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

This is too important to have it buried in the "Misfires" section as some of the purported "gun owners" on this forum would prefer. I have expected that Obama's "under the radar" statement he was overheard telling Sarah Brady about was related to this as well as Operation Fast and Furious"
Jim

http://www.examiner.com/article/senate-set-to-approve-controversial-un-gun-treaty

It appears that Obama/Clinton intend to sign
the ATT United Nations arms treaty on 27 July in New York City.

Treaties to be in force must be approved by 2/3s of the Senate

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Mike

The US Senate is currently made up of the following:
58 Democrats
40 Republicans
2 Independents

A 2/3s majority for ratification requires 67 votes.
This means if the Republicans lose 7 additional seats in the November elections and the 2 Independents voted for ratification then the U N Small Arms treaty would, in all probability, be ratified.
This is just one more reason to get out and vote this November.
Jim

Current ratio is 51:47:2 not 58:40:2. Democrats have 23 seats up while the Republicans have ten. So it is very reasonable to expect a swing of two or more seats. Included in the Democrats are two independents who are defacto Democrats. Still need to elect a few more anti progressive types as my kids call them. Not as dire as some think. It is almost impossible to get enough total on either side to have a veto proof majority.

You can bet that I will be at the polls in November. This crap has to stop now.

The 51D 47R 2I numbers are correct. When I pulled this up apparently I got the numbers prior to the 2010 mid-term elections. So at this point it's in reality 53 vs 47.
At least I didn't come up with the 57 States and 114 Senators Obama thought we had!!
Jim

It is my fervent hope that this November those imbeciles in 2008 who said, "I can't vote for Obama, but I don't like McCain either, so I ain't voting." get off their collective worthless asses and vote.

United States Supreme Court 1957 - Reid vs. Covert ... established that the Constitution supersedes treaties ratified by the U. S. Senate. Those two 5-4 decisions by the court establishing the 2nd amendment as an individual, rather than a collective right may be the key to fighting any signing of this treaty. If Obama signs this treaty, he has just put the noose over his own neck in November.

Sorry if it seemed like I was picking on your government math. The situation is not as dire as many fear or as good a some hope. The truth as often does lie between the two extremes.

By the way Telepromterman has uttered more Bushisms' than Bush ever did. All 57 states is a classic. I liked when he recognized all the dead vets at a Memorial day speech. Classic I see dead people.

It all comes back to the lack of balance. Sex on one side is an outrage and the other it is a personal choice. Money earned is a vise on one side and not on the other. No wonder my sons look ate automatics instead fine doubles. The government and society is ruining them. Must buy more doubles to save the world. Hey, I wonder if my wife would see the next gun purchase as me saving the world?

No I'm glad you corrected it. The important point here is we can't allow situations like this to be forced on to the back page so to speak as are done to protect Obama in the "mainstream news media". If John McCain had maintained we had 57 States as the Kenyan did in 2008 the "mainstream news media" would have had the same feeding frenzy that had when Dan Quayle mispelled "potatoe".
If Obama had been exposed to the same character assassination that Sarah Palen was exposed to he couldn't have been elected dog catcher on the South side of Chicago.
Well: at least the dogs in that area are safe!!
Jim

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.

Canadian Prime Minister has already told the UN we will not sign that UN Treaty

Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/...test=latestnews

New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/world/....html?ref=world

"Diplomats said the next step was likely to be further negotiations and a vote at the next session of the United Nations General Assembly in a couple of months"

"Treaty supporters, led by activist groups such as Amnesty International and Oxfam America, expressed anger at the failure after early bouts of optimism that a draft of the treaty circulated this week would satisfy American concerns, notably its possible infringement on the Second Amendment right to bear arms � an especially delicate issue during a presidential election year in the United States. "

Yes, a delicate matter indeed after the latest atrocity.
Spike in gun sales and CC permit applications tell the tale, correct? People want to protect themselves and their loved ones from nutcases whose psychatrists will not inform authorities they are dealing with a dangerous timebomb.

The UN pukes are pushing very hard for this treaty to happen so they can "control" the arms trade. What is laughable is the UN selecting Iran to sit on the ATT council.....isn't the UN trying to keep Iran from producing a nuclear weapon? A nuke would sure as hell kill a lot of innocent people in a hurry. The UN is an incompetent, self-serving lot with a laughable record of correcting atrocities across the world. This was more than an arms regulation treaty....it was a global power grab and they will try again. Thank God for the NRA. There are many gun owners who are not NRA members and they should be. Self-defense is a state right, not an individual right....this is the official position of the UN on self defense. I will never give up my God given right to defend myself and family.

IMO: We dodged a bullet here. NO pun intended. This is why it's so important to get out and vote this November and encourage others to do so as well!
Jim

The New York Times article predicts another vote in a couple of months. What do you want to bet that the next vote comes after the first Tuesday in November?