U.N. finalizing arms treaty to regulate weapons transfers worldwide

posted at 4:01 pm on July 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

As we’ve seen time and again, the United Nations is little more than an ineffective, morally squishy, highly corrupted joke of an international bureaucracy that in the long run has done hardly anything productive in stabilizing global affairs or promoting lasting peace. Honestly, why do we contribute funding (and the lion’s share, at that!) to this globalist boondoggle? So we can be lectured about how our economic prowess is ostensibly creating a climate emergency while China sits smugly on their Human Rights Council? Thanks, but I’ll pass on the proffered guilt trip.

Throughout the month, the United Nations is working on an arms treaty ostensibly aimed at reducing violence that has America’s pro-Second Amendment crowd up in arms. While President Bush was reliably resistant to heeding the U.N. on the idea (bravo!), President Obama reversed U.S. policy on that score in 2009 by bringing the U.S. back to the bargaining table:

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. …

While the treaty’s details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel…

LaPierre says the treaty that is likely to emerge will have the effect of squeezing individual gun owners in the United States and elsewhere by imposing on them an onerous collection of regulations. …

“The world’s worst human rights abusers will end up voting for this, while the Obama administration has not drawn a line in the sand like the previous administration did. Instead, it is trying to be a part of this train wreck because they think they can somehow finesse it. But, to me, there is no finessing the individual freedoms of American citizens.”

The United Nations can’t manage to get its act together on cracking down on genocide, terrorism, and human rights abuses, but we’re to trust them to orchestrate regulations that would clash with our own policies? I can’t see that working out well, and I’ll go ahead and make a wild guess that somewhere down the road this would end up benefiting dictatorial regimes while depriving good citizens of the fundamental right to bear arms.

Even if President Obama could get behind the idea, our current Congress won’t — and seeing how the Senate has to ratify treaties, I don’t foresee the U.S. signing on to this. Preach it, Mr. LaPierre:

Oops: In my last paragraph, I originally wrote that “Congress” has to ratify treaties — I’ve clarified it to just the Senate above!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

dentarthurdent on July 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM

You are so wrong. You throw away your vote if you vote for the same corrupt Parties that effed up our country and continues to do so. The only way your vote actually counts is if you vote to change that and put the best interests of your country above your party. Most people in America hate both parties and don’t like either Obama or Romney. In fact the two party’s are so unpopular that now of all times is the perfect time for a 3rd party. The Republican Party was a 3rd party, the truth is that the “a 3rd party is a sure loser” is just propaganda that is spread by the 2 parties to put blinders on their sheep so they wont stray. Sometimes a third party loses, but some times they win.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I just had an idea on the subject that I thought I would toss out. As we have a Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, why does someone not organize a demonstration, a protest march outside the UN (You know how much liberals love those!) filled with armed citizens, without concealment of those arms simply to inquire of those UN delegates about this proposed treaty. My bet is that they would cower under their desks rather than speak to the peaceable law abiding concerned citizenry.

Stephen L. Hall on July 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Somebody the other day said that one of the two parties has to die before a 3rd party can take it’s place. Well what’s happened in America is that both political parties have crashed at the same time. They both such, everybody hates them but a few koolaid drinkers on the far left and far right, and it’s time for America to take George Washington’s advice and put their parties and factions aside and just do the right thing.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Even if President Obama could get behind the idea, our current Congress won’t — and seeing how Congress has to ratify treaties, I don’t foresee the U.S. signing on to this. Preach it, Mr. LaPierre:

It doesn’t have to be ratified for it to affect us. It will limit import/export of firearms and ammo with other countries. This will cause the cost of available firearms and ammo to go up in price dramatically.

We need to threaten (and follow through) with pulling out of the U.N. and then kicking them off our shores!

And I personally consider any Congressman to vote to ratify this as committing TREASON in addition to violating their oath of office. And I fully support the DEATH PENALTY for treason!

dominigan on July 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I just had an idea on the subject that I thought I would toss out. As we have a Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, why does someone not organize a demonstration, a protest march outside the UN (You know how much liberals love those!) filled with armed citizens, without concealment of those arms simply to inquire of those UN delegates about this proposed treaty. My bet is that they would cower under their desks rather than speak to the peaceable law abiding concerned citizenry.

Stephen L. Hall on July 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

I agree. I would also advocate that for D.C.

But we’re not there yet… but we are getting closer!

dominigan on July 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM

MichaelGabriel on July 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I suggest Sept 11.

We have a guy out here (Colorado) who goes by Dragonman who does a “September 11 Memorial Machine Gun Shoot” at his shooting range every year – and has been doing it for about 10 years (he’s also a Class III arms dealer and has many other business operations). Larry the Cable Guy recently did a show about him on his History channel series “Only in America”.

dentarthurdent on July 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM

There’s only three candidates that I know of that will be on every ballot in November, and only one of them has been a consistent defender of 2nd amendment rights and our other rights, Gary Johnson. If you want to stop what is being done to America by people like Bush and Obama, please vote for Gary Johnson and help bring America back together and make it right.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:08 PM

There is no way Barry is going to find 60 Senators who will approve this treaty.

If he’s true to form, Harry Reid won’t even bring it up for a vote.

GarandFan on July 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM

He didn’t need anyone in Senate to implement illegal immigration last month. You guys keep missing the point, it seems.

A good number of all of Hussein’s EOs are not lawful by-passing what Constitution says and yet they ALL stand.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Damn! You are tiresome.

a capella on July 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Jerry Moran (R-KS) just posted this on Facebook:

Today, as negotiations of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty continue, our country’s sovereignty is in danger of being infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries who do not share or respect our Second Amendment freedoms. By threatening to include civilian firearms within its scope, the treaty would restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in our country.

Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable. That is why I lead 44 of my Senate colleagues in notifying President Obama and Secretary Clinton of our intent to oppose ratification of a treaty that in any way restricts Second Amendment rights – enough to block the treaty from passage. As the treaty process continues, I will work to make certain any Arms Trade Treaty that undermines the Constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival.

cptacek on July 11, 2012 at 5:12 PM

I just had an idea on the subject that I thought I would toss out. As we have a Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, why does someone not organize a demonstration, a protest march outside the UN (You know how much liberals love those!) filled with armed citizens, without concealment of those arms simply to inquire of those UN delegates about this proposed treaty. My bet is that they would cower under their desks rather than speak to the peaceable law abiding concerned citizenry.

Stephen L. Hall on July 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

In NYC? With rabid liberals running the place? Good luck getting a permit for the demonstration.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 5:13 PM

The Senate will not ratify this treaty but Barry’s clown troupe know that.

There is no reason to not conintue working ‘under the covers’. I believe Dealers now have to report multiple purchases of long guns from border state establishments.

Illinois, California, Mass., and New York already have in place a slew of laws that contravene the 2nd Amendment.

Join the NRA – they are the 800lb gorilla in the room.

CorporatePiggy on July 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM

A local cop here said he would never go door to door to confiscate firearms if so ordered, because it would be a suicide mission. He and other officers have had several informal discussions on the issue and he said his coworkers agreed with him.

txsurveyor on July 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I wonder if our military feels the same way.

After all, they have tanks and bazookas and stuff, which the poe-lice don’t have.

UltimateBob on July 11, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Damn! You are tiresome.

a capella on July 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

So are the Romney supporters that are so quick with personal slights but never with the facts or reasoned arguments.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:17 PM

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM

You’re delusional.
How old are you? I ask because you come across like “the new guy” who thinks he’s got these great new ideas to do things different but nobody is willing to listen – but the reality is those “new ideas” have all been tried before and failed. I was just like you a long time ago thinking Ross Perot was the break we needed – and all voting for him did was give us Bill Clinton.
What percentage of the vote has the most successful 3rd party candidate for President ever gotten? That’s not going to change any time soon. Libs figured that out with Ralph Nader. Conservatives figured that out with Ross Perot.
I would love to vote for someone other than R or D – but in the real world there is no realistic choice for that right now. Mike Rosen (Denver talk radio) has repeatedly made the valid point about the system we have right now – “party trumps person”. That’s the real world whether you like or not.

dentarthurdent on July 11, 2012 at 5:17 PM

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:08 PM

A self indulgent waste of time.

The libertarian presidential campaign high mark was 1980 @ 1.1%.

Admittedly that is more than the TruCons will garner but get real.

CorporatePiggy on July 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Damn! You are tiresome.

a capella on July 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

What I find tiresome is a Republican Party that no longer supports the 2nd amendment and finds people who do tiresome.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

“In NYC? With rabid liberals running the place? Good luck getting a permit for the demonstration.”

Permit? We ain’t got no permit. We don’t need no permit! We don’t have to show you no stinkin’ permit!!!

Civil Disobedience, isn’t that commonly lauded by the left, in the mode of Gandi. Or was that the Duke. Either way.

Stephen L. Hall on July 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

CorporatePiggy on July 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

The D/R parties have never been as unpopular as they are now, their popularity is in the toilet, and never before has the Libertarian party candidate been the most qualified, experienced candidate, as Gary Johnson certainly is according to his actual record of public service. The only thing that Obama and Romney have over Gary crony funded propaganda machines to try and hide the truth. On the other hand, unlike Romney and Obama, Gary Johnson’s record and his rhetoric over the years are consistent, so he doesn’t have to hide the truth; the truth is his friend.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Halp me gerry johnson!

tom daschle concerned on July 11, 2012 at 5:22 PM

“The world’s worst human rights abusers will end up voting for this,

Voting for it, but not abiding by it. They will sell arms to whomever they please.

The United Nations can’t manage to get its act together on cracking down on genocide, terrorism, and human rights abuses, but we’re to trust them to orchestrate regulations that would clash with our own policies Constitution?

More important.

iurockhead on July 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Judge orders anonymous commenters identified.

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

“In NYC? With rabid liberals running the place? Good luck getting a permit for the demonstration.”

Permit? We ain’t got no permit. We don’t need no permit! We don’t have to show you no stinkin’ permit!!!

Civil Disobedience, isn’t that commonly lauded by the left, in the mode of Gandi. Or was that the Duke. Either way.

Stephen L. Hall on July 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

As much as I like your idea, this will never work. It will actually backfire, big time, when LSM starts screaming about “armed occupation” of NYC.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Mr. Eggleston, if the O crew wants to order military assaults with automatic weapons, airstrikes and artillery in populated suburbs / cities (unlike Ruby Ridge / Waco), go for it. There is NO WAY you could cover that up. And after it happened once or twice, the Three Percent would be aware and activated.

And they won’t be duking it out in the open field with the US military, they’ll be in liberals’ and bureaucrats’ backyards at 2 am.

SDN on July 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM

And yet a number of courts recently sided with Sharia laws, no?

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:41 PM

And, those that have used shari’ah law where it should not have been applied have been slapped down at the appellate levels. The case in New Jersey involving spousal rape and restraining orders is one.

In cases involving religious doctrine or disputes in religious institutions, the court is not going to set doctrine. This is true whether it is a Lutheran school in Michigan or a mosque in Florida. If there is a dispute over leadership or investments, etc., then a court is correct if it applies the law under which the religious institution operates provided it is spelled out in a charter, by-laws, contract, or other agreement.

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Judge orders anonymous commenters identified.

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

But, but, but… We have Constitution and Amendments, right?

We are nothing, but a third world country lately… Laws only worj for the left…

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Like I said, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Thanks for providing the cite, though. I’m too lazy find it for the rest of us. ;)

totherightofthem on July 11, 2012 at 4:40 PM

You’re welcome, but I didn’t see your post prior to posting mine. My post wasn’t in response to yours.

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM

What I find tiresome is a Republican Party that no longer supports the 2nd amendment and finds people who do tiresome.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

As we have been recently reminded, our rights have NOTHING to do with the party we vote for, and EVERYTHING to do with what we personally take action on!

Btw, who the crap is Gary Johnson?

dominigan on July 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Once this treaty is in place we can’t get rid of it!

Only if all of the other members agree can it be undone.

And yes it has the power of law and yes it can and will destroy our second amendment.

Look how our right to keep and bear arms is perverted now, without an international treaty. With it all of the member nations have the right to demand every American be debarred of arms.

After this is set in stone, the UN can be imploded and disbanded and the treaty will remain in force.

Every senator has to understand this treaty is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Speakup on July 11, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Judge orders anonymous commenters identified.

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

While I disagree with the ruling and would wish otherwise, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet. One should never expect to have his or her anonymity protected by law or a website when using the internet. It is not. If desired, the government or a litigant will likely be able to get your personal information.

My advice — both legal and personal — is never say or display anything on the internet that you would be unwilling to say or display in person.

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Riddick, how about a Revolutionary War re-enactment protest march with costumes and non-functioning replicas of firearms. . . . They’d cringe just as much and no violation of any unconstitutional local statute.

Stephen L. Hall on July 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM

For an Organization that has proven to be a completely incompetent and impotent organization, riddled with scandal, corruption, & ineptitude, the U.N. continues to draft these ‘treaties’ that demand the world hand over incredible amounts of power and control over to them. It is high time the U.s. told them to go ‘sit and spin’. Obama won’t do it, though, as he seems to be ‘auditioning’ for a ’1-World Government’ position where he can be one of the ‘Banana-Republic-esque’ leaders who rules the rest of the cow-towing world. (It’s about time to tell Obama HE can go ‘sit and spin’, too!)

easyt65 on July 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM

My advice — both legal and personal — is never say or display anything on the internet that you would be unwilling to say or display in person.

This advise will still get me shot by the would be statists. I’m more than willing to tell them what I think.

Stephen L. Hall on July 11, 2012 at 5:43 PM

My advice — both legal and personal — is never say or display anything on the internet that you would be unwilling to say or display in person.

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Too late for Anthony Weiner. If only he’d have known.:)

a capella on July 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM

O/T Holy smokes, Preezy doesn’t see Chavez and his alliances as problematic. Romney calls out Mr. Smart Power on his naivete:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-obamas-chavez-statement-stunning-and-shocking_648423.html

onlineanalyst on July 11, 2012 at 5:45 PM

another bear trap for democrats, step lightly socialists!

burserker on July 11, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Who’s going to declare it, Harry Reid? Unless there’s 60 R’s in the Senate, he is the only member of Congress who matters.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 4:55 PM

At the moment I believe Obama is the single biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment and would have no problem bypassing the Senate. That being said there is still the issue of implementing and enforcing such a treaty. Not having the votes in the Senate who’s he going to get to enforce abolition, the UN?

antipc on July 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Riddick, how about a Revolutionary War re-enactment protest march with costumes and non-functioning replicas of firearms. . . . They’d cringe just as much and no violation of any unconstitutional local statute.

Stephen L. Hall on July 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Like I said, I am all for it, you seem to misunderstand where I am on this issue. But making it happen in a blue state won’t be easy, to put it mildly. We can dress up any way we like, but carrying guns is something that will backfire one way or another. Just imagine Soros paying gangs that day to do what they do, but on a larger scale. Who do you think will get blame for a sudden spike in murder rate and pillage?

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Not having the votes in the Senate who’s he going to get to enforce abolition, the UN?

antipc on July 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Iran Revolutionary Guard, who else?

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM

One of my favourite quotes about the UN…from a Democrat no less:

“You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”

- Senator Fritz Hollings

Democrats, you can save a potentate today! Contribute to Michelle Obama’s new food programme “Potatoes For Potentates!” at whitehousegarden.gov.

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Had the libertarian party actually begun local and state-wide organizing back when it was created, we might actually have a credible 3rd party right now, but they behaved like absolute idiots and neophytes when it came to organizing and all we have is the same old crap. No organization, no chance of winning.

TQM38a on July 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Too late for Anthony Weiner. If only he’d have known.:)

a capella on July 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Smart Power!

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM

O/T: Anyone watched Gutfeld unload on Beckel today? First time ever I saw Greg lose his cool and scream, but I guess Beckel does that to sane people. He later “apologized”, with a wicked smile and smirk on his face.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 5:53 PM

SDN on July 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM

If it’s preceded by an incident like Gleiwitz, the excuse will likely work on the masses just long enough.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 5:56 PM

At the moment I believe Obama is the single biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment and would have no problem bypassing the Senate. That being said there is still the issue of implementing and enforcing such a treaty. Not having the votes in the Senate who’s he going to get to enforce abolition, the UN?

antipc on July 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Precisely.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Riddick, how about a Revolutionary War re-enactment protest march with costumes and non-functioning replicas of firearms. . . . They’d cringe just as much and no violation of any unconstitutional local statute.

Stephen L. Hall on July 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Hey, how about if instead of organizing stupid hippie protest marches in support of the 2nd amendment, why don’t we just vote for politicians that actually support the 2nd amendment?

Instead of voting for Romney and joining your hippie protest march in front of the UN, why don’t I vote for Gary Johnson and we’ll defend the 2nd amendment from inside the government instead of outside.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Gonna be a tough sell here in Ga I think.

Bmore on July 11, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Fast & Furious was no doubt timed to set the table for this.

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Yep, My thinking also.

Bmore on July 11, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Defund the defunct UN.
Kick their butts off of US soil.
Go to grab our guns and dodge our bullets instead.
That is a promise, more so, it’s a GUARANTEE.

Wolfmoon on July 11, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Down with the N.W.O.

dom89031 on July 11, 2012 at 6:34 PM

FloatingRock

So you’re saying Gary Johnson is like Jesus or something…

MikeknaJ on July 11, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Funny how the people who hate freedom the most are the ones who want to control guns the most.

WisCon on July 11, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Defund the defunct UN.
Kick their butts off of US soil.

Wolfmoon on July 11, 2012 at 6:33 PM

+1000

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Funny how the people who hate freedom the most are the ones who want to control guns the most.

WisCon on July 11, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Because that’s the only way they can control their citizens.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Please try to do away with our second amendment rights with this treaty…it won’t be pretty, but we’ll finally be able to take out the garbage…

Doomsday on July 11, 2012 at 6:47 PM

So you’re saying Gary Johnson is like Jesus or something…

MikeknaJ on July 11, 2012 at 6:36 PM

No, when did I say that or even imply anything close to it? You don’t have to be Jesus to be a consistent defender of the 2nd amendment as myself and Gary Johnson both have been. Romney, and probably yourself, on the other hand, probably have not been consistent 2nd amendment supporters, obviously.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 6:47 PM

To correct myself, there’s no “probably” about it, Romney has not been a 2nd amendment supporter, his record shows that he has been an opponent. I added the probably because I included Mike in the statement as well and I’m not as certain about him.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Yet ANOTHER issue Zero is on the wrong side of. People dont want the UN or foreign countries in their business. At least not those of us between the left and right coast.

TX-96 on July 11, 2012 at 6:50 PM

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

- Adolf Hitler, 1935

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Btw, who the crap is Gary Johnson?

dominigan on July 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM

What the Hell???? Larry Jonston is going to be the next President of the United States.

Right after monkeys fly outta my a$$…

BigWyo on July 11, 2012 at 6:51 PM

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

- Adolf Hitler, 1935

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Similarly, what the Communists did in USSR, right after civil war for “freedom”, was confiscate guns. Guns laws were beyond strict.

It still amazes me how many people know so little about fairly recent history.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Btw, who the crap is Gary Johnson?

dominigan on July 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM

What the Hell???? Larry Jonston is going to be the next President of the United States.

Right after monkeys fly outta my a$$…

BigWyo on July 11, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Husky, ponytailed guy. Has a website.

slickwillie2001 on July 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM

In fact the two party’s are so unpopular that now of all times is the perfect time for a 3rd party. The Republican Party was a 3rd party, the truth is that the “a 3rd party is a sure loser” is just propaganda that is spread by the 2 parties to put blinders on their sheep so they wont stray. Sometimes a third party loses, but some times they win.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Here’s the main problem with your solution.

Abraham Lincoln was the Republican candidate at the time.

Gary Johnson is no Abraham Lincoln.

The end.

MikeknaJ on July 11, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Husky, ponytailed guy. Has a website.

slickwillie2001 on July 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM

*snicker*

Does he ride a bike???

BigWyo on July 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM

U.N. finalizing arms treaty to regulate weapons transfers worldwide

posted at 4:01 pm on July 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

excerpt:

Honestly, why do we contribute funding (and the lion’s share, at that!) to this globalist boondoggle?

.
That’s the only reason they exist.
If they weren’t taking money from us, they would dissolve almost instantly.

HEY . . . now there’s an idea . . . . . . . . . : )

listens2glenn on July 11, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Interesting read on this on Ace blog. He seems to be also thinking what I do in regard to Roberts.

What finally grabbed my attention is not just our Second Amendment that is being under threat, no matter what you guys think of implementing it here, but arm sales to Israel, for example. Israel depends on constant re-stocking from us and Hussein already delayed supplies before, now while proclaiming he is in support of Israel he will also be able to say, See, UN treaty says we cannot sell arms to Israel. Who does this help? Yep. Our friends Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Palestinians, all democratic states in the region. Pretty much telling them to open up a united front and have Israel deal with rapid depletion of arms.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 7:14 PM

*snicker*

Does he ride a bike???

BigWyo on July 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Tricycles rock, dude!

Wolfmoon on July 11, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Fast & Furious was no doubt timed to set the table for this.

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Yep, My thinking also.

Bmore on July 11, 2012 at 6:24 PM

And on top of that, there is the new, and I believe likely more effective meme (lie) that ‘target practice causes forest / range fires’ that started gaining wide distribution a few weeks ago.

Most Leftists and ‘moderates’ don’t really give a dang about a few dead folks south of the border and a few of our people guarding it, but let one tree burn anywhere in the world and they will have fits .

………………………………..

As to the UN: If they would have them, let them come and take them.

I hope they wear their pretty blue helmets when they do.

LegendHasIt on July 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Btw, who the crap is Gary Johnson?

dominigan on July 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/gary-johnson.jpg

I knew that photo reminded me of someone….

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2007/fortune/0712/gallery.101_dumbest.fortune/images/027_phil_spector.jpg

He just needs a wig.

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Did not Obama sign an EO to give UN or Interpol jurisdiction rights to operate in the USA? I seem to remember something about this a few years ago after BIG SIS declares veterans and gun owner’s potential terrorists.

mechkiller_k on July 11, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Exactly. It is chilling just how close to civil War we really are. Seriously, this is an issue people will fight over and Obama is just going along happily thinking it will go through and people will accept it. It worked in England, it worked in Germany, it worked in Australia, it worked in Russia, it worked in Cambodia, it worked in Ukraine, it worked in China…woops….hmmmm.

I can see the MSM going full on about every Cop that is killed. NRA members get the drone treatment cuz they are Terrorists, don’t cha know. The effort will be that anyone who resists is so EVIL that they must be eliminated.

And it just might work.

Bulletchaser on July 11, 2012 at 7:37 PM

It’s time to defund that festering collection of perversely-inverse morons, forcibly evict everyone, then demolish the structures and bulldoze them into the East River.

Disinvite their diplomats. Cut all UN funding. Continue some limited food aid, but only do so under the most stringent of thug-neutering conditions, up to and including assassinations and midnight palace JDAM strikes.

rayra on July 11, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Ummmm try taking my weapons. try reporting me. see how far that goes.

MNDavenotPC on July 11, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Bulletchaser, the key is not to shoot at the cops or the Nat’l Guard, but at the marxists / totalitarians giving the orders.
And not be at the census-collected GPS coordinates of your front door when they come for you with a knock in the night / in the pre-dawn.

rayra on July 11, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Bulletchaser, the key is not to shoot at the cops or the Nat’l Guard, but at the marxists / totalitarians giving the orders.

rayra on July 11, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Janet Reno was not the one showing up at Waco, was she?

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Here’s the main problem with your solution.
Abraham Lincoln was the Republican candidate at the time.
Gary Johnson is no Abraham Lincoln.
The end.
MikeknaJ
 on July 11, 2012 at 7:01 PM

???? Abe was the first gop candidate, meaning the GOP was a third party trying to horn in on the Whigs. Abe’s Rep at the time was “tall, skinny doofus with a irritating voice and not handsome to look at”. That and he was a congressional loser. This aura of dignified statesman didn’t come into being until well after his term was underway. Oh, and he won in a contested convention after a series of polling.

So yeah, Gary has just as good a chance of winning as any other, never mind what the polls say, because he’s going to be on practically all the ballots in the union along with that other candidate, Write-in. Only time will tell what the Poll of November 6 brings us.

AH_C on July 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Never forget that a treaty once ratified becomes the law of the land, binding us and trumping mere Congressional laws and executive orders, just like the Constitution. This wouldn’t worry me if I believed the Senate could be counted on to do its job and reject any such UN treaties like this that conflict with the Constitution. But let the Democrats get a big enough margin in the Senate, and it could happen.

tom on July 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM

U.N. finalizing arms treaty to regulate weapons transfers worldwide

Speakup on July 11, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I don’t trust the current Senate as far as I can spit. However, there is a bright side. If Obama and Hillary do this deal, Obama will lose the election. If the Senate ratifies it, we’ll take the Senate and we might have hope of repealing the 17th Amendment. And they’d have to enforce the bugger and well all have our then-illegal arms at the ready. Last but not least, the UN couldn’t enforce a rule making kids eat candy.

idalily on July 11, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Not that it is so much comfort with Obama in the White House and in the aftermath of the Obamacare ruling, but treaties and international agreements do not trump the Constitution even if ratified by the Senate. In Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Court held:

“…[N]o agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions.

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 4:38 PM

My understanding is that treaties don’t trump the Constitution, but they do trump mere laws, whether made by Congress or by the states.

Technically, treaties are also the “supreme law of the land,” just like the Constitution. Practically, though, they can’t both be the supreme law of the land.

But in any conflict between a Constitutional provision and a treaty, I sure wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court carefully “interpreted” the Constitution in such a way as to remove the conflict and allow the treaty’s provisions to stand.

tom on July 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Never forget that a treaty once ratified becomes the law of the land, binding us and trumping mere Congressional laws and executive orders, just like the Constitution. This wouldn’t worry me if I believed the Senate could be counted on to do its job and reject any such UN treaties like this that conflict with the Constitution. But let the Democrats get a big enough margin in the Senate, and it could happen.

tom on July 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Yep. As someone already pointe out, such GOP morons as Lugar would vote for this just to spite GOP, he’s not coming back anyway. Add in Snow, same reason, and very likely McCain (he’s not running again). That leaves an awfully thin margin, doesn’t it? We have no idea how “conservatives” Murkowski and Collins will vote, nor Lieberman (another gonner). There are other liberal senators who could vote for it, especially when they find out on Nov 6th they are not returning.

And besides that, just seeing both Hussein and Hillary WeDontNeedAnotherMouthInTheFamily pushing for this crap in UN I am sure they have a plan to implement it. Reid has to do his same old stick, not bring the vote up, and the UN treaty then becomes the law by default until that time when a Senate decides to vote on it.

Lame duck session, as it already is today and stretching out to January 19th 2013 should not be underestimated, liberals WILL use it to their advantage, make no mistake about it.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I believe the proper response to the UN is…

μολὼν λαβέ

Wolftech on July 11, 2012 at 8:41 PM

But in any conflict between a Constitutional provision and a treaty, I sure wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court carefully “interpreted” the Constitution in such a way as to remove the conflict and allow the treaty’s provisions to stand.

tom on July 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Thus my prior references to Roberts.

We may be between a rock and a hard place here.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I don’t trust the current Senate as far as I can spit. However, there is a bright side. If Obama and Hillary do this deal, Obama will lose the election.

idalily on July 11, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Not if its done post election in a lame duck session. Hussein won’t have anything to lose at that point. Neither will Reid.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 8:43 PM

I believe the proper response to the UN is…

μολὼν λαβέ

Wolftech on July 11, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Well said.

ShadowsPawn on July 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

They don’t have to come and take them. Close every gun-store and range. Ranges that are kept open every weapon is checked and logged in National database. Every person who defense themselves is Zimmerman’ed with “possession” and “Conspiracy” unless he steers officials to someone harboring guns. Same for every person caught “possessing”.

Let’s see, 10 to 15 years being Jamal’s roommate, begger you wife and kids, lose job and all professional licenses and spend you IRA or 401K defending yourself or give up the weird dude with the NRA stickers on the back of his truck.

That will be a tough choice for some.

Bulletchaser on July 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I believe the proper response to the UN is…

μολὼν λαβέ

Wolftech on July 11, 2012 at 8:41 PM

you Greek?? :-)

jimver on July 11, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I believe the proper response to the UN is…

μολὼν λαβέ

Wolftech on July 11, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Indeed. I beat you to it :)

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ – Molon Labe

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 9:32 PM

90 million gun owners in the country…..how many D’s will this bring out against Obozo?

This will be kabuki theater if it garners any support at all from the “Liberals”. Hell, at the rate this is going I wouldn’t be surprised to see a secessionist movement start soon, or worse.

KMC1 on July 11, 2012 at 9:50 PM

This….
During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders’ Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders’ Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

dirtengineer on July 11, 2012 at 9:54 PM

They don’t have to come and take them. Close every gun-store and range. Ranges that are kept open every weapon is checked and logged in National database.

Bulletchaser on July 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

This is also un-Constitutional.

Article I Section 8 Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

Who is the “Militia”? It was never defined in the US Constitution. Instead, it was left to the individual states to define who constituted each state’s militia.

I live in Ohio. Section 9.01 of the Ohio Constitution defines the militia as…

9.01 All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age, and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law.

Thus, it would be un-Constitutional to close gun shops and gun ranges because it conflicts with Congress’ responsibility to allow for the organizing, arming and training of state citizens in their militia duties of responsible firearm usage.

(Not that this would prevent those traitors from ignoring the Constitution…)

dominigan on July 11, 2012 at 10:23 PM

U.N. finalizing arms treaty to regulate weapons transfers worldwide

Now that’s a laugh. The U.N. lacks the means and the will regulate ANYTHING pertaining to military matters. What are they going to do? Unleash the powder-blues? Good luck with that. They’ll have to pry them out of their bunkers with crowbars.

Let’s face it. The U.N. has out-outlived its usefulness. New York should put the whole operation on a jumbo barge and shove it towards the coast of France.

minnesoter on July 11, 2012 at 10:44 PM

This is also un-Constitutional.

dominigan on July 11, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Do you follow news, by any chance? Can you remind us how Roberts’ decision less than 2 weeks ago was Constitutional?

Jeez, keep talking about Constitution, the one that Roberts pissed on, with glee.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Most people in America hate both parties and don’t like either Obama or Romney.

Your spiel is based on a lie.

Who says it’s only liberals who believe in unicorns.

MaggiePoo on July 11, 2012 at 11:40 PM

We will need to ratify the treaty to find out what’s in it.

tommer74 on July 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM

At least Floating Rock is putting in the ground work for his candidate. Hopefully we get some guys with that much zeal on the ground for Romney, and hopefully they post in a forum where they have a decent chance of creating R voters.

Anyway he is right on some issues. I wonder if they’ll dig up the “Romney would have signed an extension of the “assault weapons” ban” story.

Given the choice between voting for a guy who won’t win, a guy who actively pursues increased gun “regulation”, or a guy who simply won’t scale it back, I know who I’ll pick.

WeekendAtBernankes on July 12, 2012 at 1:29 AM

At the moment I believe Obama is the single biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment and would have no problem bypassing the Senate. That being said there is still the issue of implementing and enforcing such a treaty. Not having the votes in the Senate who’s he going to get to enforce abolition, the UN?

antipc on July 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Precisely.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 5:58 PM

What are you saying, Steve…aim for the blue helmet?
Seriously, I don’t know how the festering fecal smear would get around the Senate’s refusal to ratify the treaty. I have no doubt that he would try, but just how would he accomplish that? I can’t see an EO being taken seriously as a viable substitute for ratification, but so far the Constitution has been little more than an ant hill for Ogabe to step over. I think I need to start budgeting for weekly ammo buys. Probably should have done that back in 09.

swinia sutki on July 12, 2012 at 6:43 AM

I suggest Sept 11.

We have a guy out here (Colorado) who goes by Dragonman who does a “September 11 Memorial Machine Gun Shoot” at his shooting range every year – and has been doing it for about 10 years (he’s also a Class III arms dealer and has many other business operations). Larry the Cable Guy recently did a show about him on his History channel series “Only in America”.

dentarthurdent on July 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Heh, I was just telling some of my local Hoosier friends about the awesome that is Dragonman’s.

PXCharon on July 12, 2012 at 7:23 AM

Heh, time to join the likes of Iraq and NKorea and thumb our noses at what the UN ‘decrees’.

socalcon on July 12, 2012 at 8:10 AM

…the Mexican Drug Cartels are probably lobbying the UN…

KOOLAID2 on July 11, 2012 at 4:18 PM

The visual of a dis-embodied head rolling into the U.N.’s main chamber comes to mind…

socalcon on July 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3