• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

The UN Small Arms Treaty

S

Salberg

.22LR
This global gun grab is coming to a head this July 2nd. The current administration is fully behind it and considering their attitude towards the constitution and our national sovereignty I believe it to be a real threat to our national and personal safety. I'll spare you the inventory of fascist countries that have grabbed guns and enslaved their own people. By law it would be unconstitutional to enter into a treaty that over rides the bill of rights. But this bunch in Washington doesn't give a damn about us or our sovereignty. Please! Speak out about this criminal procedure! You will not be compensated for you weapons. The NRA cannot do this alone. We must unite and stand together to try to prevent the passage of this treaty. Time is running out. Please do what you can, as soon as you can.
 
UN conference on the Arms Trade Treaty - July 2-27 2012.

Edit: Added additional info:
Such a treaty cannot be enacted just via the President it requires 2/3's majorty of the Senate.

The Senate's Role in Treaties

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.

The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).

Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21. A number of these, including the Treaty of Versailles, were rejected twice. Most often, the Senate has simply not voted on treaties that its leadership deemed not to have sufficient support within the Senate for approval, and in general these treaties have eventually been withdrawn. At least 85 treaties were eventually withdrawn because the Senate never took final action on them. Treaties may also remain in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for extended periods, since treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress. There have been instances in which treaties have lain dormant within the committee for years, even decades, without action being taken.
Click to expand...
Source: United Staes Senate web site

I won't say it cannot or won't happen but I don't believe that 2/3's of the states would agree to such a measure. And I truely hope I am correct in this belief.
 
bsipes30 said:
there sure is a lot of weird stuff getting posted on MO today...
Click to expand...

This particular one has been a recurring sight on many forums for a few years now. I've seen it pop up monthly if not more frequently on other forums. Because the UN meeting is this summer it is making the rounds again.


Personally I think we should just ditch the UN. We do all the dirty work anyway so we might as well skip the middleman and save ourselves billions in the process.
 
As with many complex issues, it's tough to get a clear picture of exactly what is going on. Here is a link to one opinion: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/02/19/arms ... z1quq6D783

Maybe it's just me, but even with the slant, I don't like to sound of it. I tried reading the UN's site about it, but it was just too much work to get down to any meat. Take care. Tom Worthington.
 
bsipes30 said:
there sure is a lot of weird stuff getting posted on MO today...
Click to expand...

I thought it was just me man......I thought I read something about the US to start importing bad A shotguns again?......I just don’t listen to it anymore....current , past or future administrations....I'm to the point that I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. So much bad information out there, so much accusations I don’t know who to believe....what I believe is that they better not come knocking around these parts….that I do know
 
oli700 said:
bsipes30 said:
there sure is a lot of weird stuff getting posted on MO today...
Click to expand...
I don’t know who to believe....what I believe is that they better not come knocking around these parts….that I do know
Click to expand...

How about if they just stay where they are and limit how much ammunition you are allowed to buy? :| I'd prefer we work together to make sure that doesn't happen, rather than try and "fix it" after it does. Take care. Tom Worthington.
 
Tom396 said:
oli700 said:
bsipes30 said:
there sure is a lot of weird stuff getting posted on MO today...
Click to expand...
I don’t know who to believe....what I believe is that they better not come knocking around these parts….that I do know
Click to expand...

How about if they just stay where they are and limit how much ammunition you are allowed to buy? :| I'd prefer we work together to make sure that doesn't happen, rather than try and "fix it" after it does. Take care. Tom Worthington.
Click to expand...

First that’s assuming one buys ammo before they go shooting.....I got ammo I don’t shoot. To me firearms are tools first and recreation last and if I can’t get ammo then I won’t shoot unless it is to carry out the sole reason a firearm was ever invented for and that for killing….food or enemies.. I don’t need to go shoot to be happy, the day they regulate ammo is the day I learn to make gun powder. The more they tighten the grip the more we will slip between the fingers. When I say we I mean free thinking American that understand how this country was made. Not the Americans with their hands out , tying to negotiate with liars and cheats, believing everything they hear. Then there is the black market. The only ones without ammo will be the people who believe the politicians and government will take care of them...and because they are in a certain administration that they must be great and would never steer us wrong because they are a [insert party here]. I am all for working together, with the right people but I will never be without guns and ammo as long as I draw breath.
 
I don't believe more government can make my life better, but I do believe it can make it worse...even in regards to my firearms and/or ammunition. Take care. Tom Worthington.
 
MikeD said:
UN conference on the Arms Trade Treaty - July 2-27 2012.

Edit: Added additional info:
Such a treaty cannot be enacted just via the President it requires 2/3's majorty of the Senate.

The Senate's Role in Treaties

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.

The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).

Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21. A number of these, including the Treaty of Versailles, were rejected twice. Most often, the Senate has simply not voted on treaties that its leadership deemed not to have sufficient support within the Senate for approval, and in general these treaties have eventually been withdrawn. At least 85 treaties were eventually withdrawn because the Senate never took final action on them. Treaties may also remain in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for extended periods, since treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress. There have been instances in which treaties have lain dormant within the committee for years, even decades, without action being taken.
Click to expand...
Source: United Staes Senate web site

I won't say it cannot or won't happen but I don't believe that 2/3's of the states would agree to such a measure. And I truely hope I am correct in this belief.
Click to expand...

And according to the constitution, a president cannot make a recess appointment while congress (even if it just 1 Rep or 1 Senator) is in session. Elena Kagan ring a bell?
 
Every few years, the UN gets together and tries this crap.

They (other countries) try to stop firearm trafficking (commerce to the U.S. since firearms are one of our biggest exports).

And I agree about the U.N. I'd like to see them shut the big HQ in NY down and put a big padlock on the doors.

There are some major players and organizations that does want your guns.

Go on youtube and look up NRA and the UN Gun Debate, and look up IANSA and others.

http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/

http://www.iansa.org/

http://www.iansa.org/news/2012/03/us-ia ... -president

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh0cfT7KeIQ[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQEDk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WwLz9hBZfM[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD1YmYuRtI8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVKvyYqtJ1w[/youtube]

But there are checks in place that even the president can't sign a treaty and it go in effect without a major vote.

Any treaty for that matter.
 
oli700 said:
I will never be without guns and ammo as long as I draw breath.
Click to expand...

As will I. I already have a stockpile of it...the wife says I need to make a room for it. A whole room...muwhawww hawwhaww... :twisted:
 
I'm not blessed enough to have a whole room of guns and ammo.

But like Oli, I don't plan on relinquishing anything either.

Especially the older ones that have been inherited and passed down from generation to generation.
 
Brother I have some of those that don’t even work that I would scrap for .
IMG_0236-1.jpg
 
Anyone have any thoughts on that? A Buddy of mine just sent it to me.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top