U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

Forbes.com ^ | Jun. 7 2011 - 2:04 pm | Larry Bell

[justlittleoleme]

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

[MrB]

That’s the deal with treaties...
Either our nation honors them or we don’t.

It won’t be “blue helmets” marching down the street to get the guns.

It will be local law enforcement, or the feds, enforcing a law based on a treaty that the US is bound to.

About the only way around this is to have to USSC declare the provision of the treaty in violation of the Constitution (which it is).

[Pox]

that they can most likely attempt to collect 80 to 90 percent.

Fixed it for you.

If it were to cost me my life to resist such an attempt, so be it. The government may attempt to "make an example" of some so that the majority would fall into line, but consider a community that is determined to resist such an unconstitutional move. The collectors would have a serious problem if surrounded by armed and determined citizens intent upon putting a stop to these attempts.

The true question is, what percentage of armed Americans are prepared to defend their rights to the death.

[Osage Orange]

What would be the source of your statement?

[familyop]

Consider depths and materials. ;-)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Metal_Detector.jpg/300px-Metal_Detector.jpg

[Ratman83]

Maybe maybe not but if they use all the forces including the military in one coordinated raid, it would do a lot of damage.

[TheThirdRuffian]

“It will be local law enforcement, or the feds, enforcing a law based on a treaty that the US is bound to.”

Correct. And 99% of them will be happy to do it and itching for the fight.

[muawiyah]

The Leftwingtards are all employed. Still, they would avoid a risky job like crazy.

We've had this UN gun treaty thing up before ~ it's been discussed endlessly.

[muawiyah]

Everybody discussed the Katrina thing endlessly. That’s the only place it happened. A bigger danger to everybody turned out to be the cops just shooting people.

[Ratman83]

All of the FFL dealers keep the records of their sales. Most people I know do not sell their guns they just keep them. Just my opinon on the numbers but I think I am close.

[MrB]

Oathkeepers...

I hope they’re as tough as they sound.

[Ratman83]

Actually I may be high on that number, when I think about my gunss only 50% are recorded with a FFL. But even with one recorded they would come for that one and find more.

[Ratman83]

Yes amny will resist.

[Ratman83]

amny = many

[DariusBane]

2nd amendment is all about parity of arms between The People and the gubment. Do you believe that Lexington and Concord was about “sporting arms”?

King George sent troops to seize military powder and large bore crew served weapons. Lexington and Concord were specifically the reasons for the second and fourth amendment.

So where do you draw the line? Auto matic weapons or high capacity mags? What about walking around unmolested with a revolver in my belt? What about walking around with a long sword? At what point are you willing to abandon the Natural Law of self protection. Where does the pursuit of Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness end with you?

[Osage Orange]

That's what I thought....Your number is a guess.

Thanks-

[Ohioan]

The fundamental rights of American citizens must never be the subject for outside interference. The right--nay in many cases, the duty--to keep & bear arms was fundamental to the Founders' plans for a free society, of individually responsible people. Indeed, George Washington wanted us to adopt the Swiss model, where every home was furnished with a military grade firearm, with the youth well trained in the effective use. (See The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms.)

The envisioned interference with American liberty, would be a clear bow shot across the very concept of American sovereignty. No rationalizations, no pretenses, could ever render such a thing holy or acceptable. (And indeed, it defies all reason, in that it would serve no purpose but to undermine the social fabric, premised--as experience and reason alike make clear--on the maximum possible reliance upon individual responsibility, the sine qua non of personal liberty.

William Flax

[Windflier]

[ChildOfThe60s]

But even with one recorded they would come for that one and find more.

You can take my next statement as gospel.

When the government comes to your door demanding your guns you may as well go to the wire then. Because once they have confiscated them, you will be first on the list for a trip to a re-education camp a little down the road. The first to get picked up will be former gun owners. Bet on it.

[exnavy]

No guns here!

[justlittleoleme]

Its all about doing this incrementally.

A little law here and a little law there and then the rights are gone. For Example:

Court expands police right to take guns from cars

Read more: http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Court-expands-police-right-to-take-guns-from-cars-1391936.php#ixzz1PNgGjrdk

"Protecting the safety of law enforcement officers justifies removal of a gun that's in the plain sight of police, the justices said, and temporarily taking the gun does not violate an individual's constitutional protections against an unreasonable search and seizure.