United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

[fuhr52]

"There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied."

You may be correct "there is no LEGAL way around the 2nd Amendment". That only applies when we are considering we have leaders that stick to their oath of upholding and protecting the Constitution of the United States of America. Our current leaders only care about what's in it for me and will twist and subvert the law to further their agenda. We have a current president that frequently flips the bird at our Constitution with the use of executive orders to further his agenda. We have a congress that has no issues in passing laws and then reading to find out what is in them. We have a senate, controlled by democrats, that refuses to even discuss any bills that are presented to them from the republican house. We have a supreme court that will take an unconstitutional law and rewrite it to make it appear constitutional. Does anyone believe with this current administration that "no LEGAL way around the 2nd Amendment" will matter?

[Gettysburg Bill]

All this is confusing till we see the U.N. White paper. Then will the President sign it?
If he does not-that ends that for now.
If he signs it, we still have the Senate and House to approve or disapprove.
Last I read - they do not have the vote to pass and have sent a letter to the White house stating this.
If the above is ture, the President signing the UN Treaty is 'Political Suicide' for a 2nd term.
What American, would want the U.N. loaded with Countries, who are our political opposite, controling our gun rights??
We are aware of whats happening in the U.N. The average American is not. We'll see what happen when it hits Mainstream America.

[S&W645]

All this is confusing till we see the U.N. White paper. Then will the President sign it?
If he does not-that ends that for now.
If he signs it, we still have the Senate and House to approve or disapprove.
Last I read - they do not have the vote to pass and have sent a letter to the White house stating this.
If the above is ture, the President signing the UN Treaty is 'Political Suicide' for a 2nd term.
What American, would want the U.N. loaded with Countries, who are our political opposite, controling our gun rights??
We are aware of whats happening in the U.N. The average American is not. We'll see what happen when it hits Mainstream America.

2 point.
1. Senate only approves treaty ratification. No House vote. The Senate vote was designed to give the States a say as Senators were selected by the States.
2. Never underestimate liberal "Americans" wanting the US laws controlled by the UN.

[Jason1221]

Nothing good can come of the UN treaty nothing. What good could it have ? Answer that what good could it have? Yes once sighned they do gain control. That is the beginning of the new world order!

[Gettysburg Bill]

2 point.
1. Senate only approves treaty ratification. No House vote. The Senate vote was designed to give the States a say as Senators were selected by the States.
2. Never underestimate liberal "Americans" wanting the US laws controlled by the UN.

My inforamtion came from reading a email report and 'tv news' discussion. What impressed me was the statement of the Senate letter to the White House.
And the way they explained it -- The President could sign it but we (USA) would not abide it.
Yes - always in my mind- is there some trick 'they can pull that we don't know about.
So - the 27th July was the Due Date. Not to long to wait and see.

[S&W645]

My inforamtion came from reading a email report and 'tv news' discussion. What impressed me was the statement of the Senate letter to the White House.
And the way they explained it -- The President could sign it but we (USA) would not abide it.
Yes - always in my mind- is there some trick 'they can pull that we don't know about.
So - the 27th July was the Due Date. Not to long to wait and see.

If the Senate fails to vote on it, or votes it down, then even if the President signs it, the US is not bound by it. That is what I hope happens, a vote of Nay in the Senate. But Reid has already said he doesn't have the votes so likely will buttonhole it.

Problems still lay in the courts though as some of the liberal activist judges believe that we should
look outside the US for guidance on our laws. That is one of the tricks you think might exist. And we know where a couple of SCOTUS judges stand. Another is that 0 and Holder might try to implement parts of it through EOs and BATFE rules. The 27th we might see a draft of the treaty. So far I don't see in the Reports anything good for the US and plenty bad things. Same as with the LOST.

[Rhino]

Willful ignorance is a sad thing. We have clearly established the treaty is presently under negotiation.

No, WE established it. YOU were denying it. But you trying to take credit for it now is a laugh a minute!!!!

Drafts have been circulating in diplomatic channels and other places all over the world for a long time. Are you really that dense?

And yet, despite numerous resquests, you have provided absolutely no links to any. And you simply expect us to believe you that they exist. Are you really that stupid?

Hello?!! McFly!!??

Hi, Bif.

[Krohbar]

IAPCAR » BREAKING NEWS: UN Arms Trade Treaty – Full Proposed Document

same as what anyone else is finding?

[kerb]

Ahem? Really?

This is the classic "doesn't follow fallacy." What anybody "wants" WRT domestic gun control policy has absolutely no connection to what is in that treaty, either in substance, fact or intent. Read it. It is rather presumptuous to believe every person who reads this forum is going to be stupid enough to swallow it.

Whether you recognize this fact or not, it is quite amazing for rational, intelligent people to read this tripe and see there are people out there actually believing it. I suppose when your premise has no foundation you just have to contrive any possible support you can from misinterpretation and create FUD.

Question:
If the treaty were to be ratified, what changes would have to be made for the US to be in compliance with it?
You are saying that there are none?

[Rhino]

Question:
If the treaty were to be ratified, what changes would have to be made for the US to be in compliance with it?
You are saying that there are none?

We can't know that until we see a treaty. Contrary to what kwimby claims, no drafts have been released. The conference that began this month was tasked with coming up with a draft treaty, possibly even a final one. The fear hasn't really been that US law would have to be changed to be in compliance with it, per se. The fear is that in ratifying such a treaty, that it would somehow supercede US law. But you bring up a good point. I'm sure there are many who would argue that our laws change to be in compliance with a treaty.