L
We, the U.S., signed a treaty in 1997 with the un called, Inter-American Convention--http://disarmament.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf
The un has an arm to it called, UNIDIR (united nations institute for disarmament research) that's a lexicon for arms control.
Are any of you aware that our second amendment can be handed over to the un?
The last paragraph of a report.[snip]
Concluding Observations
While U.N. bodies have adopted resolutions and a “firearms protocol,” these efforts have focused on the availability of firearms manufactured and obtained illegally and on the use or misuse of these firearms in the criminal arena, including for organized crime, and/or to facilitate the spread of or prolongation of conflict. During meetings and negotiations in U.N. bodies, U.S. representatives have focused on the need to combat organized crime and to reduce out-of-control violence and conflict by limiting the availability of firearms, light weapons, and small arms that contribute to and aggravate these situations. They have made it clear that the reduction of crime and conflict is a primary goal of the United States. They have supported U.S. Second Amendment rights of citizens to firearms. As the experience with the OAS Convention and the U.N. Protocol illustrates, anyinternational treaties in this areawould not bind theUnited States unless these documents were acted on favorably by the U.S. Senate, if the President decided to transmit the treaty to the Senate for its consideration.
Now, if I'm reading that wrong would someone please set me straight. Complete article HERE
I found the site I posted from as I was looking for more information on unidir.
Now, back to the article. Is anyone aware of page 340 in the Master Set. Apparently Richard Lugar and Arlen Specter were on the committee responsible for page 340. It's an unlawful directive according to the article.
Arrrrrrrrggggghhh. Edit, don't just spellcheck.
Mark for later reading. Looks good.
We’re wild pigs, gettin’ some free corn, watching the fence get built.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1899897/posts
L
It's just like the guy who refuses to brush his teeth whining about how inevitable it is that they will rot in his mouth.
As long as I have basic chemicals and the knowledge to combine them.
As long as I love freedom and have the will to defend it.
I can NOT be disarmed.
Bear; I can hardly afford to bare it anymore.
I will not be disarmed ... period. They will have to kill me.
Sheesh!
Spelling and grammar are weak points when your enemies want to portray you as inbred hillbillies.
Such allies are sometimes worse than enemies.
Editor needed in aisle one.
The citizens need to amend the state constitution to include protection of their gun rights.
“Here’s the Reason Why All Guns Are Going to be Prohibited”
I predict open bloody rebellion in the streets.
Four boxes:
Soap,
ballot,
jury,
ammo.
Use in that order.
The “I’ll fight them” line is bs. You will one day get a knock on the door. It will be a cop (possibly the fbi) and they will tell you which guns you have registered. They will tell you that they are taking them NOW. You will not fight. How can you? You will meekly give them the firearms. You register, you lose.
anyway, i don't see the UN as the driving force in US gun-policy. especially if fred is in the whitehouse.
now, controlling ILLEGAL firearms is in everyone's interest. even 2A proponents such as myself. we need to address where criminals get their guns.
but in a free society of so many people, you have to enforce the law in a framework that attempts to reduce crime while protecting constitutionally afforded rights. it's tough, but it's the only way.
The gun grabbers in washington could care less about any treaties signed with the UN. Their gun grabbing motivation is nothing but selfserving BS and has nothing to do with treaties.......
Ping for later...
Mark
Bare or concealed is fine by me, just gimme back my bullets and leave me be...
The problem is that per senate rules a treaty can be voted on in the Senate with as few as three senators voting (so you can get a 2/3 vote) and one presiding. It can be done with a voice vote.
Remember Lott during the Shamnesty mess saying that we can put anything we want through. I only heard it reported one time, but it's true.
Lott was majority leader when the Desertification Treaty (gave a little more power over our land to the UN) was signed by Clinton, sent to the Senate and was confirmed by a voice vote. We still don't know how many were there to vote or exactly who they were. Larry Craig was asked about how this was done and he answered at the time, "At the request of the leadership."
This treaty was buried by Richard Douglas, the majority counsel, in a bundle of other treaties of little lasting importance such as agreements with other countries for return of stolen property or to settle common place legalities. It is possible that the senators present didn't know what they were voting on.
When the issue was pushed with larry Craig, he said he had written a letter to Senator Helms and Helms had responded and everything was OK. Because Helms was our biggest defender of our sovereignty and against the UN, we all trusted him totally. (BTW I don't think we ever heard Helms himself say so.) Larry Craig's voting record was so exemplary (before Shamnesty) that nobody really forced the issue.
Bottom line is we probably have no idea what "treaties" were "considered" and confirmed by the Senate...
Phsstpok, this is what I was referring to in one of the Sunday threads about possible blackmail going way back. I do NOT know that happened, but Craig was never totally forthcoming (maybe he didn't know) and a lot of his reassurances were fishy--at least IMO.