Colt Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

I don't know about you but this has me a little concerned.

2K views 14 replies 11 participants last post by  guy sajer 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Sounds like fear-mongering to me. When I read the article, the phrases that stuck out to me were: "you can be quite certain that..."; "it will almost certainly force..."; and most notably, "the terms have yet to be made public..."

To me, Bell is pretty much saying, "I don't really know what's in this resolution, especially since the proposed written standards haven't even been decided on yet, but based on what I think of the UN, you better watch out for:
1) Scary thing
2) Scary thing
3) Scary thing
4) Scary thing
5) Another scary thing."

The rest of the article is the normal pro-2nd amendment arguments unrelated to the UN.

I'm not minimizing the defense of the 2nd Amendment Issue, but I don't think there's anything to worry about here on this issue yet. Watch, stay informed, but don't start burying the collection under the flower garden.
 
#4 ·
I'm not digging any holes yet but it does seem like if it were going to happen a process like the one described in the article is a likely/possible scenario.
 
#5 ·
It's my understanding that the resolution would have to be ratified by both houses of Congress to become law.I don't think that would happen taking into account the recent Supreme Court rulings concerning the 2nd Amendment.
 
#14 ·
What the scare mongers fail to say is that no treaty, even if confirmed by the Senate, can over ride the US constitution.

The Constitution reigns supreme, and no law or treaty can override it. Since there is a Second Amendment, and the Supreme court has ruled that it does guarantee individual rights to own guns, a treaty or law banning gun ownership would be null and void.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top