Arms Trade Treaty

Obama to sign Arms Trade Treaty on July 27th for Gun control

www.un.org

In 2009 the General Assembly decided to convene a Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in 2012 "to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms". The General Assembly also indicated that the remaining four sessions of the Open-ended Working Group should be considered as sessions of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for this Conference. PrepComs took place in July 2010, February 2011, July 2011 and in February

(visit the link for the full news article)

At the end of this month Obama will be signing the Arms Trade Treaty convened by the UN, which in essence is nothing more than a way for the global elites to circunvent the U.S. Constitution and force upon the American people, as well as other people in the world, gun control.

In the following video Dick Morris explains the issue more indepth.



The American people should be made aware of this, and we should fight against this measure, more so if you believe in the U.S. Constitution, and in the right of every American to own and bear arms, as the Second amendment in our United States Constitution states.

We are getting closer, and closer to their final goal for a One World socialist/social/Democracy/fascist Government.

The signing of this treaty might as well be the last obstacle by the world elites to force us to accept their One World Socialist/Fascist Government.



www.un.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


They'll have to pry them from my cold dead fingers....

Des

Hmmmmmmm..........

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

The American people should be made aware of this,

Why? Why would you even bother the american people with this? They do not care. leave them alone.

and we should fight against this measure,

Fight? Fight for what? Why? You did not fight the US Patriot Act, The US Patriot ACT II, bnor any of the extensions. You did not fight the NDAA.

Oh but now.. now you want to put the gloves on and get into the ring. Go sit down.

more so if you believe in the U.S. Constitution, and in the right of every American to own and bear arms, as the Second amendment in our United States Constitution states.

Nodding my head in confusion. Now I think I should go sit down.

We are getting closer, and closer to their final goal for a One World socialist/social/Democracy/fascist Government.

The signing of this treaty might as well be the last obstacle by the world elites to force us to accept their One World Socialist/Fascist Government.

It is too late.. the world has already been lost. Look around.

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

They'll have to pry them from my cold dead fingers....

Des

From what I have seen that is exactly how they do it.

On a rare occasion they might taser you. Although nine of ten times they have to pry them from your cold dead fingers,

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


At the end of this month Obama will be signing the Arms Trade Treaty convened by the UN, which in essence is nothing more than a way for the global elites to circunvent the U.S. Constitution and force upon the American people, as well as other people in the world, gun control.

Where do you get "gun control" out of this?

The global trade in conventional weapons – from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns – remains poorly regulated. No set of internationally agreed standards exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use.

If you read the actual UN page, they're talking about regulating international transfers of war related arms, not impinging on your rights to own a battleship, tank or handgun. I'd be a little more concerned about their documents on Small Arms, but even that's a bit of a stretch.

Unless you are Boeing or Lockheed, I'm not sure you need to be too concerned about their Arms Trade Treaty.

More fearmongering.

This treaty does nothing to stifle American 2nd amendment rights.

Its focus is on preventing illicit small arms trading and regulation international weapons trading. There's absolutely no part of it that targets or otherwise hinders legal arms deals within the United States.

Biblical prophecies.

Nothing we can do about it.

obama can sign whatever he wants. Only congress has the power to wright laws and inforce them.

Originally posted by drwizardphd
More fearmongering.

This treaty does nothing to stifle American 2nd amendment rights.

Its focus is on preventing illicit small arms trading and regulation international weapons trading. There's absolutely no part of it that targets or otherwise hinders legal arms deals within the United States.

It's a back door to gun control. You can say it's not. I believe it is. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Des

Originally posted by Destinyone

It's a back door to gun control. You can say it's not. I believe it is. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Des

It's only a back door to gun control if you buy your guns illegally.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but you're wrong. We can't agree to disagree because this is not a matter of opinion. Factually, the treaty does nothing to stifle or otherwise hinder our 2nd amendment rights.

Originally posted by adjensen
...
If you read the actual UN page, they're talking about regulating international transfers of war related arms, not impinging on your rights to own a battleship, tank or handgun. I'd be a little more concerned about their documents on Small Arms, but even that's a bit of a stretch.

Unless you are Boeing or Lockheed, I'm not sure you need to be too concerned about their Arms Trade Treaty.

edit on 5-7-2012 by adjensen because: clarification

The international treaty will impose nations to make their own regulations within each country. This will lead to gun registration, and bans of certain firearms.

Wake the hell up there are already several states in the U.S. where firearms are already heavily restridted or banned, like in New York, and Illinois...

Sometimes I wonder where people like you have been hiding for the past 40 years or so...

the u.n. needs to be banned.

From....

Part 1: Treaties - a primer.

First, I would like to borrow the words of Frederic L. Kirgis who in 1997 wrote for the American Society of International law:

There is confusion in the media and elsewhere about United States law as it relates to international agreements, including treaties. The confusion exists with respect to such matters as whether "treaty" has the same meaning in international law and in the domestic law of the United States, how treaties are ratified, how the power to enter into international agreements is allocated among the Executive Branch, the Senate and the whole Congress, whether Congress may override an existing treaty, and the extent to which international agreements are enforceable in United States courts.

Under international law a "treaty" is any international agreement concluded between states or other entities with international personality (such as public international organizations), if the agreement is intended to have international legal effect. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties sets out an elaborate set of international law standards for treaties, broadly defined.

(((underline mine)))


Again, from Mr. Kirgis:

"Treaty" has a much more restricted meaning under the constitutional law of the United States. It is an international agreement that has received the "advice and consent" (in practice, just the consent) of two-thirds of the Senate and that has been ratified by the President. The Senate does not ratify treaties. When the Senate gives its consent, the President--acting as the chief diplomat of the United States--has discretion whether or not to ratify the instrument. Through the course of U. S. history, several instruments that have received the Senate's consent have nonetheless remained unratified. Those instruments are not in force for the United States, despite the Senate's consent to them.

(((bold is mine)))

So those of you who thought our Congress or Senate was the final arbiter of international treaty accession need to reconsider. This is not without contention however, because legislators have long tried to curb the vague power of the Executive to make binding agreements for the United States based solely on his (or her) authority.

I find it somewhat naive - in this day and age - to accept another of Mr. Kirgis' statements:

At one time there was some doubt whether a treaty (adopted with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate) must comply with the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has yet to hold a treaty unconstitutional. Nevertheless, there is very little doubt that the Court would do so today if a treaty clearly violated the Bill of Rights. Even more certainly, it would hold unconstitutional a Congressional-Executive agreement or a Sole Executive agreement that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps my cynism, after the decades of the decline of rights in America, makes me jaded and unwilling to beleive this. But as of now, I can't see any Court of our land overriding the commerical-political expedience of certain "Acts" and "Laws," especially when they are driven by the super-citizens of corporate America... or the supranational cartels that infest the innards of our current political rulers.

Mr. Kirgis' summary is nonetheless accurate and worth recalling:

To summarize: the Senate does not ratify treaties; the President does. Treaties, in the U. S. sense, are not the only type of binding international agreement. Congressional-Executive agreements and Sole Executive agreements may also be binding. It is generally understood that treaties and Congressional-Executive agreements are interchangeable; Sole Executive agreements occupy a more limited space constitutionally and are linked primarily if not exclusively to the President's powers as commander in chief and head diplomat. Treaties and other international agreements are subject to the Bill of Rights. Congress may supersede a prior inconsistent treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement as a matter of U. S. law, but not as a matter of international law. Courts in the United States use their powers of interpretation to try not to let Congress place the United States in violation of its international law obligations. A self-executing treaty provision is the supreme law of the land in the same sense as a federal statute that is judicially enforceable by private parties. Even a non-self-executing provision of an international agreement represents an international obligation that courts are very much inclined to protect against encroachment by local, state or federal law.

Another useful read for the truly interested can be found here: digitalcommons.law.yale.edu... and here untreaty.un.org...

Originally posted by drwizardphd
More fearmongering.

This treaty does nothing to stifle American 2nd amendment rights.

Its focus is on preventing illicit small arms trading and regulation international weapons trading. There's absolutely no part of it that targets or otherwise hinders legal arms deals within the United States.

Really?... The same claim that you are making has been used to heavily restrict and even ban LEGAL firearms in certain states in the U.S...

Do you even know what the Second Amendment states?...

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text | Annotations

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
...

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Imposing regulations, including gun registration, and other gun control measures such as bans on certain weapons is INFRINGING on the Second Amendment...

reply to post by emberscott


So we should just sit back and let it all happen according to you?...

I'll rather put up a fight until the end than sit back and accept more of our rights being taken away...

BTW, I am not advocating violence, but eventually millions of Americans will not accept this and will fight it.

This is unconstitutional in so many ways it isn't even funny. America doesn't even recognize international law for crying out loud. Congress needs to get involved in this or let Obama fall into this trap and impeach him.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by adjensen
...
If you read the actual UN page, they're talking about regulating international transfers of war related arms, not impinging on your rights to own a battleship, tank or handgun. I'd be a little more concerned about their documents on Small Arms, but even that's a bit of a stretch.

Unless you are Boeing or Lockheed, I'm not sure you need to be too concerned about their Arms Trade Treaty.

edit on 5-7-2012 by adjensen because: clarification

The international treaty will impose nations to make their own regulations within each country. This will lead to gun registration, and bans of certain firearms.

Where does it say that? Show me where, in the text of that proposed treaty, it says that all signatory nations are required to impose gun control regulations on their own populace. Show me in the actual treaty itself, hosted on the UN or US government web site -- no You Tube videos, no "guy ranting in a forum" posts or anything else that isn't an official document.

Sometimes I wonder where people like you have been hiding for the past 40 years or so...

Been right here, listening to people cry wolf so much that REAL threats to our liberty are ignored and/or supported by the vast majority of people who have been subject to endless jabber and numbed into thinking that credible threats aren't out there.

I do not think this will do much in the way that America views its gun ownership.
A piece of paper does not mean crap...
You've seen how our Constitution works now, right?
It gets stepped on like nothing...
Actions speak louder than words and bullets are one loud action...
Good day..