OT: UN Treaty to Disarm US Citizens

Oh please. It is a bill to limit gun trafficking. Yeah you might be denied some shitty Chinese or ex-Soviet block guns. Buy American!

Go ahead and deny me the right to buy a piece of shit SKS.

Oh, please, yourself! Read the "treaty". ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

| 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Where?

Jon

The larger issue here seems to be the idea of turning over to an entity outside the US OUR internal and sovereign rights, especially to an entity that in no way answers to, nor is under the control by citizen's of the US!

It is one thing to have treaties relating to intra-country business. It's entirely another to have treaties relating to our inter-country business, our INTERNAL business.

The political left had NO PROBLEM with that! Now they should pay the price.

In particular:

--

John Devereux

I think you're too old to let these swine make a living off of getting people all riled up by promulgating misinformation. You really need to start checking everything they say, you might be surprised.

They need to get guns out of the hands of people like this sorry Wafer character, hopefully he will serve time:

Are Snopes and the lefties unable to read?

Maybe you missed the part in Principles about:

"Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State in accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations;"

I'm not going to analyze the whole document but you're out in left field.

_08.pdf#page=22

Reading further it is clear the focus, that has any bearing at all on the U .S., is EXPORT. What about the word, EXPORT, do you not understand? It's on ly two syllables, so even you should be able to 1) pronounce it as you move your lips when you read, and 2) learn its definition.

The larger issue is that lefties believe that a treaty supercedes the Constitution; that even rights *enumerated* in the constitution can be amended by treaty, with only the Senate confirming. Note that these enumerated rights are ancillary to the meaning of Constitution, itself (because a right isn't explicit doesn't mean it doesn't exist).

Obviously unconstitutional, but that's never stopped a lefty statist.

Is there a 'snopes' on snopes?

Interesting! This is NOT a busy thread, nor a widely distributed thread, yet my reply took over 4 minutes before I received it back on the newsgroup. Normally, an innocuous thread reply posts as fast as I can ask for it back. Interesting.

LOL- that's the N.W.O. for you...intercepting every little thing you write or say.

Sure, the treaty was intended to stop arms from being exported to warlords in Somalia, dictators in Venezuela etc. But when reading Bureaucratese language like this you have to imagine how the language can be interpreted to do things different from the original states purpose. Some parts are so broad or so open ended that they could be INTERPRETED for uses more far reaching than simply control of exports. Page 23 International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, ... Emphasizing the desirability of achieving universal adherence to this Treaty, Page 27

1. Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control list [ which is itself a breach of our laws ] [ Plus making firearm registration lists available to foreign powers?? Really?] to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties. States Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available. [ Not a very bright idea to HAVE such lists, not to mention it's foolish to make such lists public ] Page 28 "(b) could be used to:" (do a variety of bad things including #4) Page 29 (also labeled page 8 in text) "being used to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children." [ So they could regulate softball bats because they "could" possibly be used to do bad things? ] Do you KNOW about the recent raid on a journalist involving a LIST of federal agencies, using a signed search warrant about a firearm violation for a toy potato gun? You should KNOW that bureaucrats interpreting "bureaucratese" language result in such idiotic situations. They were actually bullying the journalist because she INFORMED to Congress on a situation where the US Marshall service had LIED to Congress. They didn't even take the potato gun that was the pretext for the raid. Bureaucrats and government are rife with "mission creep" and wild interpretations of laws. Almost anything "could be used to" do something bad. Such open ended language is dangerous where bureaucrats are involved. Did you know that our ATF is legally forbidden to register guns? Did you know that they have found various ways around that legal prohibition? A few years ago they closed down a HUGE number of legal gun shops across the USA, and a "side effect" of that is that they get to seize all of the sales records of the closed gun shop. They scanned and digitized all of those and placed them in databases, despite the law against them registering firearms.