Come and take it.

I'd love to see some blue helmeted French idiot or some other foreigner try to take away my guns. The UN can go fuck themselves. They're nothing but a bunch of holier than thou pussies who talk big but do jackshit. What did the UN do when the Tutsis and Hutus were killing each other by the hundreds of thousands? Answer: stand around and look stupid.

This again?

So we still don't have any idea how international UN treaties do and don't work and neither do the news sources. Brilliant. Stoke up the fear machine! Sell more ammo!

You might try reading about it some. Seriously - the UN has no teeth in this. The small arms treaty is an absolute non-issue as far as the US gun owner is concerned. We would literally have to repeal the 2nd amendment via our own due process before we could ratify a UN treaty that contradicts it. Which this one doesn't.

But believe whatever you want. Clearly most of us do anyway.

What are they going to do?  Sanction me?

This again?

So we still don't have any idea how international UN treaties do and don't work and neither do the news sources. Brilliant. Stoke up the fear machine! Sell more ammo!

You might try reading about it some. Seriously - the UN has no teeth in this. The small arms treaty is an absolute non-issue as far as the US gun owner is concerned. We would literally have to repeal the 2nd amendment via our own due process before we could ratify a UN treaty that contradicts it. Which this one doesn't.

But believe whatever you want. Clearly most of us do anyway.

No more special sales or discounts for you!

No more special sales or discounts for you!

What about soup?  No more soup for him?   

Ha!

Got plenny ammo already but don't take away da soup!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/17/the-un-gun-conference-taking-place-right-now-that-youll-likely-want-to-know-about/

come buy more guns now!!!!

This again?

So we still don't have any idea how international UN treaties do and don't work and neither do the news sources. Brilliant. Stoke up the fear machine! Sell more ammo!

You might try reading about it some. Seriously - the UN has no teeth in this. The small arms treaty is an absolute non-issue as far as the US gun owner is concerned. We would literally have to repeal the 2nd amendment via our own due process before we could ratify a UN treaty that contradicts it. Which this one doesn't.

But believe whatever you want. Clearly most of us do anyway.

The Second Amendment has NOT been repealed, yet there are many "common sense gun safety regulations" that clearly infringe on the rights of many law-abiding citizens of a number of states (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, etc.) to keep and/or bear arms. How do you explain that (according to your claim that there would be no infringement without repeal)? And why wouldn't the same sort of infringements be possible if the U.S. becomes a signatory to the U.N. treaty and it is ratified by the Senate? But believe whatever you want.

How do you explain that (according to your claim that there would be no infringement without repeal)?

The person you are arguing with holds a statist viewpoint that you have no rights other than what government grants you;

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=10707.msg105065#msg105065

"I agree in spirit but I've never agreed that rights come from God. Its a nice line but the reality is that you have only the rights allowed to you by the government.

You have no God given rights.... or at least God has never lifted a celestial finger to defend them from a government that sees things differently than He does. So the idea of God Given Rights is purely academic."

That argument that the 2nd would have to be formally repealed holds no water if the belief that all rights come from the government is true.  They can do whatever they want, as they seem to be doing now.

My take is that the "Treaty" itself does not specifically state that gun confiscation is the end game.  However, it appears to me that there are a number of avenues opened up by this treaty that sure could/would lead to the results desired.  So once signed and ratified, the treaty does not immediately take away your rights.  But it sure does come with a lot of regulatory programs.  I hope we can all see where those might lead.

You guys are making the not god given point for me.

Of course the 2nd has been infringed. Over and over again. And still God has not raised his hand to smite the heathen laws that offend his will.

So in practical reality you are dealing with a government that is imposing its will on your "rights" and God, to date, hasn't rushed in to the rescue. Ever.

But don't take my word for it. Observe how unsuccessful the "god given" theory has been in defending the 2nd amendment in court. Even legal scholars who debate this stuff don't think using it as a legal tactic is valid. Its an academic nicety.

Your rights are "God Given" right up until the moment the guy with the bigger gun takes them away. Tell them about your "god given rights" and see how well it works. Witness the Japanese Americans' internment during WWII. I don't AGREE that this is how it should be (i.e. the Statist viewpoint) but it's how it IS. Prove me wrong, please. It is for this reason that I defend the 2nd amendment as I do: BECAUSE I know that God isn't going to protect my right to defend myself. I'm really not sure why this makes the forum "an alien place" for me as was suggested in that thread.

Of course, I am also making your point for you: since God isn't going to defend the 2nd amendment we should be hypervigilant against things like this UN treaty. And we should.

But have you read it? Any of you? Cover to cover? I have. Many times.

Here is the relevant part:

"Article 2
Scope
1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following
categories:
(a) Battle tanks;
(b) Armoured combat vehicles;
(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d) Combat aircraft;
(e) Attack helicopters;
(f) Warships;
(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h) Small arms and light weapons.

2.For the purposes of this Treaty, the activities of the international trade
comprise export, import, transit, trans-shipment and brokering, hereafter referred
to as “transfer”.

3. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms
by, or on behalf of, a State Party for its use provided that the conventional arms
remain under that State Party’s ownership."

The whole thing is here: https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/English7.pdf

NOWHERE does it mention or even hint at anything else. It really does only apply to the sales of weapons across international borders. So unless you are an international gun dealer selling to unstable areas this doesn't apply to you. Neither do the "control systems" mentioned for implementing the scope of the treaty. Scary words, sure, but they aren't talking about anything like the gun control schemes going on domestically.

You know how we're always disclaiming "I am not a lawyer" and we carefully pour over the words of the laws that affect us? The "news" outlets that are blasting this treaty as dangerous to the 2nd are NOT doing that. They go off half cocked at the first mention of "national control system" and enjoy the benefits of greatly increased viewership and readership.

As I have said in other threads, the only real danger the treaty poses is that our quack politicians will use it as an excuse to further domestic gun control plans. That's a constant problem anyway and not the fault of the treaty which really is just trying to address that in some places it is easier to get a full auto AK than it is to get clean water.

Oh, the other thing that it might do is prevent things like Iraq and Afghanistan from happening. Because our adversaries in both of those conflicts were created by the CIA as part of the cold war proxy warfare tactics. Supply local regimes in unstable areas with weapons and they'll fight with the other local regimes that were supplied by the commies. And 30 years later our troops go die trying to clean up the mess we made. Brilliant.

Might. The real criticism of the treaty (and most UN nonsense) is that it has no teeth and is unenforceable. There aren't even enforcement provisions. Nor is there a body that ~could~ enforce it.

So do you really think its possible that Frenchman in a blue helmet is going to try to disarm Americans? That's what the ATF is for.

Clshade, I am going to answer in general terms and not specifics so bear with me.  Since you have made this go on a religious tangent, let me attempt to address that part.

At the core, America continues to lose God's protection as it's people continues to turn away from God... Take down the 10 commandments from our courts, take away prayer from public places, take away the teaching of Christian values in schools... Instead, America loves the occult, violence, greed, sexual immorality, alcohol, recreational drugs, and other godless activities.

God is letting America get the consequences of exactly what it wants and deserves.

In the Bible, the people of Israel prospered when they returned to God and diminished when they turned to false idols. As it was before during the Roman Empire times, so it is again in present America.  You reap what you sow.

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen." Romans 1:24-25

"My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children."  Hosea 4:6

As you definitely have the intelligence, the tenacity, the time to read the UN Treaty and generally seem interested in discussions about history, may I invite you to read the Bible to see what I am talking about?

Unless anyone else want to make further comments, I return to discussing the UN Treaty.

You guys are making the not god given point for me.

Of course the 2nd has been infringed. Over and over again. And still God has not raised his hand to smite the heathen laws that offend his will.

..........

I believe you take the term "God-given" too literally:

God-giv·en
adjective
adjective: God-given

    1.  received from God.
         "the God-given power to work miracles"
     
    2. possessed without question, as if by divine authority.
        "pedestrians decided it was their God-given right to saunter casually into traffic"

The basic idea was NOT that God is responsible for protecting these rights from government, but that the rights are inherently granted to the individual by simply being born human.

And the right to bear arms was an implementation of the more basic rights of life and liberty -- or in other words, self defense and defense against tyranny.  If we had other means of self defense that proved to be as effective as keeping and bearing arms, then we could very well be seeing a different clause in the second amendment.

If a "guy with a bigger gun" infringes or violates your right, he has not "taken that right away."  It's like any other law.  If you speed, did you violate that traffic law, or did you take that law off the books and away from the government?  Violating a right does not take it away.  The right exists whether or not a person or organization refuses to acknowledge it.  It is up to the individual to exercise and protect these freedoms for themselves and others.  When others violate these basic rights and freedoms, they should be, must be, punished.

The only real discussion is WHICH rights and freedoms are God-given, which rights are derived from those, and which rights are "legal rights" based on law written by government?  The rights which most of the world agree are basic, fundamental rights are:  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  These are not Constitutional rights.  They are declared in other documents, one in particular.  Constitutional rights are derived from these basic, God-given rights as implementations of them.  Go through the Constitutional Amendments, and you'll be able to see how each right defined there helps the individual and the nation as a whole secure our fundamental freedoms from which they are derived.

Fair enough.