Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

It's now 2007. This thread was started in 2006. The treaty was proposed in 2001.

When is the UN finally going to ban guns as the RW nuts keep claiming will happen?

This treaty was to preven the illegal sales of weapons. Illegal sales like what Blackwater employees are presently being accused of. I guess we have to continue to accept that those that oppose this treaty want guns in the hands of terrorists.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

your made up crap about how the UN is trying to register guns in this treaty or any treaties in the future.

Scroll scroll scroll.....

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So onerus that the regulations are still constitutional within the 2nd amendment.

Nope. In the real world they violate the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

the founding fathers did not preclude gun control.

That depends on the gun control. If the gun control makes it onerous or impossible for someone to exercise their Constitutional rights, then the Framers precluded it.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, it is you who is showing ignorance. The founding fathers consciously kept their proceedings private, and avoided any type of statement of legislative history. A few recollections of individuals don't establish a legislative history. No legislative history was approved by the body, probably because many of the signers went home and didn't want any invalid interpretations.

I seem to recall some debate on the issue in the Federalist Papers, the debates of the ratifying conventions, and records of the House of Representatives......

Not to mention the fact that the Framers didn't just create this right from scratch, but took a preexisting right and provided protections for it. There is also a bit of history surrounding the preexisting right.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
your made up crap about how the UN is trying to register guns in this treaty or any treaties in the future.

Scroll scroll scroll.....

Yep, you scrolled right past the treaty.

For someone that wants others to be serious, you sure don't want to deal with reality.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
So onerus that the regulations are still constitutional within the 2nd amendment.

Nope. In the real world they violate the Second Amendment.

Oh? when did the USSC say they violated the 2nd?

Or are you arguing that the Constitution doesn't make the Supreme Court the final decision maker in questions about the constitution?

0 Replies

Oralloy.

Please point out where in the treaty the UN even suggests that guns should be registered.

You argument is nothing but made up crap. You can't and won't deal with what the treaty really says because you are too interested in promoting your agenda in spite of what reality is.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
So onerus that the regulations are still constitutional within the 2nd amendment.

Nope. In the real world they violate the Second Amendment.

Oh? when did the USSC say they violated the 2nd?

Or are you arguing that the Constitution doesn't make the Supreme Court the final decision maker in questions about the constitution?

The fact that the Supreme Court has not yet struck down an unconstitutional law does not change the reality that it is unconstitutional.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Dave, it is you who is showing ignorance. The founding fathers consciously kept their proceedings private, and avoided any type of statement of legislative history. A few recollections of individuals don't establish a legislative history. No legislative history was approved by the body, probably because many of the signers went home and didn't want any invalid interpretations.

Quote:

I seem to recall some debate on the issue in the Federalist Papers, the debates of the ratifying conventions, and records of the House of Representatives......

Federalist 28 and 46, if I remember accurately.

Quote:

Not to mention the fact that the Framers didn't just create this right from scratch,
but took a preexisting right and provided protections for it.
There is also a bit of history surrounding the preexisting right.

Yes; very true.
In U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
the US Supreme Court held that
the rights of the 1st and 2nd Amendments long antedated the Constitution,
such that when created, the US government found them in being.

Accordingly, these rights are older than the Constitution,
which neither created nor granted them to the citizenry,
any more than the Constitution created the moon nor granted the stars.

"...The first and ninth counts state the intent of the defendants to have
been to hinder and prevent the citizens named in the free exercise and
enjoyment of their 'lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble
together with each other and with other citizens of the United States
for a peaceful and lawful purpose.' The right of the people peaceably
to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before
the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
In fact, it is, and always has been,
one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government.

It 'derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden,
9 Wheat. 211, 'from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man
throughout the world.' It is found wherever civilization exists.
It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution
***
The second and tenth counts are equally defective.
The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'
This is not a right granted by the Constitution.
Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. [ emfasis added ]

0 Replies

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
So onerus that the regulations are still constitutional within the 2nd amendment.

Nope. In the real world they violate the Second Amendment.

Oh? when did the USSC say they violated the 2nd?

In the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:

"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms'".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING
THE SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EVERY SECOND YEAR.
(Notably, one need not join the National Guard in order to vote for his congressman.)
The Court further defined "the people" to mean those people who have a
right peaceably to assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have the
right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment]
in their persons houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights of states,
as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people
are protected by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e.THE PEOPLE who can speak n worship freely are THE PEOPLE who can keep and bear arms.

It is noteworthy that the Court RELIED upon its definition of "the people".
Its conclusion in the VERDUGO case is founded upon that definition,
so that stare decisis attaches, thus creating binding judicial precedent,
explaining WHO THE PEOPLE ARE who have the said rights.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
So onerus that the regulations are still constitutional within the 2nd amendment.

Nope. In the real world they violate the Second Amendment.

Oh? when did the USSC say they violated the 2nd?

In PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2791 (P. 28O5)
the US Supreme Court declares that:

"...by the express provisions of the FIRST EIGHT amendments to the Constitution"
rights were "guaranteed to THE INDIVIDUAL ...
It is a promise of the Constitution
that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." [emphasis added]
The 2nd Amendment is within "the first eight amendments".

The Court also adopted the Harlan dissent in POE v. ULLMAN 367 US 497 that:
"...'liberty' is not a series of isolated points...in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press and religion; the RIGHT TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures....
It is a rational continuum which...includes a freedom from all arbitrary impositions ..."[emphasis added]
(Notice no reference to any state government militia.)

On the same page, the Supreme Court invokes the 9th Amendment
to curtail the powers of the states, thru the 14th Amendment.
Historically, the purpose of the 9th Amendment was to preserve,
and carry intact into perpetuity, those rights already freely enjoyed by
Americans and Englishmen as of the time of the American Revolution.
By virtue of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the long established
right to keep and bear arms was clearly recognized and protected,
with the 9th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights perpetuating the
old English rights in America.
The Supreme Court added that:
"All fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty
are protected by the federal Constitution from invasion by the states."
PARENTHOOD (supra) In GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT (1963) 372 US 335
the US Supreme Court held that:
"this Court has looked to the FUNDAMENTAL nature of original Bill of Rights guarantees
to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes them obligatory
on the States" [emphasis added]
hence, the 2nd Amendment forbids the states from controlling guns
if the right to guns for self-defense from violence of criminals or animals is "fundamental" not trivial.

In said PARENTHOOD case, speaking of the right to reproductive autonomy,
the US Supreme Court used the following language
(in pertinent part, from perspective of the right to self-defense):

"Our law affords constitutional protection
to PERSONAL DECISIONS. ... Our cases re-
cognize 'the right of the individual ...
to be free from unwarranted governmental
intrusion into matters ... fundamentally
affecting a person' .... These matters
involving the most intimate and PERSONAL
CHOICES a person may make in a lifetime,
choices central to PERSONAL DIGNITY and
AUTONOMY, are central to the liberty pro-
tected by the 14th Amendment." (P. 28O7)
[emphasis added]

Will u deny, Mr. Parados, that THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO PEACEFULLY SUBMIT
("better Red than dead"), to robbery or sexual violation (and/or to your own murder)
OR TO FORCEFULLY RESIST IS A "personal decision ...fundamentally affecting a person..."
bearing upon "...personal dignity and autonomy...." [emfasis added]

The individual citizen literally wagers his life on his choice.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It's now 2007. This thread was started in 2006. The treaty was proposed in 2001.

When is the UN finally going to ban guns as the RW nuts keep claiming will happen?

This treaty was to preven the illegal sales of weapons.

Illegal sales like what Blackwater employees are presently being accused of.
I guess we have to continue to accept that those that oppose this treaty
want guns in the hands of terrorists.

Many, many times has history pointed out the need,
the urgent need,
of citizens to overthrow the government that has outlawed
its' victims possession of defensive weapons.
For instance:
the commies, the nazis, the Moslems.
The US Government felt strongly that the blacks shud be armed,
after the Civil War, and it said so.

What some government DESIRES,
and legislates, is not necessarily what is morally right for its victims.
When Hitler had long lines of naked Jews patiently waiting
to march into the ovens,
it was very illegal for the Jews to have guns on them.

WHOSE SIDE R U on ?

I dissent from your exaltation of the law above
the citizens' natural, inalienable, rights of self defense, Mr. Parados.

David

P.S.:
Good luck with convincing the TERRORISTS
to obey the gun control laws.
For sure,
that must have been the last thing that Atta
was thinking about before he crashed into the WTC.

0 Replies

Dave, you are pretty tiresome when you constantly cite "Verdugo." It is not even a second amendment case, but relates to the fourth amendment. In no way does it say that gun control is precluded. At best, it is dicta here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez

0 Replies

So when did the Supreme Court say that the government couldn't restrict sales and ownership of automatic weapons, silencers, etc?

Oh, that's right. They never did say that.

But meanwhile, let's ignore the treaty and post personal opinions as if they had any bearing on the issue being discussed. But perhaps you can show me the spot in the treaty that bans guns David. Oralloy hasn't bothered to deal with the treaty as written. Can you be bothered?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

But meanwhile, let's ignore the treaty and post personal opinions as if they had any bearing on the issue being discussed. But perhaps you can show me the spot in the treaty that bans guns David.

What does an older treaty have to do with the UN's hopes to push new more restrictive treaties?

I know you've tried this nonsense about misdirecting attention to the older treaty before.

But I don't think anyone fell for it then, and I don't think anyone is going to fall for it now. (I sure won't.)

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

new more restrictive treaties?

Which new, more restrictive treaties exactly are you referring to?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:
new more restrictive treaties?

Which new, more restrictive treaties exactly are you referring to?

They haven't drafted the treaty yet. Gun banners have a cycle. Currently they are in the stage where they run around pretending that the previous gun control didn't turn out to be restrictive enough "so more is needed".

They will only move to the phase where they draft new treaties when they think the pro-freedom alliance will be too weak to oppose them. I'm not sure when that will be.

As I recall, the proposals this time around will center on gun registration. But it's been at least a year since I've read the proposals.

I can go back in the thread and repeat a couple posts that detail the *long term* goals of the UN gun banners.

0 Replies

A snippet from a 1999 UN report:

"States should work towards the introduction of appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. [b]In particular, they should consider the prohibition of[/b] unrestricted trade and [b]private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine guns).[/b]" [URL=http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/presskit/sheet21.htm]http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/presskit/sheet21.htm[/URL]

The rough draft from what would later become the UN's first small arms treaty:

"20. [b]To seriously consider the prohibition of[/b] unrestricted trade and [b]private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes.[/b]" [URL=http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf]http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf[/URL]

A fine young diplomat by the name of John Bolton gave the following speech at the convention:

http://www.un.int/usa/01_104.htm

The speech can be loosely translated as "You boys go take out those parts about civilian ownership or you'll find Uncle Sam's boot in your @ss."

(The parts about civilian gun ownership were taken out, and the diplomats of the world engaged in copious whining about how domestic US politics was preventing their global anti-freedom agenda.)

After Bolton torpedoed the UN's attempt to create a treaty that would ban civilian ownership of military weapons, some of the diplomats got together and created a regional treaty, the Nairobi Protocol.

One part of the Nairobi Protocol is:

(b) State Parties undertake to : (iii) [b]prohibit the civilian possession of semi-automatic and automatic rifles[/b].... [URL=http://www.smallarmsnet.org/docs/saaf12.pdf]http://www.smallarmsnet.org/docs/saaf12.pdf[/URL]

0 Replies

Let's not forget all the NGO's that are pushing these anti-gun treaties:

Quote:

http://www.iansa.org/un/bms2005/Ownership.pdf

1. Prohibit civilian ownership of certain weapons
2. Prevent the build-up of private arsenals
7. Limit the carrying of guns

Quote:

http://www.hdcentre.org/datastore/Small%20arms/Rio_Chair_summary.pdf

Civilians should be restricted from acquiring or possessing small arms designed for military use.

Ownership of small arms should be contingent on obtaining a firearms license, which, in turn, could be based on the following minimum criteria, inter alia - meeting a minimum age requirement; lacking a relevant criminal history, including of intimate partner and family violence; existence of a legitimate reason to acquire weapons; observance of relevant gun laws as well as the safe and efficient handling of small arms.

Small arms ammunition sales should be restricted to those with a valid firearms license, and only for ammunition suitable for the type of gun specified on the license as well as limitation on the number of rounds of ammunition allowed.

0 Replies

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know