Gun confiscation, NOT control

[MKenn]

I suspect you are all unaware of this, but just in case you’ve been sleeping, or paying all of your attention to “that other issue”, here it is, the one of our next challenges.

In the USSO (Union of Socialistic States of Obamanation) the best investments today are:

Canned Goods; and,

(2) Ammunition -- lots and lots of ammunition.

The Full Article Here: <broken link removed>. com/article/ politicsNews/ idUSTRE59E0Q9200 91015




U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.

We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictator ship). Maybe like the Jews in 1939 thru WW2.


TIME FOR A CIVIL WAR?????

Read More

 

[tionico]

No treaty can bind the United States until and unless ratified by a vote in the Senate.... and I think it requires a two-thirds majority to bind us as a nation to any international treaty. So, it can't happen without some debate, and time for response by We the People.

On the other hand, I've smelled this one coming since about July of 2008...... I've been aware of this stinking treaty lurking, and GW Bush's opposition to it, for a long time. When it was looking like the kenyan would actually be elected, and having heard some of his spoken stance on gun owner and second ammendment rights, and seen his abominable voting record, I am almost surprised it has taken him this long to come round to it. His enthronement of the Hill made it a done deal, in my view.... that woman hates ALL guns in the hands of private citizens.
Inn both cases, their oaths of office are not worth the manure it would take to bury those oaths. Neither are guarding United States sovereignty..... OR our rights under the Second Ammendment, or the Fourth either.

as if his healthcare assault isn't enough to start some sort of uprising.......

 

[receo]

Hmmm, sounds like a good book. No but seriously you may want to switch to a decaffinated coffee. :huh:

 

[tionico]

or green tea.........

 

[The B]

i sure wish people would quit copy/pasting that email. it's a total load of inflammatory crap.

here's what the article ACTUALLY says, for those interested in the facts available:

President Obama wants to pass a robust financial reform bill and unlike healthcare, Republicans will have a hard time convincing Americans this is a bad thing. Full Article


Tue, Oct 6 2009
(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

(Editing by Eric Beech)

NOTHING supersedes the US Constitution. if any international treaty violates American civil liberties, it will go to SCOTUS, who WILL, if they're doing their job, not even hesitate to shut it down.

pretty much the only way any kind of international law can effect American citizens is if the USA officially forfeits her sovereignty and surrenders to another governing body. i think some people would object to that first.

 

[Redcap]

Best o' luck on that one, Dimocrats.

 

[tionico]

NOTHING supersedes the US Constitution. if any international treaty violates American civil liberties, it will go to SCOTUS, who WILL, if they're doing their job, not even hesitate to shut it down.

pretty much the only way any kind of international law can effect American citizens is if the USA officially forfeits her sovereignty and surrenders to another governing body. i think some people would object to that first.



not quite true... it is my understanding that the US Supreme Court has held in the past that a treaty, ratified by the US Senate, becomes the law of THIS land, and is indeed binding. In short, for the Senate to ratify such a treaty IS to surrender our sovereignty on the issues addressed by the treaty.

And the version of that treaty on small arms I've read, the UN, or other member nations, WILL have the authority to dictate to us what guns we may own, how and where they will be kept, and so on... all kinds of ugly. Now, IF the final versionn of such a treaty deals ONLY with importing and exporting, and has nothng to do with arms in the hands of private citizens, not so bad. Though it may well limit what weapons come into this country for our use and enjoyment.

 

[NK777]

This link actually works... http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

 

[The B]

not quite true... it is my understanding that the US Supreme Court has held in the past that a treaty, ratified by the US Senate, becomes the law of THIS land, and is indeed binding. In short, for the Senate to ratify such a treaty IS to surrender our sovereignty on the issues addressed by the treaty.

negative. the supreme court's ONLY job is to protect the Constitution. they cannot, by default, condone any legislation that violates the Constitution. any treaty they've held that applies to American law would have to be one that did not violate any part of the Constitution. they would send it back to congress with instructions that if they really wanted the treaty as written, they'd first need to amend the Constitution to allow it- just like ANY piece of legislation they throw out.

it can be argued that we currently have tens of thousands of unconstitutional active laws, federal, state, and local. and it can be argued that many of these have already been upheld by a corrupt and/or confused SCOTUS. it can also be argued that laws can be written in such a manipulative way that they allow for small, less noticeable Constitutional violations.... see: all tax laws.

but human malice and human error don't change the legal process- and according to our legal process, NOTHING supersedes the US Constitution.

 

[Just Jim]

I seem to recall the government trying to collect arms in a small town in Texas, Waco. I don't think that worked out well for them.

jj

 

[bugeye]

I seem to recall the government trying to collect arms in a small town in Texas, Waco. I don't think that worked out well for them.

jj

Yeah, and the Davidians weren't doing anything wrong at all, just letting their 'messiah' have open sex with children. Sheesh!

 

[The B]

Yeah, and the Davidians weren't doing anything wrong at all, just letting their 'messiah' have open sex with children. Sheesh!

dont be jealous.

 

[Just Jim]

dont be jealous.

Now you know what makes his eyes bug out


This is a gunsite, nothing else. They don't send in the BATFE over childeren abuse. Guess he can't figure that out.

jj

 

[phathom]

A couple things here.
1: Didn't Obama just sign the bill that allows guns to be carried in national parks now, thus loosening gun control laws for citizens (obviously law enforcement could before anyway)
2: If they try taking my guns and rights away, I'd rather die for my rights and go out shooting than have my rights stripped away by someone physically trying to take my guns and my rights away in one fell swoop.

 

[Ranb]

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.

Your link does not work as you posted it. This one does. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 It says in part;

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

This article is about arms exporting, not domestic sales. While the finances of arms companies can be affected by limiting their international sales which can in turn affect domestic sales, there is nothing in the article about banning guns in the USA. Or did I miss something?

So where is the text in your link that supports the accusation you made above? If you want to convince me that your link actually contains anything to support your accusation, then a quote would help. Thanks.

Ranb

 

[nixuser]

we sill need to make demands on our rep,s to let them know we will not stand for these kind of irrisponsible actions !!

 

[mudnducs]

From the Heritage Foundation:

The U.S. will also be pressured to adopt a treaty that will conflict with rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In 2008, the Group of Governmental Experts correctly stated that an arms trade treaty would need to respect member states' constitutional provisions, such as the Second Amendment. But the October 2008 U.N. resolution ignored this stipulation and instead stated that signatories of the treaty would have to have the "highest possible standards" to keep weapons away from all "criminal activity." The "highest possible standards" requirement and the Second Amendment are incompatible, because there is ultimately no guarantee that any privately held gun in the U.S. will never be used in criminal activity.[6]


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...s-the-Wrong-Call-on-the-UNs-Arms-Trade-Treaty

 

[fingolfen]

From the Heritage Foundation:

The U.S. will also be pressured to adopt a treaty that will conflict with rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In 2008, the Group of Governmental Experts correctly stated that an arms trade treaty would need to respect member states' constitutional provisions, such as the Second Amendment. But the October 2008 U.N. resolution ignored this stipulation and instead stated that signatories of the treaty would have to have the "highest possible standards" to keep weapons away from all "criminal activity." The "highest possible standards" requirement and the Second Amendment are incompatible, because there is ultimately no guarantee that any privately held gun in the U.S. will never be used in criminal activity.[6]


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...s-the-Wrong-Call-on-the-UNs-Arms-Trade-Treaty

...but... but... it's for the CHILDREN!!!!

Think of the CHILDREN!!!

The UN is pretty much becoming incompatible with the U.S. Constitution...

 

[Blitzkrieg]

NOTHING supersedes the US Constitution. if any international treaty violates American civil liberties, it will go to SCOTUS, who WILL, if they're doing their job, not even hesitate to shut it down.

pretty much the only way any kind of international law can effect American citizens is if the USA officially forfeits her sovereignty and surrenders to another governing body. i think some people would object to that first.



not quite true... it is my understanding that the US Supreme Court has held in the past that a treaty, ratified by the US Senate, becomes the law of THIS land, and is indeed binding. In short, for the Senate to ratify such a treaty IS to surrender our sovereignty on the issues addressed by the treaty.

And the version of that treaty on small arms I've read, the UN, or other member nations, WILL have the authority to dictate to us what guns we may own, how and where they will be kept, and so on... all kinds of ugly. Now, IF the final versionn of such a treaty deals ONLY with importing and exporting, and has nothng to do with arms in the hands of private citizens, not so bad. Though it may well limit what weapons come into this country for our use and enjoyment.

Correct.. and if this thing gets through and we do not rise up, we are finished. The end game of these commies is nothing less than genocide.. which is why they must disarm us, first

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Yeah, and the Davidians weren't doing anything wrong at all, just letting their 'messiah' have open sex with children. Sheesh!

The feds sure did a great job of saving those children