GUN CONTROL

[bu villain]

Take a look at the proposed UN small arms treaty. 51 senators from both parties signed a letter saying they would vote against a bill that could in any way infringe upto American's right to bear arms. Another 20+ said they needed more specific language about the ban before they would vote in favor of it.

I would have to see exactly what the treaty said. Can you link to it. If it says they want to ban assault rifles then that wouldn't surprise me but a ban on assault weapons is not even close to an all out gun ban.

The same thinking is true for those that like to bring up the stats of another country when it comes to gun deaths. Just because Japan bans all guns and they have a very low gun death rate doesnt mean the same would be true here.

Despite what David seems to think, I agree that low gun deaths in other countries doesn't prove the same would be true here. That was never my argument though. My only argument is that gun regulation is not the same thing as a gun ban and I don't think we are in any danger of having a complete gun ban in this country anytime soon.

[David88vert]

I would have to see exactly what the treaty said. Can you link to it. If it says they want to ban assault rifles then that wouldn't surprise me but a ban on assault weapons is not even close to an all out gun ban.



Despite what David seems to think, I agree that low gun deaths in other countries doesn't prove the same would be true here. That was never my argument though. My only argument is that gun regulation is not the same thing as a gun ban and I don't think we are in any danger of having a complete gun ban in this country anytime soon.

I posted a link to a lot of the information on it earlier, but the full document of the treaty proposal has not been released to the public, only some key pieces have been released.
If passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Go to the dedicated UN disarmament site for more: United Nations Disarmament ...strengthening peace and security through disarmament
You can read the 18 page report from the Secretary with all 5 recomendations online in PDF.

[bu villain]

1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Not saying I agree with all those measures but still a far cry from a all out gun ban.

4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

Does car registration set the stage for full-scale car confiscation?

5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

If we agree to it, then it's not overriding our national sovreignity. It's simply voting and saying we agree to this as a nation. No one is forcing us to sign it if we don't want to. Just as the president issues an executive order to say the constitution is null and void, neither can he override the constitution by signing a treaty either.

I agree their are legitimate concerns about gun control but when every debate is framed as a fight against all out gun bans, I think a lot of credibility is lost.

[David88vert]

You listed a few senators who would like a gun ban. I read the GOA site and it doesn't say that those with F- say they want a complete gun ban. If you could direct me to where it says F- means they want to ban ALL guns then I will go look again.

As far as the article is concerned, the UN states "The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons". I didn't see anything but speculation about what the president's intentions might be and how he could try to circumvent the fact that international treaties are approved by congress. The article was thoroughly unconvincing and I am all for people owning guns.

Not saying I agree with all those measures but still a far cry from a all out gun ban.



Does car registration set the stage for full-scale car confiscation?



If we agree to it, then it's not overriding our national sovreignity. It's simply voting and saying we agree to this as a nation. No one is forcing us to sign it if we don't want to. Just as the president issues an executive order to say the constitution is null and void, neither can he override the constitution by signing a treaty either.

I agree their are legitimate concerns about gun control but when every debate is framed as a fight against all out gun bans, I think a lot of credibility is lost.

Read up on it. Many legal experts have stated the same list that I just gave you - I copied one of their notes and put it above. It's not something that I made up.

I agree that the Constitution overrides all treaties. Case law specifically supports that. And of course the President is not able to authorize a treaty without Congress. We have those checks and balances in place. What you can see though is the gradual placement of a plan to enact registration, then confiscation - just like several other countries have done within the last century. If you ignore it now, it will be too late to do anything later.
The only thing registration can do is give the government a list of legal arms - criminals will not register their guns. That is fact.

Now, the update - Previously, Obama and Hillary have stated that they were going to push hard to get Congress to ratify this treaty, and many of the UN members have stated that they are looking to ban all privately controlled small arms. The UN conference is over for 2012 (just ended), and just one week after the Aurora massacre, Obama has suddenly changed tune, and said the "US needed more time to review the treaty." This has effectively killed the UN treaty - for now. Basically, Aurora pushed gun control to the headlines, and Obama knew that he couldn't fly it under the radar. In a election year, it would have been a potential controversy that could have eventually sank his re-election campaign, so hence, the about-face.

[bu villain]

Read up on it. Many legal experts have stated the same list that I just gave you - I copied one of their notes and put it above. It's not something that I made up.

I have tried to find a comprehensive list of those who want to ban guns but have been unable to find such a list. Since I don't have time to go to every individual website, do you know of a such a list? Also, could you please explain why 70% of congress and the President voted to allow guns in federal parks if so many of them are completely against all guns?

I agree that the Constitution overrides all treaties. Case law specifically supports that. And of course the President is not able to authorize a treaty without Congress. We have those checks and balances in place....

Then why are you so worried if the president wants to ban guns or not? It could be his number one priority but the president doesn't have the power to do it without congress anyway.

[David88vert]

I have tried to find a comprehensive list of those who want to ban guns but have been unable to find such a list. Since I don't have time to go to every individual website, do you know of a such a list? Also, could you please explain why 70% of congress and the President voted to allow guns in federal parks if so many of them are completely against all guns?



Then why are you so worried if the president wants to ban guns or not? It could be his number one priority but the president doesn't have the power to do it without congress anyway.

You have to look at voting records. No single bill has called for a complete ban on all firearms yet, so you cannot just go to one single bill to review.

Congress is easily influenced by backroom deals. If the President wants something, he finds what deals he needs to make. It's politics.

[Vteckidd]

You have to look at voting records. No single bill has called for a complete ban on all firearms yet, so you cannot just go to one single bill to review.

Congress is easily influenced by backroom deals. If the President wants something, he finds what deals he needs to make. It's politics.

well Rahm Emmanuel in 2008 said that only the military should own weapons not private citizens. I cant find a clip of the video but i have seen it. He was the CHief of Staff (or on his way) at that point. Thats pretty high up.

I would say theres a small small group of people devoted to banning firearms outright, but a larger minority supports heavy regulation on them as a means to banning. But the overwhelming majority is against it at this point.

if it was REALLY on the Dems agenda they had 2 years to do it and didnt even take up legislation on gun control.

If you have a problem with national registry on firearms, i assume you dont buy any weapons anymore, becuase all new weapons are serialized. Eventually all weapons will belong to the master registry. I mean techincally any weapon kinda is on a master list because the way it works is

Manufacturer makes gun, issues serial number
Must keep records of all serial numbers and weapons issued for ATF
Guns are sold via Serial number to Dealer
Dealer has to keep records for (I THINK) up to 10 years.
ATF audits every 3-5 years


So, technically the ATF has access to your serial numbers, im just saying we should keep those records accurate when assigning them to owners.

[bu villain]

You have to look at voting records. No single bill has called for a complete ban on all firearms yet, so you cannot just go to one single bill to review.

True it is not direct proof but really, why would they vote to loosen gun restrictions if there goal was the extreme opposite?

Congress is easily influenced by backroom deals. If the President wants something, he finds what deals he needs to make. It's politics.

Of course he can try but he can only go so far. I don't think there is any chance he could make enough deals to ban guns no matter how hard he tried.