U.N. Gun Ban Treaty
Well I can't say I know a whole lot about it,but from what I did hear,it's seems to be one sneaky back stabbing tactic by our great President Obama Against this country and our second amendment!
He has sent Hilliary Clinton personally to vote yes for the U.S. in favor of a U.N. Gun Ban.If enough Countries vote yea,the U.S. would be in violation of international law to have any citizens armed whether they have a second amendment or not,any Gun Manufacturer world wide that supplies parts or guns to anyone other then a military installation would also be in violation and immediately shut down!
In this way our great President could disarm the U.S. under International law and try to place the blame back on the citizens saying it was there choice to be members of the U.N,it was not his doing,but what the people wanted! The U.N. has been using our country for yrs,I think its time we wake up and get out of this corrupt organization before it 's to late if it isn't to late already.
This topic has been posted about many times and is not true. Read below.
International Gun Ban Treaty?
December 5, 2009
Bookmark and Share
Q: Has Obama found a "legal way around the Second Amendment"?
A: The administration’s agreement to talk about writing a United Nations treaty to regulate arms exports and imports is a far cry from banning possession of firearms, which Obama says he doesn’t want to do and the Supreme Court has said can’t be done anyway.
Is this correct?
Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd. Amendment and Uses It. The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015
Subject: Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its 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.
We’ve received many queries about this chain e-mail, which refers to a proposed United Nations treaty to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons.
Much of what this e-mail claims is simply false. A "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" isn’t possible under our Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which held just last year that:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 26 June 2008: (T)he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.
Furthermore, if an arms trade treaty ever materializes, the administration won’t be able to "bypass" Congress, as the e-mail maintains. All international treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before they are considered ratified and in effect.
In addition, the idea that a treaty necessarily would make U.S. citizens "subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," as the e-mail claims, is wrong. Treaties don’t subject one nations’ citizens to the laws of other nations. They do commit governments to whatever actions a treaty specifies, such as ceasing to test nuclear weapons, in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear test Ban Treaty (a treaty signed by the U.S., but never ratified by Congress).
As for this particular treaty: First of all, it doesn’t yet exist. What is true is that the Obama administration, reversing the line taken by the Bush White House, has voted to support a process that could, in 2012 at the earliest, result in a treaty.
The idea of achieving an international agreement on trade in conventional arms has long been kicking around, and in 2006 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution titled "Toward an arms trade treaty." The measure instructed the UN secretary-general to get the views of all member states on "the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." A panel of "governmental experts" was tasked with providing advice as well. The resolution was approved 153-1, the only dissenter being the U.S.
Then in 2008, the General Assembly passed another resolution, this one calling for further efforts toward an arms trade treaty (ATT) through a new open-ended working group. Again, the U.S. provided the only vote against the measure.
Since President Obama took office, though, the U.S. has been more receptive to the notion. In mid-October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying: "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons." And on Oct. 28, the General Assembly voted 153-1 to move forward in preparation for a United Nations conference on the arms trade treaty in 2012 that could yield a formal document. This time, Zimbabwe was the lone naysayer (19 nations abstained).
Some critics of the concept of an arms trade treaty say they believe, like the author of the e-mail above, that it’s a back-door avenue to gun control. In fact, suspicions that the UN wants to seize Americans’ guns have been circulating since the mid-1990s. Those fears dovetail with trepidations that some have about Obama on this issue. John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, recently told the NRANews:
Bolton, Nov. 6: The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control. After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it … requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.
That’s Bolton’s opinion. The fact is that a provision in the resolution’s preamble – included at the request of the U.S. – explicitly recognizes the right of nations to regulate gun sales and ownership within their borders, including through their constitutions:
UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…
Isnt this what Hitler did when he was in power, get ready for the revolution "From my cold dead hands "
Ain't goin' ta' be happinen' here, down South...:comeandgetsome: :comeandgetsome: :nono:
Besides, 38 states(I believe) would have to ratify any Treaty to become an effective law.:hand1::banned:
would just start a civil war my guns aint goin anywhere and i got the ammo to prove it
Shouldn't the UN (Useless Nations) be throwing rocks at some rogue country like North Korea and Iran?
The Blue Helmets, take my 2nd Amendment Right?
Did any of you read the first reply?
Whether the effort fails or not, the point is that the UN would be happy if America was disarmed!
The UN is by far one of the most corrupt organizations in the world.
People often forget the nature of man particularly as it relates to goverance: that he is susceptible to corruption and greed. The founders were quite aware of this.
Guys, read rottkeeper's post. Then reference torgo's and read rottkeeper's post a second time. We've been down this road several times in the last few months.
Amen to this!:hand10:
Originally Posted by BAC
OK , The problem with rottkeepers post is that while this would not take away ALL GUNS Immediately; It would however pave the way for the weasels to begin a more formal assault on OUR rights as a collective whole.
Did they ban smoking on planes right off the bat? NO, all H E Double hockey sticks would have broke out, but incrementally they whittled away until it was achieved. First it was, Can't smoke on flights less than 3 hrs. Then it was Cross country, while cross continent and flights to Hi. were acceptable to still smoke. And now it is a complete smoking ban.
I am not here to support or admonish the merits of smoking, merely showing how these matters transpire over time
If something "goes without saying," why do people still say it?
Gradualism - that way no one really knows the real intent until - FREEDOM is taken away in the end. This from the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals Book", one of Barack Obama's favorites list.
Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Satan.
Originally Posted by rottkeeper
Originally Posted by SIGguy229
Originally Posted by BAC
Use the report post feature please. Adding your two sense about how this has been rehashed does nothing but bump the thread up on new posts
Originally Posted by Guardian
If you report it we can close/merge as needed.