jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (58 posts)

The U.N. wants to take away the 2nd Amendment!

  1. JSChams profile image59
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Here's the story:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government … hts-to-U-N

    This gets thorny. How many of you believe the UN should have the right to subvert our Constitution? How many of you believe the UN is sovereign over the United States? How many of you realize the UN is an ambassadorial group with no governmental powers?

    1. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I feel dirty just clicking that link. You might want to check out a source that actually has at least some credibility, such as the UN itself:
      http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/

      If you're too lazy to click the link, it says it does nothing about internal US gun sales. It's only about the international arms trade. Calm down, dude, and do some research.

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        and perhaps you haven't done enough research

        1. twosheds1 profile image60
          twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What research is there to do, besides reading the actual UN resolution itself?

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jumping the gun (terrible pun) without sufficient info again JSC *sigh*

    3. Benson Brock profile image72
      Benson Brockposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think George Washington said "be afraid of mere talk of taking away your arms and the right to own them. This is the first step in social imprisonment.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

        1. 910chris profile image73
          910chrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It takes us one step closer to losing our national sovereignty. Fast and Furious was another "operation" to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

          Like anything else, people will see what they want to see on this issue. Lets not forget Billy boy Clinton tried this when he was president. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncon … ndment.htm  One step at a time.

          1. 910chris profile image73
            910chrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Dick Morris, who is spearheading a petition to stop Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the United States from signing the treaty, explains the inherent dangers within:

            …Obama is planning, with Hillary, a backdoor move to impose gun control on the United States.

            It’s totally outrageous. You know, Obama has not pushed gun control during his administration – a notable absence for a liberal. But it’s because he was saving the best for last.

            Hillary is now negotiating a small arms treaty in the United Nations… The purpose of the small arms treaty is to stop small arms, which they define as pistols, handguns, rifles, assault weapons, even machine guns from being exported to other countries.

            1. 910chris profile image73
              910chrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What Obama is doing with Hillary is to negotiate a treaty that would allegedly stop individual citizens and businesses from selling their arms overseas. To do that each country would be obliged to set up its own system of registration, and controls, and inventory controls…

              It’s entirely a backdoor effort to force gun registration and eventually bans and restrictions with the act of the United States Congress – to do it with international treaty

              1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Good Evening Chris. I hope you had a great day.

                After reading your statement above, I felt compelled to ask you one question. I hope you don’t mind.

                You used the word “allegedly” which means you are not certain and you have no proof. You imply the UN Arms Trade Treaty would stop the sale of arms by individuals, that it will require countries to set up controls, and that it is a “back door” effort to legislate gun bans. You make these claims AFTER admitting you are not sure they are conditions of the treaty. If you are going to publicly oppose the treaty, shouldn’t you know what it contains?

                Like I said, I just had to ask. (The devil made me do it. )

                Stay well, Chris.

    4. texshelters profile image86
      texsheltersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Your whole premise is faulty. Thanks for playing. Their is no basis for you statement, i.e., no facts to support your fear of the UN or gun regulations.

      PTxS

  2. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
    Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago

    The UN does not and in fact cannot effect domestic law on the issue.  You have been fed a pack of lies.

    1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
      prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That is true smile

  3. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    “"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

    - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting

    Problem
       +
    Reaction
       =
    Solution

    If you are not aware of this formula, Wake Up!

    1. watergeek profile image95
      watergeekposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Henry Kissinger sounds paranoid.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not paranoid just pure evil.

  4. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    It must be unnerving to be fearful of so many things.

  5. JSChams profile image59
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    A word to all,

    I am not "fearful of so many things."

    I do see an administration which embraces tyranny. It's not very hard to believe that while this might not immediately clamp down on our citizens, it may be a back door to release some of the sovereign control that a number of those in and around the White House don't believe we deserve.

    Now....raise your hands if you don't believe any of that either.

  6. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
    Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago

    You posted a pile or misinformation.  The treaty does not and cannot have the effects you claimed. We can deal with the rest after you acknowledge that.

    1. JSChams profile image59
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You see I think fast and Furious was meant to work hand in hand with this and it blew up but the UN does not care that it did. Wait on.

      1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
        Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Anyone who thinks this treaty affects domestic gun ownership is plain wrong.

        1. JSChams profile image59
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not yet. Give it time. Incremental-ism is a trait of the left.

          1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
            Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The treaty is what the treaty is.  If you want to discuss other issues that's fine.  But how about admitting that you were misinformed about the treaty first.

            Unless you want to defend the right of American-based arms traders to sell guns to criminals and warlords overseas who use them to slaughter innocent people. Because that is what the treaty is about.

            I support the treaty very strongly because it is well past time we started giving guns to these people.  Money is not the only thing that matters.

            1. JSChams profile image59
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's entirely possible. There are lots of articles regarding that treaty and an awful lot of people who share my opinion of it. Some of them actually know what they are talking about.

              1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
                Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Everyone can have their own opinion, but not their own facts.  The treaty is a legal document and what it can and can't do is a matter of public record.

                The negative press has more to do with the manipulation by the people who make 55 billion exporting guns, often to war and crime zones--not human right.  Domestic right are not affected by it.

                1. JSChams profile image59
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes I am giving you some of it right now.

                  1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
                    Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Um, so what in that is a fact?  Bush opposed it because of pressure from people who profit from selling guns irresponsibly.

  7. JSChams profile image59
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    153 Member States voted in favour of Resolution 61/89. UK Ambassador John Duncan formally introduced the resolution in First Committee on October 18, 2006, speaking on behalf of the co-authors (Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, and Kenya). On behalf of the EU, Finland highlighted the support for the effort when it said, “everyday, everywhere, people are affected by the side effects of irresponsible arms transfers... As there is currently no comprehensive internationally binding instrument available to provide an agreed regulator framework for this activity, the EU welcomes the growing support, in all parts of the world, for an ATT.”[1]

    24 countries abstained: Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Laos, Libya, Marshall Islands, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The United States of America voted against the resolution.[2]

    Several countries provided explanations of vote: Jamaica, Cuba, Venezuela, China, India, Iran, Algeria, Libya, Russian Federation, Israel, Pakistan, and Costa Rica.[3]

    Responding to procedural concerns that were not resolved before the final draft of the resolution, the UK said the aim of the initiative is to start a discussion on the feasibility and draft parameters of an ATT and that those “agnostic” states will have a clear opportunity to engage in the process. After the vote, Algeria indicated that the effort must receive broad-based support from states and be based on the principles of the UN Charter.[4]


    We note the US voted against it. That would be an Obama ambassador. Wonder why?

  8. JSChams profile image59
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Ok that last was actually Bush:

    This was Obama.....no surprises here:

    On 14 October 2009 the Obama administration announced in a statement released by Hillary Clinton and the State Department that it was overturning the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed a proposed Arms Trade treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.[7] The shift in position by the U.S., the world's biggest arms exporter with a $55 billion-a-year trade in conventional firearms[8] (40 percent of the global total), led to the launching of formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to begin drafting the Arms Trade Treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement the U.S. would support the negotiations on condition they are “under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation.” Clinton said the consensus, in which every nation has an effective veto on agreements, was needed “to avoid loopholes in the treaty that can be directly exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”[9]

  9. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
    Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago

    Still not seeing anything saying ATT effects domestic rights.  Because it doesn't. I think the only people being manipulated are those who believe the arms industry propaganda by people who want to profit from selling guns warlords, tyrants and criminal enterprises. The very guns that end up being turned on peacekeeping troops.

    http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/

    1. JSChams profile image59
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Tell you what Skeptic...i am looking at this link and will continue to look. Will get back to you.
      What I see so far only tells me that it may not pass Congress yet.

  10. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Although the U.N. does not have authority within sovereign nations, that could change.  Once all the pieces are in place a future treaty could enable the United Nations to become a global force, with jurisdiction within sovereign nations.

    To believe that this is not a possibility is naive.

    1. JSChams profile image59
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have what I consider to be some justifiable trust issues concerning what this administration will and will not do. When you go from the Speaker of the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi, making a mockery of her office by insisting the law had to be passed before we could know what was in it to the absolute blanket of secrecy surrounding Barack and his whole life and education, I can't much see past having large misgivings about what they will do if Congress agrees to the treaty whether it is anything actually in the treaty or not. Barack Obama is the sort who believes he can be told what to do by the Secretary General. He is under no such compunction but his progressive beliefs will lead him otherwise.
      Most notable us how quickly this subject was pounced upon here. This is something I look for as an indicator of what the liberals are most twitchy about right now. Obviously this is one of them.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Obama also holds allegiance to the United Nations, a treasonous act without permission from Congress.


        In Violation of the Constitution: Obama Takes On Chairmanship of UN Security Council


        Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:

        "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

        http://letsrollforums.com/obama-violate … 7&

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi there, RB.

          President Obama chaired the UN Security Council’s international conference in September 2009. He was joined by the heads of other governments to discuss an agenda of global challenges, including nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Libya held a temporary seat on the Security Council at the time and was represented by Muammar Kaddafi. The Obama administration expressed hope that the month-long appointment would underscore a departure from the Bush administration's strategy of pursuing its own unilateral policies.

          Claims that the President’s participation in the global conference violated the US Constitutional came from fringe opponents of the Obama administration who failed to convince anyone but themselves that the United Nations was a King, Prince, or foreign state.

          It is amazing how just revealing the real facts can strip away the ugly, unsupportable innuendo that some folks hope to accomplish by omitting them.

          Thanks for posting RB.

          (1) http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics … z20HfIbQML

          1. Reality Bytes profile image93
            Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It would have required nothing more than consent from Congress.  But unfortunately this president is so arrogant, he believes his decisions are above scrutiny, he is Wrong!   He could have avoided many controversies if he was able to rise above his narcissistic personality every now and again!


            The oath which all commanding officers of UN deployments must take:


              "I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."

            If you do not have an issue with the President of the United States swearing his allegiance to the United Nations.  This nation really has a problem!

            The Oath alone is treasonous!!!

            1. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Howdy RB. I hope you are having a pleasant day. I am.

              I can see that consent from Congress was not required even thought you and some others may think otherwise. The President DID NOT accept a “present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." Period. Everyone can apply their personal interpretations to the events in 2009 and they may entertain their own individual interpretations of the Constitution but they can not change reality or the fact that the President chose to replace his appointed ambassador to the UN as the chairman of an international gathering attended by the leaders of other nations. In so doing, he was able to elevate the importance and prestige of the conference and, further, to demonstrate a departure from the Bush administration's strategy of pursuing its own unilateral policies.
              Conspiracy theories often try to obscure the real, supported facts, no matter how obvious, with unrelated, inconclusive information intended to draw attention and discussion away from the basic flaws in their own theories. Why introduce anything about “commanding officers of UN deployments” when it has absolutely nothing to do with the UN Security Council conference in 2009? I smell a red herring!
              1. President Obama NEVER commanded a UN deployment. Period.
              2. The statement you quote is an affirmation, (“I affirm...”) and not an oath at all. To call it an oath is to intentionally mislead your readers. Valid theories rely on facts and not upon misrepresentations.
              3. Anyone with an average command of the English language can clearly see that this affirmation does not transfer allegiance of from any country to the UN. Nor does it relieve military personnel from their obligation to obey a lawful order from their superior officers while also assigned to the UN.
              This nation has some really serious problems, RB, but the likelihood of UN dominance over US sovereignty is not one of them. The President did not swear allegiance to the UN and what you claim to be an “oath” is neither an oath nor is it treasonous. Fortunately, in this country, you are free to believe whatever you want but you should never believe that you and those you follow are the only Americans clever enough to understand current events.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image93
                Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Quilligrapher, I hope not.   Though my hope is that more will attempt to understand, and form their own opinions.  I respect original thought.    smile



                From my profile:

                Do not believe all that you read without doing your own due diligence in researching materials for yourself.  Make your own decisions as to what is FACT!

                1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Right on, RB. I respect that a lot.  Let us not forget when making our own decisions as to what is FACT: garbage in, garbage out.

                  Always follow your bliss, RB.

        2. twosheds1 profile image60
          twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council." And no president has. Obama isn't the chairman of the security council, dude. Try reading a reputable web site for a change. And Google "confirmation bias."

          1. Reality Bytes profile image93
            Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Obama to Chair UN Security Council


            http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics … 22432.html




            "dude. Try reading a reputable web site for a change"

            Take your own advice, or watch him as chairman of the United Nations Security Council!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt2XQ7x8s3Y

            1. twosheds1 profile image60
              twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I stand corrected. But still, chairing the SC doesn't surrender US sovereignty. The article also says it's a "month-long appointment," which is kind of odd. I thought chairmanship was longer. It still doesn't change the fact that your original post was bollocks. And breitbart isn't worth the "paper" it's printed on. (sorry, couldn't think of a computer-related analog to the original cliche)

            2. twosheds1 profile image60
              twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I guess I should have read the article a little closer. The article is dated 2009. He was actually the president of the SC, and his term has come and gone. There have been 40 presidents since BHO, including Hilary Clinton and folks from all over the globe. Source: http://www.un.org/sc/presidency.asp

              Much ado about nothing.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image93
                Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this



                Makes for good forum banter.  smile

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There is nothing twitchy about it, you were simply wrong, this bill does not in any way affect the Second amendment nor can it ever do so nor can the constitution ever be superseded without a referendum, the bill is simply about stopping the sale of civilian weapons going to criminal organisations, warlords and dictatorships around the world this is very reasonable and it is an excellent bill and it has zero impact on what you and cannot own, carry or whatever if it was I would be screaming about it right alongside you because I love and exercise my gun rights.

        1. JSChams profile image59
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well brace yourself because it WILL happen sometime in a second Obama term.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No it won't there is no public support for it and Obama has made no move on it, the only president that ever messed with my gun rights was that eminent conservative Reagan.

            1. JSChams profile image59
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The problem you are having Josak is the mistaken idea that the public support issue means anything at all to this President and administration.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's simple, the government wants votes, gun control is very unpopular at the moment so they won't do it to not lose votes.

                Obama has made no moves on gun control I see no reason to believe he will

                1. JSChams profile image59
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey look. After he gets reelected he isn't going to be looking for votes. He will no longer have anything to lose.

                  1. twosheds1 profile image60
                    twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Then let's all vote for him and see if you're right! We can look at it as an experiment.

                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You know full well he has to protect his party in his second term.

                    As i said do you have any evidence that he is making this an issue? Only one president ever messed with my gun rights and he was a conservative.

  11. Greek One profile image77
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    the UN is an evil institution...

    worse yet i have evidence that it has joined forces with the Red Cross, the makers of     Tampex and Gus, my local butcher who charges way too much for pork chops...

    i will soon be publishing my findings in my new book 'Right Wing Conspiracy Theories
    and Other Fun Things I Can Pull Out of My Arse

    1. profile image0
      rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Awesome, will you expose how the U.S. created and controlled U.N. is really a front for the illuminati, and how the illuminati is in turn a front for the nordic aliens, and the nordic aliens are in turn a front for SATAN????
      wink
      LOL

      1. twosheds1 profile image60
        twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not the Nordics, the reptilians! Geez, dude, get your conspiracies straight! Unless... you're... ONE OF THEM!!!

  12. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    Amazing how many people are polarized on this subject.

    Do US citizens live in an America which has far fewer freedoms? You betcha!

    Why? Because presidents have made a habit of signing unconstitutional legislation. They swore to defend the Constitution, but instead trash it and shred it. That's treason. They're working for a group of multi-nationalists who don't give a hockey puck about America. The UN is their stepping stone to the New World Order's one-world government and a slave planet of greatly-reduced population. Check out the Georgia Guidestones. I'd be curious to find out who put those there and why they talk of a world population reduced to 500,000,000!

    Both Bush and Obama helped to eliminate many of the protections and freedoms established by our founding fathers. unPatriot Act, NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses for Americans (all without due process), Obama's "kill list" which includes Americans (even killing a 16-year-old America boy), murder by Executive Order, outlawing protest, and more. The bad hats have repeatedly attempted to pass legislation curtailing freedoms on the Internet -- SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, TPP and more. They must have a whole truckload of pre-written legislation waiting in the wings to try and sneak past the watchdogs. Liberty is being assaulted, big time!

    Both Bush and Obama skyrocketed the national debt. Obama outdid his predecessor, accelerating the debt at an even more nightmarish pace. We went from the insane $5 Trillion to $15.3 Trillion. When that debt BUBBLE bursts, there might be nothing left of America.

    Both Bush and Obama racked up the foreign bullying, giving America the new reputation as the "Evil Empire" and major source of terrorism!

    If you are clueless enough to think that America is still the sweet and innocent land of the free and home of the brave, then you really need to check out Operation Northwoods -- the 1963 Joint Chiefs plan to murder American citizens to forward military and political goals. Fast forward to 2001, and we have another "false flag" operation called 9/11. Still don't believe America could do such a thing? We now have proof that all 3 WTC buildings in NYC were brought down by controlled demolition. Not only was too much work done to each of the buildings (roughly 50x the original PE [potential energy] available), but several tons of tiny iron spheres were estimated to have been in the powdery concrete dust from those collapses. What does this mean? It means that there was a source of heat -- far hotter than office fires and jet fuel fires -- that melted steel! Lots of it!

    Implication: 9/11 really was an inside job. We were fooled!

    Bigger implication: We went to war based on a lie (not counting the lies of no WMDs and no Al Qaeda camps in Iraq).

    BIGGER implication: We let our Constitution be shredded because of a lie. Perfect Problem-Reaction-Solution syndrome. Hitler did it nearly a century ago. After the technique had been perfected, we had it done on us in 2001.

    Obama went to war with Libya, illegally ignoring Congress (which every president is bound by the Constitution to get permission from), and Obama got permission from the UN! Is this guy treasonous? You bet he is. So was Bush.

    http://www.AE911truth.org

    Check out this website for Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. You don't have to be a scientist, engineer or architect to add your name to the petition. We request an unbiased investigation into 9/11 with full transparency and full subpoena power.

    Most of all, we want our Constitution to be legalized again. No more tyranny!

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Pretty much everything here is incorrect, to choose an example. The president has the power as commander in chief to send troops to anywhere in the world at his discretion so long as he informs congress within 2 days, the conflict cannot last longer than 90 days without congressional approval.

 
working