dittybopper, UN treaties (not to mention entities like the IMF and the ICC) can absolutely interfere with the civil rights of U.S. citizens. They can bind the United States (and its citizens) to global policies that would never fly as stand alone laws originating in the US House - and they can be enforced in US courts.

That's why Obama and Hillary are rushing to get the signature of Uncle Same on a wide variety of treaties that can only be ratified be the democrat-controlled senate. This is just one of them.

Okay comrades, we might as well drop the pretense. They're on to us. No point in waiting until November.

Move the FEMA camps to green status, fire up the biodiesel-powered black helicopters, and unleash the New Black Panthers - and I mean both of 'em. Its time to start rounding up those tea partiers before they manage to take their nation back.

If anyone at the collection point (your nearest mosque, of course) claims they're being falsely labeled a patriot. make them sing Kumbaya. If they don't know the full song, club 'em like a baby seal and fast track 'em for a death panel.

What's wrong republitards, here comes your chance to go all Rambo/Red Dawn and you sissies are scared of the farking UN???? What are they gonna do, send us a strongly worded letter and sanctions on our trade with Botswana and Bangledesh? Man up biatches.

/fairly liberal
//likes guns

Sgt Stubby: dittybopper, UN treaties (not to mention entities like the IMF and the ICC) can absolutely interfere with the civil rights of U.S. citizens. They can bind the United States (and its citizens) to global policies that would never fly as stand alone laws originating in the US House - and they can be enforced in US courts.

That's why Obama and Hillary are rushing to get the signature of Uncle Same on a wide variety of treaties that can only be ratified be the democrat-controlled senate. This is just one of them.

Your lack of understanding of how things work has been noted. You don't need to continue.

GAT_00


Isn't it funny how Republicans are completely terrified of the UN they also claim is completely powerless?

So you are saying this isn't real. They are powerless unless our gov't gives them power. See the world court.

Philip Francis Queeg: /Let's try that again.

We can't do that; Charlie Sheen ran out of coke and ground up both Steve Jobs and Patrick Swayze's healthy prostate cells to snort.

/winning.jpg

Gotta love the ZOMG!!!

1)...IF it passes the U.N. AND 2) IF it is ratified by the US Senate.

1) may happen
2) no farking way

really.

Chakro


FTFA: "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:" add imaginary postulation here.

Oh I see, this is another of those we have to pass it to see whats in it.

dittybopper: Sgt Stubby: dittybopper : International treaties, even when ratified by the Senate, can't over-ride enumerated individual rights. Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. It's settled law.


You're wrong about that.

Which part?

The whole thing. The UN absolutely cannot interfere with our constitution and how citizens live within our own borders. Period.

No, I am right about this. You leftists claiming that there's 'nothing to fear', don't even know what's in this thing. Do you know why? Because it hasn't been published yet. It's being written 'by consensus' as we speak. We know some of it, but we don't know it all and the terms of this treaty CAN be enforced by US courts and, like the ICC, it will supercede the US constitution. Those are facts.

Remember, this is something that 'fast and furious' obama wants done while he still has the democrat senate (the House doesn't get to vote on treaties). Just like ObamaCare, we need to 'ratify it so we can find out what's in it'.

dittybopper: Jim_Callahan: Treaties, like all laws, are subject to challenge and review by the USSC, who wouldn't let something like that through even if all nine of 'em were the libbiest libs ever to lib a lib.

Not losing any sleep over this one, is what I'm saying here.

Same here.

International treaties, even when ratified by the Senate, can't over-ride enumerated individual rights. Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. It's settled law.

What this *COULD* do, though, is prevent or at least make it more difficult (read: expensive) to import arms into the US. Many of the guns available for sale are made overseas. That could mean some manufacturing will shift to the US, but it could mean higher prices.

So what? Buy American you commie.

Sgt Stubby: No, I am right about this. You leftists claiming that there's 'nothing to fear', don't even know what's in this thing. Do you know why? Because it hasn't been published yet. It's being written 'by consensus' as we speak. We know some of it, but we don't know it all and the terms of this treaty CAN be enforced by US courts and, like the ICC, it will supercede the US constitution. Those are facts.

Remember, this is something that 'fast and furious' obama wants done while he still has the democrat senate (the House doesn't get to vote on treaties). Just like ObamaCare, we need to 'ratify it so we can find out what's in it'.

My God, do you think that's how he;'s going to make us a Communist country and institute full Sharia law while he's at it?

Buffalo77: So you are saying this isn't real.

Yep, that's exactly what he's saying, and with good cause.

First, it's thoroughly debunked, see the snopes article linked in this thread.

Second, if you'd actually bothered to read the article from Forbes, you'd see that the entire article is written wholly from the author's imagination, wherein he admits he has no clue what the Small Arms Treaty even contains, but then tells us that it will "clearly" result in some foregone conclusion.

As with all things the UN does you first have to ask...

What do they say they want to accomplish? Is what they have in mind something that will actually accomplish that? Given that its perfectly obvious that the UN can't possibly accomplish this and everyone knows it. Why are they doing it anyway?

In this case:

They say that its intended to keep small arms away from criminal organizations (drug cartels), terrorists, and the like. Basically people "everyone" thinks shouldn't have free and ready access to guns. Their plan will not accomplish this because there is a huge black market sale of weapons and plenty of governments willing to do nothing about it, and that's not going to change even slightly because of this action by the UN.

Everyone with sense knows and accepts the above so now as to the 'why are they doing it anyway'?

Well if its not an attempt to do an end run around the 2nd Amendment or to give the federal government an excuse to chip away at it, particularly since Fast and Furious failed to deliver an excuse to do that as was planned, then what is it? Maybe the "UN is coming for your guns" routine is a stupid idea spawned of paranoia but do you have a plausible alternative "conspiracy" theory?

You're either
1) Assuming the UN is going to all this trouble for nothing, which would be nothing new for them and that people like Soros, who is not stupid, is going along with that
2) Assuming the UN is up to something that has nothing to do with keeping guns away from the people they claim, since its patently obvious this will not do that, but is going forward anyway and people like Soros, who is not stupid, is going along with it

So today's GOPbagger talking point is that the UN is hell-bent on destroying our freedoms and has the authority and manpower to confiscate all small arms from every household in the USA, but of course they are also organized and informed enough to know who works for the government and leave those homes alone. Huh, I thought today was supposed to be "We need out of the UN because they are clueless, powerless, and are not competent enough to do anything beyond send a strongly worded letter" day.

Same as with your talking points about Obama. It would be nice if you jackasses could at least keep to one line of talking points.

Sgt Stubby: don't even know what's in this thing... It's being written 'by consensus' as we speak.

Yep. There you go. It doesn't actually exist in any way, therefore "leftists" are wrong to say it doesn't exist and something that doesn't exist can't have an effect until it exists. We should be more like you, who looks at things that don't exist and, based on the non-existence of it, decide that it can only mean a chicken little scenario.

The mind of a self-avowed conservative, ladies and gentlemen.

Sgt Stubby: No, I am right about this. You leftists claiming that there's 'nothing to fear', don't even know what's in this thing. Do you know why? Because it hasn't been published yet. It's being written 'by consensus' as we speak. We know some of it, but we don't know it all and the terms of this treaty CAN be enforced by US courts and, like the ICC, it will supercede the US constitution. Those are facts.

Remember, this is something that 'fast and furious' obama wants done while he still has the democrat senate (the House doesn't get to vote on treaties). Just like ObamaCare, we need to 'ratify it so we can find out what's in it'.

Fast and Furious... Is that anything like Iran-Contra???

Oh wait, Ollie North is a real American Hero and Reagan is Jesus in a suit.

Those Iraninans would never use those arms against us and our allies, riiiight??

randomjsa: particularly since Fast and Furious failed to deliver an excuse to do that as was planned

That never happened, but it's a nice try for you to inject Fast and Furious after the SCOTUS loss on PPACA. It does give me a nice opportunity to remind everybody that conservatives were suspiciously silent on Operation Wide Receiver, which did the exact same thing as F&F, and which coincidentally didn't have the black democrat in charge during that time -- of course, Wide Receiver didn't actually result in any prosecutions until that black democrat took over, but do please ignore the part where once again the fark up was entirely on Republicans until a Democrat fixed it.

Thanks randomjsa, a liberal couldn't ask for a better springboard than your inanity.

randomjsa: As with all things the UN does you first have to ask...

What do they say they want to accomplish? Is what they have in mind something that will actually accomplish that? Given that its perfectly obvious that the UN can't possibly accomplish this and everyone knows it. Why are they doing it anyway?

In this case:

They say that its intended to keep small arms away from criminal organizations (drug cartels), terrorists, and the like. Basically people "everyone" thinks shouldn't have free and ready access to guns. Their plan will not accomplish this because there is a huge black market sale of weapons and plenty of governments willing to do nothing about it, and that's not going to change even slightly because of this action by the UN.

Everyone with sense knows and accepts the above so now as to the 'why are they doing it anyway'?

Well if its not an attempt to do an end run around the 2nd Amendment or to give the federal government an excuse to chip away at it, particularly since Fast and Furious failed to deliver an excuse to do that as was planned, then what is it? Maybe the "UN is coming for your guns" routine is a stupid idea spawned of paranoia but do you have a plausible alternative "conspiracy" theory?

You're either
1) Assuming the UN is going to all this trouble for nothing, which would be nothing new for them and that people like Soros, who is not stupid, is going along with that
2) Assuming the UN is up to something that has nothing to do with keeping guns away from the people they claim, since its patently obvious this will not do that, but is going forward anyway and people like Soros, who is not stupid, is going along with it

Yes it's all to set up the US for the imminent invasion by the Blue Helmets so they can install Sharia Law and force your daughters to gay marry Illegal immigrants. Clearly it's illogical to think that any UN action could have a purpose other than to destroy the United States from within.

You've figured out the UN's long game. Good job, Comrade. Your name just got added to the Death Camps list once the glorious NWO comes!

What a small arms treaty may look like:


/the right to armed bears is the only thing that can protect us.

'Fast and furious' obama wants this treaty ratified fast, while he still has Reid in charge of the senate. Think about it: What are obama's two favorite cities? Answer: Chicago and Washington D.C.

How's the 2nd Amendment workin' out in those two places, hmmm?

Sgt Stubby: How's the 2nd Amendment workin' out in those two places, hmmm?

Record gun violence rates, hmmm?

You suck, Colored Animal.

Dr. Mojo PhD


Buffalo77: So you are saying this isn't real.

Yep, that's exactly what he's saying, and with good cause.

First, it's thoroughly debunked, see the snopes article linked in this thread.

Second, if you'd actually bothered to read the article from Forbes, you'd see that the entire article is written wholly from the author's imagination, wherein he admits he has no clue what the Small Arms Treaty even contains, but then tells us that it will "clearly" result in some foregone conclusion.

So you're citing snopes. OK, isn't this guy an analyst? So we should dismiss any thing analyst opine on. Got it.

Sgt Stubby: 'Fast and furious' obama wants this treaty ratified fast, while he still has Reid in charge of the senate. Think about it: What are obama's two favorite cities? Answer: Chicago and Washington D.C.

How's the 2nd Amendment workin' out in those two places, hmmm?

It's working fantastic in Chicago. We have dozens of people using their Second Amendment rights to the fullest every night.

FTA: 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:

In other words, I am making up a bunch of scary bullet points that I pulled out of my butt and writing another 2 pages about how liberals hate every gun made EVER.

/yawn

too-old: zoompow: Gotta love the ZOMG!!!

1)...IF it passes the U.N. AND 2) IF it is ratified by the US Senate.

1) may happen
2) no farking way

really.

I am damn sure the House would have to pass it also, then it goes to the President.

I don't think so. The Senate just has to ratify it. Any laws we'd want to make to fulfill our treaty obligations would follow normal procedures.

Sgt Stubby: No, I am right about this. You leftists claiming that there's 'nothing to fear', don't even know what's in this thing. Do you know why? Because it hasn't been published yet. It's being written 'by consensus' as we speak. We know some of it, but we don't know it all and the terms of this treaty CAN be enforced by US courts and, like the ICC, it will supercede the US constitution. Those are facts.

Remember, this is something that 'fast and furious' obama wants done while he still has the democrat senate (the House doesn't get to vote on treaties). Just like ObamaCare, we need to 'ratify it so we can find out what's in it'.

I know what's in it. You claim it's being written by consensus but you're so very wrong, it's been written for months now. They finished it on May 1st, after the Walpurgis. You'd think the religious aspects would be scoffed at by the otherwise heathen folk responsible, but they apparently actually believe in the symbolism present, even if they don't believe in the source of the power they get from co-opting the numeralology. Since its completion, it's been broadcast around the world, both through radio and the internet, encoded, though. The agents responsible for its implementation have more secure methods of information transit, of course, but they need to imbed the programming into our subconscious so it will feel like we've always been this way--a studied form of pyschic suggestion called 'reverse deja vu'. You'll notice the socials here have fallen into one of two categories--"it won't change anything" or "it can't change anything". The former are past the post-hypnotic suggestion portion of the indoctrination--they already believe the true parts of the SAT are true (just look at the acronym, they believe we've actually had the SAT forever when it's a very recent phenomenon, how many people remember what they got on the SAT test versus how many people only remember having to take the test). The latter socials have a differing indoctrination where they've been programmed to believe change can't happen ever, they'll flip short term but long term, they'll Orwell it out too and believe things have always been that way. You and I, though, and a few others, are more sensitive to the pre-programming, which is why we feel a sense of pyschic doom about this thing--we already know inside what's in it but we cannot ennunciate it to our waking human mind, it can only disturb our sleeping bear mind and the sleeping bear mind is telling us to beware.

You won't convince them, you can't break the programming. The harder you try, they more they'll resist you and your own sensitivity to this plight actually marginalizes you from the people you're trying to help.

Mrtraveler01: Epoch_Zero: Sgt Stubby: How's the 2nd Amendment workin' out in those two places, hmmm?

Record gun violence rates, hmmm?

You suck, Colored Animal.

But don't you see?

By allowing conceal and carry, gun violence in these cities will go down in an instant!

Just look at the spectacular job it's doing here in St. Louis! (MO was one of the first to allow conceal and carry)

Yes, I know. It's wonderful. There are now shootings in The Loop. I'm sure it was just caused by those darn hippies that have the drum circle refusing to carry a weapon, though. They're notoriously aggressive towards those who exercise their 2nd amendment obligations.

And if passed, will be struck down by the courts as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. So whats the problem?

Where's the Unlikely tag?

'The courts' can't strike down a treaty, Warlordtrooper. That's why liberals love these things. They're even better than unelected judges overruling the will of the people.

Why even sign the treaty if it can't be enforced?

And if it can be enforced ( in this guy's gloom and doom scenario ) who would do it? Who has enforced UN Treaties / resolutions in the past?

SOOOOO many questions.

Sounds like a job for the IRS.

i heard that obama's been secretly deputizing the black panthers for after his "reelection," which will actually be just a massive coup and power grab. he'll dissolve the senate and house, then take control with help from the UN and newly-deputized black panthers. his first acts as emperor will be to take away all guns, then to take all the white women and give them to black guys as their sex slaves.

trust me -- this was in a very reputable email forward.

Fark It: Philip Francis Queeg: Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.

What precedent did he expect? Did he think Calvin Coolidge might have banned the re-importation of Korean War surplus rifles?

The State Department later reversed course, and about 80,000 surplus M1 Garands are going to make their way to collectors over here. The carbines won't be imported though, which is bullshiat.

do you realize what 80,000, let alone 850,000 M1s would do to the collectors' market? you'd be lucky to get Mosin Nagant prices for that pretty little springfield M1 that you likely paid 1000-1300 for. i can see a lot of NRA types collectively screaming DO NOT WANT