Polemic message from the NRA

[granfire]

Of all the calls I did not expect to get...

Nice automated message recorded by the president of the NRA...how the UN is going to vote along with the Obama administration to ban 'every pistol rifle and shotgun you own'

I wanna slap that moron for this little piece of missinformation - not to call it a lie - Because the UN has really precious little teeth to ban anything...human riights infractions, etc...

Do we need really more of this BS?!

 

[oftheherd1]

First I had heard of it. The problem of entering into international agreements with the UN isn't that the UN has no power, it is that we tend to obey our law. And people from other countries seem to delight in reminding us to obey our own law. If we enter into an agreement, it is usually a matter of treaty, and it becomes US law then as well. I will have to look this up when I have more time, but there must be something to it or the NRA wouldn't be talking against it. I won't know how to evaluate this until I look further. But treaties do become US law and we must enforce them, whether other countries choose to do so, or only give lip service to them.

 

[granfire]

I probably should have listened to the whole message, but the tenor of it was just over the top.

Frankly, with the election looming, I can't imagine for a second anybody would touch that hot iron. (not to mention I am pretty certain that a head of state has no voting power in the UN....)

Just too many trumped up inaccuracies.
(last time I cared, the NRA president had somewhat of a extremist position)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

First, I hate robocalls. So no matter who's doing it, I'm against it.

Second, robocalls can be perpetrated by anyone, claiming to someone else. This is actually common. Robocalls are routinely denied by the groups that the robocalls claim to be representing. Who knows if they are telling the truth or lying?

Third, this is the NRA's position on the issue:

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5855

It goes on to claim that "The Obama Administration supports a UN treaty that would help stop the worldwide illegal arms trade, while opposing any treaty that would interfere with US gun laws. While an arms treaty is currently being drafted, it has not yet been ratified."

Personally, I do not believe the UN treaty on small arms (if ever signed by the USA) would actually override the US Constitution. I am also not a member of the NRA.

I don't know if the NRA is behind the call you got or not. I could see it either way.

 

[MPC1257]

The way I look at it is that the anti gun lobby will use any method they can to curtail the 2nd Amendment rights of the public. If the US were to sign any international agreement regarding gun control that will get the camel's nose into the tent and before you know it the publics rights will slowly erode. That may or may not be true or legal, but that's the way I look at it. I am a gun owner and also a member of the NRA(when I remember to pay my dues).

 

[crushing]

I get much worse robocalls about consolidating my credit card debt. I don't have any credit card debt. Sometimes I will press 1, or whatever the option, to speak to a person about it and I let that person know that I don't have credit card debt. Sometimes they get upset like I wasted THEIR time by providing this seemingly useful information.

 

[oftheherd1]

First, I hate robocalls. So no matter who's doing it, I'm against it.

Hear, Hear!! The only polititian I routinely vote for has staff that make person to person calls, and if there is a request to speak to the polititian, he will in fact call you and answer your questions.
...

Third, this is the NRA's position on the issue:

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5855

...

Personally, I do not believe the UN treaty on small arms (if ever signed by the USA) would actually override the US Constitution. I am also not a member of the NRA.

...

QUOTE]

The fact of the matter is that should the US ratify a treatt that abridged the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, it would become law. I think what you meant to say was that it would not survive a court test at the supreme court level. I would hope that were true. The article you linked to seems to think it might be otherwise. If the 2nd amendment were not upheld, I can't imagine US citizenship beginning any sort of recall or impeachment over that issue, though. Mostly people are uniformed they may do so, or too lazy to do it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The fact of the matter is that should the US ratify a treatt that abridged the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, it would become law. I think what you meant to say was that it would not survive a court test at the supreme court level. I would hope that were true. The article you linked to seems to think it might be otherwise. If the 2nd amendment were not upheld, I can't imagine US citizenship beginning any sort of recall or impeachment over that issue, though. Mostly people are uniformed they may do so, or too lazy to do it.

It is true that treaties which are signed and ratified by the Senate have the force of law inside the USA. I'm not convinced that the proposed UN Small Arms treaty would actually put an end to private ownership of guns in the affected nations, and even if it did, I do not imagine that treaties which abridge the 2nd Amendment (or any amendment) would pass Constitutional muster as you said.

But honestly, before this could get anywhere, it would have to be signed by the President and then voted on and ratified by the Senate. Not only are we a long way from that, I would expect every gun owner in the USA would be standing on Pennsylvania Avenue waiting for the outcome of the vote. In other words, it'll never happen in reality. Gun owners will flat-out not permit it. Not now, not ever.

I'm not saying that Obama is pro-gun or that he would not like to ban guns. I'm sure he would love to ban them. But it won't happen.