Dick Morris Says US Will Sign Gun Control Treaty On July 27th

Fear mongering, or is this really going down on the 27th?  I talked about the treaty a while back but didn’t hear anything about it since.

Thoughts?

Hat tip: Rick

46 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Vhyrus July 6, 2012 at 01:24 am

Um… since when do we give a shit about what the UN says anyway? Why would we suddenly start now?

Reply

Ted N July 6, 2012 at 02:41 am

Since the douches in charge want us to turn into the EU, and are tired of having people that can tell them to fuck off, citizens instead of subjects.

Reply

ozwald July 6, 2012 at 05:57 am

My favorite thing about being an American has got to be our DGAF attitude. i swear, if it was a commodity, we’d export it by the ton. remember that time we killed at least 4000 people in violation of international law with drones? America, Fuck Yeah!

Reply

junyo July 6, 2012 at 11:20 am

“International law” can suck it. Really, truly, deeply and with the reckless abandon of a porn star who believe the cure for cancer is in my balls. Fuck international law, the whole concept, and anyone that believes in it.

Reply

Dilhack July 6, 2012 at 02:22 pm

I don’t know that I would have used that analogy, but yes.

Reply

davebsr July 6, 2012 at 08:50 pm

This is my favorite comment…ever. Occasionally, do *love* the internet.

Reply

Walter Zoomie July 8, 2012 at 07:39 am

Poetry! I commend you, good sir!

Reply

liquidflorian July 6, 2012 at 01:33 am

Dick Morris isn’t often right with his predictions, but Wayne LaPierre is freaked out too.

Reply

PJ July 6, 2012 at 08:39 pm

To be fair, Wayne LaPierre ALWAYS freaks out about this kind of stuff. The single biggest complaint I hear about the NRA from gun owners is the constant fear-mongering to scare up donations. There have been years I received as many calls for donations as magazines. Don’t get me wrong, I am and will remain a member. But I worry that they’re setting up a “boy who cried wolf” situation when they make every rumor of a possible thought of gun control by anyone in the world into a doomsday scenario.

Reply

TomThumb July 6, 2012 at 03:21 am

did he say there was “a petition going to Hillary” to appose the signing? HAHA what a joke, she could have 90% of the country telling her not to do something and if that’s what she wants she will do it anyways…

They upon the 27th did sign, and on the 28th did the country rise up, fighting the good fight, and many souls were lost, upon a country divided. Thumb Chapter 1 Verse 1…

Reply

Andrew July 6, 2012 at 05:36 am

I’ve seen a lot about this, kinda in the view of “not sure if true, or just hysteria.” If it is true, I don’t think people will stand for it. But all honesty, I think its just hysteria.

Reply

chiefjaybob July 6, 2012 at 07:16 am

Don’t all treaties have to be ratified by the Senate before they become binding on this country? I don’t see that happening.

Reply

Heath July 6, 2012 at 09:36 am

That was my understanding, and by something like a 2/3 majority vote.

Reply

032125 July 6, 2012 at 02:49 pm

Yes and wars must be declared by Congress. Good luck with that illusory Constitution.

Reply

thehaggis July 6, 2012 at 07:56 am

Whichever way it goes, the gun/ammo manufacturers will benefit . :)

Reply

Croppedxout July 6, 2012 at 08:16 am

Rule #1: NEVER take a man in a pink shirt who calls himself Dick seriously, let alone trust him.

Reply

M-cameron July 6, 2012 at 08:37 am

Reid v. Covert
Missouri v. Holland
Medellín v. Texas

Hillary and the Bama can sign all the treaties they want……doesnt mean crap since an international treaty cannot trump the constitution.

Reply

jpcmt July 6, 2012 at 10:18 am

My guess is that our precious saigas, HKs, XDs, and other imports will go away from something like this.

Reply

junyo July 6, 2012 at 11:21 am

Yet.

Reply

Art July 6, 2012 at 09:15 am

Dick Morris is a toe-sucking media ho. BFF of Bill Clinton and now a conservative? Puh-leeze! RE; NATO Treaty … Our “leaders” will do as they please. Let’s see how that works out for ’em.

Reply

RWC July 6, 2012 at 09:21 am

Met Dick last Friday. But I agree, his predictions are somewhat non-Nostradamus.

Reply

OH COME ON July 6, 2012 at 09:57 am

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

This has been debunked again and again and again. Thanks Dick!

Reply

Heath July 6, 2012 at 10:30 am

That says it has been signed, not that steps are being made to sign it.

Reply

Jon Hutto July 6, 2012 at 04:19 pm

The treaty is real, and the UN is working on it. However it has not been signed…

Even our illustrious leader, the great god king, the one, himself, Obama is not that arrogant.

Reply

Lance July 6, 2012 at 10:49 am

I’m all for standing up and supporting the 2nd Amendment while we still can, but at the same time I’m really not concerned as I know we will always be able to fall back on our firearms for protection. I will never stop carrying and I will never let anyone take a single firearm from me. I hope my fellow gun owners feel the same. It’s better to die a free man than live as a coward.

Reply

s30 July 6, 2012 at 10:56 am

2/3 Senate Approval. Not gonna happen.

Reply

Fill Yer Hands July 6, 2012 at 11:28 am

Even if Obama, Hillary, and Sarah Brady sign it, naked, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, it’s meaningless unless it’s ratified by the Senate. And back in April, 57 Senators sent Obama a letter telling him to pucker up because they’re not going for it.

So, stop with the fearmongering already.

Reply

Jim P. July 10, 2012 at 08:10 pm

Even if Obama, Hillary, and Sarah Brady sign it, naked, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial

Thank you for giving me hysterical blindness from contemplating that picture. :-p

Reply

Rob C. July 6, 2012 at 12:33 pm

This is the worst sort of fearmongering. Of course people (even Lapierre) are drumming up fear; they want your money!!!!!
1. Obama has stayed away from gun control because it’s political suicide (they learned that on the Gore campaign). Sign the treaty and he knows he can kiss 2nd term bye-bye.
2. Treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 majority in the senate- ain’t gonna happen
3. If somehow it magically did happen, the senate can add “reservations”- meaning treaty provisions we refuse to accept- this essentially allows states to pick and choose what parts of a treaty they will implement. The US has gutted major treaties like the ICESCR in the past by doing this.
4. A treaty is not superior to the 2nd amendment in US law and provisions that infringe that amendment would be open to judicial review by the SCOTUS.
5. The US has proven that it doesn’t begin to give two shits about what UN treaty-monitoring bodies say (remember all the stuff the UNHCR has told us we can’t do that we promptly ignored)
6. Believe it or not the UN system is set up to protect state sovereignty and it is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE for the UN to force states to do things.

I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep over this.

Reply

Nate July 6, 2012 at 03:37 pm

1. Bammy hasn’t stayed away from gun control, just found more creative ways of doing it.
2. If the treaty is self-executing, meaning it would achieve its anti-gun objectives whether or not implementing legislation was passed by Congress, it wouldn’t need ratification.
3. See number two.
4. After the John Roberts fiasco, do you want to trust any of your rights to the courts?
5. We’ve never had a President as Euro friendly as this one.
6. See number five.

I’m not losing sleep either, but there always seems to be too many “coincidences” with this Administration. Like 5,000 U.N. troops training in Colorado two weeks after this vote takes place.

At the very least, contact your Senators and Reps. and demand they support Senator Moran from Kansas in defunding the treaty.

The ATF is already looking to limit magazine capacity on shotguns, we don’t need this shit too.

Reply

Rob C. July 6, 2012 at 04:34 pm

Nate,

Whether the treaty is self-executing or non self-executing has nothing to do with ratification. It still must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the senate, and the SCOTUS gets to decide which provisions are self-executing. All self-executing v. non self-executing means is whether or not Congress must pass laws to implement the treaty, or if the treaty provisions function as those laws. It still must be ratified; there is no way to bypass the senate to do this. Once again, it is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to constrain state behavior with treaty law for a number of reasons.

The US has been arming/training the world for 60 years. Trust me, UN troops training in the US is nothing new. Many people have no idea the number of foreign troops and officers that receive training in the Unites States.

I’m with you on calling your Senators/Reps, it definitely can’t hurt. I’m also with you that the ATF is way more dangerous than the ATT; the gun control from within is gonna get us long before the gun control from outside.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Reply

Nate July 6, 2012 at 04:54 pm

I hope you’re right, I just have little faith in the present Admin. to do what is right by the American population. They are all too enthusiastic to find that next back door.

And as a West Point family, I’ve met quite a few of the foreign trainees, most are very good, but it still seems like one of these “coincidenses” that it is U.N. troops flying in at just this time.

Reply

hydepark July 6, 2012 at 12:38 pm

So, Mike, I’m sure you’re part of this because of that new shirt you rolled out, right? I’ve always hated the LEO Restricted phrase. It should say LEO / government / citizens only. Too bad Mike doesn’t care.

Reply

ENDO-Mike July 6, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Oh I care. Your phrase doesn’t make much sense though because it’s not restricting anyone.. so why even bother putting it on something?

Reply

032125 July 6, 2012 at 02:53 pm

Why do they bother putting it on anything? I have an EoTech that has that on the side; it’s retarded government bullshit as it stands now.

Reply

ENDO-Mike July 6, 2012 at 05:06 pm

I believe its main purpose is to restrict export under ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations)

Reply

hydepark July 9, 2012 at 02:21 am

So why bother putting it on a shirt?

Reply

ENDO-Mike July 9, 2012 at 02:22 am

I didn’t put “LEO / government / citizens only” on a shirt.

Reply

Tony July 6, 2012 at 05:01 pm

Could it create U.S. jobs because all glocks, berrettas, hks, aks, sigs, springfield (croatia), would have to be made right here in the USA or would they still be able to import half the parts and make the frame here like most companies already do? food for thought

Reply

Church July 6, 2012 at 05:08 pm

Nothing is gonna happen…

Reply

Peter in DC July 6, 2012 at 07:54 pm

The Senate ain’t gonna ratify shit. End. Of. Story.

Reply

hydepark July 6, 2012 at 10:48 pm

Suicide is much better than enslavement.

Reply

HMPlatinum July 7, 2012 at 02:45 pm

Fighting back is better than wasting ammo, or your life.

Reply

032125 July 8, 2012 at 12:04 am

Prove it. Now. Go!

Reply

glockgunner July 6, 2012 at 11:19 pm

The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.
George Washington
HEY GO AND WATCH THE VIDEO ABOUT THE UN TREATY ON YOUTUBE WEAPONS EDUCATION OR SOMEBODY POST IT ON HERE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCjFSA92I7c

Reply

Jim P. July 7, 2012 at 02:26 am

Here is the site to send a letter to your representatives and sign the petition(s): http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/7175/gun-control/?m=3239078

I ran a website in the 90’s and had limited contact with Snopes webministration back when. If you can find the facts from a police report or something similar they are reliable. I wouldn’t trust them on future events or political facts. They have a leftist agenda.

4. A treaty is not superior to the 2nd amendment in US law and provisions that infringe that amendment would be open to judicial review by the SCOTUS.

Please google “gibson guitar Lacey act”

I trust the U.S. government even less than I used to. I never trusted the U.N.

Way back when the land mine treaty (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty) was up for ratification the U.S. asked for exceptions for command detonation mines the DMZ in Korea, the area surrounding Guantanamo Bay and several other cases. The U.N. said “No” and we didn’t sign on. Now there are no more land mines. But amazingly there are IED’s (Improvised Explosive Devices). What’s the difference?

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: