• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

UN to disarm America, the Plan of Action PoA, sad times !

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
543
Location
Susanville, California, USA
#1
Here is a link to this disarmament scam.
Who signed on for this ?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...ll-implementation-of-un-gun-control-agreement
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
3,886
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
#2
In other words, should the Congress and the president fail to begin seizing and stockpiling privately owned weapons “in a timely manner,” then the UN will deploy blue-helmeted peacekeeping troops to assist in the operation.
Oh how much I love reading fiction.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,659
Location
here nc
#3
Article quote:
According to the text of the latest draft....
In practice...should create....
Congress could, hypothetically... compelling “voluntary” surrender...
...have agreed to begin developing...
How, do you imagine, would the progress of implementation be measured?

Bloody crux of the issue...

Article quote:
First, in order to legally comply with the goal of “full and effective implementation of the Programme of Action,” the Second Amendment to the Constitution would have to be repealed. That critical provision of the Bill of Rights explicitly forbids the federal government from infringing whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Second, the agreement would require the repeal of the 10th Amendment....

Of true interest is the self-servicing op article misquotes the REVCON's official title:

The Third Review Conference of the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. [http://reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/salw/2018-rev-con]

Let's just say Cohen's show is better entertainment that this BS being posted.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
3,886
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
#6
UN Program of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.
Blacks Law Dictionary:
Illicit trade. Policies of marine insurance usually contain a covenant of warranty against "illicit trade", meaning thereby trade which is forbidden, or declared unlawful, by the laws of the country where the cargo is to be delivered.
The United States has had laws on the books for years against the illegal import of any arms without a license.

So what's the UN-american got to do with anything?

Have a short read.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/...8/03/A-CONF.192-2018-PC-WP-2-USA-ENG-only.pdf
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
543
Location
Susanville, California, USA
#7
Blacks Law Dictionary:


The United States has had laws on the books for years against the illegal import of any arms without a license.

So what's the UN-american got to do with anything?

Have a short read.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/...8/03/A-CONF.192-2018-PC-WP-2-USA-ENG-only.pdf
Your right Color of Law, but here is some hope for us now, I don't know about Califorina though.
Read this new court case.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...carrying-firearm-in-public-is-constitutional/

The 9th circuit covers California to I believe, what do you guys think !

Robin47
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
3,886
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
#8

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,366
Location
White Oak Plantation
#10
Article quote:
According to the text of the latest draft....
In practice...should create....
Congress could, hypothetically... compelling “voluntary” surrender...
...have agreed to begin developing...
How, do you imagine, would the progress of implementation be measured?

Bloody crux of the issue...

Article quote:
First, in order to legally comply with the goal of “full and effective implementation of the Programme of Action,” the Second Amendment to the Constitution would have to be repealed. That critical provision of the Bill of Rights explicitly forbids the federal government from infringing whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Second, the agreement would require the repeal of the 10th Amendment....

Of true interest is the self-servicing op article misquotes the REVCON's official title:

The Third Review Conference of the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. [http://reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/salw/2018-rev-con]

Let's just say Cohen's show is better entertainment that this BS being posted.
Technically, the 2A is irrelevant as is the 10A. If there were not then the Sullivan Act would have been struck down years ago. The NFA and GCA would have never been signed into law, let alone remained on the books.

Nope, ERPOs are one step closer to the US Government (via the several states) complying with a UN disarmament mandate. ATF form e4473 is the vehicle for complying with the UN mandate.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,659
Location
here nc
#11
Please forgive my naivety Robin47 but I seem to fail to grasp in any manner whatsoever, any cohesive or the salient point you are trying to make with either of your posted cites where the first jumps to an undated page stating, quote: Text of Federal Laws Relevant to Walker unquote; and the other to a 2013 self-serving rambling op ed by someone who's first name, yellk, means A derrogatory (sic) term used to describe an oddly-shaped dandilion (sic). [ https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Yellk ].

Is there a magic ring, chant, or something I can say while opening or looking at your two cites you posted out of the blue to have some sort of clue for clarity of the message you are attempting to impart to the members of this forum?

thanks for you help in quantifying your post!
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
543
Location
Susanville, California, USA
#12
Please forgive my naivety Robin47 but I seem to fail to grasp in any manner whatsoever, any cohesive or the salient point you are trying to make with either of your posted cites where the first jumps to an undated page stating, quote: Text of Federal Laws Relevant to Walker unquote; and the other to a 2013 self-serving rambling op ed by someone who's first name, yellk, means A derrogatory (sic) term used to describe an oddly-shaped dandilion (sic). [ https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Yellk ].

Is there a magic ring, chant, or something I can say while opening or looking at your two cites you posted out of the blue to have some sort of clue for clarity of the message you are attempting to impart to the members of this forum?

thanks for you help in quantifying your post!
Yes there are groups out here, trying to get the "Officials" to be accountable to there oath of office, but you maybe right as
they don't have to comply anymore to the oaths taken.
The oath after all is to make sure our leaders don't over run your bill of rights.

I guess this law just don't matter.

http://foavc.org/01page/Articles/18 U.S.C. 1918.htm


http://oathact.us/precedent
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,366
Location
White Oak Plantation
#13
Yes there are groups out here, trying to get the "Officials" to be accountable to there oath of office, but you maybe right as
they don't have to comply anymore to the oaths taken.
The oath after all is to make sure our leaders don't over run your bill of rights.

I guess this law just don't matter.

http://foavc.org/01page/Articles/18 U.S.C. 1918.htm


http://oathact.us/precedent
It is not a matter of "just don't matter." Who, specifically, is advocating for the overthrow of our constitutional form of government? If you, or

Not liking the voting habits of our constitutionally elected representatives is not those representatives advocating for the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.

http://essentialliberty.us/ => No page found.

https://patriotpost.us/ => A site that lists George Will as a conservative...all ya need to know.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,705
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
#14
Yes there are groups out here, trying to get the "Officials" to be accountable to there oath of office, but you maybe right as
they don't have to comply anymore to the oaths taken.
The oath after all is to make sure our leaders don't over run your bill of rights.
It's to provide reassurances to We the People that they mean to do what's right.

We the People have both the authority and the responsibility to vote out (remove) those who fail to adhere to their oath of office.

The problem we have today is that so few voters care about their politicians following their oaths of office any more.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
465
Location
MO, USA
#15
I doubt the "blue-helmeted" dudes are up to it anytime soon. :cool:

However, any type of gun-control scheme, no matter how unlikely to succeed short term, should never be completely ignored. The antis don't bank on just one scheme; they invest in dozens, and in different areas: local, national, NGO, international, legislation, school, media, on and on. Maybe you could call it the full-auto shotgun approach. They figure with that much metal going downrange they'll hit something.

Speaking of UN, during breaks today I'm watching Trump's recent address to the assembly:

[video=youtube;q6XXNWC5Koc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6XXNWC5Koc[/video]

Half-way through, and so far so good. This particular Prez stands up to Iran and to China (I think that's a first for many decades, yes?) although choosing his battles and not bringing up some other offenders at the moment. As a working business man still earning bread by sweat on not on the guvcheese, I appreciate his approach to reviving our economy and industry, I'm noticing a difference. And for those who are retired and/or sampling the guvcheese :))) I think he has your back too, much more than you might assume; previously guvincome had a questionable future because you must have a solvent and successful economy to fund it. Standing up to China and getting our industries back on their feet will be an amazing blessing to all of us (and posterity) if it succeeds.

As for 2A we'll see on the details, but I don't think the UN has a ghost of a chance to take your 45 under 45. The way Trump is addressing the UN sets a firm tone for the relationship, helpful to us, and in recent rallies he has brought up 2A repeatedly. Bigger current threat is local; ERPO could be another story, and that may (still?) be the weak point of "45" if he ever encourages it again - if you ever send correspondence to the WH, be sure to mention the unacceptable dangers of ERPO and any type of small arms component/feature bans or redefinitions.
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
543
Location
Susanville, California, USA
#16
It's to provide reassurances to We the People that they mean to do what's right.

We the People have both the authority and the responsibility to vote out (remove) those who fail to adhere to their oath of office.

The problem we have today is that so few voters care about their politicians following their oaths of office any more.
Right on, and that's the truth :)
 

Top