Here's the next target in the war against freedom : gun ownership

You thought the feds weren't going to after the second amendment right?

R esearchers predict UN Arms Trade Treaty will be finalized by summer

“We predict that a global Arms Trade Treaty will come into force late this year,” a report in the Jan. 2012 issue of the Dillon Blue Press by researchers Paul Gallant, Alan Chwick and Joanne D. Eisen claims.

And by that they mean during the summer (while nobody pays attention to politics)...

Diplomats are currently preparing for a final negotiating conference, to be held at the UN between July 2 and July 27, 2012.

What will it look like?

We predict that small arms will be included, because that’s what this treaty is all about in the first place. But ammunition has, at best, a 50-percent chance of inclusion.

Restricting small arms and MAYBE ammo...

What's in the treaty?
Arms Trade Treaty

It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:

facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime;

Since now most Americans are ``potential terrorists`` and most guns are ``used for crimes`` (or so says the government) it would basically BAN gun ownership in the US, but it probably won't be that... they'll go for the ``soft ban`` way... saying ``everyone must register by X date`` and everyone needs a permit (that's almost impossible to get).

But that's not all :

We predict that a minimal Implementation Support Unit (ISU) will be approved, and will ultimately grow into a global BATFE on steroids.

Global BATFE... aka UN mandated troops will go into countries and take guns of those who won't comply... (of course if you resist, they'll say you are a terrorist and send the army to gun you down with the NDAA)

The government's position :

Recall that per the Constitution, the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

58 members-- a majority--of the U.S. Senate have signed letters to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton saying they will oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms ownership.

But really, the NDAA passed the senate 93-7. So yeah they said they oppose it, but really when it comes to voting on it and during the summer... they might back-stab the American people, as they have done many times in the past. And the vote will probably be in August 2012... a lot of things will happen between now and then... that could magically ``change`` the way those senators vote... (bribes, threats, attempted murder, etc...)

So beware and call your senators and hammer them with that...

Guns in the hands of civilians are not as dangerous as guns in the hands of those that would take them away IMO.

When only the Govt. has guns, the people are done.

It's coming so people had better start getting those guns now. Hide them and tell no one. If you give up your arms, you are doing nothing but giving up.

Wow!

It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to: facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime;

Isn't that already kind of a thing? And define substantial. Probably .0000000001% chance. Great. Keep your laws off my guns damn't. Probably time to stock up a little more.

yep as we have been saying all along
wish we was wrong

If you don't know how to reload ammo, now is the time to learn and stock up on the necessary supplies. Sounds like we better stock up on ammo too while it is readily available.

Just a reminder, EVERYTHING you are saying is being monitored and taken seriously by SOMEONE.
You can be tracked down if need be.
You are on an online forum.
It would be foolish not to assume that our government is taking notes.

reply to post by Screwed


Well I lost all of my guns in a tragic boating accident (13 miles off of the coast) , so I've got no worries.

Let's think about this a second...The UN, which is headquartered in New York City, wished to disarm the average US citizen despite the Second Amendment. And the Federal Government, which is headquartered in Washington DC, would be willing to allow that, despite both the Second Amendment AND the fact that there are basically enough privately owned (not counting publicly owned police service pieces) for every man, woman and child in the US that can hold one to be able to have one....

Something tells me that logic and and simple statistics are beyond the grasp of these people. So let's explain it another way... 193 people are going to go up against 300 million guns in the same country? If we assume only 1% would tell them no while holding a gun that is 3 million guns pointed at 193 people. Claiming diplomatic immunity is only get the return line of "It's just been revoked"

When the UN wishes to police it's own (Kofi Annan and the Oil for Food crime) then they can start to talk about other things, I would suggest a safer topic like sponsoring quilting bees but whatever.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by Screwed

 

Well I lost all of my guns in a tragic boating accident (13 miles off of the coast) , so I've got no worries.

edit on 14-12-2011 by EyesWideShut because: meh

I gave all mine away to an orphanage.
I love our government and fully support whatever it is they want us to fully support.
I am no threat to them nor anyone else.
I HATE terrorists and terrorism and will gladly say something if I see something.

I doubt that we'll see that happen, but molon labe.

The same with all of our rights as defined by our Constitution, molon labe.

Derek

What's also going on right now is Obama trying to sneak in Andrew Traver as the new ATF chief. The guy comes from Chicago, so you betcha he's corrupt (he's a Chicago politician after all) and anti-second amendment.

And let's say Obama or any other republican shill is elected... Scalia and Kennedy in the supreme court are pro-second amendment. They are in their 70s, there's a big chance they gonna have to be replaced... by anti-second amendment judges for sure. That would turn the 5-4 for the second amendment into a 6-3 against.

So you add in the ATF, the UN arms treaty and the stacked anti-second amendment supreme court, and you betcha that in the next few years there's gonna be a big fight for the second amendment.

i'm not sure if the people in the US are ready to use their guns if the time came, I know some, but would a majority?
in defense of the constitution if it were clear as day and i'm still not sure. like they know the power of their own force.

I hate to be the voice of doubt, but this one I feel sometimes.
if americans actually had their constitution infringed upon like we've seen in recent times,
who would take up arms? (don't say you, just how you feel about this)

reply to post by yourmaker


Well the German people was very armed before Hitler. 6 months after Hitler came into power, a lot of guns had been given up. Nazism, the second amendment, and the NRA

And people gave up their guns during Katrina very easily. They will do so again.

And just a note, during WW2, when the Nazis invaded Norway, they obtained a list of who had guns in the country... the SS went around Norway to gather all the guns, whoever was on the list and didn't have the gun was executed on the spot.

So you can't say ``I lost it``, it doesn't work.

I have a pretty good thread started on this too...maybe there is some useful information in there to add to your OP.

UN takeover of America

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by yourmaker

 

Well the German people was very armed before Hitler. 6 months after Hitler came into power, a lot of guns had been given up.

thank you for that perfect analogy. i will now go slam my head into a wall until reality no longer comes to me.

to be cliche, the time to ACT is now then,
time to see what happens when an unstoppable force (freedom) meets an immovable object (tyranny)

reply to post by jude11


Explanation: Uhmmm?

Guns in the hands of civilians are not as dangerous as guns in the hands of those that would take them away IMO.

Kids, mental health patients and prisoners etc.are ALSO civilians OK!

Do you REALLY want them to ALSO be allowed and to have and possess guns?

There is a MASSIVE difference between being a CIVILIAN and being a CITIZEN and the difference is the ABILITY to carry out a WAR on ones OWN INITIATIVE ok!

Personal Disclosure: Do you agree?

P.S. They can take away all the guns and they'd still be in harms way because they can't outlaw bleach and ammonia and many other far more devestating improvised weapons!

It's this simple .. if the governement tries to inhibit my ability to assasinate them individually then I am quite fine to use even more devestating choices and live with the EXTREME levels of collateral damage.

People and Politicians come and go ... BUT policy is FOREVER!

Be Armed ... Yet Harm No One!

I remember the video of gun owners in Great Britain turning in their firearms when ordered by law to do so....many were collectible pieces including family heirlooms. They all got scrapped. Probably the same picture for the other grown up queen's colonies of Canada and Australia. Unless they play the martial law card (think post Katrina on a national scale) they will do it incrementally, not so much gradually, but in steps...just when you think that they will be satisfied they go for some more. I expect that they will use registration and taxation first to discourage firearm ownership (I wont go into detail so as to not give any bureaucrats any ideas that they are not working on). But longer term...we have all heard stories of the military (not just the police) training to collect guns and "clear buildings" of any resisters (usually means killing everyone rather than attempting to arrest them).

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by yourmaker

 

Well the German people was very armed before Hitler. 6 months after Hitler came into power, a lot of guns had been given up. Nazism, the second amendment, and the NRA

And people gave up their guns during Katrina very easily. They will do so again.

I couldn't agree more with this point. Our nation fallen far in the last hundred years. Most consider the idea of defending their freedom as completely alien, and borderline criminal...

Haven't we, and our fellow countrymen watched as the 4th amendment was completely eviserated by "The NDAA" and done nothing?

The president openly admits intending to imprison US Citizens without charge, or trial indefinately...and still we act as if "all is well".

My prayers are with this country, because most of my hope is gone.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


Well the problem of ``when to resist``... it happened before... in Soviet Russia for example...

"During an arrest, you think since you are not guilty, how can they arrest you? Why should you run away? And how can you resist right then? After all, you’ll only make your situation worse; you will make it more difficult for them to sort out the mistake.

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family?

Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! We did not love freedom enough. Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not to sacrifice himself."

How many today will not resist because they cannot believe ``it's happening here``... or they don't want to lose their job, or their house, or their car, or their iPad or miss their favorite TV show? And that is just the superficial stuff. I won't even talk about losing your kids if you resist...

It's so easy to submit and so hard to resist. To resist, your mind must be ready to abandon EVERYTHING including your life. Since most people are unable or unwilling to go all in when the situation presents itself, they submit.

reply to post by Vitchilo

Your quote of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn from the Gulag Archipelago says it all.
People were afraid to stand up (fear of making the situation worse) and that is how a majority (general population) can get taken down by a minority (tyrannical government).