UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights

IceHogsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,024
Liked Posts:
0
I have somewhat followed this story and I have even asked some people in the federal government what it means and if it is a true concern. While they do not know the extent to which this treaty could be enforced upon our citizens it is definitely a concern to our ability to own a gun.



UNITED NATIONS – A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations -- with Iran playing a key role -- could expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments -- and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.



International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.



Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not,” LaPierre said. “It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty,” he warned in an exclusive interview with FoxNews from the halls of the UN negotiating chambers.





Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/#ixzz20LCXPKBr
 

roshinaya

fnord
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,533
Liked Posts:
440
Since when did the US care about what the UN wants?
 

MassHavoc

Moderator
Staff member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
17,855
Liked Posts:
2,554
beararms.jpg
 

IceHogsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,024
Liked Posts:
0
I am still baffled when they say there is an opportunity for us as citizens to lose our Constitutional rights because of a treaty that we signed.



Anyone expand on that?
 

MassHavoc

Moderator
Staff member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
17,855
Liked Posts:
2,554
I don't know, I don't fully understand what the hell is going on in the article actually. Only thing I can think of is that if gun owner records of US citizens are exposed to the world, it could be used to discriminate against us abroad. Don't know really.
 

jaxhawksfan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
2,490
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Back in Jax
But, but but........but you posted from Fox News and/or the NRA. Surely this information must be false propaganda. (Trust me, I have been following as well but didn't really want to start the 2nd Amendment thread again here.)
 

Chief Walking Stick

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 12, 2010
Posts:
48,327
Liked Posts:
26,854
I'd like to see the UN do something about it.



The UN can abolish a constitutional amendment?
 

IceHogsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,024
Liked Posts:
0
But, but but........but you posted from Fox News and/or the NRA. Surely this information must be false propaganda. (Trust me, I have been following as well but didn't really want to start the 2nd Amendment thread again here.)



I don't want to get on a bandwagon for something that I do not fully understand yet if this is even remotely true why is not being discussed on every media platform?



I hope some others familiar with the story and Constitutional law can provide some insight here. It sounds scary but is it really that bad or just a bunch of smoke over nothing? What is interesting in the article is that the Bush administration wanted nothing to do with the treaty yet the Obama administration has been involved since 2009 with the treaty.
 

jaxhawksfan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
2,490
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Back in Jax
It is true that Obama holds the record for being the best gun salesman around.
 

roshinaya

fnord
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,533
Liked Posts:
440
After quick internetting it seems it has more to do with international trade of arms and the states can internally keep trading however they want. Seems to me this is some alarmist scaremongering from the "thay r gunna git mah gunz!" contingent and getting them in a tizzy is just usual politics and Fox of course obliged and even put scary Iran in the article to get you all worked up.
 

supraman

New member
Joined:
May 16, 2010
Posts:
8,024
Liked Posts:
196
Location:
St.Pete, FL
After quick internetting it seems it has more to do with international trade of arms and the states can internally keep trading however they want. Seems to me this is some alarmist scaremongering from the "thay r gunna git mah gunz!" contingent and getting them in a tizzy is just usual politics and Fox of course obliged and even put scary Iran in the article to get you all worked up.



Makes sense. But still **** the UN
 

winos5

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Oct 19, 2013
Posts:
7,956
Liked Posts:
829
Location:
Wish You Were Here
The UN does a fine job of regulating things, I'm sure this will be fine. They have our best interests at heart.
 

supraman

New member
Joined:
May 16, 2010
Posts:
8,024
Liked Posts:
196
Location:
St.Pete, FL
The UN does a fine job of regulating things, I'm sure this will be fine. They have our best interests at heart.



Bunch a hippies that sit around and argue about doing something and when they decide to do something it is a day late and dollar short. **** the UN
 

IceHogsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,024
Liked Posts:
0
Never happen.



I take it that you are just stating an opinion here or have you researched this treaty and the implications of it if signed?



After quick internetting it seems it has more to do with international trade of arms and the states can internally keep trading however they want. Seems to me this is some alarmist scaremongering from the "thay r gunna git mah gunz!" contingent and getting them in a tizzy is just usual politics and Fox of course obliged and even put scary Iran in the article to get you all worked up.



Not just Fox reporting it but nice try. Maybe it is fear mongering but it is why I am asking questions. Let's just say it were true do you think the Obama administration would admit to it? Especially with the stories, or I should say assumptions, that the reason why Fast and Furious was allowed was to create a sense of panic in regards to assault weapons and then the White House would step in and state more regulation is needed. In addition, why was one administration opposed to it and then the next accepting of it?
 

Top