TexasCHLforum.com

Blue helmets.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/1 ... rol-treaty


From the article:

Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”

That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT. The United Nations will control the purchase of guns and ammo, the possession of guns and ammo, and any guns and ammo not willingly surrendered to the UN will be tracked, seized, and destroyed.

A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?

A more urgent and pertinent question is whether in the United States any laws will be passed at all.

As was witnessed on Wednesday, President Obama is prepared to accelerate the disarmament himself, if he can't convince Congress to go along.

A story in Politico demonstrates President Obama’s infamous “We Can’t Wait” mantra in action:

"The White House has identified 19 (now 23) executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School."

Put simply, should Congress fail to pass (to use the UN’s phrase) “adequate laws” to restrict gun ownership, President Obama will issue the flurry of fiats he announced Wednesday that will help him and his globalist cohorts accomplish that goal. That sort of autocracy instantly effects a de facto repeal of Article I (Congress is granted exclusive law-making authority) and the Second Amendment — the unqualified right to bear arms.

As this author has traveled around the country warning citizens of the UN’s efforts to seize all privately owned weapons, I have warned of the eminent enforcement of a particular provision of the Arms Trade Treaty that would target (if you will) ammunition.

The globalist bureaucrats at the UN recognize that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.

How does the ATT (and the Programme of Action that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?

Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.

How does the ATT (and the Programme of Action that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?

Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.

This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”

Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.

In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of this ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms.

This brings to mind the imminent deployment by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of portable invisible lasers developed by Genia Laboratories (a company created by CIA offshoot In-Q-Tel) that can detect even trace amounts of gunpowder from over 50 yards away. The laser reportedly can penetrate walls, glass, and metal. DHS was scheduled to take possession of the devices at the end of 2012, according to testimony presented on Capitol Hill in November 2011.

The attack is being waged on all fronts on a global level. We are not just facing the entrenched antis here in the US, we are facing the UN goons.

Anygunanywhere

I don't have the time right now to look this up and it's been 3-4 months since I did, but wasn't this debunked?

Not saying it isn't true, but I would double-check it.

the UN has absolutely now force of law in the United States.
No treaty can overule the laws or the constitution of the United States.
Takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate to Ratify a Treaty. Most democrats wouldn't want to touch this one. Hardly any Republicans.

We need to worry more about our own new laws and not worry so much about a useless organization that has very little influence, this thing has been floating around for years now and is mostly used to scare people. Kyoto is more of a threat than this is.

Liberty wrote:the UN has absolutely now force of law in the United States.
No treaty can overule the laws or the constitution of the United States.
Takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate to Ratify a Treaty. Most democrats wouldn't want to touch this one. Hardly any Republicans.

We need to worry more about our own new laws and not worry so much about a useless organization that has very little influence, this thing has been floating around for years now and is mostly used to scare people. Kyoto is more of a threat than this is.

I think>Supreme Court just accepted a case on that issue; they may decide Treaties are superior to the Constitution.... who knows ... that's why who is President that appoints Judges is so Important

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=61837&p=759426&hilit=treaty#p759327" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... aty-Powers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I mean it's unconstitutional to have any infringement on guns right? but
There's supposedly freedom to worship and freedom of speech, but High schools instruct not to pray at games ...
Courts shouldn't even have authority/subject matter jurisdiction to rule on such matters if there was true separation of church and State.

But ... they do it.

Liberty wrote:the UN has absolutely now force of law in the United States.
No treaty can overule the laws or the constitution of the United States.
Takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate to Ratify a Treaty. Most democrats wouldn't want to touch this one. Hardly any Republicans.

We need to worry more about our own new laws and not worry so much about a useless organization that has very little influence, this thing has been floating around for years now and is mostly used to scare people. Kyoto is more of a threat than this is.

This.

I don't want to poo-poo the UN's intent, and I do believe that it is an out of control agency directed largely by thugs and evil people. It galls me down to my bones that it continues to exist on American soil. Let it be moved to North Korea, and lets see how long they keep up the shenanigans. I'd bet $100 that the delegates would stop racking up unpaid parking tickets and abusing local women. But those things aren't really the problem. When an international body dedicated to global government organizes "human rights" committees chaired and membered by some of the worst human rights violators on the planet, I call that a problem.

But Liberty is right....right now, it does require a 2/3 vote of the senate to ratify a treaty. That could change. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution says:

He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Remember that number—2/3 of the senators present—because it will come up later. Here's the reason that I emphasized that sentence above:

Article I, Section 5, paragraph 1 of the Constitution says that:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Since the Constitution doesn't specify what constitutes a senate majority beyond a simple majority, it is the senate's own discretion to make rules defining which things require a simple majority (51 votes), which things require a "supermajority" (67 votes). Right now, because we have 100 senate seats, a simple majority is 51. It is a senate RULE which currently requires 67 members of the senate to ratify a treaty, and to pass certain other types of legislation, but the senate is constitutionally free to alter its own rules. So theoretically, the senate could alter its own rules making it possible for a simple majority of 51 votes to ratify a treaty.

Now, add on the following: It requires a majority (51) of the Senate to consist of a quorum, and a quorum is required for a vote on the floor of the senate. In other words, the Senate can vote something up or down on the floor with only 51 of its members physically present. Remember that the 67 votes currently required is merely a senate rule, but it is not a constitutional requirement. And according to Article II, Section 2 says in plain english that treaty ratification only requires 2/3 of the Senators PRESENT to vote in favor of treaty ratification.......and that means that in a situation where only 51 of the Senators are PRESENT—the minimum for a quorum required by the Constitution for a vote—then only 2/3 of THEM are required by the Constitution to ratify a treaty. We currently have 100 Senators. If only 51 of them are PRESENT—which constitutes a quorum—then the Constitution only requires 2/3 of 51 to ratify the treaty. That means that it is theoretically possible for only 35 senators to ratify a treaty.

Well, we can scoff about that, but consider this: Right NOW, there is a push in the Senate........it's been in the headlines, published by both liberal and conservative media......to change the senate rules to get rid of the supermajority requirement to stop a filibuster. Now, some liberal senators are disagreeing with that notion because they know that it will work against them if republicans ever regain the senate majority. But a significant number of senators are like sharks in the water, and they smell blood. They are too power mad and short-sighted to see beyond the immediate victory of being able to shut down a republican filibuster at will. Furthermore, the majority party sets the rules, so it doesn't require all senators in the majority party to accomplish it. So despite cooler heads, this push to abolish the supermajority requirement to end a filibuster could happen. And if they will do that, then what is to stop them from changing their rules about treaty ratification from 2/3 of the entire senate, to 2/3 of a quorum defined as a simple majority?

Now, I believe that the above scenario is highly unlikely, but it is theoretically possible, and with the current crop of senators, it is probably more possible than at any previous time in our history to date.

So, although I don't think it will actually happen, I am not going to dismiss the possibility out of hand. The current makeup of the senate is 53 democrats to 45 republicans, plus 2 independents who caucus with the democrats (Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Amos King of Maine). So in effect, the democrat vote is 55/45...........and there are a few turncoat republicans (the usual suspects—McCain and others) who are on board with the idea of reducing the number of votes needed to disrupt a filibuster. Again, I don't think the senate would ratify a UN treaty which overrides the 2nd Amendment, but I also think it would be foolish to ignore the theoretical possibilities, because we ignore them at our peril, and that is exactly how they will sneak up on us—because we ignored them. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

However, Liberty is right.....the bigger threat is the array of anti-gun legislation we are facing right now. That is not theoretical, it is fact. We need to deal with it.

I posted this in a thread of its own but believe it has relevance here. I think this will impact the effectiveness of the U.N. anti-gun efforts in the US.

http://breitbart.com/Big-Government/201 ... aty-Powers

There are many American gun owners that might have issues about shooting another American coming to take their guns. Most of them would not hesitate to shoot a blue helmet foreigner. Some might even look forward to it.

Well, let's add the UN Troops perspective to this examination of possibilities....

200 Italian Troops
200 Greece Troops
200 Dutch Troops

assemble and are told by their respective CO's they are going to the USA, specifically Texas, and they are to hunt for, identify and seize all weapons per UN orders.



How long do you think it will take them to collectively say "Whatch you talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

And for those overly intrepid souls who actually arrive in country;
They won't need to find the weapons; the weapons will find them.

I hope It does not come to this

I am a very peaceful person, but my blood pressure jumped quite a ways at the thought of a foreign UN soldier showing up here to forcibly take anything of mine. I think there would be a very bad result if our numbnuts leaders ever tried that. Americans just are not going to handle that well. I agree it would be far more likely the UN and the anti's would just do all they could to make ammo impossible to afford or to be allowed to buy.

I don't speak Dutch, Greek nor Italian, how do you say "They all fell out of my boat"

Oh, I know ... Go Fish

RPB wrote:I don't speak Dutch, Greek nor Italian, how do you say "They all fell out of my boat"

Oh, I know ... Go Fish

Or does that translate "I hope you can swim?"

LabRat wrote:Well, let's add the UN Troops perspective to this examination of possibilities....

200 Italian Troops
200 Greece Troops
200 Dutch Troops

assemble and are told by their respective CO's they are going to the USA, specifically Texas, and they are to hunt for, identify and seize all weapons per UN orders.



How long do you think it will take them to collectively say "Whatch you talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

...

Ha ha ha! The most humorous answer I've seen about anywhere!

Maybe it just struck my funny bone, but I thought it addressed a serious possibility humorously.

Good work.

Jeff B.