Arms Trade Treaty

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


But those are two different things, as I pointed out in the first post I made in this thread. They have some stuff going on about small arms, but no treaty (that I could see) and it has nothing to do with this, apart from them both coming out of the same group at the UN. If you want to say that you think this is a precursor of a future small arms treaty, that's all well and good, but they aren't the same thing, and proclaiming that this treaty will result in United States weapons registration may well result in people ignoring subsequent alarms because they'll say "oh, you've said that before and nothing happened."

That'll never happen. You think the NRA is going to say.. "Okay you got us" and hand over their burners? And that's just the NRA, think the UN is going to be able to force criminals to disarm? The cops can't even do that and they live here. And as long as the store clerk thinks he's going to get robbed at gun point he's gonna have a gun.. legally too.

Let them keep barking up that tree. It's fun to watch them burn the energy.

reply to post by adjensen


They are not different things, they are one and the same. Their goal is clear, and if you think it through you would see that this leads to national legislation restricting or even banning firearms.

There is no other way around it, and claiming "you are yelling wolf" is not going to change the facts.

BTW, another nail in the coffin that CLEARLY shows what this treaty is all about.

This comes directly from the mouth of that idiot UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. In the speech he made he states, and I quote;

UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty - 1st meeting
...
Yet, armed conflicts had killed, injured or displaced civilians and had negative impacts on aid, he said. “Poorly regulated trade in weaponry is a major obstacle to everything we do,” he added, noting that armed conflicts had hampered emergency assistance deliveries and, in the last decade, armed attacks had killed nearly 800 humanitarian workers. “An agreed set of standards for arms exports along with strict national legislation can help begin to change all that.”

Such a treaty would also bolster the ability to promote social and economic development and women’s empowerment, support peacekeeping and peacebuilding and protect civilians while fostering the rule of law, he said.
...

www.un.org...

Let's read the goal again...

...
“An agreed set of standards for arms exports along with strict national legislation can help begin to change all that.”
...

www.un.org...

What do the defenders of this treaty who claimed it would not impose national legislation have to say now?...

Are you going to make another excuse?...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Let's read the goal again...

...
“An agreed set of standards for arms exports along with strict national legislation can help begin to change all that.”
...

Well, geez, thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious. Pretty pointless to sign a treaty if you're not going to actually do anything about it.

I know that they're a bunch of lying jagweeds, but here's their response to you:

Arms Trade Treaty Myths & Facts

MYTH: The Conference is being convened to draft a global treaty to ban ownership of firearms.

FACTS: The UN is not pursuing a global treaty to ban gun ownership by civilians. Member States are committed to tightening controls over the international import, export and transfers of conventional arms, because without such controls it is easier for weapons to be diverted from the legal trade into the illegal market, and into the hands of terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal cartels.

The United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty will not aim to ban any weapon category from being traded, but the Conference will aim to set regulations on the global, cross- border trade in various conventional weapons, which until now has largely remained unregulated.

The global trade in nearly all categories of manufactured goods (such as pharmaceutical products, electronic appliances, automobiles etc.) is regulated by rules which bind exporters and importers to commonly agreed conduct. The global trade in conventional weapons should be no exception.

I would also point you to the Draft Document, which I had asked you to look at before. Scroll down to the bottom to "Annex A - Transactions or activities to be covered by this Treaty" and you'll see four items. Exporting, Brokering (essentially third party exporting), Manufacturing under a Foreign License (essentially moving manufacturing to a country to get around the law) and Technology Transfer (essentially the same thing as the manufacturing bit, and the US already blocks this anyway.)

None of those activities regards private ownership, in any way, so any law associated with this treaty has zero reason to impinge on private gun ownership.

Wasn't there a U.S. law passed recently that completely banned any kind of fund raising efforts that would go towards *any* kind of U.N. resolutions that infringed on the second amendment?

reply to post by adjensen


It doesn't matter if it is war bound munitions or not. The simple fact is, no international law can violate the constitution. The matter of the 2nd Amendment is long standing precedent. They may try to increase regulations, etc, but regulation is still largely a states rights issue.

reply to post by adjensen


Strict NATIONAL legislation regulating small arms would mean EVERY weapon will be registered, at the least... Since it says STRICT, I am pretty sure it will be more than just registering firearms...

They CLAIM it will just be "INTERNATIONAL CONTROLS" but as I proved they want to implement NATIONAL CONTROLS...

Their goal is clear, "COMPLETE DISARMAMENT" doesn't mean "just major weapon manufacturers selling firearms to terrorists and such"...

BTW, small arms has nothing to do with tanks. I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but even sarcasm must be based on facts, and tanks and such are not "small arms"... Small arms include all sorts of rifles, shotguns, revolvers, and pistols...

"COMPLETE DISARMAMENT" means exactly that... COMPLETE DISARMAMENT...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by adjensen

 

Strict NATIONAL legislation regulating small arms would mean EVERY weapon will be registered, at the least... Since it says STRICT, I am pretty sure it will be more than just registering firearms...

They CLAIM it will just be "INTERNATIONAL CONTROLS" but as I proved they want to implement NATIONAL CONTROLS...

Unless you're talking about something other than what you posted in this thread, you're making a huge inference that just isn't proven by the facts. Yes, they want to have national legislation that supports the treaty, because otherwise, there's no treaty. If, for example, the treaty was against... oh, whale hunting, if a country signed the treaty but then didn't change their internal regulations to ban the previously legal whale hunting, what good is the treaty?

Here, as I see it, are the salient points:

1) Given that they are still debating this thing, I think it might be a misnomer to say that the President is going to be signing anything on 27 July

2) They are quite clear that this treaty regards the international export of weapons, big and small -- the other three areas of coverage that I demonstrated to you just cover potential loopholes --- and it is a massive leap in logic to say that your pistols and shotguns will need to be registered to prevent you from exporting them to Somalia

3) Even if that were the case, signing the treaty does nothing internal to the United States, it would still require an act of Congress to force such registration, so a majority in the House (currently Republican) and 60 votes in the Senate. Given the ridiculousness of point #2, and the current climate, the odds of that happening are zero.

4) Even in the incredibly unlikely case that law was passed, it would be challenged, immediately, on Second Amendment grounds, and there is little argument that can be made that it is not an infraction of that. Which leaves amending the Constitution to allow it, and you can guess the likelihood of that.

Look, I think you're sincere in your concerns, but I think that you're just making some assumptions that are invalid. I understand the NRA taking the stance that they are, but it seems pretty clear that's for political gain in galvanizing their troops, not because they honestly believe that Second Amendment rights are going out the door on 27 July.

"COMPLETE DISARMAMENT" means exactly that... COMPLETE DISARMAMENT...

Well, that's a philosophical argument that is likely beyond the scope of what we're talking about here. I'll catch up with you when that thread comes up.

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

A safe way to do it is to ban the sales of new guns. Then ban the sales of "Assault" gun ammo, and that can be any caliber, and there you have it. disarming america. Cant use your gun when there is no ammo.

So, let me get this straight... you believe the "Safe" way to do it is to first violate everyone's Second Ammendment right - like that wouldn't upset anyone. THEN... ban selling ammo in further violation of American's rights.

Newflash camaro... I'll STILL have guns... and ammo... and the ability to load my own casings - THOUSANDS of them... AND I'll be EXTREMELY pissed off! Oh, and I won't be alone. And you think this is "Safe"???

Time to head back to the drawing board Ace... I don't think you thought this one through very well.

I love my guns and ammo too. I was just thinking an a leftest mind set. Ban new sales of ammo and guns. 10 years from now your going to have less of both.

its just the facts

Just found some new information about interviews done to U.S. delegates to UN small arms conference, and their statements clearly show exactly what this treaty is all about.

NRA News’ investigative reporter Ginny Simone takes a look at the global gun control goals of the United Nations. By pushing for a binding international treaty aimed at superseding the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations is committed to rendering Americans’ Second Amendment rights to own a firearm meaningless. Simone interviews past and current U.N. officials and politicians and examines the debates at the United Nations Small Arms Summit to expose the international anti-gun agenda.

“The United Nations (is) conspiring with the majority of its members to do what they’ve already done to their own citizens – deny you your firearm freedom.”
Ginny Simone
NRA News

“In New York, right here on our own shores, we’ve got a Trojan horse. They won’t accept U.S. firearms policy. They want to take the decision away from the U.S. electorate and undermine our Constitution.”
Ambassador Faith Whittlesey
US Delegate to UN Small Arms Conference

“That’s really they’re ultimate agenda – to bring the United States down from the pinnacle of freedom to simply being another one of these socialists states where the government control everything.”
Former Congressman Bob Barr
US Delegate to UN Small Arms Conference
...

www.thedailysheeple.com...

You should watch the following video that can also be found in the link above.



And of course you are going to get the "infiltrators" from the Obama administration in these forums continue to claim that this is not so, when even Ambassadors who are and have been U.S. delegates to the UN Small Arms Conference tell us that these treaties are made to take away the decision from U.S. electorate, undermining our Constitution and taking away our right to arms like they have done in their own countries...

We are getting closer to the date and I urge Americans to send letters to their Senators and even to the Obama administration telling them that they have no right to infringe in our right to own and bear arms.

Even if you don't think it will do anything, try it, the sheer volume of emails that they would get will send them a message that even if they pass this bill we will do everything in our power to take back these rights that no government should take away and can't give.

Oh, hey, this reminds me of something...

For those of you who are interested and want to stop this, here is a link you should read.

We really have to tell senators and representatives, as well as the President that we will not stand for this.

dickmorris.rallycongress.com...

To keep as much information about this as possible, I will post the following which another member beat me to it but it might be lost in the neverending amount of threads we get weekly.

This documents shows the fact that "complete and total disarmament" has been the goal of the elites for decades, and at least since 1961 when this document was written.

I will excerpt some of the most important parts but if you are truly interested in this topic you should read it all

...

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
...
The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
...

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES
The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:

As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;
Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;
Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;
Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and
Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.
...

dosfan.lib.uic.edu...

They set several stages in which to proceed with the disarmament, but at the end the goal is COMPLETE disarmament, not only of wmd but ALL firearms and armaments, and that only the forces that will be armed eventually will be the "United Nations Peace Force"...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


While I believe there are people who would love to see us all disarmed, It's not going to happen. Too many people like myself would NEVER relinquish their only means of defense.

reply to post by VikingWarlord


They have had generations to think for this and prepare. For example, they can increase the price of bullets to a point that only a few people can buy them. They could set up a registry for bullets, and that you will only be sold a few at a time. Eventually yheir goal is total disarmament, and short of a civil war, and even a war against UN troops, I am not sure we can do anything anymore to stop them.

How has this not got more attention? Is there another main thread or something? Does america not realise it's about to lose its second amendment??

reply to post by emberscott


I like you, we can be pals.....I like the way you think....

Just one problem though...and your right in many ways....only...when they actaully go to collect them guns...they wont be able to grab as many as they'd like before the sheep wake up.

Originally posted by Buffalo Soldier
How has this not got more attention? Is there another main thread or something? Does america not realise it's about to lose its second amendment??

A lot of people are responding emotionally to the strange "massacre" that happened but a week before Obama was about to sign this Small Arms Treaty... And none of them is realizing how strange all of it is...

The savage shooter was bankrupt, supposedly, yet he was able to buy guns, ammunition and explosives which would have cost close to $10,000 U.S.D.? Where did he get the money if he was bankrupt?...

Why did authorities close the case so fast when there are eyewitness accounts that saw someone else opening the exit door, and leaving it open for the shooter?...

Why were the FBI, and the ATF completely incompetent in investigating this man buying so many explosives?... The FBI, and ATF are supposed to investigate EVERY sale of explosives, more so since 9/11, but somehow the massive amounts of explosives this man bought went undetected?....

Yet very few people are asking themselves these questions. The rest are just jumping into the emotional bandwagon, and wanting to take away the right of others to own and bear arms...

"Stay of Execution"

www.abovetopsecret.com...