Well Obama made some deal hoping .
He would be followed by another lib .
But that didn't work out.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
He would be followed by another lib .
But that didn't work out.
- Messages
- 5,152
- Reactions
- 11,450
{stolen from another site}
"https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/ ... un-owners/
By NRA-ILA
Last Friday, President Trump took the historic step of ordering the "un-signing" of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty during his address to the NRA-ILA's Leadership Forum. President Trump's action effectively withdraws the United States from the most comprehensive effort towards international gun control.
Much of the intervening coverage on the ATT has focused on how the treaty did or did not constrain U.S. arms sales abroad, but many average law-abiding gun owners may be questioning how the treaty could or couldn't have affected them.
NRA's complaints regarding the treaty have always been based on its potential effect on law-abiding American gun owners. Those complaints have focused on the treaty's requirements for end use verification, its sometimes-unintelligible vagueness, its ability to be amended without the consensus of all parties, and its proponents repeated refusals to clarify that it has no effect on the possession of small arms by civilians in the United States.
The treaty urges record keeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including "end use or end-user documentation" for a "minimum of ten years." Each country is to "take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms."
Data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a de-facto registry of law-abiding firearms owners, which is a violation of federal law. Even worse, the ATT could be construed to require such a registry to be made available to foreign governments.
The vagueness of the treaty and its ease of being "amended" is best exemplified by actions that took place at a conference on the treaty last year. At that conference, proponents of the treaty "welcome[ed]" several living documents into the ATT. While seemingly innocuous on its face, this change incorporated the International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) into the ATT.
Falsely described as established "international standards" or "international norms" that "provide clear, practical and comprehensive guidance to practitioners and policymakers on fundamental aspects of small arms and light weapons control", the ISACS are in reality a series of six standards developed by the UN for states to use in implementing their global disarmament agenda. Series 3 – Legislative and Regulatory – and its Module 3.30, "National Regulation of Civilian Access to Small Arms and Light Weapons," is the most alarming of all the ISACS.
Purporting to set the standards for "National Regulation of Civilian Access to Small Arms and Light Weapons," Module 3.30 creates a means to almost entirely limit civilian access to small arms under the guise of International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and Gender Based Violence.
Highlights include, but are not limited to; a ban on civilian possession of "military" style arms – no automatic weapons or magazines with over a 10 round capacity, ballistic recordings, different risk classifications on types of firearms (i.e. calibers over .45 are an intolerable risk to public safety and semi-auto handguns and rifles are high risk), licensing and registration of all firearms, training and storage restrictions, waiting periods, 20-year record retention requirements of sellers, age limits and requiring a demonstrated need to possess a firearm, with self-defense not being one of them.
While incorporation by reference of the ISACS into the ATT was alarming, it was also not entirely unpredictable. As with every anti-firearm UN initiative, concern must never lie entirely with what is in it now, but with what it will become and how it will be used by a future U.S. administration, especially one seeking international justification for a gun control agenda.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand the future danger the ATT posed to U.S. gun owners is the complete refusal by proponents of the treaty to limit its application to civilian arms. NRA and other opponents of the treaty repeatedly asked for a carve-out in the treaty, yet those requests were flatly denied. If the treaty's proponents had no intention of limiting American gun ownership, why resist such a limitation to the text of the treaty?
"https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/ ... un-owners/
By NRA-ILA
Last Friday, President Trump took the historic step of ordering the "un-signing" of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty during his address to the NRA-ILA's Leadership Forum. President Trump's action effectively withdraws the United States from the most comprehensive effort towards international gun control.
Much of the intervening coverage on the ATT has focused on how the treaty did or did not constrain U.S. arms sales abroad, but many average law-abiding gun owners may be questioning how the treaty could or couldn't have affected them.
NRA's complaints regarding the treaty have always been based on its potential effect on law-abiding American gun owners. Those complaints have focused on the treaty's requirements for end use verification, its sometimes-unintelligible vagueness, its ability to be amended without the consensus of all parties, and its proponents repeated refusals to clarify that it has no effect on the possession of small arms by civilians in the United States.
The treaty urges record keeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including "end use or end-user documentation" for a "minimum of ten years." Each country is to "take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms."
Data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a de-facto registry of law-abiding firearms owners, which is a violation of federal law. Even worse, the ATT could be construed to require such a registry to be made available to foreign governments.
The vagueness of the treaty and its ease of being "amended" is best exemplified by actions that took place at a conference on the treaty last year. At that conference, proponents of the treaty "welcome[ed]" several living documents into the ATT. While seemingly innocuous on its face, this change incorporated the International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) into the ATT.
Falsely described as established "international standards" or "international norms" that "provide clear, practical and comprehensive guidance to practitioners and policymakers on fundamental aspects of small arms and light weapons control", the ISACS are in reality a series of six standards developed by the UN for states to use in implementing their global disarmament agenda. Series 3 – Legislative and Regulatory – and its Module 3.30, "National Regulation of Civilian Access to Small Arms and Light Weapons," is the most alarming of all the ISACS.
Purporting to set the standards for "National Regulation of Civilian Access to Small Arms and Light Weapons," Module 3.30 creates a means to almost entirely limit civilian access to small arms under the guise of International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and Gender Based Violence.
Highlights include, but are not limited to; a ban on civilian possession of "military" style arms – no automatic weapons or magazines with over a 10 round capacity, ballistic recordings, different risk classifications on types of firearms (i.e. calibers over .45 are an intolerable risk to public safety and semi-auto handguns and rifles are high risk), licensing and registration of all firearms, training and storage restrictions, waiting periods, 20-year record retention requirements of sellers, age limits and requiring a demonstrated need to possess a firearm, with self-defense not being one of them.
While incorporation by reference of the ISACS into the ATT was alarming, it was also not entirely unpredictable. As with every anti-firearm UN initiative, concern must never lie entirely with what is in it now, but with what it will become and how it will be used by a future U.S. administration, especially one seeking international justification for a gun control agenda.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand the future danger the ATT posed to U.S. gun owners is the complete refusal by proponents of the treaty to limit its application to civilian arms. NRA and other opponents of the treaty repeatedly asked for a carve-out in the treaty, yet those requests were flatly denied. If the treaty's proponents had no intention of limiting American gun ownership, why resist such a limitation to the text of the treaty?
- Messages
- 1,447
- Reactions
- 3,147
It had no affect us since we never ratified it, but if it had been ratified, it would have required gun registration of imported firearms, as indicated by 41 mag above, and by Wikipedia:
Arms Trade Treaty - Wikipedia
Trump did the right thing.
- Messages
- 1,656
- Reactions
- 1,975
I wouldn't say its useless. Russia still isn't exactly playing nice in Ukraine. However I hope they sort it out so we can had plenty of Russian AK parts kits for everyone
- Messages
- 15
- Reactions
- 5
I came across this article posted last may 7 2019. IF YOUR DON"T VOTE, THEN DON'T COMPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What "Unsigning" the Arms Trade Treaty Means for American Gun Owners ~ VIDEO
Video | Ammoland Inc. Posted on May 5, 2019 by Ammoland
Read more: What "Unsigning" the Arms Trade Treaty Means for American Gun Owners
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Last Friday, President Trump took the historic step of ordering the "unsigning" of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty during his address to the NRA-ILA's Leadership Forum. President Trump's action effectively withdraws the United States from the most comprehensive effort towards international gun control.
Much of the intervening coverage on the ATT has focused on how the treaty did or did not constrain U.S. arms sales abroad, but many average law-abiding gun owners may be questioning how the treaty could or couldn't have affected them.
NRA's complaints regarding the treaty have always been based on its potential effect on law-abiding American gun owners. Those complaints have focused on the treaty's requirements for end use verification, its sometimes-unintelligible vagueness, its ability to be amended without the consensus of all parties, and its proponents repeated refusals to clarify that it has no effect on the possession of small arms by civilians in the United States.
The treaty urges record keeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including "end use or end user documentation" for a "minimum of ten years." Each country is to "take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms." Data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a de-facto registry of law-abiding firearms owners, which is a violation of federal law. Even worse, the ATT could be construed to require such a registry to be made available to foreign governments.
The vagueness of the treaty and its ease of being "amended" is best exemplified by actions that took place at a conference on the treaty last year. At that conference, proponents of the treaty "welcome[ed]" several living documents into the ATT. While seemingly innocuous on its face, this change incorporated the International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) into the ATT.
Falsely described as established "international standards" or "international norms" that "provide clear, practical and comprehensive guidance to practitioners and policymakers on fundamental aspects of small arms and light weapons control", the ISACS are in reality a series of six standards developed by the UN for states to use in implementing their global disarmament agenda. Series 3 – Legislative and Regulatory – and its Module 3.30, "National Regulation of Civilian Access to Small Arms and Light Weapons," is the most alarming of all the ISACS.
Purporting to set the standards for "National Regulation of Civilian Access to Small Arms and Light Weapons," Module 3.30 creates a means to almost entirely limit civilian access to small arms under the guise of International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and Gender Based Violence. Highlights include, but are not limited to; a ban on civilian possession of "military" style arms – no automatic weapons or magazines with over a 10 round capacity, ballistic recordings, different risk classifications on types of firearms (i.e. calibers over .45 are an intolerable risk to public safety and semi-auto handguns and rifles are high risk), licensing and registration of all firearms, training and storage restrictions, waiting periods, 20-year record retention requirements of sellers, age limits and requiring a demonstrated need to possess a firearm, with self-defense not being one of them.
While incorporation by reference of the ISACS into the ATT was alarming, it was also not entirely unpredictable. As with every anti-firearm UN initiative, concern must never lie entirely with what is in it now, but with what it will become and how it will be used by a future U.S. administration, especially one seeking international justification for a gun control agenda.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand the future danger the ATT posed to U.S. gun owners is the complete refusal by proponents of the treaty to limit its application to civilian arms.
NRA and other opponents of the treaty repeatedly asked for a carve-out in the treaty, yet those requests were flatly denied. If the treaty's proponents had no intention of limiting American gun ownership, why resist such a limitation to the text of the treaty?
Instead, the treaty included language in its preamble that treaty parties be "mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law." A careful read will show that the use of arms for individual and collective defense is notably missing from this statement, and the statement creates no limitation and is really only an aspirational provision.
Please join us in thanking President Trump for protecting our firearms freedoms by removing any obligation of the United States to be bound by the "object and purpose" of the Arms Trade Treaty.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Read more: What "Unsigning" the Arms Trade Treaty Means for American Gun Owners
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Arizona Don
Barack Obama supported things like this for a reason. He had to get the guns out of the citizens hands in order to install his fundamental transformation and he gave that goal his utmost attention but failed. He further promised a federal police force just as well funded, trained and equipped as our military. He failed to get the guns and therefore failed in his fundamental transformation. Perhaps you noticed he failed to explain either of those promises. I think on purpose. No democrat asked (and I also did not hear a public question from republicans either) as to what he intended to transform America into. We however, know now it was very likely a communist state with a touch of Islam. In any case it was going to require force to install that transformation in America or otherwise why was his federal police force going to be needed? It had not been needed at the time for nearly 240 years here in America. Do we also not realize federal police forces are what had been used to solidify the power of all the dictatorships during the twentieth century? The brown shirts in Germany are the most obvious. When Obama promised these things the democrats cheered wildly and there were crickets from the republican side. No questions whatsoever. Why? Did everyone just demonstrate blind trust to then President to be Barack Obama?
President Trump promised to Make America Great Again (how is that bad) at which he seems to be doing very well some say successful so far and the democrats have impeached him in the House and tried to remove him in the Senate. For that greatness. I guess we could ask "why" here also.
In any case do you see the comparison? America and Americans are witnessing an effort to fundamentally transform us even though Obama failed in his attempt and they are the minority now. Just look at how many democrats running for the democrat nomination for president espouse socialist leanings. Nearly all! Whether they actually voice it or not their actions and promises speak for them. Therefore those who do not publicly espouse such desires will after being elected for they will have no choice because that is the way of the party right now. Make no mistake we are headed for some terrible times if a democrat is elected in 2020 and they retain control over the House! Take that to the bank! Would you rather become great again (we are almost there) or transform into a communist state. Check communist states out. Then make the decision. A good place to start your research is in Cuba and Venezuela.
1
2 months ago
What "Unsigning" the Arms Trade Treaty Means for American Gun Owners ~ VIDEO
Video | Ammoland Inc. Posted on May 5, 2019 by Ammoland
Read more: What "Unsigning" the Arms Trade Treaty Means for American Gun Owners
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Last Friday, President Trump took the historic step of ordering the "unsigning" of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty during his address to the NRA-ILA's Leadership Forum. President Trump's action effectively withdraws the United States from the most comprehensive effort towards international gun control.
Much of the intervening coverage on the ATT has focused on how the treaty did or did not constrain U.S. arms sales abroad, but many average law-abiding gun owners may be questioning how the treaty could or couldn't have affected them.
NRA's complaints regarding the treaty have always been based on its potential effect on law-abiding American gun owners. Those complaints have focused on the treaty's requirements for end use verification, its sometimes-unintelligible vagueness, its ability to be amended without the consensus of all parties, and its proponents repeated refusals to clarify that it has no effect on the possession of small arms by civilians in the United States.
The treaty urges record keeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including "end use or end user documentation" for a "minimum of ten years." Each country is to "take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms." Data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a de-facto registry of law-abiding firearms owners, which is a violation of federal law. Even worse, the ATT could be construed to require such a registry to be made available to foreign governments.
The vagueness of the treaty and its ease of being "amended" is best exemplified by actions that took place at a conference on the treaty last year. At that conference, proponents of the treaty "welcome[ed]" several living documents into the ATT. While seemingly innocuous on its face, this change incorporated the International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) into the ATT.
Falsely described as established "international standards" or "international norms" that "provide clear, practical and comprehensive guidance to practitioners and policymakers on fundamental aspects of small arms and light weapons control", the ISACS are in reality a series of six standards developed by the UN for states to use in implementing their global disarmament agenda. Series 3 – Legislative and Regulatory – and its Module 3.30, "National Regulation of Civilian Access to Small Arms and Light Weapons," is the most alarming of all the ISACS.
Purporting to set the standards for "National Regulation of Civilian Access to Small Arms and Light Weapons," Module 3.30 creates a means to almost entirely limit civilian access to small arms under the guise of International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and Gender Based Violence. Highlights include, but are not limited to; a ban on civilian possession of "military" style arms – no automatic weapons or magazines with over a 10 round capacity, ballistic recordings, different risk classifications on types of firearms (i.e. calibers over .45 are an intolerable risk to public safety and semi-auto handguns and rifles are high risk), licensing and registration of all firearms, training and storage restrictions, waiting periods, 20-year record retention requirements of sellers, age limits and requiring a demonstrated need to possess a firearm, with self-defense not being one of them.
While incorporation by reference of the ISACS into the ATT was alarming, it was also not entirely unpredictable. As with every anti-firearm UN initiative, concern must never lie entirely with what is in it now, but with what it will become and how it will be used by a future U.S. administration, especially one seeking international justification for a gun control agenda.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand the future danger the ATT posed to U.S. gun owners is the complete refusal by proponents of the treaty to limit its application to civilian arms.
NRA and other opponents of the treaty repeatedly asked for a carve-out in the treaty, yet those requests were flatly denied. If the treaty's proponents had no intention of limiting American gun ownership, why resist such a limitation to the text of the treaty?
Instead, the treaty included language in its preamble that treaty parties be "mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law." A careful read will show that the use of arms for individual and collective defense is notably missing from this statement, and the statement creates no limitation and is really only an aspirational provision.
Please join us in thanking President Trump for protecting our firearms freedoms by removing any obligation of the United States to be bound by the "object and purpose" of the Arms Trade Treaty.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Read more: What "Unsigning" the Arms Trade Treaty Means for American Gun Owners
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Arizona Don
Barack Obama supported things like this for a reason. He had to get the guns out of the citizens hands in order to install his fundamental transformation and he gave that goal his utmost attention but failed. He further promised a federal police force just as well funded, trained and equipped as our military. He failed to get the guns and therefore failed in his fundamental transformation. Perhaps you noticed he failed to explain either of those promises. I think on purpose. No democrat asked (and I also did not hear a public question from republicans either) as to what he intended to transform America into. We however, know now it was very likely a communist state with a touch of Islam. In any case it was going to require force to install that transformation in America or otherwise why was his federal police force going to be needed? It had not been needed at the time for nearly 240 years here in America. Do we also not realize federal police forces are what had been used to solidify the power of all the dictatorships during the twentieth century? The brown shirts in Germany are the most obvious. When Obama promised these things the democrats cheered wildly and there were crickets from the republican side. No questions whatsoever. Why? Did everyone just demonstrate blind trust to then President to be Barack Obama?
President Trump promised to Make America Great Again (how is that bad) at which he seems to be doing very well some say successful so far and the democrats have impeached him in the House and tried to remove him in the Senate. For that greatness. I guess we could ask "why" here also.
In any case do you see the comparison? America and Americans are witnessing an effort to fundamentally transform us even though Obama failed in his attempt and they are the minority now. Just look at how many democrats running for the democrat nomination for president espouse socialist leanings. Nearly all! Whether they actually voice it or not their actions and promises speak for them. Therefore those who do not publicly espouse such desires will after being elected for they will have no choice because that is the way of the party right now. Make no mistake we are headed for some terrible times if a democrat is elected in 2020 and they retain control over the House! Take that to the bank! Would you rather become great again (we are almost there) or transform into a communist state. Check communist states out. Then make the decision. A good place to start your research is in Cuba and Venezuela.
1
2 months ago
- Messages
- 3,596
- Reactions
- 7,234
Is there a Cliff Notes version?
- Messages
- 15
- Reactions
- 5
qUOTE FROM ABOVE:In any case do you see the comparison? America and Americans are witnessing an effort to fundamentally transform us even though Obama failed in his attempt and they are the minority now. Just look at how many democrats running for the democrat nomination for president espouse socialist leanings. Nearly all! Whether they actually voice it or not their actions and promises speak for them. Therefore those who do not publicly espouse such desires will after being elected for they will have no choice because that is the way of the party right now. Make no mistake we are headed for some terrible times if a democrat is elected in 2020 and they retain control over the House! T
Is there a Cliff Notes version?
[/QUO
Orange man good. Fulfilling another promise.
obama bad.
- Messages
- 3,596
- Reactions
- 7,234
edzz,
Now that's more like it!
Thanks!!
Now that's more like it!
Thanks!!
- Messages
- 43
- Reactions
- 46
As I understand not done yet. It has to get to his desk passed the traitors in the other sections of DC.
- Messages
- 3,560
- Reactions
- 9,381
It has no effect as it sat, but as @EPS said, if everything had gone as planned we would have ceded our sovereignty and our Constitution to the UN. Removing the US as a signatory is a preemptive safeguard in the unlikely event of a Senate majority flip in the next two elections with Dems maintaining juice in the House. Far from an empty gesture, it reinstalls an extra layer of impenetrable beuracracy to the ratification process... it locks the door to the globalists as long as DJT is POTUS.
If it did nothing more than inflate a giant middle-finger-shaped balloon to the UN then I'm still glad he did it.
^^^THIS^^^
It's where the Paris Climste Accords and the fake Iran "deal" were supposed to go too... now they can't.
Bully and double jazz-hands.
- Messages
- 4,913
- Reactions
- 12,782
Actually we are and have been members of the UN and NATO since both were conceived. We're founding members of both.
- Messages
- 4,913
- Reactions
- 12,782
Actually no. That would not have happened because of Covert v Reid 1956 which existing us laws cannot be overridden by treaties.
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reactions
- 17,485
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reactions
- 17,485
How dare you bring truth into this discussion. Treaties with foreign governments do not apply to US citizens on US soil. Laws that apply to US citizens in the US must be passed by the full congress and signed by the President not just the Senate and the President as required by treaties.. If the treaty had passed the senate, which it didnt, the only real affect would have been it would have been more difficult to import foreign made guns . Bolts and barrels would have been almost impossible to import as parts. Beyond that anti gun legislation would needed to be passed in the normal fashion. Its one of those things that had Bill Ruger been alive he'd be pleased silly to support.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 5,619
- Reactions
- 8,820
I hope he does it and carries it through - My gut feeling is he is doing this for the votes and could care less about the 2a. Its a good thing just the same.
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reactions
- 17,485
Total empty victory but its a good talking point. And yeah, this is old news.
- Messages
- 5,619
- Reactions
- 8,820
Has he does this yet since it is old news?
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wanted - Marlin wood stock from 781, 783, 881, or 883
- Started by GusGus1102
- Replies: 0
-
Premiere firearms ar pistol 300blkRock island 1911 a1
- Started by fredg503101
- Replies: 0
-
-