It was supposed to be Tin-Foil....

[Paslode]

I remember when all the so-called lunatic fringe was wound up about a fantasy called the UN Small Arms Treaty. It was ALL fiction and harmless windmills in the mind of fanatic Gun Owners. CrAzY folks like Alex Jones we going ballistic!

And in 2009 the brain trust at Anneberg FactCheck.org poo-poo'd such folly.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/int...un-ban-treaty/

IN 2010 Snopes.com, the highly regarded website that substantiates the fact or fiction of rumors said it was nothing more than 'scarelore'.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Maybe Hillary didn't sign anything, but...

Now we are half way into 2011 and a non-tinfoil source brings it up again......Forbes, and they say it is something to worry about. And remember Obama told Mrs. Brady they were working on it, but under the radar.

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/20...rs-up-in-arms/

[Kyobanim]

Guess he needs to read it again

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/int...un-ban-treaty/

FULL ANSWER

We’ve received many queries about this chain e-mail, which refers to a proposed United Nations treaty to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons.

Much of what this e-mail claims is simply false. A "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" isn’t possible under our Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which held just last year that:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 26 June 2008: (T)he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

Furthermore, if an arms trade treaty ever materializes, the administration won’t be able to "bypass" Congress, as the e-mail maintains. All international treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before they are considered ratified and in effect.

In addition, the idea that a treaty necessarily would make U.S. citizens "subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," as the e-mail claims, is wrong. Treaties don’t subject one nations’ citizens to the laws of other nations. They do commit governments to whatever actions a treaty specifies, such as ceasing to test nuclear weapons, in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (a treaty signed by the U.S., but never ratified by Congress).

As for this particular treaty: First of all, it doesn’t yet exist. What is true is that the Obama administration, reversing the line taken by the Bush White House, has voted to support a process that could, in 2012 at the earliest, result in a treaty.

The idea of achieving an international agreement on trade in conventional arms has long been kicking around, and in 2006 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution titled "Toward an arms trade treaty." The measure instructed the UN secretary-general to get the views of all member states on "the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." A panel of "governmental experts" was tasked with providing advice as well. The resolution was approved 153-1, the only dissenter being the U.S.

Then in 2008, the General Assembly passed another resolution, this one calling for further efforts toward an arms trade treaty (ATT) through a new open-ended working group. Again, the U.S. provided the only vote against the measure.

Since President Obama took office, though, the U.S. has been more receptive to the notion. In mid-October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying: "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons." And on Oct. 28, the General Assembly voted 153-1 to move forward in preparation for a United Nations conference on the arms trade treaty in 2012 that could yield a formal document. This time, Zimbabwe was the lone naysayer (19 nations abstained).

Some critics of the concept of an arms trade treaty say they believe, like the author of the e-mail above, that it’s a back-door avenue to gun control. In fact, suspicions that the UN wants to seize Americans’ guns have been circulating since the mid-1990s. Those fears dovetail with trepidations that some have about Obama on this issue. John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, recently told the NRANews:

Bolton, Nov. 6: The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control. After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it … requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.

That’s Bolton’s opinion. The fact is that a provision in the resolution’s preamble – included at the request of the U.S. – explicitly recognizes the right of nations to regulate gun sales and ownership within their borders, including through their constitutions:

UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…

Another provision acknowledges that countries have a right to arms for "self-defence and security needs and in order to participate in peace support operations."

Also, two weeks before the General Assembly voted on the measure, Secretary of State Clinton stated a key condition of U.S. approval and made sure the caveat made it into the resolution: The 2012 conference must make its decisions by "consensus," she said. In practical terms, that means every country has veto power on the negotiated agreement, and it won’t go into effect without the approval of all. In short, no treaty will take effect if the U.S. does not agree.

Despite widespread claims like this one, we’ve seen little or no evidence that the Obama administration is doing much to regulate guns or gun ownership. As a candidate Obama did say that he favored reinstating the "assault weapons ban" and closing the "gun show loophole" (which allows some gun buyers to avoid background checks), while the NRA stirred the fears of gun rights advocates. But he also said he believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms, and that he would "protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

Furthermore, since taking office, Obama has not pushed any of his promised gun control measures. Asked about assault weapons at a press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in the spring, he said:

Obama, April 16: I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we’ve focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws. …

The only piece of gun legislation he has signed has been an expansion, not a contraction, of gun owners’ rights: In May, the president signed credit card legislation that included a provision allowing loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.

That hasn’t stopped gun rights advocates from believing that Obama is going to implement sweeping anti-firearms policies. Just since he’s been in office, we’ve been asked if Obama was raising the tax on ammunition by 500 percent (no), if he was dropping the program that allows commercial pilots to carry guns (no), if the "Obama regime" was going to require a federal license to own a handgun (no, again), and whether he was behind a move to tax guns and require owners to report their weapons on their federal income tax forms for 2009 (no - that bill died before Obama was even a U.S. senator).

Nevertheless, a Gallup poll in October found that 41 percent of all Americans and 52 percent of gun owners believe that Obama will try to ban the sale of guns. And people are acting on these beliefs: A run on ammunition has created shortages for sport shooters, and FBI background checks, required of most would-be gun purchasers, were up 25 percent in the first five months of 2009 compared with a year earlier.

These claims may keep coming, but they will continue to be unfounded — until and unless Obama takes real steps to regulate firearms, which so far he has not.

[Paslode]

I know, I know...But it keeps creeping back in and from more credible sources.

[Kyobanim]

It can creep all it wants, but that won't change existing laws in this country.

[QP NCO]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist

[Sigaba]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist

It is said that Mr. Thomas made this comment not soon after getting all of 0.16% of the popular vote in the 1944 presidential election. This share was down from the 0.23% of the popular vote he received in the 1940 presidential election. Source is here.

Can a man who did that badly at the polls really be credited with having a legitimate insight into the political preferences of the American people then or later? (If he indeed made such a statement? <<LINK>>.)

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

It can creep all it wants, but that won't change existing laws in this country.

Not to be cynical, but this administration appears to me as going against the grain of the Constitution on a regular basis and with some success. The Health Care reform laws come to mind with their we'll have to pass it to see see whats in it attitude.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Paslode

Not to be cynical, but this administration appears to me as going against the grain of the Constitution on a regular basis and with some success. The Health Care reform laws come to mind with their we'll have to pass it to see see whats in it attitude.

Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution addresses your concern.

[steel71]

Of course, the UN wants our guns, it got a big statue of a handgun with the barrel tied up in a knot on our soil.

[Sigaba]

Chapter 1, Article 2.1 and 2.7 of the Charter of the United Nations addresses the concerns raised in posts #9 and #10 <<LINK>>.

Is throwing stuff up against the wall and seeing what sticks a sustainable approach (politically or intellectually) to international affairs as we head towards the 2012 election season?

If we're going to make the United Nations a campaign issue, why focus on what the UN will not do (initiate a program of gun control in the United States) rather than what the UN has done or not done?

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

It can creep all it wants, but that won't change existing laws in this country.

The Laws are only what the Supreme Court says they are. Couple more Wise Latinas and they'll be able to find just about anything.

Remember when we used to have property rights? And that was with Conservatives.

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by Pete

The Laws are only what the Supreme Court says they are. Couple more Wise Latinas and they'll be able to find just about anything.

Remember when we used to have property rights? And that was with Conservatives.

Agreed. Look at how long it took for the SCOTUS to actually come out and say that the 2nd Amendment did apply to individual rights. Even with that decision, we still have lower courts and liberal state and city administrations trying to get around it.

I wouldn't put anything past the current administration if they think they can get away with it.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Pete

The Laws are only what the Supreme Court says they are. Couple more Wise Latinas and they'll be able to find just about anything.

Remember when we used to have property rights? And that was with Conservatives.

Pete's right on target here,if O gets 4 more years he can permanently fix the Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years of liberal judges and America will be screwed......

Big Teddy

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Whoever said it, I think it is a legitimate point, although I'd modify it more to turning us into a European-style social welfare state. Gradually implement such reforms over time and eventually we wake up to find ourselves a European-style state.

IMO, the data support a contrasting interpretation--America remains far from socialism. Since 1960, there have been 27 congresses. Of these, only nine have seen the Democrats in control of both chambers and the Oval Office (33%).* FWIW, more election data are available here <<LINK>>.

Moreover, as Tables 662, 663, 664, and 665 in this document indicate, since 1960, America has seen fewer work stoppages, with fewer workers participating in those stoppages, and fewer work days lost to such stoppages. Equally telling, since 1985, union membership has declined across most sectors of the economy.

MOO, the watershed event will be when communists stop tolerating the presence of anarchists at public rallies and start cracking skulls. YMMV.

[See how I did that? By centering my argument around political and social data, and holding national security policy in reserve, it is left to others to analyze public policy legislation of the last twenty-seven Congresses <<LINK2>>.]

____________________________________________
* See attachment. (Does not include breakdown for 112th Congress.)

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

..... since 1960, America has seen fewer work stoppages, with fewer workers participating in those stoppages, and fewer work days lost to such stoppages. Equally telling, since 1985, union membership has declined across most sectors of the economy...........

I disagree on a minor point. And I'll use Greece and Wisconsin as examples.

There has been an explosion in government worker unions - yes folks teacher's unions are government worker unions also.

They don't strike per say but they are organized and can muster large number of folks in a short time.

They can flood local board meetings and state capitals in the blink of an eye.

NC is going through the budget nutroll and once again the school systems threaten to fire teachers - but not the three guys leaning on a truck watching the fourth cut the grass. Look for the teachers to fire things up.