PDA

View Full Version : SAAMI on U.N. Arms treaty


Johnnykck
05-15-2012, 9:56 AM
http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/is-isacs-a-sham/

Interesting to hear the view of SAAMI on this

Sorry. I meant UN not NATO

chicoredneck
05-15-2012, 10:17 AM
good far saami, thanks for the link!

vantec08
05-15-2012, 10:36 AM
Excluding the largest, oldest, most effective gun safety entity in the world pretty well tells the tale.

MindBuilder
05-15-2012, 11:34 AM
For those who keep saying this UN treaty is not a threat because it would be in violation of the Second Amendment, please remember, the treaty is not likely to be about bans but rather about registration. It is not at all clear that the courts will hold registration in violation of the Second Amendment. It is also not completely clear that a ban on sales without background checks (backdoor registration) could not get the 2/3 vote in the Senate, although that looks unlikely at this time. Also, if the president signs the treaty, it can sit there waiting for years for the 2/3 Senate vote at any time. And the treaty can be made self-executing to avoid the need for anything to go through the House.

phamkl
05-15-2012, 11:46 AM
What exactly does the treaty try to do? I've tried reading but it's confusing...

OleCuss
05-15-2012, 11:47 AM
I'm not going to say that it is not a threat. It's just not a threat worth spending time on.

The above story points out just how irrelevant we are to the process. Knowledgeable opinions and any interest in liberty are utterly irrelevant to those pushing the treaty. And Obama and company have adequately demonstrated that on items such as this public opinion is of no consequence.

So the treaty is successfully negotiated or it is not. If it is successfully negotiated we know that it will be inimical to liberty.

This is where it comes back to Obama's re-election.

If Obama is re-elected the treaty will sit there until he has the votes in the Senate. Obama will appoint judges who will follow the treaty even if not ratified. It'll be very messy.

If Obama is not re-elected, then it is also quite likely we'll have a Senate which is not going to ratify the treaty. So Romney can submit the treaty for ratification and get the thing killed off once and for all. I'm not saying Romney will do that, but he can.

But what you should really expect is for the final negotiations on the treaty to be postponed until after the November elections. That means Obama doesn't ever take a political hit for the treaty. Then they conclude the treaty if possible, sign it and go from there. But Romney will likely tell them that they should not conclude that treaty (or any others) during the transition time period. So if Obama signs the treaty anyway he'll have already ticked off Romney and that increases the probability that Romney will work to kill it.

It keeps going back to getting Obama out of the White House.

Drivedabizness
05-15-2012, 12:31 PM
The Senate voted 97-0 AGAINST the Kyoto treaty and we still have CARB trying to do it here in CA and the EPA by dictat everywhere else.

These things must be killed and killed again.

CaliforniaLiberal
05-15-2012, 5:18 PM
What exactly does the treaty try to do? I've tried reading but it's confusing...


The language of the Treaty has not been settled yet. There have been several UN Conferences to discus treaty language over the last few years and it is scheduled to be finalized this Summer. Stay tuned around the beginning of this July.

Many UN Member Countries want the Treaty to regulate trade in all weapons of war, from personal firearms up to tanks, helicopters, bombers and battleships. They are concerned about all the nasty little wars that are fueled by easy access to armaments from around the world. Like Eastern European Countries selling Billions in surplus military weapons to small African warlords and armies so they can slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. And plenty of other examples all over the planet.

Other UN Member Countries are dreaming of a World without any weapons except those possessed by the legitimate police and armed forces of established countries. The want to outlaw the ownership of weapons by all private citizens. Some of these are willing to compromise to allow private possession with extreme limits - like one rifle per citizen for "legitimate hunting and sporting purposes" kept locked up at your hunting club.

The US Government under Obama wants to protect the weapons sales of US Corporations. The US leads the world in weapons exports and profits. The US State Department claims that the US already has excellent controls of International weapons sales and requires corporations to show where and to whom the weapons are ultimately going before permitting export - End Use Certificates. The US thinks that imposing these same rules on the rest of the world would be just fine and would help protect US Corporations weapons sales profits.

In order to retain ultimate control of the Treaty negotiations the US put a little poison pill into their agreement to begin negotiations of the Treaty three years ago. The final draft language of the Treaty must be settled by consensus. If even one of the countries negotiating the draft Treaty disagrees with the final draft (say for instance the US feeling that the treaty language restricts US Corporate Sales and Profits) then there is NO agreement and the process must begin again. Some of the Member Countries in the negotiations are trying to change these terms of agreement, but the US has a lot of influence.

No one is watching out for the interests of US 2nd Amendment Patriots except for Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) like the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA who both been able to speak at the Treaty Negotiations and the US Senate. A big bunch of US Senators has declared that they will never ratify a Treaty that does not respect the 2nd Amendment. 66 out of 100 Senators would have to vote to Ratify this Treaty if it is ever passed by the UN. I cannot imagine more than about 30 Senators voting for it.

The Obama Administration has no interest in kicking up a big loud messy fuss around this Treaty Negotiations during an election year and will certainly be keeping a lid on it at least til after the election. There is no upside for them in energizing and uniting all of the Pro 2nd Amendment constituencies during a potentially close election.

Because no Treaty language has been agreed upon there is lots of room for Pro 2nd Amendment groups to share their worst nightmares about what might be in the final Treaty language. The NRA has especially been telling us about the horrors that are going to be in the Final Draft of the Treaty, using fear as a fund raising tool.

If a Final Draft Treaty is ever agreed upon by the negotiators then it will go the UN as a whole to be debated and voted on. Then it would have to be ratified by individual countries. It's going to be a long while still to get to the end of this. If it ever reaches an end.

vantec08
05-15-2012, 5:38 PM
http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss152/vantec08/franklymydear.jpg

jwkincal
05-15-2012, 6:00 PM
Maybe then we won't have to have a "UN Treaty will strip our Second Amendment rights" thread every two weeks.

Although admittedly this particular one is not of that ilk. Interesting article about SAAMI.

The language of the Treaty has not been settled yet. There have been several UN Conferences to discus treaty language over the last few years and it is scheduled to be finalized this Summer. Stay tuned around the beginning of this July.

Many UN Member Countries want the Treaty to regulate trade in all weapons of war, from personal firearms up to tanks, helicopters, bombers and battleships. They are concerned about all the nasty little wars that are fueled by easy access to armaments from around the world. Like Eastern European Countries selling Billions in surplus military weapons to small African warlords and armies so they can slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. And plenty of other examples all over the planet.

Other UN Member Countries are dreaming of a World without any weapons except those possessed by the legitimate police and armed forces of established countries. The want to outlaw the ownership of weapons by all private citizens. Some of these are willing to compromise to allow private possession with extreme limits - like one rifle per citizen for "legitimate hunting and sporting purposes" kept locked up at your hunting club.

The US Government under Obama wants to protect the weapons sales of US Corporations. The US leads the world in weapons exports and profits. The US State Department claims that the US already has excellent controls of International weapons sales and requires corporations to show where and to whom the weapons are ultimately going before permitting export - End Use Certificates. The US thinks that imposing these same rules on the rest of the world would be just fine and would help protect US Corporations weapons sales profits.

In order to retain ultimate control of the Treaty negotiations the US put a little poison pill into their agreement to begin negotiations of the Treaty three years ago. The final draft language of the Treaty must be settled by consensus. If even one of the countries negotiating the draft Treaty disagrees with the final draft (say for instance the US feeling that the treaty language restricts US Corporate Sales and Profits) then there is NO agreement and the process must begin again. Some of the Member Countries in the negotiations are trying to change these terms of agreement, but the US has a lot of influence.

No one is watching out for the interests of US 2nd Amendment Patriots except for Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) like the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA who both been able to speak at the Treaty Negotiations and the US Senate. A big bunch of US Senators has declared that they will never ratify a Treaty that does not respect the 2nd Amendment. 66 out of 100 Senators would have to vote to Ratify this Treaty if it is ever passed by the UN. I cannot imagine more than about 30 Senators voting for it.

The Obama Administration has no interest in kicking up a big loud messy fuss around this Treaty Negotiations during an election year and will certainly be keeping a lid on it at least til after the election. There is no upside for them in energizing and uniting all of the Pro 2nd Amendment constituencies during a potentially close election.

Because no Treaty language has been agreed upon there is lots of room for Pro 2nd Amendment groups to share their worst nightmares about what might be in the final Treaty language. The NRA has especially been telling us about the horrors that are going to be in the Final Draft of the Treaty, using fear as a fund raising tool.

If a Final Draft Treaty is ever agreed upon by the negotiators then it will go the UN as a whole to be debated and voted on. Then it would have to be ratified by individual countries. It's going to be a long while still to get to the end of this. If it ever reaches an end.

OleCuss
05-15-2012, 6:17 PM
California Liberal:

Nice summation. I think you've pretty much got it nailed down.

However, I suspect the US is also quite interested in using it to limit US firearms ownership. I don't know that this is part of their negotiations, but I'm allowed to guess based on the attitudes of various people attached to Obama that this would be the case.

I would also bet that Obama and company would be very happy to have the final negotiations happen after November. I'd not be at all surprised if Obama were willing to give up the requirement that there be a consensus in order to obtain a delay in the final negotiations. I'm not at all certain that Obama is really all that committed to the requirement for that consensus which was imposed/negotiated by the Bush administration.

We already know that Obama has planned additional concessions to Russia and to the Palestinians if he is re-elected. Who knows what else he is willing to do to us?

Wherryj
05-17-2012, 8:19 AM
Excluding the largest, oldest, most effective gun safety entity in the world pretty well tells the tale.

Excluding the NRA could be more easily explained by the anti-gunners. The NRA is seen as the "Paid gun lobby" rather than the organization helping the individual gun owners to fight to keep their rights.

SAAMI pulling out will still be pushed off by the anti-gunners as "an organization trying to protect its business"-how much would SAAMI have to do if guns were restricted to ONLY governments, after all?

SAAMI is much more difficult to explain away for anyone with a mind open to the situation, however. It has never been political and thus is more difficult to marginalize.

So now we have the largest, oldest, most effective gun safety organization in the world AND the most respected small arms standards organization not-involved in this "standards" discussion?

Will all of the "standards" be decided directly by the UN's supported dictators then? After all THEY know how dangerous guns can be-at least to a small group's attempts to impose their wishes upon the unwashed masses.

SAAMI's announcement mostly will just fall on the ears "of the choir" and the few with minds still open to discussion. It will be ignored of "spun" by everyone else.

POLICESTATE
05-17-2012, 8:27 AM
Screw the UN. We have rights in this country. Rights they cannot take away. It's in the Constitution!

wjc
05-17-2012, 3:45 PM
Screw the UN. We have rights in this country. Rights they cannot take away. It's in the Constitution!

Hear, hear!

DJMajors
05-17-2012, 4:10 PM
Yes we do but please realize you are reading this in a 2a forum which means your rights have already been violated

Dreaded Claymore
05-17-2012, 5:03 PM
If you're reading this post and you haven't read the whole thread, go back up and read CaliforniaLiberal's summary of the situation. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=8585518#post8585518) I just want to say that because it's really good.

Also, Johnnykck should change the thread title to "SAAMI on UN Arms Treaty."