Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

[White Eagle]

I made this post and put it in swerve's thread about One World.
Well I found more about this Agenda 21 and cites about Obama going to sign a treaty with the UN that would ban all gun ownerships in the US. Against our U.S. Second Amendment. Of course I know this is not going to happen but People in my cousins Facebook page are talking about Obama starting 1 day after the election to work with the UN to stop all citizens from owning guns.
I'm not familiar with The Daily Sheeple, and one other article was in the Washington Times. I know the Times is BS and I figure Sheeple is also.
So here are 2 cites for y'all to read. From the looks of it I figure this needs it's own thread.

I found this article by Ted Cruz our newly elected Senator from Texas. He and Glenn Beck are opposing this Agenda 21. It is an agenda that the UN has come up with but with nothing to do with "One World". They are saying that our Government, I guess meaning Obama, is gonna turn over the Government to the UN. Who in turn will make the US just like Nazi Germany. Unbelievable.
I am gonna guess that your "One World" would become like Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck are afraid of. This is what we have to go through here in Texas, and I thought Kay Bailey Hutchinson was crazy.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/heres-how-it-will-be-done_112012

Here’s How it Will be Done…

Eric Peters
Incrementalism has proved depressingly effective as a tool for getting most people to quietly surrender their rights piecemeal. For gradually habituating them to an ever-diminishing circle of liberty. When the circle finally closes and their rights no longer exist at all, they hardly notice – because by that time, most of their rights have already been taken.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/8/gun-ban-back-on-obamas-agenda/

EDITORIAL: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda
More flexible administration revives U.N. arms treaty

By The Washington Times

Thursday, November 8, 2012

That didn’t take long. Less than a day after President Obama’s re-election, the administration breathed new life into the United Nations‘ previously comatose treaty regulating guns.

Last July, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Talks on the controversial agreement were put on indefinite hiatus after the United States requested an extension to the time allotted to negotiate the agreement. Gun rights supporters blasted the treaty as it inched toward approval, and many suspected U.S. procedural maneuvers were intended to delay the treaty so it wouldn’t become a topic of discussion during the election. It appears these suspicions were correct since “indefinite” turned out to mean until hours after Mr. Obama was re-elected.

http://www.tedcruz.org/blog/2012/01/...nda-”/

Stop Agenda 21: The Constitution should be our only “Agenda.”
January 20, 2012

By Ted Cruz

The Republican National Committee recently took a stand in voting unanimously to oppose Agenda 21, a dangerous United Nations plan that takes aim at the American economy – and American freedom – in the name of environmental reform.

Under the guise of world sustainability the plan establishes a regime of rules that attempt to bypass Congress and the American people, handing over power over vast areas of the US economy to unelected UN bureaucrats.

Agenda 21 is wrong, and it must be stopped.

In 1992, the United Nations adopted Agenda 21 to “achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy,” outlining a process to eliminate environmental decay and social injustice through micromanaging industries, communities, and culture. They will meet again next year to discuss its “progress” in over 100 nations.

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/

Still No International Gun Ban Treaty
Posted on June 27, 2012 , Updated on July 30, 2012

Q: Does the Obama administration intend to “force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens” through a United Nations treaty?

A: No. The administration plans to negotiate a treaty to regulate the international export and import of weapons. It says that it won’t support any treaty that regulates the domestic transfer or ownership of weapons, or that infringes on the Second Amendment.

 

[Laufey]

The US has one of the highest homicide by firearm rate in the western world. I doubt the easy access and total number of firearms has nothing to do with it.

But it might be too late to go back now that the gun culture is so strong there.

 

[Kulindahr]

I told another NRA member, back in the summer, that assuming La Pierre's wailings about Obama and this Agenda 21 were true, it left us with a sad choice: keep our guns but ruin the nation's economy for a generation, or get the economy back and perhaps surrender some guns.

That this is possible is just a comment on the sorry state of our two major parties: we have no actual conservatives, only reactionaries, and no actual liberals, just wimps, and neither party approves of the entire Bill of Rights any longer.

 

[White Eagle]

^^ I thought you would've been harder on this. I am concerned because my cousins are believing this. Just about all of them have had a comment on these stories I cited. I have to think it is racial on my cousins part. We were all brought up with the same kind of parents and racial was a big part of it.
I was surprised that Reuters had the same kind of article on this.

 

[eastofeden]

They are trying to rally the troops. Taking away their guns...along with UN/One World Order/Illuminati/Rothchilds/World Bank/Federal Reserve... usually does the trick. These buzzwords and phrases and ideas are effective and require little effort....yielding great results.

It only took my crazy hyper religious neocon customer a week after Obama was reelected to tell me that he "warned me" that Russian and Chinese tanks were already in Montana waiting for UN orders to attack us all BUT first Obama was going to take away our guns. He also warned me (constantly...for years) that the world was gonna end on New Years Eve 2000.

I (sorta) like him despite all of that because he is a walking sitcom waiting to happen...he has that Louie DePalma thing going on (Danny DeVito on Taxi).

 

[rareboy]

Seriously.

Relax.

No one is going to take away your guns.

There's not a living politician alive who will make any attempt to do this.

Relax.

All this is, is a another scare attempt to make everyone load up on ammo and more guns.

 

[andysayshi]

The NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the US. There's not a politician in the US with the balls to even raise a conversation about gun control, let alone actually do something about it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Seriously.

Relax.

No one is going to take away your guns.

There's not a living politician alive who will make any attempt to do this.

Relax.

All this is, is a another scare attempt to make everyone load up on ammo and more guns.

Agreed. Massive scare tactic and unfortunately the gun owning portion of the U.S. is massively and reliably susceptible to scare tactics.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^ I thought you would've been harder on this. I am concerned because my cousins are believing this. Just about all of them have had a comment on these stories I cited. I have to think it is racial on my cousins part. We were all brought up with the same kind of parents and racial was a big part of it.
I was surprised that Reuters had the same kind of article on this.

For starters, Reuters had one important detail right: the vote was to have been before the election, but with the UN essentially shut down due to Sandy, it got postponed. So the only connection between Obama's re-election and the vote is that Americans turned out to vote despite Sandy while the UN diplomats huddled in their lush apartments waiting for it to be over.

On top of that, given that half the Security Council are arms exporters, there's no way the matter is going anywhere soon, regardless of the General Assembly; even if Obama wanted to sign on, Russia, China, France, and the UK aren't really interested in a treaty on the issue -- and for that matter, neither are countries which buy those countries' weapons. Some are voting for the resolution for their own reasons, but all the vote will do, even were it unanimous, is say, "We want people to sit down and talk about having an actual treaty on this".

And for Obama's purposes, that's all he needs. If his gun-control freak supporters complain, he can just say, "We're working on it".


And BTW, the change of course came when he was first elected -- nothing has changed at this point.

 

[Kulindahr]

The NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the US. There's not a politician in the US with the balls to even raise a conversation about gun control, let alone actually do something about it.

Besides the fact that three-fifths of Americans don't want any more gun-control laws, and more than that understand that it's an individual right.

 

[White Eagle]

For starters, Reuters had one important detail right: the vote was to have been before the election, but with the UN essentially shut down due to Sandy, it got postponed. So the only connection between Obama's re-election and the vote is that Americans turned out to vote despite Sandy while the UN diplomats huddled in their lush apartments waiting for it to be over.

On top of that, given that half the Security Council are arms exporters, there's no way the matter is going anywhere soon, regardless of the General Assembly; even if Obama wanted to sign on, Russia, China, France, and the UK aren't really interested in a treaty on the issue -- and for that matter, neither are countries which buy those countries' weapons. Some are voting for the resolution for their own reasons, but all the vote will do, even were it unanimous, is say, "We want people to sit down and talk about having an actual treaty on this".

And for Obama's purposes, that's all he needs. If his gun-control freak supporters complain, he can just say, "We're working on it".


And BTW, the change of course came when he was first elected -- nothing has changed at this point.

I hadn't heard of that part of it. It was all a surprise since I found it on one cousin's Facebook page. The title of the thread is misleading. It makes Obama the problem, but that is the way that this Eric Peters and Beck want the fear mongering to come out against him. Such BS.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

I just had an argument with a co-worker today when mentioning that I was in the market for an entry-level .30-06 (just about made up my mind on the Mossburg 100 ATR), and he made some remark about how "Obama is going to take all our guns away, just look at his first term!" I simply asked him one question, "give me a specific piece of legislation, SCOTUS ruling, or executive order Obama has championed that puts him at odds with the status-quo of US gun rights under the Constitution."


Needless to say I got a lot of sputtering, I then proceeded to name off the SCOTUS cases over the past 4 years which have overturned municipal handgun bans yet the 'Left' never made a peep. He walked out of the break room when I called Obama the best thing to ever happen to the Income Statements of firearm manufacturers in decades, seeing as how Fox News and their ilk have ginned up so much fear in those who only get their news from one source.

 

[bankside]

Were you aware that the United States Senate must vote with a two thirds majority before your country can put a treaty into effect.

 

[jackoroe]

Were you aware that the United States Senate must vote with a two thirds majority before your country can put a treaty into effect.

You are correct. The people proffering this theory about the UN cite the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties. Specifically Article 12.

Article 12
Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by signature
1.The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when:
(a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
(b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that
effect; or
(c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
2.For the purposes of paragraph 1:
(a) the initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it is established that the negotiating States so agreed;
(b) the signature ad referendum of a treaty by a representative, if confirmed by his State, constitutes a full signature of the treaty]

The argument goes that simply signing onto a treaty allows the UN to consider us bound regardless of the Senate's action or lack thereof. The UN can wipe their collective asses with Article 12 and the whole Vienna Convention of The Law of Treaties. We are a sovereign nation not subordinate to the UN.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

 

[Rolyo85]

Except, when you're part of an organization, you abide by the rules of that organization. You can't bully your way into the international scene anymore.

 

[jackoroe]

Except, when you're part of an organization, you abide by the rules of that organization. You can't bully your way into the international scene anymore.

Wrong. We are not bound by a signature on any treaty. We are bound only by treaties that have been ratified by 2/3 of the Senators present, like the Constitution says.

 

[Kulindahr]

I hadn't heard of that part of it. It was all a surprise since I found it on one cousin's Facebook page. The title of the thread is misleading. It makes Obama the problem, but that is the way that this Eric Peters and Beck want the fear mongering to come out against him. Such BS.

Well, the title is also misleading because there hasn't been any change in what the Obama administration's position on this has been. On that, it's worth noting that it was, IIRC, the Obama administration which got language included in the treaty which basically says that nations with crappy human rights positions can neither import nor export military arms (how the frak would that be enforced???). That would have the interesting effect of suddenly making it illegal under international law to sell arms to places like Syria!

 

[Kulindahr]

I just had an argument with a co-worker today when mentioning that I was in the market for an entry-level .30-06 (just about made up my mind on the Mossburg 100 ATR), and he made some remark about how "Obama is going to take all our guns away, just look at his first term!" I simply asked him one question, "give me a specific piece of legislation, SCOTUS ruling, or executive order Obama has championed that puts him at odds with the status-quo of US gun rights under the Constitution."


Needless to say I got a lot of sputtering, I then proceeded to name off the SCOTUS cases over the past 4 years which have overturned municipal handgun bans yet the 'Left' never made a peep. He walked out of the break room when I called Obama the best thing to ever happen to the Income Statements of firearm manufacturers in decades, seeing as how Fox News and their ilk have ginned up so much fear in those who only get their news from one source.

LOL

Even the NRA has publivly said that Obama is the best thing to happen to personal arms manufacturers since Clinton.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are correct. The people proffering this theory about the UN cite the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties. Specifically Article 12.



The argument goes that simply signing onto a treaty allows the UN to consider us bound regardless of the Senate's action or lack thereof. The UN can wipe their collective asses with Article 12 and the whole Vienna Convention of The Law of Treaties. We are a sovereign nation not subordinate to the UN.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

I think the operating part there is in two spots:

1. signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.

2. if confirmed by his State

Those pretty much indicate that the signature has to be authorized by the laws of the state. For the US, that means ratification by the Senate.

 

[bankside]

You are correct. The people proffering this theory about the UN cite the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties. Specifically Article 12.



The argument goes that simply signing onto a treaty allows the UN to consider us bound regardless of the Senate's action or lack thereof. The UN can wipe their collective asses with Article 12 and the whole Vienna Convention of The Law of Treaties. We are a sovereign nation not subordinate to the UN.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

Article 12
Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by signature
1.The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when:
(a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
(b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that
effect; or
(c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
2.For the purposes of paragraph 1:
(a) the initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it is established that the negotiating States so agreed;
(b) the signature ad referendum of a treaty by a representative, if confirmed by his State, constitutes a full signature of the treaty]

Presumably your President would be smart enough use section A, and only sign a treaty that says "subject to ratification of the US Senate." Or presumably when your President sends a letter authorizing a US representative to draft a treaty per section C, that letter would note "subject to ratification of the US Senate." Presumably your Congress would be smart enough to notice if the letter didn't say that.

But if none of those American institutions are smart enough to do all those basic things, you can wipe your own damn asses while the rest of the world laughs.

And by the way, having signed on to the UN, and that having been duly affirmed by the US Senate, you are bound by it, because that's not only the way international law works, that's how your own constitution works. You ratified UN membership. You ratified the relevant treaties. Suck it up.