Texas Attorney General: We’re Going to Fight UN Gun Treaty

[Treasure_Hunter]

Texas Attorney General: We’re Going to Fight UN Gun Treaty


Earlier today, the United Nations overwhelmingly voted on a gun control treaty that would essentially be used to undermine gun rights in member countries. It’s an attempt to attack gun rights through a legal backdoor. If Obama signs it and the Senate votes for it, it’ll then be legally considered law — unless someone*successfully*sues.

And yes, there will be lawsuits. Almost immediately, the Texas attorney general wrote a letter to Obama saying:

“As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document… Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology that could be used by those who seek to undermine our liberties to impose any number of restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.”




We’ve Had Many Pro-Gun Victories Nationally

That Texas and many other states will sue and likely ignore the treaty is good news. Believe it or not, things have actually been going quite well for gun rights over the last decade, even recently. I know, it sounds crazy with all the news that’s reported, but hear me out:

Anti-gun laws have been struck down (DC and Chicago), conceal carry laws have been passed, the assault weapons ban has failed, and the registration attempt will likely fail as well. It’s politically impossible for politicians to attack gun rights — the Tea Party and the general Liberty Movement are simply too active to pass the legislation.

The lies are almost always instantly cut down with the truth through online activism. Any time someone says “online activism doesn’t work”, just remind them of the victories we’ve had — we’re outnumbered on most issues, but on gun rights our ability to raise support and squash the lies is too powerful even for DC so far.

The key phrase is “so far”. This could all change in literally minutes with a few more corrupt back room deals.

On a state level, this simply hasn’t been the case. Many states have beefed up their anti-gun laws, leading to companies and individuals to leave the states — meaning pro-gun states are getting an economic boost.*Apparently* liberty is good for the economy — something we’ve been saying around here for years.

Will the Treaty Be Ratified?

There’s still a fairly good chance the Senate will not vote for the anti-gun treaty. They already passed a non-binding “NO” to the treaty last week. Still, it could go either way. This means our response should be simple — fight it every step of the way, let senators know that we’ll vote against anyone from any party that supports the treaty, and we won’t be messed with when it comes to gun rights.

They can pass all the laws they want, but if they want guns, in the end, they’ll have to take them. Molon labe.

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/texas-gun-treaty/

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dano Sverige]

"“As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document… Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology"
Much like your 2nd amendment?

I hope all states sue and go through somersaults fear and paranoia to ignore this treaty, because at the end of the day it's just throwing money away and worrying about nothing because nobody outside of the US gives a hoot about your guns unless you're shipping them to war torn 3rd world countries!
The rest of the world are quite happy to let you blow away 10,000 of your citizens each year, more than your war dead from Iraq and Afghanistan combined...YEARLY!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

"“As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document… Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology"
Much like your 2nd amendment?

I hope all states sue and go through somersaults fear and paranoia to ignore this treaty, because at the end of the day it's just throwing money away and worrying about nothing because nobody outside of the US gives a hoot about your guns unless you're shipping them to war torn 3rd world countries!
The rest of the world are quite happy to let you blow away 10,000 of your citizens each year, more than your war dead from Iraq and Afghanistan combined...YEARLY!

Evidently not true since your constantly here bashing and whining about our guns and our right to bear arms, but just like you said we also couldn't care less what you, piers and the rest of the world thinks about our guns or our rights.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[releventchair]

We need to increase,not decrease exports. Money to be made selling arms. We can follow the proven British example and provide them to both sides of a civil war.
If the U.N. cared about life their first actions should have been to end genocide. I only see paper tigers trying to buck themselves up and cover their weak behinds.
3rd world are victims are they not? India still would like its gold back,are they still 3rd world? Or just not equal to others,not being guaranteed any right to civilian arms its a moot point ehh?. Some times 3rd world can mean no ability to stop an aggressive plundering and ethnic discrimination. Ask Africa and on and on.....
A few of us still wear Saxon paint on occasion,it shows up in many eyes though when others would try to tell us how to live.
Quarter staff or rocks? No. Most efficient means of fighting oppression. Since rifled barrels vrs smooth bore, advance has followed,as has market. Who needs/needed arms? When no one intervened the slaughter and maiming of the unarmed leaves me not understanding why they were denied the means of defence equaling the force against them. Why get in line for that agreement ?.

 

[0121stockpicker]

We need to increase,not decrease exports. Money to be made selling arms. We can follow the proven British example and provide them to both sides of a civil war.
If the U.N. cared about life their first actions should have been to end genocide. I only see paper tigers trying to buck themselves up and cover their weak behinds.
3rd world are victims are they not? India still would like its gold back,are they still 3rd world? Or just not equal to others,not being guaranteed any right to civilian arms its a moot point ehh?. Some times 3rd world can mean no ability to stop an aggressive plundering and ethnic discrimination. Ask Africa and on and on.....
A few of us still wear Saxon paint on occasion,it shows up in many eyes though when others would try to tell us how to live.
Quarter staff or rocks? No. Most efficient means of fighting oppression. Since rifled barrels vrs smooth bore, advance has followed,as has market. Who needs/needed arms? When no one intervened the slaughter and maiming of the unarmed leaves me not understanding why they were denied the means of defence equaling the force against them. Why get in line for that agreement ?.

Sure, good money to be made selling drugs and in the slave trade. Lets go for it!!

And you believe the us opposition to the treaty was because we were so concerned about the defenseless?? Maybe your right, other freedom living bastions of democracy like North Korea, Syria, Iran, china and Russia also opposed the treaty. All bastions of humanitarian action!!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Who cares what other countries voted against it, I don't. Who gives away billions of dollars in foreign aid, who is the usually the first to respond to natural disasters in other countries with aid? Answer to both is America..
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

Who cares what other countries voted against it, I don't. Who gives away billions of dollars in foreign aid, who is the usually the first to respond to natural disasters in other countries with aid? Answer to both is America..
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

And you have the full right not to care. I believe when you are on the side of North Korea, Syria, Iran, china and Russia it is a definite indication of the types of countries and interests that believes the treaty is bad. I mean wow what a list!! The company one keeps says a lot about them!

 

[releventchair]

Sure, good money to be made selling drugs and in the slave trade. Lets go for it!!

And you believe the us opposition to the treaty was because we were so concerned about the defenseless?? Maybe your right, other freedom living bastions of democracy like North Korea, Syria, Iran, china and Russia also opposed the treaty. All bastions of humanitarian action!!

Pharm is huge money here. F.D.A. a big help. No danger there cause its legal. (Tell that to victims)slavery only a token gesture for majority here,only when your on the clock must you do as told, if you don,t count drug tests and checking face book for what you do on your own time.
Not my belief as to why U. S. Not in agreement with U.N., my belief of why it lacks credibility.

 

[XLTer]

Texas Attorney General: We’re Going to Fight UN Gun Treaty


Earlier today, the United Nations overwhelmingly voted on a gun control treaty that would essentially be used to undermine gun rights in member countries. It’s an attempt to attack gun rights through a legal backdoor. If Obama signs it and the Senate votes for it, it’ll then be legally considered law — unless someone*successfully*sues.

And yes, there will be lawsuits. Almost immediately, the Texas attorney general wrote a letter to Obama saying:

“As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document… Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology that could be used by those who seek to undermine our liberties to impose any number of restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.”




We’ve Had Many Pro-Gun Victories Nationally

That Texas and many other states will sue and likely ignore the treaty is good news. Believe it or not, things have actually been going quite well for gun rights over the last decade, even recently. I know, it sounds crazy with all the news that’s reported, but hear me out:

Anti-gun laws have been struck down (DC and Chicago), conceal carry laws have been passed, the assault weapons ban has failed, and the registration attempt will likely fail as well. It’s politically impossible for politicians to attack gun rights — the Tea Party and the general Liberty Movement are simply too active to pass the legislation.

The lies are almost always instantly cut down with the truth through online activism. Any time someone says “online activism doesn’t work”, just remind them of the victories we’ve had — we’re outnumbered on most issues, but on gun rights our ability to raise support and squash the lies is too powerful even for DC so far.

The key phrase is “so far”. This could all change in literally minutes with a few more corrupt back room deals.

On a state level, this simply hasn’t been the case. Many states have beefed up their anti-gun laws, leading to companies and individuals to leave the states — meaning pro-gun states are getting an economic boost.*Apparently* liberty is good for the economy — something we’ve been saying around here for years.

Will the Treaty Be Ratified?

There’s still a fairly good chance the Senate will not vote for the anti-gun treaty. They already passed a non-binding “NO” to the treaty last week. Still, it could go either way. This means our response should be simple — fight it every step of the way, let senators know that we’ll vote against anyone from any party that supports the treaty, and we won’t be messed with when it comes to gun rights.

They can pass all the laws they want, but if they want guns, in the end, they’ll have to take them. Molon labe.

Texas Attorney General: We're Going to Fight UN Gun Treaty

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

God Bless Texas ...........

 

[Dave44]

We need to increase,not decrease exports. Money to be made selling arms. We can follow the proven British example and provide them to both sides of a civil war.
If the U.N. cared about life their first actions should have been to end genocide. I only see paper tigers trying to buck themselves up and cover their weak behinds.
3rd world are victims are they not? India still would like its gold back,are they still 3rd world? Or just not equal to others,not being guaranteed any right to civilian arms its a moot point ehh?. Some times 3rd world can mean no ability to stop an aggressive plundering and ethnic discrimination. Ask Africa and on and on.....
A few of us still wear Saxon paint on occasion,it shows up in many eyes though when others would try to tell us how to live.
Quarter staff or rocks? No. Most efficient means of fighting oppression. Since rifled barrels vrs smooth bore, advance has followed,as has market. Who needs/needed arms? When no one intervened the slaughter and maiming of the unarmed leaves me not understanding why they were denied the means of defence equaling the force against them. Why get in line for that agreement ?.

Great post and a valid point- Any nation can be a 3rd world country. All they have to do is allow their government or another to dictate the day to day operations of their lives, one by complacency and voting stupidly and the other by hostility. Equal armaments would help, and a real desire to keep your liberty.