TexasCHLforum.com

From Forbes Magazine: http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/ ... up-in-arms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let's hope this would NEVER be ratified by our Senate.

Only terrorists and military/government would have guns...sounds like if ratified the us would turn into a socialistic/Communist state governed by the UN where all rights are stripped because the common folk have no means to defend their other rights.

Bullets first!

That would be cause for a major upheaval here in our country...isn't this the exact situation the second amendment for written for?

I gotta get that 5x magnifier for my AR red dot before they get here!

AndyC wrote:I can see blue helmets from a fair distance away, just sayin'.

Actually, my Leopold 8.5-25x50mm zooms in on something like that purty good as well...And its not mounted on a tripod niether!!!

As much as I agree that the UN would love to:
- Ban civilian ownership of firearms.
- Impose an income tax on the United States.
- Allow non-citizens to vote in US elections.
- Etc.
I'm not getting too worked up over this effort.
In 1997 Bill Clinton signed the "UN Firearms Protocol and Arms Trade Treaty" which would have effectively banned private ownership.
He even submitted it to the senate for ratification.
It never came up for a vote.

Even if 2/3rds of the US Senate were to decide they didn't want to be senators anymore and voted to ratify such a treaty, it would not be enforceable on the US public.
The U.S. Supreme court has held that the US constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US and supersedes international treaties.
See: Reid vs. Covert 1957.

IANAL, but this seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Certainly I believe we should be ever vigilant against those who wish to disarm us, but this particular issue does not worry me.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;