I wonder under what conditions and for what reason the UN forces would actually invade the US. I wonder how that decision would be made.

I wonder under what conditions and for what reason the UN forces would actually invade the US. I wonder how that decision would be made.

Maybe not so much invasion but just an exchange of olive drab helmet for a powder blue one. Any further reinforcements would be invited in from whatever country wants a piece of US soil.

Chances are it would be an executive decision under the guise of world peace.

Maybe not so much invasion but just an exchange of olive drab helmet for a powder blue one. Any further reinforcements would be invited in from whatever country wants a piece of US soil.
Chances are it would be an executive decision under the guise of world peace.
[/quote]

This!

2ND AMENDMENT UNDER FIRE
Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty
Lawmakers join general in declaring pact a threat to freedom
Published: 1 day ago
author-image by Jack MinorEmail | Archive
Jack Minor is a former Marine who served under President Reagan. He has written hundreds of articles and has been interviewed about his work on multiple television and radio outlets. He is also a former pastor and has been acknowledged for his research ability in several books.More ↓
rss feed Subscribe to author feed

    inShare26
    Printer Friendly
    Share
    Text smaller
    Text bigger

Ads by Google

    Stop Eric Holder.Demand an investigation of Eric Holder! Sign the petition. action.freedomworks.org

120703obamaunitednationsz

Over 100 members of Congress appear to share the concerns of a former Army general who has sounded the alarm over efforts by the Obama Administration to push through the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT.

As WND reported, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin earlier this year, in a video in which he claimed Obama was leading America down the path of a quiet, Marxist revolution, blasted the ATT, also known as the small arms treaty, saying it would regulate private gun ownership.
Ads by Google

    Will You Boldly Proclaim"I am a Christian"? Sign the pledge now! billygraham.org/I-am-a-Christian
    A 9mm is False ProtectionDiscover What Survivalist Masters & The Army Don't Want You To Know www.CloseCombatTraining.com

“There has been a decree by the administration by the president and the secretary of state saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons,” Boykin warned. “That means the United Nations, an international body will decide how you and I as Americans can buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are. This is a dangerous trend.”

Now some 130 lawmakers, consisting of mostly Republicans, but also including Democrats such as Reps. Jason Altmire, Sanford Bishop, Jerry Costello, Danny Davis and Peter DeFazio sent off a letter to the Obama administration opposing the treaty.

The letter states that Congress is concerned the treaty could “pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”

The letter goes on to declare that the Second Amendment guarantees the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms” and the U.S. has no business supporting a treaty that infringes on the Bill of Rights.

The ATT would specifically require signatories to identify and trace, in “a timely and reliable manner,” illicit small arms and light weapons. The information would be required to be submitted to the United Nations.

The treaty was opposed by the Bush administration, but President Obama’s administration reversed direction on the treaty. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States would support talks towards ratifying the treaty.

While the treaty is still in a draft stage, the United Nations is beginning a month-long process beginning this week to craft the final details of the treaty.

Supporters say the treaty is necessary to prevent rogue countries from being able to purchase guns from arms dealers. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said concerns about the treaty restricting individual rights are “misplaced” and that he supported its goals.

Critics of the treaty have long maintained that the treaty would lead to mandatory registration of all firearms and every sale; even those between individuals.

The congressional letter also takes issue with the “moral equivalence” of comparing America to totalitarian regimes and calls upon the administration to break consensus and reject the treaty. It goes on to remind the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “the Constitution gives the power to regulate international commerce to Congress alone.”

This is not the first time Congress has sent letters to the administration opposing the small arms treaty. Last year, Congress sent off a similar letter addressing many of the same concerns. This letter was signed by 12 Democrats who joined 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.

The letter stated, “The Arms Trade Treaty must not in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sale of firearms or ammunition.”

It went on to state, “The establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter.”

While that letter was been touted in the mainstream media as an indication that Democrats are now opposing gun control, some pointed out that the letter actually proved the opposite. The Senators stated they support the general concept of the treaty but believe countries such as the U.S. should have “exclusive authority to regulate arms within their own borders.”

Critics point out that this statement indicates that the senators believe firearms registration is acceptable provided it is initiated by individual governments.

    inShare26
    Printer Friendly
    Share
    Text smaller
    Text bigger

Ads by Google

    Social Workers with a BSWEarn an MSW in as little as a year One-year program online through USC msw.USC.edu/Virtual-Academic-Center

And under what conditions would the UN decide that "world peace" requires a peace keeping force on US soil?

We'll take as a given that the US government is choosing not to exercise its veto as a member of the Security Council and is allowing this hypothetical UN "peace keeping" action.

I'm assuming this would only happen if the US government felt threatened and needed non-US military forces on US soil to "keep the peace."

So, I guess more specifically, what situation(s) would explain why the US government is accepting a UN force?

    Daily Videos
    History
    Articles
    Cartoons
    Petition/Advocacy
    Rebuttal Videos

    Archives
    Advertising
    Contact

« The Global Gun Control Threat
US Will Sign Gun Control Treaty On July 27! Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
By Dick Morris on July 6, 2012

Dear Friend,

In this video commentary, I discuss the global gun control threat. Without any national debate — and after secret negotiations — Obama is going to sign the Arms Trade Treaty which will lead to UN imposed gun control. Tune in!

Click Here to sign the petition to stop the US from signing the Arms Trade Treaty!

Click Here to give me your thoughts and continue the discussion.

I dont think the UN forces would "invade" the US. This gun treaty would be all the liberals would need to take guns we already have, register all of them nationally and then ban certain ones.The threat would come from within not without. Just my 2 cents

So if the US signs this UN treaty it will superceed the constitution?  How does that work?
What should we do, email and call the senators for our locations?

The treaty CANNOT supersede the Constitution. It ~may~ conflict with the constitution.

If it conflicts with the constitution we have a couple options:

1) Do not ratify the treaty.
2) Change the constitution to allow the terms of the treaty to be legal under US law.

What is more likely is that the treaty doesn't directly conflict with the constitution but with our current implementation of it or bits of other US law that isn't in the constitution. Those laws are easier to change but HOW they are changed might then conflict with the varying interpretations of what degree of "infringing" is appropriate.

In any case, your Senator is the one to contact. I'd ~highly~ recommend reading the text of the treaty yourself and pointing out ~exactly~ which sections you are concerned about and why. If it is obvious that you don't understand what you are talking about (i.e. a form letter stating the the UN should get its nose out of our business) then it will likely be discounted as uninformed opinion.

If it gets to the point of changing US law then you'll need to contact your Representatives, as well.

Thanks for the honest answer clshade.
I been searching and trying to look up the actual document for myself so i can at least read through it, but apparently it doesnt even exist yet.
propaganda, maybe.  Always good to be on the defense though

  Quite welcome.

The most concrete document is from March of this year. It essentially defines the agenda for the current meeting:

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.217/1&Lang=E

The first 10 pages are internal logistics. The preamble starts on page 11 with what everyone has agreed to discuss and, more or less, why.

As far as being on the defensive, there are a number of things that might be of concern.

For example, Page 12, Section B and  Item 1:

"A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms if there is a
substantial risk that those conventional arms would:

1. Be used in a manner that would seriously undermine peace and security or
provoke, prolong or aggravate internal, regional, subregional or international
instability."

The fact that ~some~ guns (regardless of how many and how) are getting to Mexico from the US could be construed as a violation of this priority. Guns are sold ~legally~ to US citizens who then transfer them ~illegally~ to gun runners from Mexico who financed the purchase in the first place. This is already illegal but difficult to enforce. While the treaty would not ~make~ the US do something about it, it could be used by anti-gunners to make a case that we should do something about it.

Also of interest: Page 13, A, 5:

"States Parties shall take all necessary measures to control brokering activities
taking place within its territories or by its nationals in the context of transfers of
arms under this Treaty. States Parties shall ensure that all brokers are registered with
the appropriate national authority before engaging in activities under the scope of
the Treaty."

Current FFL / NFA / etc. laws may ~already~ fill this mandate depending on how the final term of the treaty are set out. If it does, the treaty then becomes a tool for PRO-gun activists to say "See, even the UN thinks we have enough gun control." This can be done whether the treaty is ratified or not, by the way.

You'll also see if you look through the scope of the treaty that it also applies to ammunition. While they're probably talking more about stuff like tank and artillery ammunition, we'll need to pay close attention to how the the treaty intends to address and control (if at all) small arms ammunition. While it probably won't affect US sales of most ammunition it might affect import of surplus ammunition. I doubt it will STOP imports of surplus as the intent of the treaty is to address the flow of arms to troubled places - which the US is clearly not. It may raise the price of surplus ammo, though, for a couple reasons:

1) additional reporting overhead on the part of the exporter and importer
2) Too much "Get your ammo NOW before the UN supersedes the constitution and you can't get any more cheap, corrosive ammo!!!!" hype.

Now were talking english, with citations and everything. Well put together.
Sounds way better then their out to ban guns.

New restrictions, laws, treaties, or other wise will only be followed by those who are 'law abiding',  Same as our current gun control.  America already has many safeguards on place to perturb illegal transfer of weapons to certain undesirables, and if such transfers or sales occur, they are illegal or covert in nature in the first place.  So why do we need other countries to tell us what we can and can't do? 

Any new law are treaty will inevitably be used to curtail our freedom and erode our rights.  This is not an opinion, it is a fact.  My proof?  Look at all the gun laws we have today, at first, folks have said, 'oh its only this, and oh, it's only that.', but as we all know a small chip here and there leads to big chunks, and then lead to larger infringements, which in the future leads to entire bans. Looks at our so called 'may issue' laws that Chris is trying to fight right now.  It started as a false sense of, 'it will be for the good of the public'  and  'it is not a ban, it is to ensure no unsavory persons can conceal and carry'.  We all know how that has turned out, a de facto BAN on CC for any Hawaiian.  Once law, it is very very difficult, if not impossible, to overturn.

I am sorry, but IMO, these countries, most of whom owe their sovereignty to the blood of those in the US that fought tyranny on their soil for them, need to get the hell off our constitution!  They, those countries seeking to curb our freedom, left to there own devices, are known time and time again to allow tyrannical rule to flourish on their land.  Those states IMO are trying to break down our freedom and screw us into their failed systems and way of life that is the bane of the plant earth.  When instead they should be emulating the freedoms we enjoy in the US. 

Heavies, while I agree with you in principle, for the most part this treaty is not a law like the CCW law in Hawaii.

It will be an agreement by the various countries to abide by a set of rules. IF (and only if) a country does not already have laws that follow those rules will that country then make laws according to the treaty. Chances are the US already has all those laws. And if we don't then we still have to go through the process of changing those laws, subject to due process as usual, BEFORE we fully ratify the treaty.

Can you buy a tank with a full compliment of military weaponry? How about a fighter jet? An RPG? Can you get a full auto AK-47 and 2,000 rounds of ammo from a guy on the street corner?

This treaty is (probably) NOT about private gun ownership at all. It is (probably) about the fact that arms supplying nations like the US, Germany, the former Soviet Union, and China have been selling arms to trouble spots for a looooong time - essentially adding fuel to the fire - with no accountability beyond the sales profits. We've also all used other parts of the world as proxy battlefields, in part by arming their citizens. That's almost the definition of the Cold War and it is how the Taliban became to force that it is today. We also supplied Saddam Hussein a while back and helped him consolidate power. How did that work out for us?

Do you realize that the treaty might make conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq much less likely for our soldiers in the future?

The treaty and the UN discussions about it are well worth looking at carefully. It has some potential for reducing conflict around the world, or at least making it more difficult to escalate, with absolutely NO affect on the second amendment. Then again, it might have some implications for the 2nd amendment - including support for the idea that our current laws are more than sufficient.

Have you read the document from March that I linked? If you haven't you really should. Its not nearly as alarming as some of the conservative new sources make it out to be. And then if you are still alarmed you'll have much better arguments about why.

Also informative (and not unbiased, I realize) is the State Department's summary of the matter outlining US involvement and goals for its interests in the treaty.

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/

Of interest are the "Key US Redlines"
-----------
    The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
        There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
        There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
    The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
    The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
    There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
    There will be no lowering of current international standards.
    Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
    The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
    There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.
---------

I added the italics to highlight the items that apply to civilian gun owners.

In short, if the treaty does not fully incorporate the above points the US is highly unlikely to sign. If the US doesn't sign neither will China or Iran.

Get the popcorn because this treaty is going to be a loooong way off, if the discussions get anywhere at all.

Heavies, thanks for taking the time to post.  I understand what you mean about the chip here and chip there and next thing you know we got a sculpted society. 
I just wanted to know what the hype was because it seemed like people saw UN, gun, and obama in the same sentence and started yelling gun control from the roofs without anything happening yet.  Should we be aware of what the government is doing, of course, always.  I guess all thats left is to read through the link clshade posted.

Also informative (and not unbiased, I realize) is the State Department's summary of the matter outlining US involvement and goals for its interests in the treaty.

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/

Of interest are the "Key US Redlines"
-----------
    The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
        There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
        There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
    The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
    The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
    There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
    There will be no lowering of current international standards.
    Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
    The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
    There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.
---------

Nothing to really see here.  A bunch of  "we won't let you screw with the millions of arms we export for money."  Our guns, are better than your guns, and we will keep it that way. 

As said somewhere in here, while this could go into something, it won't -- not with our current political structure (not enough votes in senate, and the house would defund everything here).   

-- Moving along! nothing to see here (yet).