Notice: This website may or may not use or set cookies used by Google Ad-sense or other third party companies. If you do not wish to have cookies downloaded to your computer, please disable cookie use in your browser. Thank You.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

More Gun Control Commentary

HalfElf has left a new comment on your post "Gun Control Looming": "Saw on google search yesterday that the ATT (UN Arms Treaty) has been rejected by the US. Somebody must had told his nibbs that maybe pissing off 1/3 of the voting population might not be a good idea less than 4 months before the election."

UrbanMan's reply:  I listened to an interview with noted second amendment author John Lott yesterday. I'll paraphrase what he had to say: The U.S. did not reject the treaty. Repeat. The U.S. did not reject the treaty. Secretary Clinton just did not go to the UN meeting to vote on it........because, you see, she does not have to in order for it to be placed into effect.

If two thirds of the U.N. main body (general membership - not the security council) votes for this treaty, then this treaty becomes defacto law for at least four years unless rejected by the President or the Senate. If this treaty goes into effect it will have the effect of a Constitutional Amendment. Supreme Court precedence is that International Treaties, that the U.S. is a signature to, trumps U.S. Law. And again, the U.S. will be de facto signatures unless either the President or the Senate reject it.

Figure the odds on a newly re-elected Barack Obama rejecting this Treaty. Figure the odds on Sen Harry Reid allowing a vote on this in the Senate. And what is scary is that only a reported 51 Senators were against the original treaty. The treaty would require nations to register guns and their owners. Certain types of guns will be outlawed. And the subsequent U.S. Government performance in the treaty provisions will most assuredly require no notice inspections of those people considered to own "arsenals". There would be no other way to determine extnet of the export of firearms.

This is bad news not only Survivalists and Gun Owners but for the American people as well. If you think 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce Obamacare is a large step towards massive Government control,.....imagine how many new hires in the BATF or maybe a newly created organization would do. On related news, there will be several attempts to limit internet access to ammunition especially if the current administration wins another term.

This is not intended to be a political article, just stating the facts as the Liberal and/or Progressive section of American politics has always been for gun control measures. Whether or not you believe the goal is some sort or "we know what is better for the American peope and their safety", or, if it is some evil plan for a massive government controlled socialist society doesn't change the facts. Many other people think this way as well, since in the days following the Colorado Theatre shooting, gun sales in Colorado sky rocketed.

It's going to be much harder for people embracing some sort of preparedness posture to secure firearms and adequate ammunition for their security. The recent theater shooting in Colorado, of all things, recently pushed a couple that I have been dripping Survival and Preparedness to, to purchase a couple of additional firearms. I had previously helped this new to firearms couple select a couple of handguns, one a Glock 19 and the other a Taurus .38 special revolver. Last week they purchased a Ruger 10-22 carbine and a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun.  They now feel much better about having to drive a few hundred miles east to get to their son's property in New Mexico in case the collapse situation warrants it.

Before any of you chastize me for the selection of these guns not being a couple of black rifles,....well, this is what the couple is comfortable with......and remember the first rule of a gun fight,...have a gun...if the government allows it.


  1. Not sure I am comfortable at all with a de facto signature arraingment. There would be no limitations on the power grabbable by a majority of smalle\poorer factions to loot larger\richer nations. If we are not signatory, and did not enforce this I am curious what they could do about it.
    1. UN headquarters are on US soil
    2. US,, pays the lions share ofv the budget, and running expenses
    3. US troops and equipment are a major portion of any peacekeeping action
    4. Who would cross our borders to enforce a mandate?
    5. What about the other nations who enroll, and violate the treaty?, such as the French selling arms to Iraq in violation of the 1991 articles of surrender, Russian trading of oil credits for wedapons, and German exporting centerfuge equipment.
    Forgive me but I can not see another nation invading US soil even with our government intervention. I think it would end badly for them.

  2. Another nation wouldnt have to intervene to enforce this treaty. Our enforcement agencies, local state or federal will be doing the intervening. Also here's a bit of information Id like to share. Not sure whether or not it'd be unconstitutional.

  3. If you want your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (no matter why you broke up) you got to watch this video
    right away...

    (VIDEO) Win your ex back with TEXT messages?