US will sign gun control treaty on July 27th
07-06-2012 | 04:26 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Banned
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Lake View Terrace, CA
US will sign gun control treaty on July 27th
Watch This Video If You Give The Smallest Amount Of Crap About Your Second Amendment Rights
Written by Daisy // July 6, 2012 // Constitutionocity // 19 Comments
This is the sort of thing that really pisses me off, you guys. It’s the behind-the-scenes, weasel-y political power plays that make me want to punch some bureaucrat in the face.
Obama and pals are about to sign away your freedoms. AGAIN.
In this case, it’s the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). And this Treaty will be signed by Obama and Hillary Clinton, in New York City, on July 27th. Yes, this month. The ATT will make the United States participate in this bogus agreement among UN “member nations” with the intent to regulate “arms traffic.” Keep in mind this isn’t GOVERNMENT arms traffic, but INDIVIDUAL arms traffic. Because God knows that the government isn’t held accountable for jack squat, and we all know that government believes it’s better than you, you stupid minion.
Basically, the UN will have the authority to tell “member nations to adopt policies” to facilitate any regulations they see fit. Registration, bans on certain kinds of guns, etc. You know. GUN CONTROL.
And before you say, “aw…it’s just the UN, Daisy. This is just a stupid piece of paper and means nothing to me and my rights as an American citizen,” you may want to understand the FINALITY that encompasses a Treaty. You see, treaties – such as this piece of crap – take precedence OVER YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. I’ll repeat that. YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE NULL AND VOID next to this Treaty. The Treaty rules. That’s the way treaties work.
And to think that Obama and Hillary are doing this behind your back. NO WAY.
There’s a petition on Dick Morris’ site to oppose this PIECE OF CRAP. I also encourage you to send this to as many people as you can and get the word out, since the lamestream media won’t be saying one word about this or their Dear Leader.
Unfreakinbelievable.
Watch This Video If You Give The Smallest Amount Of Crap About Your Second Amendment Rights | Chicks on the Right
US Will Sign Gun Control Treaty on July 27! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT! - YouTube
Written by Daisy // July 6, 2012 // Constitutionocity // 19 Comments
This is the sort of thing that really pisses me off, you guys. It’s the behind-the-scenes, weasel-y political power plays that make me want to punch some bureaucrat in the face.
Obama and pals are about to sign away your freedoms. AGAIN.
In this case, it’s the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). And this Treaty will be signed by Obama and Hillary Clinton, in New York City, on July 27th. Yes, this month. The ATT will make the United States participate in this bogus agreement among UN “member nations” with the intent to regulate “arms traffic.” Keep in mind this isn’t GOVERNMENT arms traffic, but INDIVIDUAL arms traffic. Because God knows that the government isn’t held accountable for jack squat, and we all know that government believes it’s better than you, you stupid minion.
Basically, the UN will have the authority to tell “member nations to adopt policies” to facilitate any regulations they see fit. Registration, bans on certain kinds of guns, etc. You know. GUN CONTROL.
And before you say, “aw…it’s just the UN, Daisy. This is just a stupid piece of paper and means nothing to me and my rights as an American citizen,” you may want to understand the FINALITY that encompasses a Treaty. You see, treaties – such as this piece of crap – take precedence OVER YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. I’ll repeat that. YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE NULL AND VOID next to this Treaty. The Treaty rules. That’s the way treaties work.
And to think that Obama and Hillary are doing this behind your back. NO WAY.
There’s a petition on Dick Morris’ site to oppose this PIECE OF CRAP. I also encourage you to send this to as many people as you can and get the word out, since the lamestream media won’t be saying one word about this or their Dear Leader.
Unfreakinbelievable.
Watch This Video If You Give The Smallest Amount Of Crap About Your Second Amendment Rights | Chicks on the Right
US Will Sign Gun Control Treaty on July 27! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT! - YouTube
07-06-2012 | 07:08 PM
#3
Former Superchicken Owner
SuperBike
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,607
From: Ft. Worth, TX
a FEW COMMENTS FROM THE National Rifle Association’s Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre AS HE addressed the United Nations this afternoon.
He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S.
He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership.
It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation – civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.
It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone’s right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.
Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss if I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.
To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate – the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.
So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this – rejecting a proposed treaty before it’s even submitted for consideration – but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection – infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.
The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.
Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.
He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S.
He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership.
It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation – civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.
It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone’s right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.
Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss if I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.
To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate – the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.
So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this – rejecting a proposed treaty before it’s even submitted for consideration – but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection – infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.
The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.
Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.
07-06-2012 | 10:21 PM
#5
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 211
From: Hagerstown, MD
The UN and Obama need to take their heads out of their bum holes and focus on real life problems. No one cares for their pursuit of power and control. Come clean, just say you prefer communism so we can revolt and stabilize this pile. Its been repeated in every major superpower in history, I fail to see why we are so "Exempt" and afraid.
Going to be a shitty 20 years I imagine.
Going to be a shitty 20 years I imagine.
07-07-2012 | 02:19 AM
#6
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
From: Essex, UK
How does an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) effect your right domestically to arm yourselves like, if you so wish, like Rambo? It seems to be that the ATT could infringe on the US Military–industrial complex exporting weapons *****-nilly...
United Nations Official Document
Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)
United Nations Official Document
Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms
IV. Feasibility of a comprehensive legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms
18. It was also mentioned that, were an arms trade treaty to be considered feasible, it would need to reflect respect for the sovereignty of every State, without interfering in the internal affairs of States or their constitutional provisions, and respect for their territorial integrity. Exclusively internal transfers or national ownership provisions, including national constitutional protections on private ownership within that State’s territory, should not fall under an arms trade treaty.
IV. Feasibility of a comprehensive legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms
18. It was also mentioned that, were an arms trade treaty to be considered feasible, it would need to reflect respect for the sovereignty of every State, without interfering in the internal affairs of States or their constitutional provisions, and respect for their territorial integrity. Exclusively internal transfers or national ownership provisions, including national constitutional protections on private ownership within that State’s territory, should not fall under an arms trade treaty.
Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)
Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)
ATT Latest
Negotiations on an ATT are set to begin at the United Nations in New York on 2 July and will run for 4 weeks... Where countries have expressed concerns about a Treaty, we have listened and worked with them to address those concerns, work that will continue during July’s negotiations.
What will it do?
The Treaty will not be:
A disarmament treaty
Concerned with domestic or national policies on gun ownership
Intended to affect any state’s sovereign right to self-defence and its acquisition of arms to do so
Intended to affect the right of a state to decide nationally on their arms export controls.
How would an ATT work?
Each state would remain in control of its arms export control arrangements, but would be legally obliged to undertake a risk assessment on applications to export arms covered by an ATT, against the criteria agreed under the Treaty.
The criteria would be based on existing obligations and commitments to prevent human rights abuse, uphold international humanitarian law, and to promote stability, prosperity and security.
States would have to assess and authorise export licenses in advance
Progress towards an ATT
In October 2008, the UK and the six original co-authors introduced a Resolution in the UN calling for further detailed work in 2009 on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
116 countries agreed to co-sponsor the Resolution – this means they fully supported the text of the Resolution and wanted to be associated with it.
On 31 October 2008, the vote in the UNGA First Committee confirmed the overwhelming level of support for work towards an ATT. 88% of States present, totalling 147 countries, voted in favour. 18 states abstained from voting and only two, the US and Zimbabwe, voted against. (Ouch!)
ATT Latest
Negotiations on an ATT are set to begin at the United Nations in New York on 2 July and will run for 4 weeks... Where countries have expressed concerns about a Treaty, we have listened and worked with them to address those concerns, work that will continue during July’s negotiations.
What will it do?
The Treaty will not be:
A disarmament treaty
Concerned with domestic or national policies on gun ownership
Intended to affect any state’s sovereign right to self-defence and its acquisition of arms to do so
Intended to affect the right of a state to decide nationally on their arms export controls.
How would an ATT work?
Each state would remain in control of its arms export control arrangements, but would be legally obliged to undertake a risk assessment on applications to export arms covered by an ATT, against the criteria agreed under the Treaty.
The criteria would be based on existing obligations and commitments to prevent human rights abuse, uphold international humanitarian law, and to promote stability, prosperity and security.
States would have to assess and authorise export licenses in advance
Progress towards an ATT
In October 2008, the UK and the six original co-authors introduced a Resolution in the UN calling for further detailed work in 2009 on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
116 countries agreed to co-sponsor the Resolution – this means they fully supported the text of the Resolution and wanted to be associated with it.
On 31 October 2008, the vote in the UNGA First Committee confirmed the overwhelming level of support for work towards an ATT. 88% of States present, totalling 147 countries, voted in favour. 18 states abstained from voting and only two, the US and Zimbabwe, voted against. (Ouch!)
Last edited by Wicky; 07-07-2012 at 02:35 AM.
07-07-2012 | 02:24 AM
#7
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
From: Essex, UK
This made me chuckle 
BBC News - Are Iranians banned from buying iPads?
BBC News - Are Iranians banned from buying iPads?
The US sanctions do not restrict sales of products to Iranians living in the US, says John Sullivan, a spokesman for the US Treasury.
"There is absolutely no US policy or law that would prohibit Apple or any other company from selling its products in the US to anyone intending to use the product in the US, including Iranians and Persian speakers," he said.
But Apple could expose itself to legal liability if it sold consumer products in the US knowing they would be sent to Iran, said Farhad Alavi, a Washington lawyer who specialises in international trade.
"The mere fact that a potential customer speaks Persian or Korean is not and cannot in and of itself be sufficient to deduce that those customers will take the goods to Iran or North Korea," Mr Alavi said.
"There is absolutely no US policy or law that would prohibit Apple or any other company from selling its products in the US to anyone intending to use the product in the US, including Iranians and Persian speakers," he said.
But Apple could expose itself to legal liability if it sold consumer products in the US knowing they would be sent to Iran, said Farhad Alavi, a Washington lawyer who specialises in international trade.
"The mere fact that a potential customer speaks Persian or Korean is not and cannot in and of itself be sufficient to deduce that those customers will take the goods to Iran or North Korea," Mr Alavi said.
07-07-2012 | 02:38 AM
#8
Thread Starter
Banned
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Lake View Terrace, CA
The trouble with the treaty is not what is in the treaty, but the actions that the US (and the rest of the world) must do to honor the treaty. One part requires every gun that is found in violent areas of the world to be “traced”. That is needed to track down who sent the gun to the area. The trouble with that is that it would require a registry of all guns purchased and transferred in the US. That is considered unconstitutional. Though as this states and is explained here a "treaty" can remove our Constitutional rights http://law.onecle.com/constitution/a...-the-land.html
Also, all ammo must be traced. That is impossible unless citizens are banned from having ammo. Even micro stamping ammo will not trace a cartridge since they are easily recycled through reloading.
There is some doubt to the actual meaning of “manufacturing” since it could mean changing barrels of a gun, or building a new gun from spare parts, or even adding features to a gun.
You need to study the treaty and go beyond it’s actual language. You need to think about WHAT is really necessary to reach the UN’s goals.
So is it gun control or an illegal trade agreement?
Also, all ammo must be traced. That is impossible unless citizens are banned from having ammo. Even micro stamping ammo will not trace a cartridge since they are easily recycled through reloading.
There is some doubt to the actual meaning of “manufacturing” since it could mean changing barrels of a gun, or building a new gun from spare parts, or even adding features to a gun.
You need to study the treaty and go beyond it’s actual language. You need to think about WHAT is really necessary to reach the UN’s goals.
So is it gun control or an illegal trade agreement?
07-07-2012 | 03:14 AM
#9
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
From: Essex, UK
Nothing about self-imposed 'registry' in the link you provided.
What's going on in principle I believe, is what I read about on the Channel Isles in WW2 which was the only part of Britain occupied by the Germans. They initially ordered the Islands' authorities to get the few Jews on the Isles to register as such - innocent enough, but then once ID'd the Germans ratcheted up the strictures... beginning with badges, restrictions on movement onto the eventual deportation you know where.
Do you fear the registration of guns (like in California* IIRC) as a beginning of something else more ominous? Wether by the UN indirectly or as a consequence by the US Government - Though by definition haven't you already got the guns to overcome such imposed system you see as threat to your constitutional rights, and why hasn't any state gone up in arms when registration was made mandatory?
*All handgun serial numbers and sales are recorded by the state (registered) in the Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms System.
What's going on in principle I believe, is what I read about on the Channel Isles in WW2 which was the only part of Britain occupied by the Germans. They initially ordered the Islands' authorities to get the few Jews on the Isles to register as such - innocent enough, but then once ID'd the Germans ratcheted up the strictures... beginning with badges, restrictions on movement onto the eventual deportation you know where.
Do you fear the registration of guns (like in California* IIRC) as a beginning of something else more ominous? Wether by the UN indirectly or as a consequence by the US Government - Though by definition haven't you already got the guns to overcome such imposed system you see as threat to your constitutional rights, and why hasn't any state gone up in arms when registration was made mandatory?
*All handgun serial numbers and sales are recorded by the state (registered) in the Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms System.
07-07-2012 | 08:19 AM
#10
Former Superchicken Owner
SuperBike
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,607
From: Ft. Worth, TX
.......Do you fear the registration of guns (like in California* IIRC) as a beginning of something else more ominous? Wether by the UN indirectly or as a consequence by the US Government - Though by definition haven't you already got the guns to overcome such imposed system you see as threat to your constitutional rights, and why hasn't any state gone up in arms when registration was made mandatory?
*All handgun serial numbers and sales are recorded by the state (registered) in the Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms System.
*All handgun serial numbers and sales are recorded by the state (registered) in the Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms System.
That is exactly the fear. To control it you have to know where they are first.
We don't "register" guns in my state, either by serial number, type OR owner.
07-08-2012 | 01:33 PM
#11
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,926
From: Bisbee, AZ
There is lots of points to comment on. One is that the constitution has in the past been a problem for our elected and the ones that pull their strings. That "problem" has almost been completely taken care of. The Patriot Act is one that comes to mind. Murder and detainment of U.S. citizens anywhere in the world without due process, including on U.S. soil is another. Now our elected officials want to give the ability to a foreign power to over-ride our constitutionally acknowledged freedoms. "It's the treaty, not us" they will say. Seems there is an oath of office that that speaks of this sort of treason.
So there is no misunderstanding. I don't like Obama, the people he has surrounded himself with, the Clintons', or the Bushs' and the majority of the 300 some odd elected in the US congress. There is only as many members of said bodies as can be counted on one hand that are talking about the real issues. Those few have lost or will lose their seats this next election cycle.
When hot button issues like this and others come up, people start pointing fingers and yelling about how the other team is doing bad things. There is only one team in Washington DC and they no longer work for us. They work for the corporations that pour money into their pockets. Where do you think loyalty lies?
Which brings up another important truth about this and other highly charged emotional issues. That it is political theater. Distractions, slight of hand, subterfuge, and a lot of the time out-right lies. Divide and conquer. If the peasants are stirred up, fearful, ignorant, fighting amongst themselves they will accept anything the elected officials offer as solutions to problems they themselves created. Think of it this way, if the elected really wanted the situation in this country and else where for that matter to be better then it would be so. But it's not, and you have to ask yourself why. Oh yeah, you can't blame the poor, the race that your not, the third world, etc.
I know that to some this is old news, to some it's reinforcing what is suspect, and some will reject it altogether and label it with a name that suits the angle that they are looking from.
It was said by one of the true patriots,
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately"?
So there is no misunderstanding. I don't like Obama, the people he has surrounded himself with, the Clintons', or the Bushs' and the majority of the 300 some odd elected in the US congress. There is only as many members of said bodies as can be counted on one hand that are talking about the real issues. Those few have lost or will lose their seats this next election cycle.
When hot button issues like this and others come up, people start pointing fingers and yelling about how the other team is doing bad things. There is only one team in Washington DC and they no longer work for us. They work for the corporations that pour money into their pockets. Where do you think loyalty lies?
Which brings up another important truth about this and other highly charged emotional issues. That it is political theater. Distractions, slight of hand, subterfuge, and a lot of the time out-right lies. Divide and conquer. If the peasants are stirred up, fearful, ignorant, fighting amongst themselves they will accept anything the elected officials offer as solutions to problems they themselves created. Think of it this way, if the elected really wanted the situation in this country and else where for that matter to be better then it would be so. But it's not, and you have to ask yourself why. Oh yeah, you can't blame the poor, the race that your not, the third world, etc.
I know that to some this is old news, to some it's reinforcing what is suspect, and some will reject it altogether and label it with a name that suits the angle that they are looking from.
It was said by one of the true patriots,
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately"?
07-08-2012 | 02:08 PM
#12
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,082
From: Menifee, CA
I believe that same patriot said that "Democracy is like 2 foxes and a rabbit deciding on what's for lunch, liberty is a well armed rabbit contesting the outcome."
I trust that clears up any confusion over where I stand.
I trust that clears up any confusion over where I stand.
07-10-2012 | 06:37 PM
#13
Senior Member
Superstock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 277
From: south nj (philly area)
I love places with no registry... first time I went to west Virginia my buddy took me to a gun store and showed me how easy it was for him to buy and carry a firearm and it opened my eyes... I bought some and my state wont give me the permits they require so I am forced with a delema... my answer I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6... as hrca said one way or another I will not be lunch but I will be at the table!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
