Mr. T Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 United Nations Small Arms (Gun Confiscation) Treaty to be Ratified by the US Senate in 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8FzkVRh7Ck&feature=youtube_gdata_player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 How about a Seventh Nation Army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 The person Dobbs was interviewing made lol. "Obama is bypassing the constitution"...30 secs later it would require a 2/3rds majority to ratify a treaty in the senate..isn't that following the constitution? There are reasons our country has checks and balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 after reading most of the proposed trearty http://www.poa-iss.org/poa/poahtml.aspx this is the only issue I see(see below), it would need to be clarified to what extent they are intending. The rest of treaty deals more in the illict trade export/import of illegal small arms. The rest that would directly affects the US is already in place and are likely being preformed by the ATF. "2. To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons, in order to prevent illegal manufacture of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, or their diversion to unauthorized recipients. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Rep. Walsh to UN: No Gun Control Treaties Friday, 02 December 2011 00:00 Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) has drafted a bill that would block U.S. funding to the United Nations if it seeks to implement gun control measures affecting U.S. citizens. Despite victories by gun owners in elections and legislative battles throughout the country in recent years, on the international front gun control is moving quickly. Most significantly, in 2012 the UN plans to release a final draft of the Arms Trade Treaty—a treaty that will have severe consequences for American gun owners. Meetings are held behind close doors, but from information gathered by GOA we believe that the ATT will, at the very least, require gun owner registration and microstamping of ammunition. The ATT will define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds an accessory such as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license. It would also likely include a ban on many semi-automatic firearms (like the Clinton gun ban) and demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms. President Obama, not surprisingly, welcomes the treaty. He knows that he is unlikely to get such radical proposals through the Congress, so the UN provides him a backdoor way to enact gun control. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is also on board and began pushing for the treaty as soon as she was confirmed in her position. “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area,” she said. Since treaties must be ratified by the Senate, GOA is working continually to buck up weak-kneed Senators who might be pressured to ratify the treaty. But the House, which controls the nations’ purse strings, can also play a role in killing the ATT (or any other anti-gun treaty, for that matter). Rep. Joe Walsh’s legislation will cut U.S. funding to the UN if the international body imposes any restrictions on Americans’ gun rights. This is a huge deal, because without the contributions of the United States, the UN would be crippled financially. According to government reports, U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget and 27 percent of its “peacekeeping” budget. American gun owners, in other words, are funding the organization that wants to do away with the Second Amendment! Rep. Walsh is putting the UN on notice: back off our gun rights. Entitled the “The Second Amendment Protection Act of 2011,” Rep. Walsh is now seeking original cosponsors to join him in the House. He plans to introduce the bill within the next week. Rep. Walsh highlights for his House colleagues the necessity of his proposal, noting that: •It is the constitutional power of Congress to determine United States foreign policy through the ratification of international treaties; •U.S. Presidents, by signing on to treaties, have opened the door for international organizations to unilaterally regulate the lives of citizens of the United States; •International and transnational organizations force their rules on people of the United States through conventions, multilateral agreements, and nonratified treaties, such as agreements that affect the private ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens; and •United States sovereignty is risked by domestic legal applicability of international treaties and executive agreements that have not been voted on and congressionally adopted through formal processes. Let’s help Rep. Joe Walsh get as many cosponsors as possible. In the process, we’ll find out how many Representatives are willing to stand up to the behemoth United Nations in defense of the Second Amendment. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 "10. States are encouraged to consider international cooperation and assistance to examine technologies that would improve the tracing and detection of illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, as well as measures to facilitate the transfer of such technologies. 13. States are encouraged, subject to their national practices, to enhance, according to their respective constitutional and legal systems, mutual legal assistance and other forms of cooperation in order to assist investigations and prosecutions in relation to the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. 14. Upon request, States and appropriate international or regional organizations in a position to do so should provide assistance in the destruction or other responsible disposal of surplus stocks or unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons" http://www.poa-iss.org/poa/poahtml.aspx Not sure where micro-stamping is coming from? Maybe the states are encouraged to enhance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Not sure where micro-stamping is coming from? Maybe the states are encouraged to enhance? I believe that is some crazy utopian ideal they have on adding a serial number to every bullet manufactured. That is why they stated that all surpluses of ammunition would have to be destroyed. This treaty is over reaching in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 I believe that is some crazy utopian ideal they have on adding a serial number to every bullet manufactured. That is why they stated that all surpluses of ammunition would have to be destroyed. This treaty is over reaching in my opinion. Could you imagine the cost per bullet? I doubt something like that would be happening. I am going to disagree where you think its over reaching, imo many of the things listed are already in place with in the US, the only concern for me would be the actual implementation of the #2 that I listed above, considering gun control is mostly at the state level, how would the US comply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 How would Alabama comply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 So much of the UN doesn't understand our Constitution, apparently. Or, like Obamao, they do and they hate it. When some group tries to solve a problem by mandating the removal and collection of arms and ammo.... there's serious worry as to why they are. The Obamao regime, especially Holder, implemented "Fast and Furious" to force the fraudulent point against gun owners in our country. ... Okay, NOW I think I should be allowed to have a machine gun, dammit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yes... let's blindly follow a 200+ year old document Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yes, let's open our eyes and stay free. If you want to be having the state bathe you every morning, you are very much in a tiny minority. I hope you learn how to actually THINK before you graduate, kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 So much of the UN doesn't understand our Constitution, apparently. Or, like Obamao, they do and they hate it. When some group tries to solve a problem by mandating the removal and collection of arms and ammo.... there's serious worry as to why they are. The Obamao regime, especially Holder, implemented "Fast and Furious" to force the fraudulent point against gun owners in our country. ... Okay, NOW I think I should be allowed to have a machine gun, dammit. ummm yeah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner while "operation Fast and Furious" was what people remmeber, the project had been in place since 2006. I must have read a different treaty, the one I read focused on the buying/trading/destruction of illegal small arms, and like I said before most of the are allready in place in the US, the only thing we don't have is a national standard on what is considered legal/illegal, currently each state has their own set of laws and regulations, and if we would try to make an ammendment we would need 2/3rds of the states to approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Seriously, where did my posts go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 The diffence in the program as run under Bush, and the very different and irresponsible program run under obamao = the latter was intended to prove a political point about our 2nd Amendment and Obamao's disgust with gun ownership. http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/11/the-difference-between-bushs-wide-receive-and-obamas-fast-and-furious/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.