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.

 

Donald Trump tells NRA gun lobby he's withdrawing from UN arms trade treaty

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I remember when Obama signed us up (USA) for the UN Arms trade Treaty and the consternation and gnashing of teeth many in the gun community went through.

I placed this article in the mud pit because there are experts on both sides of this issue.. Gun owners who have had guns all their lives and those who have never owned one much less shot a gun but deem themselves experts. As far as I am concerned the gun hating brain washed agenda 21/30/ NWO crowd can go find a closest to cry in. I can guarantee you under a democratic president picked from the 2016 crowd or the present 2020 crowd this would not be happening. WTG Trump !



President Donald Trump has told the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) he is pulling the United States out of an international arms treaty signed in 2013 by then-president Barack Obama that was opposed by the NRA and other conservative groups.

Mr Trump told members of the gun lobby at an annual meeting he intends to revoke the status of the United States as a signatory to the Arms Trade Treaty, which was never ratified by the US Senate.

"We're taking our signature back," Mr Trump said to thousands of cheering attendees, many wearing red hats emblazoned with the Republican president's "Make America Great Again" slogan.

On Twitter, Mr Trump called the decision a defence of "American sovereignty".

In reversing the US position on the pact, he wrote, "We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedoms".

The NRA has long opposed the treaty, which regulates the $US70 billion business in conventional arms and seeks to keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers.


The article is almost a hit piece for Trump pulling us out of the treaty... However if the senate had ratified the treaty and a president had gone along with it all it would have done is boosted China and Russia's international arms sales..
www.abc.net.au...

I will just add the below quote from a guy named Jefferson simply because of the current crop of democratic presidential hopefuls and their claim of wanting to change on a (federal level) the laws that govern ownership of many of the guns which are now in law abiding citizens hands. Unfortunately way to many of these hopefuls must think the constitution is just an old piece of paper they can willy nilly make changes to ....just because they want to.. in the words of cowboy Dan, "Screw them"!


In Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776 he writes:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature, they disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."



A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -- Thomas Jefferson


IMO there really have been some deep great thinkers in our countries past.. Where have they all gone ?



+6 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Awesome.

# the useless UN.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Awesome.

# the useless UN.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Although opposed to both, if given the choice, I would have preferred staying with the treaty vs the bump stock ban which turned thousands of innocent Americans into felons overnight.

Even Obama's administration ruled that bump stocks did not violate the NFA/GCA (both of which are unconstitutional).

And of-course the NRA, Negotiating Rights Away, agreed with the ban.


edit on 27-4-2019 by gladtobehere because: typo



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Have you read the treaty?

From a quick glance, I noticed that it only mentions State Parties as those who it applies to.

I don't know what all the "consternation and gnashing of teeth" was about.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: 727Sky

Have you read the treaty?

From a quick glance, I noticed that it only mentions State Parties as those who it applies to.

I don't know what all the "consternation and gnashing of teeth" was about.



Simple really as anything Obama did caused consternation and the gnashing of teeth when it came to the topic of guns or gun control.. Back then there were plenty of articles claiming the treaty was just one more cut in the 1000 cut program to disarm or make it impossible to own a fire arm..

I personally respect Obama on this subject as he was the absolute best gun salesman America has ever seen..



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.


Number 1 Baby.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

But did you read it?

There is nothing in it about individual gun ownership.

It was all about governments shipping arms internationally. I'm pretty sure that is already controlled for individuals.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




But did you read it?


You're not supposed to do that.

It's bad. Trust me.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 02:34 AM
link   
The UN treaty is based on international and state sales of weapons, It's nothing to do with 2nd amendment and everything to do with not arming despotic regimes guilty of human rights abuses.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

When Obama signed it there was a run on Russian made shot guns and AK-47 clones shipped from Russia. Inspite of what some believe there are many foreign made weapons that are shipped to America and purchased by Americans.
youtu.be...


youtu.be...



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Is this the treaty that stopped the importation of old military weapons like AK's or chinese/Russian surplus ammo? If it is, I fully support revocation of the treaty from a gun enthusiasts point of view, but I wonder if it might hurt domestic suppliers of ammo, parts and weapons b/c the market can be flooded with cheaper surplus parts/weapons as well as ammo.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
Inspite of what some believe there are many foreign made weapons that are shipped to America and purchased by Americans.

But they are not sent by the governments of those foreign states, they are shipped by companies who are already regulated.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
Is this the treaty that stopped the importation of old military weapons like AK's or chinese/Russian surplus ammo? If it is, I fully support revocation of the treaty from a gun enthusiasts point of view, but I wonder if it might hurt domestic suppliers of ammo, parts and weapons b/c the market can be flooded with cheaper surplus parts/weapons as well as ammo.


I thought it was the one that prevented things like what happened when the US exported thousands of AK-47 rifles + other guns to Mexico that resulted in several hundred or more deaths?

Wasn't that treaty about not allowing to sell arms that are held in the US territory, to other countries where people considered terrorists can get a grab of them?

How weird to interpret foreign terrorists buying guns from the US to kill people in other countries as an offence to the second amendment, how does that even make sense?

It this a "killing in the name of money" approach?

edit on 27-4-2019 by Malisa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.




Surely you also protect your most valuable assets...



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
Is this the treaty that stopped the importation of old military weapons like AK's or chinese/Russian surplus ammo? If it is, I fully support revocation of the treaty from a gun enthusiasts point of view, but I wonder if it might hurt domestic suppliers of ammo, parts and weapons b/c the market can be flooded with cheaper surplus parts/weapons as well as ammo.


I thought it was the one that prevented things like what happened when the US exported thousands of AK-47 rifles + other guns to Mexico that resulted in several hundred or more deaths?

Wasn't that treaty about not allowing to sell arms that are held in the US territory, to other countries where people considered terrorists can get a grab of them?

How weird to interpret foreign terrorists buying guns from the US to kill people in other countries as an offence to the second amendment, how does that even make sense?

It this a "killing in the name of money" approach?




Killing is my business and business is good...



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.




Surely you also protect your most valuable assets...


How does exporting arms to terrorists so they can kill with no harm or care relates to having a gun in your house to protect your family or yourself?

Are we into a backwards universe reality now?



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.




Surely you also protect your most valuable assets...


How does exporting arms to terrorists so they can kill with no harm or care relates to having a gun in your house to protect your family or yourself?

Are we into a backwards universe reality now?



You should probably direct that question towards those that need guns to get on with their day to day activities.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.




Surely you also protect your most valuable assets...


How does exporting arms to terrorists so they can kill with no harm or care relates to having a gun in your house to protect your family or yourself?

Are we into a backwards universe reality now?



You should probably direct that question towards those that need guns to get on with their day to day activities.


I am partial about guns, there is an use for them actually, as i posted some time ago

My cousin, which is like my sister, is only alive because of having access to a gun when she was 13. The only reason she's alive is that gun and that she knew how to use it


But a revolver gun at home to protect yourself as a last resort is not the same as sending 10,000 assault rifles to another country when you know how those are going to be used...




top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join