Obama to sign UN Arms Treaty this month while congress is in recess - small arms involved

This has been discussed before, and the senate said no go. Well, while the congress is away during the month of August, Obama is planning on signing this. I feel that it is imperative that every last one of us contact our senators and tell them not to ratify this!

In fact, in March, the Senate voted to keep the US out of the arms treaty by a vote of 53-46. Treaties require a 2/3 majority vote by the Senate in order to be ratified.

It is feared and predicted by many gun rights groups and advocates that the treaty, if ratified, could open up the US gun market to international regulation.

Our Senate took a stance before the Presidential election when 51 of them wrote Obama a letter saying they would not support an Arms Trade Treaty. We must let our entire U.S. Senate know we do not support international gun control. They must not ratify this international treaty.

Obama to sign UN Arms Treaty this month while congress is in recess

Ok and here is the proof of Obama's intent.

There will be a rallying call by supporters.

The Senate needs to ratify I think.

They will try their best to sway votes with the best deceptions money can buy !!

Another under handed under the table effort.

Boycott Agenda21 at all levels.

reply to post by elouina


What is wrong with this guy?
Can he do this legally?

It doesn't matter.

The UN has no jurisdiction in America.

So it's a moot point. Obama can sign all the things he wants.

~Tenth

President Obama will move forward with adding his signature to the UN Arms Treaty before the end of this month according to Press Secretary Jay Carney. Read more: dailycaller.com...

This has so many levels of BS it is not even funny.

First off the UN and it's 'security' council are the largest arms dealers in the world, and some how I don't think arming terrorists, and drug cartels is going to end anytime soon(All security council members do that).

It ain't just one.

What this is ?

To make it easier 'nation building' in the future think about it no small arms people can't defend themselves which makes them lamps ripe for the slaughter,

He does sign that it is an act of Treason IMO even though treason is only defined as an act committed against our government not we the people.

It is no secret Obama hates guns in our hands hell so does his party what they want is the pinnacle of what a police state is.

First they came for your text messages, and emails

Then they come for your AR-15's and glock 17's

When those are gone there will be NO ONE left to stand up for thee.

Then the true DESPOTISM begins.

Oppose this with all your might, and for those who say there is 'nothing to worry'about' then that is when YOU SHOULD BE worried.

More and more firearm manufactures in this country outsource like Saiga,Glock, sure they might have 'Assembled in the USA' plants here, but those parts come from elsewhere.

And the US small arms treaty covers firearms and the components.

Do not stand for this stupidity!

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It doesn't matter.

The UN has no jurisdiction in America.

So it's a moot point. Obama can sign all the things he wants.

~Tenth

You are right about this. But Obama should not be doing this "symbolic" signing in the first place. Pure brazenness... By pretending to go through the motions he will be tricking the American public and the world, into thinking it is a done deal.

reply to post by elouina

You are right about this. But Obama should not be doing this "symbolic" signing in the first place. Pure brazenness... By pretending to go through the motions he will be tricking the American public and the world, into thinking it is a done deal.

With 0 chance of enforcement, it won't last long.

This is just international politics, nothing more. Obama needs to save face in light of things like a Nobel Peace prize.

So yeah, just pandering to Europe's anti gun stances.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by elouina

 

You are right about this. But Obama should not be doing this "symbolic" signing in the first place. Pure brazenness... By pretending to go through the motions he will be tricking the American public and the world, into thinking it is a done deal.

With 0 chance of enforcement, it won't last long.

This is just international politics, nothing more. Obama needs to save face in light of things like a Nobel Peace prize.

So yeah, just pandering to Europe's anti gun stances.

~Tenth

And knowing Obama, is there any small chance this could really happen after all? He is determined to get his way no matter how the American public, courts, or elected representatives feel. Could he have a ace up his sleeve in the way of a loophole? I put nothing past this man.

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It doesn't matter.

The UN has no jurisdiction in America.

So it's a moot point. Obama can sign all the things he wants.

~Tenth

You are right about this. But Obama should not be doing this "symbolic" signing in the first place. Pure brazenness... By pretending to go through the motions he will be tricking the American public and the world, into thinking it is a done deal.

edit on 15-8-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

*Yawn* More lame threads regarding non-issues.

Then why sign something he is not authorized to sign in the first place?

Tenth just explained it to you. Nothing more than harmless international relations. It looks good, but has no meat to it. No big deal.

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It doesn't matter.

The UN has no jurisdiction in America.

So it's a moot point. Obama can sign all the things he wants.

~Tenth

You are right about this. But Obama should not be doing this "symbolic" signing in the first place. Pure brazenness... By pretending to go through the motions he will be tricking the American public and the world, into thinking it is a done deal.

edit on 15-8-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

The treaty is already based on US law. So we already follow it we just do not have are name on treaty because some idiots can not understand what it is. Since the treaty was made to resemble US law and as we all know US law overides any treaty anyway it makes the US look like a bunch of idiots for not signing it. Sure the treaty has no enforcement ability so a signature is just symbolic but when the only countries that are against it are Iran, North Korea and Syria you do not want to add USA to that list. It is kind of sad how easly Americans are manipulated and that hey have no understand of the Constitution or US law.

reply to post by elouina


Nope.

He'd need a constitutional amendment that allowed Foreign laws and treaties to be applied to American Citizens. Good luck with that.

Technically speaking, the only thing the US has done to give the UN power over it, has been that deal they signed that allows the use of Foreign troops on US soil during times of emergency.

I don't think it's ever been used yet, but it sure could.

~Tenth

reply to post by kaylaluv


But the senate already voted on this and they said the treaty was a no go. My feelings are that this symbolic signing is unethical since it is not condoned by our elected representatives.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by elouina

 

Nope.

He'd need a constitutional amendment that allowed Foreign laws and treaties to be applied to American Citizens. Good luck with that.

Technically speaking, the only thing the US has done to give the UN power over it, has been that deal they signed that allows the use of Foreign troops on US soil during times of emergency.

I don't think it's ever been used yet, but it sure could.

~Tenth

Well, ok then, I hope you are right. Like I said, I just don't trust this guy.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I do agree with your points but could it be law if foreign troops were asked to "protect our homeland"?

This government takes illegal action on a daily basis. They routinely violate the Constitution. They only stop when it is exposed and a majority of the people are against it. Even then, as seen with the NSA surveillance programs, there's no guarantee that it will stop. They have no regard for the law. The law does not prevent them from doing what they want to do.

So having said that, I don't understand why some of you are so confident that this won't have any effect. I agree, US law trumps international law. The UN has no jurisdiction here. I fully agree with you on that. But since when did something being illegal and unconstitutional stop this administration? I would not underestimate this. I would not write it off as symbolic. This needs to be watched closely and people need to contact their Senators.

reply to post by elouina


As a member of the security council, there is a certain amount of necessary pandering that needs to be done for the US to save face.

For example, you can't have China sign a treaty about human rights and then American snubs it. See how that would look?

Same thing with this gun problem. The US has some of the most violent statistics for gun related incidents. I don't think that's reason to ban guns mind you, but even so, Obama wants to keep his UN record squeaky.

At least that's my thought. I can't imagine any other reason for doing so, considering it is just symbolic, in every way.

~Tenth

When this doesn't work like they want it to, they will just ignore the law and start confiscating guns, or trying to. They have already done this to a lot of people under different guises..

This is an utter joke oil for food ring a bell ?

The rampant corruption within the UN.

The abject failures of 'sanctions', and we have all seen how well they have worked.

On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly adopted the landmark Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The treaty will foster peace and security by putting a stop to destabilising arms flows to conflict regions. It will prevent human rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied with arms. And it will help keep warlords, pirates, and gangs from acquiring these deadly tools.

www.un.org...

Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower. The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities, and impacts security and development in all regions of the world.

www.un.org...

Want to know what small arm they all carry ?

The ak-47, and others.

The small arms treaty is a scam that will line arms dealers pockets making them more expensive.

Then when one thinks about Russia the mafia state, the Chinese Triads, as well as other 'criminal' organizations that are currently making billions.

Bans don't work they just increase the cost of those weapons, and increase the amounts of the pockets of arms dealers.

Considering 83 have already signed it.
4 have ratified it..

Still should be concerned as that ban will equate to higher gun prices in this country.

Sorry if I am not like the others saying 'nope nothing to see here folks' there is a lot to see.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It doesn't matter.

The UN has no jurisdiction in America.

So it's a moot point. Obama can sign all the things he wants.

~Tenth

Amongst rational minds, a simple fact like this interjected into the discussion would cease the "Thier comming for your guns" hysteria.

BTW - What does the treaty address?

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a multilateral treaty that regulates the international trade in conventional weapons, which has not entered into force. International weapons commerce has been estimated to reach US$70 billion a year

en.wikipedia.org...

Now...that of course interferes with US Gun Manufacturers profit from shipping small arms abroad to third world unstable hell-holes...So the NRA and other Lobbyists are forced to gin up opposition in face of the fact it will have no impact on US gun owners.

They come up with this tidbit...

"Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the 'end user' of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an 'end user' and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

Whilst conveniently ignoring this part of the treaty...

The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

Meaning the USA is not beholden to that requirement cited by the NRA.

Alas...The NRA still managed to protect thier masters interests in international gun-dealing and the GOP in congress refused to OK the Treaty...thus Pres. Obama will sign it in Recess...

Let the hysteria continue...

en.wikipedia.org...