Post by: wolfbait on June 07, 2013, 09:25:10 AM
June 7, 2013 by Chip Wood
PHOTOS.COMA majority in the U.S. Senate has told President Barack Obama not to do it. There’s no doubt that an overwhelming majority of Americans would oppose it — if the media ever told them about it.
Nonetheless, this past Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Obama will sign a controversial gun-control treaty promulgated by the United Nations. “We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official languages is completely satisfied,” Kerry said in a prepared statement.
Although the treaty is being touted as a way to prevent “illicit trade in conventional weapons,” it actually does far more than that. Among other outrages, it demands that every nation create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders within its borders. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could prevent private individuals from purchasing ammunition for any weapons they do own.
In other words, this U.N. treaty would mean the end of our 2nd Amendment rights. And Kerry says Obama will sign it. What kind of madness is this?
Resolutions condemning the treaty were promptly introduced in both branches of Congress. The measures submitted to the Senate by Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and to the House of Representatives by Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) declare that the U.N. Small Arms Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States, as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”
Then in March, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) submitted an amendment to the budget bill that urged the Obama Administration “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.” Inhofe’s amendment was approved by a vote of 53 to 46.
So a majority of Senators have publicly declared their opposition to this dangerous treaty. Doesn’t sound like there’s much chance the treaty will get a positive vote by two-thirds of the Senate, which the Constitution says must be done for any treaty to take effect.
Despite rumors to the contrary, I don’t think even Obama — surely one of the most arrogant people to ever occupy the Oval Office — will try to do an end-run around this Constitutional requirement. But still, the President has come out in favor of it. And Kerry says the Administration is eager to sign it.
Which makes me wonder, have these guys lost their minds?
I’ll grant you, both men have made it clear throughout their careers the utter disdain they hold for the idea of any Constitutional restraints on their actions. But still, coming out in support of such a flagrantly unConstitutional measure now makes me wonder what is really going on here.
I’ve heard suggestions that the U.N. gun control treaty is being brought forward now to distract us from all the other scandals that are besetting the Obama Administration. But that’s as unlikely as the idea that the Administration decided to unleash the story of what the IRS did to Tea Party and other patriotic groups in an effort to distract people from two other scandals — the Administration’s response to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi and the Justice Department’s surreptitious seizure of some reporters’ emails.
Okay, so we now know that the IRS actually planted the question that led to the story first breaking about how they targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. And of course it was incredibly stupid to ask for donors’ names and addresses and even questioning what some of the applicants believed.
Passing on some of that private information, so it could be posted on-line by a left wing group, compounded the folly. Clearly, some heads will have to roll over all of this. By the time Congress finishes its various investigations, some IRS employees may even face criminal penalties. From what we know, they should.
But I haven’t seen enough evidence yet to convince me that the IRS scandal will reach into the Oval Office. Yes, Obama set the tone that led to the malfeasance below him. But I don’t think he issued the orders. Unlike Watergate, there’s no recorded conversation or other smoking gun here: or, so far as we know, any impeachable offense.
But that’s emphatically not the case with the Administration’s active support of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. Obama and his allies, including Kerry, know exactly what they’re doing. And they seem determined to proceed, no matter what anyone says.
The United Nations Small Arms Treaty was going nowhere last year. Obama, who was running for reelection, said he opposed it. Negotiators couldn’t agree on terms.
But then on Nov. 7 — one day after Obama won his second term — the President reversed himself and instructed our delegation at the U.N. conference to agree to a “Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” to be held in New York City in March.
When that conference voted to send the treaty to the U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. representatives fully supported the move. Subsequently, on April 2 the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of its passage. The vote was a lop-sided 154 to 3. The Untied States was one of the “ayes.”
The “no” votes came from three of most notorious human-rights violators in a body that’s filled with them — Iran, Syria, and North Korea. China and Russia joined 21 other nations in abstaining.
How many of those countries were founded on the principle that the citizens’ rights come from God, not government? How many have anything resembling our own Bill of Rights, where the people’s rights (and the limitations on their rulers) are spelled out so forcefully and specifically?
I’m pretty sure the answer is zero.
No, those 154 countries represent some of the most repressive regimes on earth. There aren’t too many friends of freedom sitting in that glass palace on the East River.
The United Nations is been a notorious hotbed of anti-American sentiment since the day it was founded. We don’t have many friends there and never have. Heck, its very creation was virtually a communist plot against this country, as G. Edward Griffin proves in The Fearful Master, his invaluable study of the origins of this one-world monstrosity.
Allowing the United Nations to void our 2nd Amendment rights, and determine gun-control policies for this country would be a huge step down the road to our own enslavement. As I said before, it’s utter madness.
Let’s make sure that Barack Obama, John Kerry and their left wing allies don’t get away with it.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
http://personalliberty.com/2013/06/07/obama-to-ignore-senate-sign-2nd-amendment-violating-u-n-gun-treaty/ (http://personalliberty.com/2013/06/07/obama-to-ignore-senate-sign-2nd-amendment-violating-u-n-gun-treaty/)
Post by: magnanimous_j on June 07, 2013, 09:27:11 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on June 07, 2013, 09:29:28 AM
Post by: motg9_6 on June 07, 2013, 09:47:50 AM
For the gazzilionth time, the UN gun treaty will not affect American gun rights in any way shape or form.How would it not??? Explain that to us please with good detail. It a small arms treaty that we would be joining. Please for the love of god explain to us how it wouldn't. :bash:
Post by: magnanimous_j on June 07, 2013, 10:04:57 AM
For the gazzilionth time, the UN gun treaty will not affect American gun rights in any way shape or form.How would it not??? Explain that to us please with good detail. It a small arms treaty that we would be joining. Please for the love of god explain to us how it wouldn't. :bash:
Fine. One more time and then I'm just going to start copy and pasting this. And yes, I've actually read the treaty.
What the UN small arms treaty does is create accountability for shipments of arms that are shipped between countries. So if Bushmaster ships 10,000 AR’s somewhere outside the US, a record is made of that transaction and held by a third party record keeper. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. If a Russian factory ships 10,000 AKs to a distributor in the US, that record is made, but that’s where it stops. The US distributor is not required to supply the UN with information as to the gun store he sold them to, nor is the gun store required to supply the UN with information as to the end users that HE sold them to. That is all handled by domestic US law.
The purpose of this treaty is so that when a rebel group in Africa starts ethnic cleansing it’s enemies, the UN can say “Hey Zastava, care to explain how these rebels got a hold of 5000 rifles that were last seen with you?” The United Freaking Nations could not give less of a *censored* about the handful of weapons that are in your personal arsenal.
There are two reasons that we are made to care about this treaty at all: the NRA keeps its momentum up by keeping people worked up, so they jump on any available “crisis” to keep relevant. Second, it’s probably a hassle for US international gun makers to keep these records, so they don’t want to do it.
Read it for yourself: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/ (http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 07, 2013, 11:08:46 AM
To Mags: If I buy a Bushmaster and sell it to someone else and that gun is eventually sent to Mexico and confiscated during a battle with drug lords, if they can't trace it back to me, what's the point of the treaty? I believe that you think our information won't be given to the UN, but I don't believe that.
Post by: magnanimous_j on June 07, 2013, 11:59:10 AM
Whether or not the President signs the treaty is moot if it's not ratified by the Senate. Our laws dictate any federal treaty be ratified by a 2/3s vote. The President's signature without that vote is as good as my signature without that vote - worthless and stupid.
To Mags: If I buy a Bushmaster and sell it to someone else and that gun is eventually sent to Mexico and confiscated during a battle with drug lords, if they can't trace it back to me, what's the point of the treaty? I believe that you think our information won't be given to the UN, but I don't believe that.
You are looking at it from the wrong scale. There are approximately 7 firearms for every 10 people on the planet, a little under 5 billion. The US federal government, if it put 100% of its resources into to tracking every individual one, they probably couldn’t do it. Let alone a freaking dinner club like the UN.
This treaty means to address very large questions like, where did the Jangaweed Militia get their arms to commit the genocide in Darfur. Where does Al Qaeda get theirs? Where do the Somali pirates? Who is giving arms to the Syrian rebels? That kind of thing. Did you ever see Lord of War? This is the kind of things they are trying to stop. They are trying to regulate the grey market. If Bushmaster knowingly sells a bunch of guns to some shadowy middleman and they end up being used to massacre a few African villages, the UN (and the voluntary community of nations it represents) wants to know who that middleman was and the FBI will figure out how much Bushmaster knew.
If your one rifle ends up in a Mexican cartel firefight, that’s a law enforcement issue. Not only is it outside of the scope of what the Small Arms treaty sets out to do, following up on every single gun that’s used in a crime would break the UN’s resources ten thousand times over.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 07, 2013, 12:17:01 PM
Post by: runamuk on June 07, 2013, 12:19:30 PM
Quote
Among other outrages, it demands that every nation create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders within its borders. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could prevent private individuals from purchasing ammunition for any weapons they do own.
Post by: magnanimous_j on June 07, 2013, 12:40:15 PM
You see this for a means to stop the flow of illegal arms into the hands of murderers on a broad scale.
I see it as a way to take away plausible deniability when the big boys of the world (US, China, Russia, etc.) want to fight our little proxy wars.
I have no doubt that Dear Leader sees it as an excuse to sign us all up and have his lists on gun owners.
Whether he does or doesn't do that, it wouldn't have anything to do with the UN treaty.
Post by: Bofire on June 07, 2013, 05:40:25 PM
Carl
Post by: magnanimous_j on June 07, 2013, 05:47:36 PM
:) a one word answer for a very weak Maggie answer; *censored*
Carl
Which part?
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2013, 09:48:12 AM
You see this for a means to stop the flow of illegal arms into the hands of murderers on a broad scale.
I see it as a way to take away plausible deniability when the big boys of the world (US, China, Russia, etc.) want to fight our little proxy wars.I have no doubt that Dear Leader sees it as an excuse to sign us all up and have his lists on gun owners.
Whether he does or doesn't do that, it wouldn't have anything to do with the UN treaty.
China an Russia have both opted out of the treaty, therein leaving 90% of the world's gun market still active. Signing this treaty in lieu of their participation means it has no teeth and there are no benefits for us to be involved. I firmly believe the only reason our dictator wants to sign is to forward his gun-hating agenda inside this country.
Post by: huntnphool on June 09, 2013, 10:06:07 AM
For the gazzilionth time, the UN gun treaty will not affect American gun rights in any way shape or form.:chuckle: LMAO, sorry Mags but your opinion and credibility took a major blow back before POtuS was elected and you said he would not go after our guns. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2013, 10:27:57 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test)
Duck test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the use of "the duck test" within the Wikipedia community, see Wikipedia:DUCK.
The duck test is a humorous term for a form of inductive reasoning. This is its usual expression:
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse arguments that something is not what it appears to be.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 18, 2013, 11:28:11 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.
The U.N. is finally done with its dirty work finalizing the details of the U.N.’s so-called "Small Arms Treaty."
With the full backing of the Obama administration for this outrageous anti-gun scheme, you and I could be headed for a Senate ratification showdown on the U.N.’s "Small Arms Treaty" in a matter of weeks.
So if you and I are going to beat this Treaty, we simply must fight back NOW before it’s too late.
I’m doing everything I can to help expose the TRUTH about this radical scheme -- just like I did when I fought President Bill Clinton’s anti-gun assaults in the 1990s.
But today I’m asking you to join me by taking a public stand against the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey right away.
http://www.nagr.org/ssunhf.aspx?pid=1b (http://www.nagr.org/ssunhf.aspx?pid=1b)
You see, after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut -- and with anti-gun hysteria in the national media still out of control -- there’s no doubt President Obama and his anti-gun pals believe the timing has never been better to ram through the U.N.’s global gun control crown jewel.
I don’t know about you, but watching gun-grabbers plot against our Constitution makes me sick.
Sold as a Treaty to combat international terrorism, piracy, and organized crime, the reality is something much different and FAR more sinister.
In fact, it’s hard to imagine how our Second Amendment could possibly survive this assault after reading through the horrific details of the Treaty, including:
*** Requiring the United States to mandate licenses for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms; This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns!
*** Mandating a new INTERNATIONAL gun registry; The registry must include "the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms" and the identity of the "end user."
*** Access for foreign governments to AMERICAN firearms records. Not only would our federal government and international bureaucrats have access to these records, but so would anti-gun foreign leaders and potentially hostile countries around the globe!
As bad as all this is, it will only be the first step.
Registration is the first step toward outright CONFISCATION. And this Treaty sets the stage for confiscation on a GLOBAL scale.
Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the U.N. has been hell-bent on bringing the U.S. to its knees.
To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the U.N., the United States of America isn’t a "shining city on a hill" -- it’s an affront to their grand designs for the globe.
These anti-gun globalists know that as long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.
And the U.N.’s apologists also know the most effective way to wreck our freedom would be to DESTROY our gun rights.
That’s why I was so excited to see the National Association for Gun Rights leading the fight to stop the U.N.’s so-called "Small Arms Treaty!"
But the truth is, NAGR depends on the action and support of good folks like you for their effectiveness.
So will you join them by going on record AGAINST global gun control and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey today?
http://www.nagr.org/ssunhf.aspx?pid=1b (http://www.nagr.org/ssunhf.aspx?pid=1b)
Thanks to the help of good folks like you, the National Association for Gun Rights has taken the lead role in Washington, D.C. beating back the gun-grabbers’ schemes.
In fact, without NAGR’s bare-knuckled, no-compromise tactics, I believe President Obama would have already succeeded in ramming gun control into law.
But the stakes couldn’t be higher with the U.N.’s "Small Arms Treaty." So there’s no time to waste.
After all, the last thing the gun-grabbers at the U.N. and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical agenda.
They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the U.N.’s "Small Arms Treaty" into law since the mid-1990s.
Already, parts of the U.N.’s radical agenda are slipping through covertly.
In fact, Obama’s State Department even bragged that Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious are implementations of the U.N.’s anti-gun agenda!
Then, just months ago, you and I saw President Obama issue a flurry of anti-gun executive orders in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy targeting law-abiding gun owners.
And once President Obama decides the time is ripe to submit the Treaty, this fight is going to move FAST.
So if you and I are going to defeat the gun-grabbers, we have to turn the heat up on Congress right now before it’s too late!
1. Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?
2. Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your Constitutional rights must be opposed?
If you said "Yes!" to these questions, please sign the survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.
With your help, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue to turn up the heat on targeted Senators who are working to implement the U.N.’s "Small Arms Treaty."
http://www.nagr.org/ssunhf.aspx?pid=1b (http://www.nagr.org/ssunhf.aspx?pid=1b)
Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits. The whole nine yards.
Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.
So along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.
Every dollar counts in this fight, so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.
Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.
For Freedom,
The Hon. Steve Stockman
U.S. Congressman (R-TX)
P.S. You and I could be facing a Senate ratification fight over the U.N.’s "Small Arms Treaty" in a matter of weeks.
If we’re going to defeat the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty," gun owners have to turn the heat up now before it’s too late!
Please return your Firearms Sovereignty Survey and put yourself squarely on the record AGAINST the UN "Small Arms Treaty."
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2013, 11:37:50 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 18, 2013, 11:43:50 AM
For the gazzilionth time, the UN gun treaty will not affect American gun rights in any way shape or form.
And Obamacare isn't a tax... :chuckle:
There's no way the Senate ratifies this treaty. Even a simple majority would fail, but a super majority? No way.
We all better hope you are right. With the furor at the helm he will look for any way to bypass congress. :twocents:
Post by: motg9_6 on June 18, 2013, 12:11:54 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2013, 12:17:39 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 18, 2013, 12:33:27 PM
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/06/rep-kelly-statement-on-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/ (http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/06/rep-kelly-statement-on-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/)
Rep. Kelly statement on U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
by The Blog on June 15, 2013
On June 13, Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) introduced an amendment to H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (NDAA), to prohibit federal funding for the implementation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) for one year. The amendment was adopted unanimously by the House of Representatives by a voice vote and included in the final passage of the NDAA, which Rep. Kelly voted to support.
Transcript:
“Over the last year, I have been joined by over 140 bipartisan members of this body to express deep concerns with the ATT and to urge its rejection.
“First, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty undermines our Second Amendment rights by omitting the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and imposing a national ‘responsibility’ to prevent firearms ‘diversion,’ thus opening the door to new gun control measures.
“Secondly, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty undermines our sovereignty by imposing vague, readily politicized requirements on the United States and inviting United Nations-led investigations into what U.S. policy makers knew or should have known regarding arms transfers that allegedly violate the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
“Ultimately, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty will stop the good from doing good without stopping the bad from doing bad. As then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, the U.S. maintains the ‘gold standard’ of arms export controls. My amendment upholds our current policies as well as our enduring values.”