011, 07:31:41 AM »
Dan, Other than belonging to the NRA or contacting our representatives, what can be done to stop this?

Offline NENick

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Posts: 661
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2011, 12:30:02 PM »
Our Constitution is the supreme law of our land.

That being said, all we have to do to protect ourselves from foreign bodies like the UN is to strengthen dependence on the Constitution… Isn’t that right?

The UN doesn’t seem to become stronger because it is actually getting stronger. I think that it just appears that way because there is a movement to make Us, and our dependence on freedom and the Constitution, weaker.


(Yay! My first post.)
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 12:36:52 PM by NENick »

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2011, 12:41:47 PM »
ScottC...

Let's start by getting Barack Obama out of the white house. Then we need to stack the deck in Congress with conservatives that will  not stand for undermining the sovereignty of this Nation.

Then we can move on to getting the USA out of the UN
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline Mark B

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Location: Northeast Nebraska
  • Posts: 100
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2011, 12:58:07 PM »
I agree with the idea that the current president needs to go. It may not be that easy, considering his efforts to keep the unions, "non-traditional" Americans, and groups that lean to the left happy and content.
The only salvation may be that Treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. But then that can be changed with enough effort and deal making.

Offline NENick

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Posts: 661
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2011, 01:20:10 PM »
The Founders were brilliant. They gave Us the tools and systems necessary to protect ourselves from just about everyone.

The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That means if Nebraska doesn’t like the Federal law, and the Constitution doesn’t authorize it, then it is Nebraska’s duty to pass a law declaring the Federal law null.

“To effectively nullify a federal law requires state action to prevent federal enforcement within the state.” - http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

“some legislators around the country have begun adding penalties – ranging from misdemeanors to felony charges – for federal agents, too.” - http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

We the people of Nebraska, tell our government that we don’t like (insert unconstitutional law) and that it needs to stand between Us and that law. Voila! We’re safe.


Example/Source: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/colorado-south-dakota-firearms-freedom-act-introduced/

Offline bkoenig

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 3677
  • Aspiring cranky old gun nut
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2011, 08:47:12 PM »
Nick,

I agree with you in principle, but in practice the Federal government has decided to effectively ignore the 10th amendment.  If the states stood up to the Feds I'm not sure what would happen. 

A-FIXER

  • Guest
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2011, 09:30:40 PM »
This is why when we VOTE.... we must FIND OUT what that person stands for and where they may go not just reelect the same clone type with all of their false promises. And being active in supporting our rights to bear arm groups.

Offline NENick

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Posts: 661
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2011, 01:20:35 PM »
Nick,

I agree with you in principle, but in practice the Federal government has decided to effectively ignore the 10th amendment.  If the states stood up to the Feds I'm not sure what would happen.

They’d first be shocked, then they’d try to resist, and then they’d take it. We are starting to learn how the system is really supposed to work (Nebraska stands between us and Federal government). They certainly aren't going to invade Nebraska... We'll probably just throw lawsuits back and forth.
Unfortunately, so many of us don’t really understand this. It is our duty to spread the word.

First, we group together and educate ourselves. Second, we actually build relationships with our representatives. Third, we get them to take control of Nebraska and stand up against the Feds.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 01:39:21 PM by NENick »

Offline gsd

  • 2013 NFOA Firearm Rights Champion award winner
  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 1831
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2011, 01:39:24 PM »
I think we all know Obama will not be re-elected.  On top of the rediculous amount of money he has managed to cost our nation, the novelty is worn off.
It is highly likely the above post may offend you. I'm fine with that.

Offline ScottC

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Norfolk, NE
  • Posts: 33
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2011, 03:10:16 PM »
There are a lot of folks out there that have already drank the Koolaid and will vote for whatever stupidity comes down the pike if they think Obama is for it.  They still act like he's doing them all a favor, even after all the dumb that has occurred these last few years. 

They worship him, no matter what the effect on the US.

When Carter was elected, I thought never again....  Then Clinton (not once, but twice!!!!)...  And now this socialist...

Offline Waltherfan

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2011
  • Posts: 238
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2011, 11:41:35 AM »
I think we all know Obama will not be re-elected.  On top of the rediculous amount of money he has managed to cost our nation, the novelty is worn off.

While I'd like to believe that, the Republicans have shown themselves capable of blowing what should be an easy victory. Sick Willie beating Bush the First shouldn't have happened, not to mention several other Democrat victories. The Democrats have shown themselve to suffer from the same ailment. With any luck, a worthy Republican, or better yet, a Tea Party member, will win the nomination and election but don't take anything for granted.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2011, 05:10:46 PM »
REPORT FROM THE U.N.

BY JULIANNE VERSNEL

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS

 
Today, the most recent Chairman’s Draft Paper for the Arms Trade Treaty was distributed. Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan authored the outline for the proposed ATT based on consultation, discussion and guidelines decided upon in this and the two previous Preparatory Conference meetings. This document dated 14 July 2011 covers the Scope, Criteria, Implementation and Final Provisions that are expected to be in the ATT presented for discussion in July 2012.
 
The Preamble under item six,  “recognizes the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.”  This language is a direct response to the serious reservations expressed by the U.S.  and other delegations.
 
Unfortunately after this comes the Scope of the proposed treaty.  This includes along with tanks, Artillery Systems, Naval Vessels and Missile Systems--small arms and all ammunition for these small arms.
 
While acknowledging a constitutional right, the criteria and record keeping requirements proposed in the treaty would necessitate the special marking of all firearms (IV, 1, h) and more critically all ammunition (IV, 1, j). The costs involved in both the physical marketing and record keeping are enormous.  The proposed document also includes the creation of an Implementation Support Unit (VI, G-1) with yearly reporting and records kept for a minimum of 10 years. (V1, B-1).
 
Another egregious proposal is the Victim Assistance proposal. (VI, F)  This provision is one that has been presented repeatedly at Programme of Action and Conference of Parties meetings.  Many African, Southern American, Central American and Caribbean countries have proposed that manufacturers contribute to a fund based on their sales. Alternately they would assess fees on countries based on the value of its arms exports.
 
As the ATT moves closer to its final form, it is imperative that we realize that the technical requirements and definitions still to be determined are very dangerous.  Much of the debate on these will take place in side events that are very often closed to NGOs.
The US already has the most stringent import and export requirements for firearms in the world.  While this proposed treaty is supposed to be about conventional weapons, the focus in the discussions is on small arms, the very firearms that our US Constitution guarantees us the right to bear.
 
The Second Amendment Foundation remains vigilant and will continue monitoring this Arms Trade Treaty.  We will not remain silent in our fight to maintain your right to keep and right and bear arms. We cannot trust the very organization that devised and administered the oil for food program in Iraq to respect our Constitutional rights—particularly the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline gsd

  • 2013 NFOA Firearm Rights Champion award winner
  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 1831
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2011, 05:18:47 PM »
engrish?  i just spent all day in class.  My brain is in pain trying to comprehend all the legalese.

Best i can understand is something to the effect of it will require yet another registration?
It is highly likely the above post may offend you. I'm fine with that.

Offline Mark B

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Location: Northeast Nebraska
  • Posts: 100
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2011, 06:43:51 PM »
Dan's post covers parts of the original question I presented. I am still curious, does the NRA have any influence in the international arena?

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2011, 06:54:02 PM »
I am sure the NRA is one of the non governmental organizations (ngo) that along with the Second Amendment Foundation were prominent in the  "serious reservations expressed" area
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2011, 07:35:31 PM »
Thursday, July 14, 2011
 

National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership.  LaPierre said in his remarks, "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.
 

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Preparatory Committee - 3d Session

New York, July 11-15, 2011


Statement of the National Rifle Association of America
 
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena.

The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced.

We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government.

 

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms."

Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned.

Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss i f I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.

To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT.

Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

Thank you.

 

 
   
 
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline bkoenig

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 3677
  • Aspiring cranky old gun nut
Re: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2011, 08:00:49 PM »
Wow, Mr. LaPierre laid the smack down on them.