It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In one month, the Arms Trade Treaty John Kerry signed last year goes into effect.

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   
The landmark UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms - from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships - will enter into force on 24 December 2014.

Watch the left hand, folks. While all the rioting and civil unrest is taking place, an agenda is in the works. Even though it was signed by Kerry, it has not been ratified. However, keep a wary eye on Emperor Obama should he decide the States aren't going to do it, so he MUST. To hell with that pesky ole Constitution.

Parts of this treaty give the UN broad powers pertaining to ammunition and in essence, it is a gun registry.

Please guard your 2A like it is gold and keep a wary eye on the dark shadows in Washington.




posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Anyone with half a brain understands that this treaty is not aimed to confiscate anyone's guns.

It has been debunked about 10 times now on this forum



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Parts of this treaty give the UN broad powers pertaining to ammunition and in essence, it is a gun registry.


Before posting crap like this how about you actually read the treaty!

Then tell us exactly where it gives the UN any powers at all about guns or ammunition sold in the USA.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
Anyone with half a brain understands that this treaty is not aimed to confiscate anyone's guns.

It has been debunked about 10 times now on this forum


I did not say this treaty is specifically aimed at confiscating our guns. It is a nudge and if you haven't read all the articles contained in it, you aren't thoroughly informed. Of course, there will be debunkers.

But, we have been lied to by this bunch in the White House before and they depend on the stupidity of the information challenged masses. Just don't stick your head in the sand too far.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: queenofswords
Parts of this treaty give the UN broad powers pertaining to ammunition and in essence, it is a gun registry.


Before posting crap like this how about you actually read the treaty!

Then tell us exactly where it gives the UN any powers at all about guns or ammunition sold in the USA.


Good grief! I have read it, re-read it, and read the pros and cons for it from various sources. Have you? Read it carefully as if it were the Affordable Health Care Law with all its innuendos and between-the-lines rhetoric.

unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Good grief! I have read it, re-read it, and read the pros and cons for it from various sources.


Well, tell us exactly where it gives the UN any powers at all about guns or ammunition sold in the USA....



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
Anyone with half a brain understands that this treaty is not aimed to confiscate anyone's guns.

It has been debunked about 10 times now on this forum




I remember idiots saying the same thing about the Patriot act.........Look how that worked out. What people need to understand is the PTB play the long game. They find a crack and exploit the crack. A foot in the door if you will.



We are so far off the path of liberty we would need a miracle to find a way back. If they ever do want a registry it is only a matter or time before they will outright take the weapons. History has proven this over and over again.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
Anyone with half a brain understands that this treaty is not aimed to confiscate anyone's guns.

It has been debunked about 10 times now on this forum


No it has bot been debunked at all, along with all the other ridiculous claims that Kagan wasn't picked to get rid of guns, but have you seen her voting record on gun control since then? NO? Figures..

How about Sonya Sotomayor's? No? Missed that one too?

How about the Colorado gun bills when many who support the anti gun agenda all made the same claims you are making here? Or Connecticut, or Washington state where the new law doesn't even improve any kind of safety concern? They said the same things, but the results only compromise the second amendment and do not improve, or make gun laws that save lives.

We need people to use their whole brain and not just half of it with important things like this. You might consider trying it.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Here are some links :

www.state.gov...

www.reuters.com...

The last from 1 Year ago.

I think this is what you are pertaining to.

Yes, I slid in the big Salami for you.
Next time do it yourself or I might steal her away.
edit on 26-11-2014 by Wildmanimal because: typo



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Only problem with the UN Small Arms Treaty, it has not been ratified by the UNITED STATES SENATE. Until that occurs the US is not part of it. No matter what the Secretary of State John Kerry or President Obama have to say.

The UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is clearly states only the US Senate can ratify a treaty. PERIOD.
edit on 26-11-2014 by JBRiddle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JBRiddle

But if he tries to run around it somehow? Will anyone stop the mighty Pen of Obama?



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
even if it is ratified, itd be unconstitutional, and illegal as it would infringe on the second amendment



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: jonnyhallows5211
even if it is ratified, itd be unconstitutional, and illegal as it would infringe on the second amendment


Why do you think that? Please show exactly where it would do that.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JBRiddle

Agreed.

Having skimmed over the treaty last year, I didn't come away all that concerned about it. It appears geared toward larger scale international arms deals rather than domestic civilian purchases and production. But knowing that it stands virtually no chance of Senate ratification, I don't think there's any significant reason to worry about it, anyway..



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

The treaty raises significant legal barriers against arming the opponents of totalitarian regimes. This practice is known as the Reagan Doctrine, but it has been a bipartisan instrument of U.S. foreign policy since 1945. Since the treaty will not, in practice, prevent totalitarian regimes from arming terrorists and other dictators, (like Obama arming terrorists in Syria), it offers the U.S. nothing except tighter controls on the world’s democracies.

Everything they are claiming in the Obama flunky administration about this ATT doesn't actually do anything they say.

The treaty does not exclude lawfully owned civilian firearms and contains only a weak preambular reference to civilian ownership. It creates a “responsibility” to prevent the “diversion” of firearms to the illicit trade, sets out national record-keeping on the identity of end users—i.e., individual owners—of imported firearms as a best practice, and offers justifications for imposing new administrative burdens on significant firearms imports into and exports out of the U.S. market. As the treaty is interpreted and amended, both the U.N. agencies that explicitly promote gun control and the many nations that wanted the ATT to impose even tighter domestic restrictions will pull and pressure the U.S. toward imposing further regulations.

The entire thing is a FARCE that will be used and abused by The Obama and Bailey Circus to take away your ability to defend yourself from these ASS CLOWNS


edit on 26-11-2014 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
There were 23 abstentions last year when they voted on the ATT. Russia and China who are some of the worlds biggest leaders in weapons exports were among those who abstained. Guess who opposed it altogether...North Korea, Iran, and Syria.

Other abstainers: Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Myanmar, and India.

Think about that.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

As an illegal arms trader, I find this disturbing. I have a $10M order set to deliver to a Somali warlord on Christmas Day! Curse you, Obama! Cuuuurse yooooou and your false flags directing attention away from us weapons dealers who want to illegally sell guns to rebel groups and terrorist organizations all over the world!

***Disclaimer*** I'm not really an arms dealer, but thought that maybe, since the ridiculous belief that this is something it isn't (by people who apparently are not able to read things that don't play into their creepy fantasies) continues to persist, maybe sarcasm will get the point across. Then again, maybe there's just a LOT of people arming terrorists who hate Obama?



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
This treaty is based on already existing US laws. So nothing changes for the US if the treaty exists or not. The only real difference is the US has the ability to enfore its laws and the UN has no wat to enforce this treaty.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: queenofswords

As an illegal arms trader, I find this disturbing. I have a $10M order set to deliver to a Somali warlord on Christmas Day! Curse you, Obama! Cuuuurse yooooou and your false flags directing attention away from us weapons dealers who want to illegally sell guns to rebel groups and terrorist organizations all over the world!

***Disclaimer*** I'm not really an arms dealer, but thought that maybe, since the ridiculous belief that this is something it isn't (by people who apparently are not able to read things that don't play into their creepy fantasies) continues to persist, maybe sarcasm will get the point across. Then again, maybe there's just a LOT of people arming terrorists who hate Obama?


I get what you are doing....and saying. The Arms Trade Treaty's surface purpose is what you laid out in your first paragraph, international trade. But, if you take time to read it thoroughly, study the "philosophy" of the UN, and keep up with the progression of their agendas, you will understand some of the concerns many people have. This is about being able to see the big picture. We all want illicit sales to certain bad players stopped. But there is so much more to this than that.

When presented with this type of thing, our guard should be up. We must require that our leaders understand thoroughly what the underlying principles of the ATT actually mean. We CANNOT let the attitude "we have to pass it in order to know what's in it" to prevail. We need our leaders to understand it right down to the letter. We need to grasp the full extent of the power of the treaty. Words and phrases like "primary responsibility of all States (meaning nations) in establishing and implementing their respective national control system" or, "end use or end user" must be understood thoroughly as to how it can now and in the future affect our 2A.

I understand that you and others may not be too concerned about the little nudges that might work toward the weakening of the 2A. But some of us are.

While seeming to recognize inherent rights of individual nation States, there is a lot of nebulous wording that promotes adherence to global purposes, some of which are not in our best interest. Much of the wording seems to be out of both sides of the mouth, so to speak. Clear and precise constraints should be totally understood...no vagueness.

Read the Articles carefully. International obligations have priority after all the rhetoric is sorted through.

Article 5 is problematic if you are a staunch 2A supporter and protector.

How will the "brokering" regulation requirements of small arms affect individuals. Article 5 (3) says each State Party is to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms and part (2) says that each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system including a national control list in order to implement the provisions of the Treaty. Article 5 (4) says that your national control list must be transparent and given to the Secretariat which shall make it available to other States Parties.

The ATT is requiring signers of said Treaty to implement various measures to prevent and document various things, but methods aren't discussed.

Article 10 is especially concerning for some.

I have other concerns with the broad sweeping terminology, the reference to the UN Programme of Action (of which the ATT is just a broader framework) which emphasizes domestic gun control, the UN's verbal encroachment into the US's civil affairs, and a host of other things I won't list.

The devil is in the details, the connections, the programs that are part of it and referenced in it, and the vague terminology.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce I don't live in America mate this is the first thing I've replied to on here but id just look up a few conspiracy's Tasmania Australia in around 1993-4 they were trying to bring in a law for guns where you had to have a licence and get them regersted and if you had a criminal background you couldn't get one then all of a sudden there was a massacre when they couldn't get the law in a man with a mental illness slaughtered a tourist village at port Arthur Hobart when people looked into it they found there was a Sydney sniper team in that weekend after this they allowed the law to come in i believe there was another shooting in Scotland where they tried to bring in the no gun law or monitor who has the guns and if you want a licence or registration you have to pay at least $500.00 just to do a firearm safety course registrar the weapon then pay for the licence all because some mental lunatic went cookoo GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE DO i served i wanted to go on as a full time as infantry sniper until i got sick with 6 lots of meningitis 3 tumours in the head and 3 brain leakage operations




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join