PDA

View Full Version : UNODA - Untited Nation Office for Disarmament Affairs


BuckleNose
07-14-2012, 9:00 PM
ATT aside, disarmament is on the agenda of the United Nations. Next on their plate, after the ATT negotiations draw to a close, is small arms.

A Review Conference titled, Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons is scheduled for August 27 - September 7, 2012.

Check this out. Stay informed.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

Keep thinking!

cdtx2001
07-14-2012, 11:00 PM
UN regulations will not trump the Constitution. They can try to disarm America.... and they may well one day succeed ........ but they will have to take the bullets first.

tabrisnet
07-15-2012, 12:03 AM
The UN's sole purpose is to seek peace. Too bad they believe that disarmanent is a valid path thereto.

randian
07-16-2012, 1:58 PM
The UN's sole purpose is to seek peace.
No, that's just its chartered purpose. Its actual purpose, according to what it actually does, is to steal from the first world to give to the third, while enriching interested parties along the way. The UN does not seek peace; indeed, its troops run at the first sign of conflict, and said troops participate in disarming subject populations while turning a blind eye to the victimization of said populations.

CBruce
07-16-2012, 2:05 PM
ATT aside, disarmament is on the agenda of the United Nations. Next on their plate, after the ATT negotiations draw to a close, is small arms.

A Review Conference titled, Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons is scheduled for August 27 - September 7, 2012.

Check this out. Stay informed.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

Keep thinking!

Help me out here. What specifically makes this a threat to legal firearm-ownership, particularly firearm ownership here in the US, versus their stated goal of cracking down on illicit firearm trade in conflict areas?

OleCuss
07-16-2012, 2:14 PM
I largely agree with randian.

The UN is meant to increase the power of certain individuals and to steal money from the U.S.

There is little interest in peace unless it furthers the above.

tcd511
07-16-2012, 2:15 PM
UN regulations will not trump the Constitution. They can try to disarm America.... and they may well one day succeed ........ but they will have to take the bullets first.

I will give them mine at a high velocity. F*&K the UN!:43::43::43:

Rcjackrabbit
07-16-2012, 3:14 PM
Many gunowners are comforting themselves that we are safe because of the 2nd amendment. I think that is a mistake. If this thing is signed it is bad. Here is why:

1. Obama will institute regulations under the color of law to comply. Similar to the ATF reporting on multiple gun purchases, they will eat away at the 2nd Amendment in small bites. He will bypass congress. They have done this with environmental laws after we did not ratify Kyoto.

2. It will legitimize gun control.

3. It will ultimately effect our ability to get parts, ammo, and even guns from overseas. It may get shot down in the USA. But, it will apply to other countries.

Any gains your enemy makes is bad.

Aldemar
07-16-2012, 3:21 PM
Romney said his first priority as President would be the repeal of Obamacare.

I hope the second would be the United States withdrawal from the UN. Let them set up their new HQ in China, North Korea or Iran.

The UN is as useless now as the League of Nations was just prior to WWII. Does anyone know how a country would withdraw from the UN if it desired to?

tabrisnet
07-16-2012, 3:24 PM
No, that's just its chartered purpose. Its actual purpose, according to what it actually does, is to steal from the first world to give to the third, while enriching interested parties along the way. The UN does not seek peace; indeed, its troops run at the first sign of conflict, and said troops participate in disarming subject populations while turning a blind eye to the victimization of said populations.

to which one can say that that is the "purpose" of the average human being.

Tack
07-16-2012, 3:25 PM
The UN's sole purpose is to seek peace. Too bad they believe that disarmanent is a valid path thereto.

Iíll simplify the UN for you. Most of the world is ruled by dictators and corrupt oligarchies. The idea behind the UN is that we should get representatives from these dictatorships in one room so they can vote for their self-interest. Letís see what happens. What could go wrong?! The UN has actually been effective in stopping war. The UN also crushed freedom because most wars were battles of self-liberation from dictatorship. Well, we and the UN helped fix that.

tabrisnet
07-16-2012, 3:48 PM
hardly am I to believe that the UN is an org made up of good ppl. OTOH, I'd say the same of any org. So far, however, the UN has only the powers it is granted by its members.

pray that that continues, and we do not end up with a meaningful UN court or army.

tabrisnet
07-16-2012, 4:50 PM
Don't not fight this treaty. But let's not sound like idiots and fanatics by spreading misinformation like "ratifying this treaty is like amending the constitution".

We have to find a way to be heard without sounding like whackos.

Sutcliffe
07-16-2012, 4:57 PM
No, that's just its chartered purpose. Its actual purpose, according to what it actually does, is to steal from the first world to give to the third, while enriching interested parties along the way. The UN does not seek peace; indeed, its troops run at the first sign of conflict, and said troops participate in disarming subject populations while turning a blind eye to the victimization of said populations.

How many disarmed Bosnians were murdered because of the UN? How many UN Officials have become wealthy by their association with the UN? How many UN 'Peace Keepers' were arrested and charged with rape in the Belgian Congo?

Lone_Gunman
07-16-2012, 5:10 PM
As long as there are liberty loving Americans the UN won't have a chance. Our job is to raise up the next generation of pro gun pro freedom Americans. I'm making sure my children are raised that way, and I hope the rest of you are too.

Redcoats, blue helmets, the solution remains the same.

RMP91
07-16-2012, 5:19 PM
As long as there are liberty loving Americans the UN won't have a chance. Our job is to raise up the next generation of pro gun pro freedom Americans. I'm making sure my children are raised that way, and I hope the rest of you are too.


Only problem with that is, you're outnumbered 50:1 in terms of raising pro-gun, pro-freedom children. I'm glad you're doing the right thing though, the more the better.

Just about everyone else, however would rather let the government raise their children for them while they shoot up heroin, smoke crack, and knock up middle school/teenage girls all on the taxpayers dime. :mad:

Plus, they'll try to prevent children (especially this generation) from joining the military to honorably serve their country because "they rape women and children and steal from foreign countries". Sometimes it almost makes me wanna go "**** it". :mad:

And they would indoctrinate the kids in public school that "guns are bad, we should get rid of guns". I should know, they tried that crap on me when I was in the PS system, and actually got suspended twice for making pro-gun statements (thankfully, not for long).


Is it wrong for me to to WISH for a second American Revolution...?

safewaysecurity
07-16-2012, 5:29 PM
The purpose of the U.N is one world government and no national sovereignty. One set of laws for all nations and people. We really need a congress and a President who will just leave the U.N and declare complete sovereignty and immunity from "international law"

Bigedski
07-16-2012, 5:38 PM
WHEN THE U.N. COMES FOR MINE THEY WILL GET THEM 1 ROUND AT A TIME

Rcjackrabbit
07-17-2012, 8:28 AM
I am sure many of us will give them "one round at a time". However, that is the least wise solution. We need to be out of the UN.

The people calling the shots actually want civil war in America. They want us to shoot it up with police and create total chaos. Then, they can roll in and take full control for "our own good". If you look closely, America is being formed into a full scale police state - drones, checkpoints, surveillance. They are doing it for a reason.

Sun Tsu said the wisest warriors win without going to battle. We have to wake people up so that it never gets to the point of armed resistance.

tabrisnet
07-17-2012, 8:40 AM
They don't want civil war. They may want insurrection... Preferably, to them, many small insurrections. Civil war is certainly a failure by their [or any] standard.

OleCuss
07-17-2012, 8:53 AM
Not so sure we should be out of the UN.

But the UN should be out of us and should be out of our pocketbook.

Let them set up shop in Zambia and we should pay the same amount of dues as does Haiti. Stop funding all those "peacekeeping" missions.

Cowboy T
07-17-2012, 9:08 AM
Don't not fight this treaty. But let's not sound like idiots and fanatics by spreading misinformation like "ratifying this treaty is like amending the constitution".

We have to find a way to be heard without sounding like whackos.

That is extremely wise advice. Nobody likes someone who they think sounds like a lunatic. We've got to be rationed and, above all, correct in our criticism of it. And then we must actually vote accordingly.

And yes, Sun Tsu was right. Let's win the war without having to go to battle. It's 2012, folks. Let's make sure we use that BALLOT box.

Dantedamean
07-17-2012, 9:33 AM
Even if this treaty doesn't get ratified by congress, you can say good by to any gun or parts not made in the US. Sig, saiga, glock, benelli, ect. Oh and that goes for ammo too.
It will also make obamas job of disarming America much easier, because now he can spew to the American people that we must "lead by example". Obama scares the hell out of me, if he gets a second term we may just see a second civil war, and I have a bad feeling well be on the losing side.

Ripon83
07-17-2012, 9:47 AM
It seems that Obama supporters are fast to point out the past decision of the supreme court protecting citizens constitutional rights from being violated by treaty. They forget the supreme court just took a very left turn and to suggest this 1950's precedent would stand is not based on anything but opinion and wishful thinking.

Like Kyoto this can begin to open the door to gun controls. We could see the elimination of legal imports. How will that impact ammo prices? We could see new levels of bureaucracy and fees. We all know the anti gun lobby realizes the more expensive our guns and ammo the fewer people they will have to oppose. Nothing good comes of this, and we have a leadership embracing it instead of stopping it.


Many gunowners are comforting themselves that we are safe because of the 2nd amendment. I think that is a mistake. If this thing is signed it is bad. Here is why:

1. Obama will institute regulations under the color of law to comply. Similar to the ATF reporting on multiple gun purchases, they will eat away at the 2nd Amendment in small bites. He will bypass congress. They have done this with environmental laws after we did not ratify Kyoto.

2. It will legitimize gun control.

3. It will ultimately effect our ability to get parts, ammo, and even guns from overseas. It may get shot down in the USA. But, it will apply to other countries.

Any gains your enemy makes is bad.

Goosebrown
07-17-2012, 10:36 AM
The UN is as useless now as the League of Nations was just prior to WWII. Does anyone know how a country would withdraw from the UN if it desired to?

I agree, but being a part and funding at some level is very useful. As long as it is in the US and we are a part, we can keep the funds dribbling in. Enough for them not to fold and move or to set up some version where we don't have a veto. A UN which we were NOT a part of would be a nightmare and the rules and regs they would make would kill every bit of business on the planet.

The ATT has to pass by consensus and that is going to be hard to do if there enough added amendments. I know China is looking for all sorts of loopholes so it can keep on shipping arms. I know the US has added some. Even if it does pass, it cannot be ratified. If Obama starts implementing it without ratification that would be about the best thing we could possibly have for Republicans to win in November.

Wrangler John
07-17-2012, 10:57 AM
Yesterday, Monday, July 16, while driving along in my truck, I listened to Sean Hannity show. Sean's guest was Dick Morris. They discussed the U.N. treaty and Morris reminded everyone that the U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Accords, which allows the treaty to go into effect with Obama's signature unless specifically nullified by Senatorial repeal as part of the ratification process. Once signed the treaty becomes an amendment to the Constitution. Morris mentioned a five year limit in such circumstances in the absence of rejection through a ratification vote. Morris also said that if Harry Reid is still the Senate majority leader, he simply would not allow a floor vote to reject the treaty. In the interval, Obama can establish the regulatory framework for gun control, including mandatory inventory and registration of all private firearms, which will lead to confiscation under the treaty down the road. This would seem to be the plan. Obama and his socialist minions are much smarter at devising ways to strip us of our rights and freedoms than was thought. He said he planned to fundamentally change the nation, there is no reason to doubt him. Now that he has turned John Roberts to his side, there is little comfort in that direction.

Do not underestimate the lawlessness or craftiness of a socialist revolutionary. While the Constitutional experts debate back and forth, Obama will dictate what he wants, and time is on his side.

Dantedamean
07-17-2012, 11:08 AM
Yesterday, Monday, July 16, while driving along in my truck, I listened to Sean Hannity show. Sean's guest was Dick Morris. They discussed the U.N. treaty and Morris reminded everyone that the U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Accords, which allows the treaty to go into effect with Obama's signature unless specifically nullified by Senatorial repeal as part of the ratification process. Once signed the treaty becomes an amendment to the Constitution. Morris mentioned a five year limit in such circumstances in the absence of rejection through a ratification vote. Morris also said that if Harry Reid is still the Senate majority leader, he simply would not allow a floor vote to reject the treaty. In the interval, Obama can establish the regulatory framework for gun control, including mandatory inventory and registration of all private firearms, which will lead to confiscation under the treaty down the road. This would seem to be the plan. Obama and his socialist minions are much smarter at devising ways to strip us of our rights and freedoms than was thought. He said he planned to fundamentally change the nation, there is no reason to doubt him. Now that he has turned John Roberts to his side, there is little comfort in that direction.

Do not underestimate the lawlessness or craftiness of a socialist revolutionary. While the Constitutional experts debate back and forth, Obama will dictate what he wants, and time is on his side.

**** dude. I had no idea it would be so easy, I need to get my back up plan up and running ;)

OleCuss
07-17-2012, 11:31 AM
It appears Dick Morris is referring to the "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties"?

I've not gone through it all in detail, but the applicable part would appear to be:

Article 18
Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force
A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:
(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or
(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed.

I don't see how that means anyone can violate the RKBA. It probably means you could not start up a new government policy intended to violate the treaty which was just signed.

A lot of wiggle room in that language, but I don't see how it would empower Obama to violate our RKBA.

Farrier-1
07-17-2012, 11:45 AM
Perhaps you should ask the people of Rwanda what the UN did for them.

Merovign
07-17-2012, 12:12 PM
Originally, the UN consisted of the Security Council paternalistically dictating interests to everyone else. Some people thought this was unfair, so they tried to get the Security Council to give more power to the member states.

Unfortunately, a lot of the member states were corrupt dictators, so that went about as well as you'd expect.

Currently, the UN is a dictator and thug's Old Boys Club, and we really should have no part in it.

POLICESTATE
07-17-2012, 12:22 PM
Down with the UN. It's time for some urban renewal on all that prime real estate!

Rcjackrabbit
07-17-2012, 12:57 PM
I have trained Brazilian Jiu Jitsu for 19 years. Put simply, the philosophy is

POSITION FIRST, SUBMISSION SECOND.

The goal is to incrementally improve my position until I have reached a point where I can submit my opponent in a way he can not resist.

This is what is happening in America. The rise of the police state is for a reason. The police state is for us, not "the terrorists". Like I said before - checkpoints, searches, spying, drones, unconstitutional laws and policies are all part of them positioning themselves for our ultimate submission.

Make no mistake, this UN treaty is part of their positioning strategy. Whether it is approved or not, it will weaken our ability to resist their submission.

shooter777
07-17-2012, 1:15 PM
I just found this document dating back to 1961 published by the U.S. Dept of State. It is called "Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World"

here's the link. very interesting. It seems to focus primarily on nukes but does mention small arms and the need to remove them from civilian populations.

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

randian
07-17-2012, 1:25 PM
The police state is for us, not "the terrorists". Like I said before - checkpoints, searches, spying, drones, unconstitutional laws and policies are all part of them positioning themselves for our ultimate submission.
It's not just here. Look at how the UK practically ignores and softpedals crime by certain groups while viciously cracking down on native Britons.

Goosebrown
07-17-2012, 3:20 PM
**** dude. I had no idea it would be so easy, I need to get my back up plan up and running ;)

Morris is lying or ignorant. It is NOT part of the Geneva Accords and the US didn't even sign all of them. A treaty, and this is a treaty, has to be approved by the senate. Period.

Dick Morris's friends are actually commenting on his statements. This is unlike him frankly to be so wrong as to look like he is lying.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-17-2012, 3:25 PM
A tidbit of interest that was shared with me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Qm-mShNSg&feature=relmfu

A.W.D.

thrasherfox
07-17-2012, 3:41 PM
Romney said his first priority as President would be the repeal of Obamacare.

I hope the second would be the United States withdrawal from the UN. Let them set up their new HQ in China, North Korea or Iran.

The UN is as useless now as the League of Nations was just prior to WWII. Does anyone know how a country would withdraw from the UN if it desired to?

I agree, we should withdraw from the UN, they were not there for us with IRAQ, we had to do that with a few of our own ally's, we didnt need the UN.

And just about any conflict or war we are in that the UN is involved in, we are a major player. Look at Egypt. we were trying to stay out of it and the UN needed our firepower to complete their mission.

All we are to the UN is a VERY LARGE hammer they can weild to smash country's. I do not see how the US benefits from the UN, we keep poorting money into this country and that country because of our UN responsabilities. We waste American lives because of UN responsabilities.

We would be better off without them.

YubaRiver
07-17-2012, 3:41 PM
So they've lost their chests and now they want to take away arms too?

"Untited Nation Office for Disarmament Affairs"

Trying to figure out where Dick and toes fit into this too.

Dantedamean
07-17-2012, 4:48 PM
Morris is lying or ignorant. It is NOT part of the Geneva Accords and the US didn't even sign all of them. A treaty, and this is a treaty, has to be approved by the senate. Period.

Dick Morris's friends are actually commenting on his statements. This is unlike him frankly to be so wrong as to look like he is lying.

None the less. I'm still going to prepare for the worst.

njineermike
07-17-2012, 4:58 PM
Oh no! Not the UN! Why they may get so worked up they'll call for a vote to decide to have a vote to create a committee to discuss a vote to elect a panel to discuss the drafting of a memo to ascertain the viability of a group tasked with determining the proper channels to write a letter to condemn something they may or.may not agree with. Then we'll be in REAL trouble.

Wrangler John
07-17-2012, 8:15 PM
Morris is lying or ignorant. It is NOT part of the Geneva Accords and the US didn't even sign all of them. A treaty, and this is a treaty, has to be approved by the senate. Period.

Dick Morris's friends are actually commenting on his statements. This is unlike him frankly to be so wrong as to look like he is lying.

Refer to my post on exactly this subject. Morris' statements seem to fit with the EPA's regulatory enacting of a marine treaty requirement before the treaty has been ratified by Congress. This action has prompted the state of Alaska to sue the federal EPA, Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard and Hillary Clinton, among others, in U.S. District Court for adopting the amendment prior to ratification. They simply adopt treaty terms regarding marine fuel under the EPA's regulatory power, without Congress taking any action. Obama said he would avoid Congress to make his changes and he has been good to his word. They simply make things up and enforce them until they are ruled illegal by the courts. Obama merely ignores Congress as he has the power of veto knowing the opposition lacks the numbers for an override. November is looming as the one means for a quick resolution, but even this is in doubt.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8929701&postcount=81

tabrisnet
07-17-2012, 9:02 PM
**** the EPA bull****. I am beyond sick of hearing that canard raised and re-raised. There is no applicability of the legal theory that this EPA/international-trade abortion of justice was based upon, unto the question of civilian ownership of small-arms .

There certainly are enough problems with this treaty, but we don't need to keep trotting out the same [I]mierda de toro and providing free ammunition to our opposition to label us as idiots and whackos.

Further, in a related thread, Librarian already said

The EPA low-sulfur thing is off topic for the thread and the forum.

vantec08
07-18-2012, 6:38 AM
Refer to my post on exactly this subject. Morris' statements seem to fit with the EPA's regulatory enacting of a marine treaty requirement before the treaty has been ratified by Congress. This action has prompted the state of Alaska to sue the federal EPA, Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard and Hillary Clinton, among others, in U.S. District Court for adopting the amendment prior to ratification. They simply adopt treaty terms regarding marine fuel under the EPA's regulatory power, without Congress taking any action. Obama said he would avoid Congress to make his changes and he has been good to his word. They simply make things up and enforce them until they are ruled illegal by the courts. Obama merely ignores Congress as he has the power of veto knowing the opposition lacks the numbers for an override. November is looming as the one means for a quick resolution, but even this is in doubt.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8929701&postcount=81

Agree. As a signatory to the treaty there is at least a presumption of agreement with and even participation as some level. It would probably be undone by SCOTUS after X many years of wrangling, expense, obfuscation, and delay.