President Obama support UN treaty that would require gun registration in the US

This is a discussion on President Obama support UN treaty that would require gun registration in the US within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; U.S. Headlines Obama Promises to Push for Arms Treaty Obama Promises to Push for Arms Treaty Written by Warren Mass Friday, 17 April 2009 17:30 ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 71

Thread: President Obama support UN treaty that would require gun registration in the US

  1. #1
    Member Array Rickw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    44

    Another attempt to gut the 2nd Amendment

    U.S. Headlines
    Obama Promises to Push for Arms Treaty

    Obama Promises to Push for Arms Treaty
    Written by Warren Mass
    Friday, 17 April 2009 17:30
    Speaking to reporters while standing alongside Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon in Mexico City on April 16, President Barack Obama said he would push the U.S. Senate to ratify a treaty called the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials. The convention, known by Spanish acronym CIFTA, was by inter-American countries including the United States in 1997 and then submitted the following year to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Like all treaties, it would require a two-thirds majority (67 votes) in the upper house to secure ratification.

    “Something that President Calderon and myself absolutely recognize is that you can't fight this war with just one hand,” Obama told reporters, including Reuters news service, which quoted him. “At a time when the Mexican government has so courageously taken on the drug cartels that have plagued both sides of the border, it is absolutely critical that the United States join as a full partner in dealing with this issue,” said Obama. “I am urging the Senate in the United States to ratify an inter-American treaty known as CIFTA to curb small arms trafficking that is a source of so many weapons used in this drug war,” the president continued.

    The theme of the United States sharing responsibility for the Mexican drug trade (including the shipment of arms from the United States to Mexican drug cartels) was not unexpected, since upon her arrival in Mexico City on March 25, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted blame on behalf of the American people for Mexico’s drug cartel problems, telling reporters: “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of [Mexican] police officers, soldiers and civilians.” “I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility,” she added.

    However, the subject of the arms treaty was not mentioned in advance of Obama’s visit and appears to have taken even members of the White House press corps by surprise. During a press briefing held in a Marriott Hotel in Mexico City on April 17, Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times asked Denis McDonough, deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, if the administration wasn’t catching even the Senate, much less the press and public off guard. A transcript follows:

    Stolberg: I have a question. On the treaty, it seems as though the announcement that you're calling on the Senate to ratify this treaty has actually caught the Senate off guard a little bit. Harry Reid's folks didn't know about it. And I wondered if you have run that by the Foreign Relations Committee and do you have a commitment from them that they'll bring it up?

    McDonough: You know, Sheryl, thanks for the question. There's a tradition at the beginning of each Congress that the President submits a treaty priority list — the Secretary of State and the President. So that's exactly what we did and this is one of the priority treaties that we'd like to see the Senate's advice and consent on. And, you know, we are working very closely with Senator Reid and many others on a range of issues, to include this.

    Stolberg: Can you just say how many treaties are on that list? And do you have an order? And is that what this treaty — where is it in the order of priorities?

    McDonough: I can tell you it's among the top treaties, but I'll get you the list so you can have it.

    Stolberg: Sounds —

    McDonough: I haven’t seen the final list, so let me just get it to you and you can make that call.

    In her report on the meeting of the two leaders for the Times, Stolberg discussed the U.S. ban on so-called assault weapons, which expired in 2004. She observed that Obama had made renewing the ban a campaign platform, but during the Mexico City conference he had suggested that reinstituting the ban was politically impossible because of opposition from gun rights enthusiasts. “None of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy,” she quoted Obama, adding that he insisted he was “not backing off at all” from his position that renewing the ban made sense.

    Indicating that senators obviously were cognizant of the political ramifications of even appearing to infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, Reuters news quoted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as stating that the United States had to help reduce violence without violating the right to bear arms, which is enshrined in the Second Amendment. “We must work with Mexico to curtail the violence and drug trafficking on America's southern border, and must protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” Reid said in a statement. “I look forward to working with the President to ensure we do both in a responsible way.”

    In an interview with Reuters news service, Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, stated that “The answer is to enforce the current law. Everything these drug cartels are doing involving firearms is illegal on both sides of the border already.”

    The Arizona Republic correctly observed that the now-expired ban prohibited sales of “semiautomatic weapons with certain combinations of military-style features, such as folding stocks, large magazines and flash suppressors.” It also cited arguments made by opponents of the ban that the so-called assault weapons actually fire smaller ammunition than some other rifles and that it is unconstitutional to ban a gun simply “because of how it looks.”

    Actually, the cited argument does not go far enough. The Second Amendment, in stating simply that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” does not make any exceptions whatsoever. The arms kept by the people at the time the amendment was written were the same as those used by the military of the day. The reason for the amendment was not to enforce the right to hunt or protect one’s home — however important those rights might be — but, rather, to guarantee the people’s ability to exercise a right enshrined in the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

    Obviously, a civilian population that is unarmed is not in a position to alter or abolish anything.

    If arms are being illegally exported to Mexico, then it is obvious that the U.S.-Mexican border is far from secure. Both nations need to do their part to secure the border. But it is each nation’s primary responsibility to secure its own border against people or objects crossing its borders in an inward direction.

    If Mexican drug cartels are arming themselves with weapons brought into the country illegally from the United States, then Mexico needs to devote more resources to stopping the flow. Maybe it should not be so quick to protest when the United States proposes building a more secure fence along the border, which would help both nations.

    As for the United States, the Constitution says little about the federal government’s role in maintaining our borders — primarily, it is to protect each state in the union against invasion. And since Congress is given the power to "lay and collect duties," some control over imports must be maintained to ensure that duties are paid and that contraband can be seized. A border secure enough to stem the invasion by illegal immigrants and to intercept smugglers would also benefit both nations.

    Working within the limits of the Constitution is more efficient (and more protective of our citizens’ rights) than going outside them.

    As for the treaty, since none of the other nations that are party to the "Inter-American Convention" share the protections afforded by our Second Amendment, to make our own law subject to the convention can only undermine our right to keep and bear arms.

    The text of the treaty is worded benignly enough, using such phrases as “REAFFIRMING the principles of sovereignty, nonintervention, and the juridical equality of states.” However, since the principles of firearms ownership embodied in our Second Amendment are unique in the world, any accommodation with nations that do not enjoy similar protections is bound to dilute our own government’s respect for the Second Amendment. Certain language in the treaty indicates that it views the right to keep and bear arms differently than Americans are accustomed to. For example, the treaty attempts to reassure its signatories that it “is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties.”

    But in the case of the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon our government’s definition of “lawful ownership” — it is a fundamental right. And that right is designed not merely to allow for “leisure or recreational activities” but as the last recourse of the citizenry against a government that becomes totalitarian.

    Also disturbing is the treaty’s references to international law and the United Nations. One place references “strengthening existing international law enforcement support mechanisms such as the International Weapons and Explosives Tracking System (IWETS) of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, [etc.]”

    And, for some unspecified reason that can only be construed as simple kowtowing to the UN, the treaty provides that copies of it “shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, which shall forward an authenticated copy of its text to the Secretariat of the United Nations for registration and publication, in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter.”

    If our borders are secure, we can police the importation of weapons from criminal or terrorist sources all on our own, without becoming entangled in international treaties that may dilute our right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

    Contact your Senators now, and let them know that we will not tolerate this!
    Regards, Rick

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array Rob P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In the sticks
    Posts
    631
    Ok, I don't get why you're upset.

    Obama is calling on Congress to ratify CIFTA which is a treaty prohibiting international shipment of military arms. It has NOTHING to do with the 2a or the AWB.

    The article clearly says that Obama would like to reinstate the AWB but that he recognizes that it isn't possible at this time. Further the article is pro 2a as it clearly (and for the first time as far as I know) states that a primary reason for the 2a is so that the people have the power to abolish & replace a corrupt government whereas an unarmed people have no power to do anything.

    A ban on international shipments of arms means nothing internally here in the US. AND, if the arms going into Mexico aren't from the US then we have nothing to worry about. If they are, then those dealers are breaking the law and should be caught and punished.

    So, I do not see what the hoopla is all about. Unless it's more of the some old "the sky is falling" stuff (which is what it looks/sounds like to me from here).

  4. #3
    Member Array Rickw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    44
    Lots of problems with this as I see it, but the most menacing aspect of it, in my opinion, is the reference to the U.N. and their Article 102 of the United Nations Charter. If I remember correctly, this is the same stuff that U.S. Ambassador Robert Bolten told the U.N to stuff it, that we were not signing on.
    Regards, Rick

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Ditto Rob...same thoughts. I also noted:

    "If arms are being illegally exported to Mexico, then it is obvious that the U.S.-Mexican border is far from secure. Both nations need to do their part to secure the border. But it is each nation’s primary responsibility to secure its own border against people or objects crossing its borders in an inward direction.

    If Mexican drug cartels are arming themselves with weapons brought into the country illegally from the United States, then Mexico needs to devote more resources to stopping the flow. Maybe it should not be so quick to protest when the United States proposes building a more secure fence along the border, which would help both nations."

    Rick

  6. #5
    Member Array JungleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So. Fla
    Posts
    311

    Thumbs down

    "I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years," Obama wrote in "Dreams From My Father," in a section of the book about his college days. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it."
    ================================================== =======================



    First he is part of the problem, now he is the solution? yea right

  7. #6
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,837
    Charter of the United Nations


    So, I do not see what the hoopla is all about. Unless it's more of the some old "the sky is falling" stuff (which is what it looks/sounds like to me from here).
    Don't feel bad, most people don't see it...and they wont until its too late.

    Lots of problems with this as I see it, but the most menacing aspect of it, in my opinion, is the reference to the U.N. and their Article 102 of the United Nations Charter. If I remember correctly, this is the same stuff that U.S. Ambassador Robert Bolten told the U.N to stuff it, that we were not signing on.
    Regards, Rick
    That is the real problem. Now we don't have those voices that are opposing anything that flys in the face of the U.S. Constitution.

    People will argue that the U.N. has no force or ability to enforce anything upon us, which is true. What is also fact, is that if our people are willing to "accept" a treaty with the U.N. then it becomes voluntarily imposed upon us by our own people.

    Now we know that the U.N. wants to eliminate private ownership of weapons world wide by the yea 2015.

    since the principles of firearms ownership embodied in our Second Amendment are unique in the world, any accommodation with nations that do not enjoy similar protections is bound to dilute our own government’s respect for the Second Amendment
    How much "respect" does our Government have for the second amendment right now?

    Most of them think it is ridiculous. One only needs to look at the actions of Obama,Biden,Pelosi,Clinton and Holder to see how their stance is on it. From where I am sitting it dosent look good.

    Since actions speak louder than words here, when a groups of socialists get together and tell me that they are working for my own good,some how it worries me. Anyone that isn't worried isn't paying attention.

    As for the treaty, since none of the other nations that are party to the "Inter-American Convention" share the protections afforded by our Second Amendment, to make our own law subject to the convention can only undermine our right to keep and bear arms
    Spot one. We can lose every right that we own by treaty, as surely as a nation wide attempt to register,ban and then colllect weapons...

    all in the name of safety.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  8. #7
    New Member Array flyingfinn51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2
    Living in California I was just happy to hear him say status quo for now. It is obvious that the drug cartels have limitless money to import any type of firearm they want, and not waste time with straw purchasers here in California.

    We have lost so many firearm rights in California. I am more afraid of Hillary than Obama. At least he realizes that to put a major ban on firearms and rights would seriously hurt the economy and the firearms industry. He already has his hands full with all the other bail-outs. Not to mention the public outcry that would result in ending his honeymoon period.

    But Hillary Clinton is not that bright and is so typical of liberals. She cannot see the forest for the trees. For her to apologize to Mexico for causing their problems was an insult to the USA. My dad fought in WWII, and he always taught me that the USA does not apologize to anyone when our freedoms are on the line.

    So our biggest fear is Hillary. We need to monitor this situation very closely and start contacting our congress persons now to let them know our feelings.

  9. #8
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,837
    So our biggest fear is Hillary
    Not really.

    Our biggest fear is this...
    Freedom from War (1961)

    STAGE III
    By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.

    The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
    (a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N Peace Force.
    (b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
    (c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.(d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

    Bold emphasis mine.

    Does anyone here think that their beloved firearms would be excluded? Or would the fact that most countries have already prohibited civilian ownership be pure coincidence?

    Notice the title of this document.

    Freedom From War
    The United States Program
    for General and Complete
    Disarmament in a Peaceful
    World


    signed by President John F. Kennedy

    This is nothing new. Its been going on for decades. The only thing that has changed is the opinions of those that we elected.
    Which tells me that we are screwed.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array First Sgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florence, SC
    Posts
    7,967
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Charter of the United Nations




    Don't feel bad, most people don't see it...and they wont until its too late.



    That is the real problem. Now we don't have those voices that are opposing anything that flys in the face of the U.S. Constitution.

    People will argue that the U.N. has no force or ability to enforce anything upon us, which is true. What is also fact, is that if our people are willing to "accept" a treaty with the U.N. then it becomes voluntarily imposed upon us by our own people.

    Now we know that the U.N. wants to eliminate private ownership of weapons world wide by the yea 2015.



    How much "respect" does our Government have for the second amendment right now?

    Most of them think it is ridiculous. One only needs to look at the actions of Obama,Biden,Pelosi,Clinton and Holder to see how their stance is on it. From where I am sitting it dosent look good.

    Since actions speak louder than words here, when a groups of socialists get together and tell me that they are working for my own good,some how it worries me. Anyone that isn't worried isn't paying attention.



    Spot one. We can lose every right that we own by treaty, as surely as a nation wide attempt to register,ban and then colllect weapons...

    all in the name of safety.
    +1 AMEN ....Well said...Wake up people!
    Sometimes in life you have to stand your ground. It's a hard lesson to learn and even most adults don't get it, but in the end only I can be responsible for my life. If faced with any type of adversity, only I can overcome it. Waiting for someone else to take responsibility is a long fruitless wait.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,629
    Why would the UN want to get laws abolishing private citizens from owning guns, no private citizens have started any wars. Maybe they should work on controlling countries 'getting' nuclear weapons.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array rhinokrk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Charter of the United Nations




    Don't feel bad, most people don't see it...and they wont until its too late.



    That is the real problem. Now we don't have those voices that are opposing anything that flys in the face of the U.S. Constitution.

    People will argue that the U.N. has no force or ability to enforce anything upon us, which is true. What is also fact, is that if our people are willing to "accept" a treaty with the U.N. then it becomes voluntarily imposed upon us by our own people.

    Now we know that the U.N. wants to eliminate private ownership of weapons world wide by the yea 2015.



    How much "respect" does our Government have for the second amendment right now?

    Most of them think it is ridiculous. One only needs to look at the actions of Obama,Biden,Pelosi,Clinton and Holder to see how their stance is on it. From where I am sitting it dosent look good.

    Since actions speak louder than words here, when a groups of socialists get together and tell me that they are working for my own good,some how it worries me. Anyone that isn't worried isn't paying attention.



    Spot one. We can lose every right that we own by treaty, as surely as a nation wide attempt to register,ban and then colllect weapons...

    all in the name of safety.
    Amen, FWIW, google 'rex 84'

    Forgot to add....

    .
    .
    .
    v
    Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
    Get the U.S. out of the U.N.

  13. #12
    Senior Member
    Array Landor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    636
    I think a lot of gun owners do not truly understand how much danger the definition of the second amendment is in. They and I mean the libs and antis are going after it from all directions. Just as they are now using Mexico as a backdoor to get what they want they will little by little change the definition of the second amendment over time. A lot of gun owners will just right this off and say something like. It will never pass the house, or it is against the constitution. Like those have EVER stopped our government before. Remember Katrina. Sure they fixed it, after it was done. There are a lot of gun owners living in denial. Sorry guys but you are.

  14. #13
    Distinguished Member Array TerriLi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,231
    Ive learned one thing, its happened everytime one step follows the other.
    Register the firearms, this leads to confiscation, this leads to mass killing. Oh yeah, Im not talking about single nutjobs, Im talking thousands to millions.
    Can anyone list a country that hasnt followed this chain to me?
    Thus we have 2A.
    I know not what this "overkill" means.

    Honing the knives, Cleaning the longguns, Stocking up ammo.

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Charter of the United Nations
    Don't feel bad, most people don't see it...and they wont until its too late.
    Now we know that the U.N. wants to eliminate private ownership of weapons world wide by the yea 2015.

    How much "respect" does our Government have for the second amendment right now?

    Most of them think it is ridiculous. One only needs to look at the actions of Obama,Biden,Pelosi,Clinton and Holder to see how their stance is on it. From where I am sitting it dosent look good.
    Spot on HotGuns.
    I don't and never will trust the U.N. It's naive and ignorant for them to want to disarm all of the 'West'. As it stands England is now hardly more than a country of wimps as the people there have allowed their government to seize their weapons and even their right to defend themselves. They're even losing their rights of free speech, as well as most of Europe. They will soon lose their countries and heritage also if they don't wise up.

    As far as those in our government that have little respect for our 2nd amendment and our Constitution, you forgot to mention Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens.



    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,004
    England, a nation of second-rate citizens:
    Quote Originally Posted by Gill Marshall-Andrews, Gun Control Network
    "It becomes quite clear that, if we want a safer society with lower gun violence, then you've got to reduce your gun ownership."
    What such thugs leave unstated is: you won't reduce violence by criminals until you either (a) eliminate criminals or (b) eliminate the ability of criminals to harm others. Disarming victims before crime strikes can NEVER result in fewer victims.

    America ... a nation of second-rate citizens? Damned right we will be, if we dare allow political hacks to dictate our liberties as has been done in Australia and England.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Do you approve of the job President Obama is doing?
    By onetuza in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2009, 09:13 AM
  2. CIFTA treaty :the Obama backdoor gun control
    By Horsetrader in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2009, 01:21 PM

Search tags for this page

do all states in america require gun registration

,

obama to require gun registration

,

president pre- written gun ban and registration of firearms to un ited nation

,

savage arms 78483

,

un gun registration

Click on a term to search for related topics.