Jump to content

The UN Arms Trade Treaty


Recommended Posts

This is going to really start serious grief in this country. Thanks GOODNESS for President Bush and Ambassador John Bolton,

because now we have a president and Ambassador who will be all too happy to try to start taking down private gun ownership in our own United States.

We're in big, big trouble with this corrupt, leftist machine that was supposed to "bring us all together" and

"make us loved in the world" and was going to make us all wealthy with "hope and change".

The upside is, Obamao hasn't tried genocide yet as a solution...

but go listen to the FBI agent talk about being in a meeting undercover with Bill Ayers and the weatherman underground.

Those weathermen coldly talked about having to "eliminate" millions of Americans who would not be "re-educated"

And Obamao is a FRIEND of Bill Ayers


Two major meetings, possibly affecting American gun owners' rights, will occur at the United Nations (UN) in New York over the next several weeks. They are the Fourth Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms in all its Aspects, ("BMS4") June 14-18, and the Arms Trade Treaty Preparatory Committee ("ATT Prep. Com.") July 12-23. The NRA will be fully and actively involved in these meetings.

The BMS4 is a continuation of the so-called "Programme of Action" (POA) adopted by the UN at a conference in 2001. Anti-gun groups saw the original POA as a vehicle for UN gun bans, registration schemes and other radical proposals. The U.S., through the efforts of Ambassador John Bolton, forced the removal of provisions targeting privately-owned firearms from the POA. It was not able to stop the POA itself, and the UN holds "Biennial" meetings every two years to keep the POA alive. Heavily-funded anti-gun groups will again attempt to get the UN and its member states to target the right to arms at the BMS4. A Mexican diplomat will chair the meeting and Mexico, which blames its crime problems on the U.S., is now pushing for more gun control in America. Anti-gun, anti-U.S. measures could well be on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Vapor, that was HILARIOUS, LOL.




"The U.S., through the efforts of Ambassador John Bolton, forced the removal of provisions targeting privately-owned firearms from the POA. "


It is what the UN has in mind. That is the kind of control the UN has in mind.


I think it would be better if they wanted to disarm countries liike Pakistan, but no, they don't care about that.


Seems it's the WESTERN countries they are interested in.


... @@....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, USA>UN, we all know what kind of control the UN has over us. Secondly, do you really, truly believe that Obama is going to take away private gun ownership? If there's one intangible measurement that makes a difference to our national security, it's private ownership of weapons. Even if some how, some way, a nation like China or Russia happens to bring their army to US soil, they're going to have to deal with a heavily armed civilian population. Anywhere you want to move troops throughout the US, there will be people taking potshots at them, whether it's thugs from the cities, farmers from rural areas, and all sorts of people in between. IMO, it's suicide for anyone to even think they could occupy the United States. We are going to keep our guns. This seems like a non-issue to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vapor, just a point of clarification (and no I don't think our police/military would be able to go this far), but the UN law trumps US law due to some provision entered into a long while ago. Sorry, too lazy to look it up now, but there is a mutual compact agreement of some sort that declares UN laws are the ruling law of its members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they won't be successful if they did try to take our guns.


But the movement is huge by the UN.


They could simply put a tax on buying them, or registering them...


to an outrageous amount, then by using economics as a weapon,


they could price gun ownership out of existence as much as possible,


and then it would be far easier to outlaw them altogether.




Israel and our U.S. should get out of the U.N. now. It is useless,


and it is so corrupt you would be shocked.


Read this book "The U.N. EXPOSED, how the United Nations sabotages American security, and

fails the world"


by Eric Shawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what both of you guys are saying, but I'd say the US would sooner leave the UN than give up the second amendment or go along with any type of workaround that prevents people from owning weapons.


Not sure why you included Israel in your response, cal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



This site cites a part in the resolution's preamble.


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…


Actual draft for the resolution http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/ATT_1com09_draft.pdf


It's right there on the first page. I don't think this argument holds much water to it, but I really haven't looked into it much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Obama clearly supports the ban of owning guns by cities, to get around our Constitution.

Which, makes no sense whatsoever, just like Obamao.


Obama Very Much Anti-Gun

April 4, 2008



obamayesno.jpgTalk is cheap and in an election year candidates are famous for promising the world and delivering on nothing promised. Ever since the debate began on the landmark case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the candidates have, for the most part, avoided much discussion about the case, only to say they support an individual’s right to own a gun.


Heading down the stretch in Pennsylvania’s democratic primary, the issue of guns might have a significant role. While Philadelphia is trying to create similar gun laws, like those in Washington, D.C., the Keystone state has over one million licensed hunters and far more gun owners. Where the candidates stack up on gun issues could determine the outcome of the primary and perhaps even the presidency, as history has shown us.


According to PittsburghLive.com, all three candidates state they are for an individual right to own a gun. All three candidates also have expressed support of a ban on assault weapons and oppose a national registry. But Obama came out and made a statement that can only be taken as a huge blunder on his part, but at least now we know the truth.


“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”


Not only does this reveal he is not a Second Amendment person but shows his real ignorance of facts. His statement that people carrying concealed creates a potential atmosphere where innocent people get hurt is absurd and is not based on any facts only on emotion spawned by ignorance.


Sandy Froman, past president of the NRA, in an article at TownHall.com, reveals more about the blundering Obama who is exposing himself as being an extreme left liberal who touts regulations and limiting individual freedoms. In a recent interview, he shows that he supports the Washington, D.C. gun ban.


“There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation. ……….“I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws . . . the City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C.†He went on, “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate
gun safety
laws . . . isn’t borne out by our Constitution.â€


Froman also refreshes our memories and teaches many of us unknowing readers for the first time, that in 1996, Obama filled out a candidates’ questionnaire. In that questionnaire, he was asked if he was in favor of legislation to, “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” Unlike most politicians who never come right out and answer a question, Obama’s answer was one three-letter word.




Enough said.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...