U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

[myrobbins7]

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.


U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Forbes

 

[Weezer]

Wouldn't a change in the Second Amendment have to be voted on by the populace?

 

[utvolpj]

Wouldn't a change in the Second Amendment have to be voted on by the populace?

2/3 of the states I think (don't laugh if I'm wrong)? Doesn't look like this outright bans guns but puts sever limits on what can be owned. Likely it would never pass the Senate but even if it does the USSC would hopefully strike it down

 

[PKT_VOL]

There will be one world government and one world Constitution which will supersede our current Constitution. One of criteria of that Constitution will be limiting arms (a fairly popular notion around the world). That I think is unavailable. However, such a day is far, far in the distance. I am 24 and I don't think it will be in my lifetime. Possibly in my kid's lifetime, but most definitely by my grandchildren's lifetime.

 

[Big Orange#1]

There will be one world government and one world Constitution which will supersede our current Constitution. One of criteria of that Constitution will be limiting arms (a fairly popular notion around the world). That I think is unavailable. However, such a day is far, far in the distance. I am 24 and I don't think it will be in my lifetime. Possibly in my kid's lifetime, but most definitely by my grandchildren's lifetime.

That would be a sad day

 

[Weezer]

There will be one world government and one world Constitution which will supersede our current Constitution. One of criteria of that Constitution will be limiting arms (a fairly popular notion around the world). That I think is unavailable. However, such a day is far, far in the distance. I am 24 and I don't think it will be in my lifetime. Possibly in my kid's lifetime, but most definitely by my grandchildren's lifetime.

What's scary is how much progress has been made in this direction, and how many efforts are currently in place to keep pushing us in that direction.

 

[volved]

Wouldn't a change in the Second Amendment have to be voted on by the populace?

Nope. One more Obama appointed Supreme Court justice and the 2nd amendment is in danger of being reinterpreted to allow severe restrictions on private ownership of arms. The Supreme Court will eventually decide that the reference in the amendment to the militia means that only members of government authorized security forces have a protected right to bear arms. No amendment needed, just five activist judges.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What's scary is how much progress has been made in this direction, and how many efforts are currently in place to keep pushing us in that direction.

It's unavoidable really. With the global markets becoming more and more interdependent everyday, the political structure of the world is also becoming more interdependent as well(one of the major reasons there hasn't been another world war). Not to mention the pace of technology has made communication and transportation around the globe faster and more economical everyday.

Eventually current-day countries will become like states in our political system. I fully expect there to be an equivalent to the Articles of Confederation at first, which will of course fail and be replaced with a system similar to what we have in place now except on a global scale. History always repeats itself.

 

[volprof]

Free market transnational capitalism is not exactly the friend of the fully autonomous, self-regulated nation-state. This kind of market and globalization go hand-in-hand.

Anyhow, as far as guns are concerned, I'll admit the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. What's a "militia"? What's a "well-regulated militia"? Furthermore, what does it mean to "bear arms"? Hell, what are "arms"? That being said, the precedents of constitutional law in this country have established a particular interpretation of the amendment over the last century or so. And, I, for one, have no problem with this interpretation. I'm a proud gun-owner. In fact, I own a few more guns than is even necessary and don't really care. Like others on this board, I don't want our government, nor do I want foreign ones, interfering with the common man and woman's right to own personal firearms. Sometimes personal firearms are the only thing on his or her side in moments of social crises when the lives and welfare of good men and women are threatened either by mobs or by the government itself in some cases.

 

[myrobbins7]

There will be one world government and one world Constitution which will supersede our current Constitution. One of criteria of that Constitution will be limiting arms (a fairly popular notion around the world). That I think is unavailable. However, such a day is far, far in the distance. I am 24 and I don't think it will be in my lifetime. Possibly in my kid's lifetime, but most definitely by my grandchildren's lifetime.

Absolutely...Funny how all of this is starting to turn out now. I recall not long ago people started talking about this type of stuff and they got called "conspiracy theorists". Sadly, the US Govt. has been hijacked.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Free market transnational capitalism is not exactly the friend of the fully autonomous, self-regulated nation-state. This kind of market and globalization go hand-in-hand.

Anyhow, as far as guns are concerned, I'll admit the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. What's a "militia"? What's a "well-regulated militia"? Furthermore, what does it mean to "bear arms"? Hell, what are "arms"? That being said, the precedents of constitutional law in this country have established a particular interpretation of the amendment over the last century or so. And, I, for one, have no problem with this interpretation. I'm a proud gun-owner. In fact, I own a few more guns than is even necessary and don't really care. Like others on this board, I don't want our government, nor do I want foreign ones, interfering with the common man and woman's right to own personal firearms. Sometimes personal firearms are the only thing on his or her side in moments of social crises when the lives and welfare of good men and women are threatened either by mobs or by the government itself in some cases.

Are you being serious about the meaning of arms?

 

[YorkVol]

This is one area I could see that would unite a bunch of disparate groups around the world. US right wing fanatical groups, fighting along side Arabs, Talibs, Hondurans and Filipino Moros...

 

[KentheOrange]

You're kidding. Right?

 

[YorkVol]

Not at all. In many places around the world a kid is given his first rifle as part of his 12th birthday celebration. Their arms are tied to their image of manhood. No UN Constitution is going to take them away.

 

[utvolpj]

Not at all. In many places around the world a kid is given his first rifle as part of his 12th birthday celebration. Their arms are tied to their image of manhood. No UN Constitution is going to take them away.

I have a feeling the new regs aren't directed at them. It is the UN after all

 

[volprof]

Are you being serious about the meaning of arms?

Yes. I can take an educated guess (and most likely common sense) and figure that they were talking about personal firearms. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's still ambiguous. It's not exactly like "arms" are clarified. Does it cover muskets? Does it cover five-clip bolt-action hunting rifles? Does it cover assault rifles, which, along with the bolt-action, hadn't even been invented yet? Does it cover cannons? Does it cover missiles? Does it cover nunchucks? Would it guarantee Rafael his right to use those three-pronged cutting utensils he uses in order to defend himself against one of Shredder's roguish foot soldiers?

Basically, I think I know what the "arms" part means, and I support that interpretation (the right to own personal firearms). However, that doesn't change the fact that it's still an ambiguous law that could be interpreted in different ways when it comes time to clarifying exactly what weapons (or even personal firearms for that matter) should be legal.

 

[dreVol]

I wonder how the UN feels about F&F.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Yes. I can take an educated guess (and most likely common sense) and figure that they were talking about personal firearms. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's still ambiguous. It's not exactly like "arms" are clarified. Does it cover muskets? Does it cover five-clip bolt-action hunting rifles? Does it cover assault rifles, which, along with the bolt-action, hadn't even been invented yet? Does it cover cannons? Does it cover missiles? Does it cover nunchucks? Would it guarantee Rafael his right to use those three-pronged cutting utensils he uses in order to defend himself against one of Shredder's roguish foot soldiers?

Basically, I think I know what the "arms" part means, and I support that interpretation (the right to own personal firearms). However, that doesn't change the fact that it's still an ambiguous law that could be interpreted in different ways when it comes time to clarifying exactly what weapons (or even personal firearms for that matter) should be legal.

Darling, it is armaments, surely you are joking

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The militia was the military, who was the militia?

Citizens from all walks of life.

 

[volprof]

The militia was the military, who was the militia?

Citizens from all walks of life.

Is this a state-regulated militia or a federal-regulated militia? Or is it regulated by neither, perhaps by municipalities or concerned citizens? Which one is more "well-regulated"? I think we're quibbling over spilled milk, because I think we probably agree on the issue of gun ownership, but let's also just be honest and admit that the amendment is ambivalent. That's just the nature of language and interpretation. Hermeneutics is a *****.

 

[YorkVol]

Today the closest thing we have to a regulated militia is the volunteer fire fighters.

 

[hndog609]

Is this a state-regulated militia or a federal-regulated militia? Or is it regulated by neither, perhaps by municipalities or concerned citizens? Which one is more "well-regulated"? I think we're quibbling over spilled milk, because I think we probably agree on the issue of gun ownership, but let's also just be honest and admit that the amendment is ambivalent. That's just the nature of language and interpretation. Hermeneutics is a *****.

Just to throw it out there if you get a little time take a minute and read the Heller opinion. You might find it interesting.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

 

[Thrasher865]

Is this a state-regulated militia or a federal-regulated militia? Or is it regulated by neither, perhaps by municipalities or concerned citizens? Which one is more "well-regulated"? I think we're quibbling over spilled milk, because I think we probably agree on the issue of gun ownership, but let's also just be honest and admit that the amendment is ambivalent. That's just the nature of language and interpretation. Hermeneutics is a *****.

You do know what a militia is, right? It is not federal regulated, nor is it regulated by the state, local government or anybody else.

I don't think there is that much ambiguity about the amendment. In my mind it clearly means personal armaments.

 

[Thrasher865]

 

[volved]

You do know what a militia is, right? It is not federal regulated, nor is it regulated by the state, local government or anybody else.
.

Here is the reference in the Constitution: Regulation of the Militia

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.