doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com U N Small Arms Treaty

Speaker John Boehner is in this fight alone and is constantly looking over his shoulder to make sure the voters, as has been done in the past, don't stab him in the back.
In November if he loses seats, he may still remain the Speaker, but this has in effect weakened his stance and his positioning to continue to resist the White House. If he gains seats then this is giving him a message to continue to fight the White House and Senate for us.
In other words, don't listen to the polls, get out and vote for your Representative and Senator.

Dave Weber,

Strongly believe this topic should be left in the misfires section. See too much politicking through misleading assertions about what such a treaty would or could do, and I do not see such partisan politicking as relevant to what seems the focus of this Board.

For some balance and to direct those seriously seeking sources of information, here are views from a wikipedia piece on the Arms Trade Treaty:

QUOTE Opposition in the United States

Given the predominant position of the United States as a global arms exporter[10], any such treaty would have limited relevance without its participation. Ratification would require passage by a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate in addition to presidential approval, which is rendered unlikely by opposition from gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, who claim that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations.[11] Advocates of the treaty claim that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws[12][13]. These advocates point to the UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty. The resolution explicitly states that it is �the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.�

As of September 14, 2011, 58 US Senators (45 Republicans and 13 Democrats) have expressed their opposition to an ATT that would limit the Second Amendment rights of US citizens.[14] As this group comprises far more than 1/3 of the Senate, it is sufficient to block ratification of the treaty by the United States if the treaty addresses civilian ownership of firearms. However, the strength of the opposition remains unclear because the treaty will not likely address the Second Amendment issue.

A quick search of the Internet (on Feb 8, 2012) confirms that the treaty is highly controversial in the United States and has been fodder for political speeches, blogs, viral political e-mails and advertisements claiming or insinuating that the treaty provides a "legal way around the 2nd amendment," and a "complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens." Snopes.com, the "urban myth" tester, calls the viral e-mail "scarelore" and false.[15] The Huffington Post reports that "such a scenario remains virtually impossible."[16] The Los Angeles Times reports on October 23, 2011 that "only a narrow fringe purports that Americans could see their guns taken away by the U.N., which has no authority over constitutional rights."[17]
UNQUOTE

Regards

The worst thing we can do in my opinion is to ignore pending legislation and potential treaties. This has caused us problems in the past. If you, Carney, whoever you may be, care to ignore information about upcoming concerns DON"T READ THESE POSTS it's as simple as that.
I can assure you I see no need to read anything further from you so you'll now go on my ignore list.

Some of the sources Tim Carney provides as proof that the U.N. Small Arms Treaty presents no threat to gun owners are inherently anti-gun and are therefore suspect in their motives for trying to quell our concern.

What is known and proven fact is that Obama has a 100% anti-gun voting record as a legislator, and his political appointments for Cabinet positions, Supreme Court nominees, ATF Director, etc., share his anti-gun sentiment.

It is vitally important that we as gun owners realize this and remain vigilant. Considering what we face, better that we may sometimes be too concerned than too unconcerned. I do agree with the Wikipedia quote's assertion that a strong NRA is a strong deterrrant to these efforts to undermine the Second Amendment. This election year is possibly the best time in history to join the team (NRA), and turn back the threat. Too many gun owners do not see Obama as a significant threat since he has acted mostly under the radar in his first term. But if you look at his record, his appointments, and his actions, I don't know how anyone with half a brain could conclude that he is not a threat to the Second Amendment.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again... If Mr. Carney or anyone else does not wish to see this type of topic, they don't have to click on it. Protection of our gun rights is far too important to be relegated to the seldom viewed Misfires section. Dave Weber has obviously been in agreement, and we have been doing a pretty good job of keeping the political stuff to a minimum in this forum. I hope Dave continues to allow topics such as this to remain on the front page, and lets us know if we ever need to throttle back before simply pulling the plug on these topics here. The title of the thread was in no way misleading. If this does not interest you... don't look at it. No one is forcing anyone to click on this, and these topics do not come close to dominating the forum.

As an aside, since the last such controversy in the Starbucks thread, there have been quite a few off-topic topics here. No-one, including Mr. Carney had any problems with that. If the pure Doublegun focus of this board is so important, where was the concern then?

If the treaty is signed, but it is not ratified,it does not go away. It remains in the background for years and years, just waiting for another anti-gun administration to pick it up again without having to go through the fight of getting it signed.

It has been the experience of gun owners in Great Britain, Canada and Australia that the anti gun forces move quickly when an opportunity presents itself. Once legislation is enacted it is VERY hard to make go away.

Gun control legislation got enacted in these countries because the gun owners were divided (military collectors, hand guns, old shotguns, modern hunters etc) and so had little lobbying impact, and most believed it wouldn't really happen.

The US is different. You have the 2cd Amendment and you have the NRA. But I know there are 100,000 members on the main Canadian forum, Gunnutz, who would advise you stay vigilant.

Once a right it lost, it is almost impossible for it to be regained. Canada has the situation now, despite our victory earlier in the year, where it is a felony to own a gun. Any gun!

Only by the issuance of a state authorized permit, good only for a 5 year term, to the individual makes it legal. And there is nothing to stop the next government, nothing at all, from refusing to issue new or renewal permits.

Because the antis will not give up and will not go away.

I have said this before: Go to the UN official website and you will see that they are very clear that they consider small arms in civilian hands to be part of the problems of crime,domestic violence,child abuse,gang violence and all other criminal activity. They are very clear that they want to curb civilian gun ownership in an attempt to stop these crimes.We are talking all small arms and not just those of military origin or those that look that way.

UN Treaty NOT signed by US

That is good news.

That doesnt prove the black helicopters aren't coming.