It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Rand Paul Takes on Proposed UN Small Arms Treaty

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM

Rand Paul Takes on Proposed UN Small Arms Treaty< br />

Kentucky’s newly elected Senator Rand Paul has pleased conservatives with his calls for fiscal and constitutional conservatism, ranging from abolishing the Department of Education and all foreign aid to proposing substantial cuts to the federal budget. Now Paul has joined the crusade to end Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s efforts to work with the United Nations to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM
I am not sure if this has been posted already, but I think it is worth mentioning.

Paul Rand wants the abolition of the Department of Education, and all foreign aid as well as is proposing substantial cuts to the Feds, and imo all of these are good ideas.

We are in an economic crisis, the Feds keep printing money and increasing our debt ceiling, and instead of cuting on expenses our government keeps spending more as if there was no problem...

It all seems to point to the fact that the Feds, and the administration of Obama wants the country to get into a worse economic crisis... After all these people want to implement a One World Government and to do that they need to destroy the U.S. as it once was.

I just hope that Paul Rand doesn't side with corporations, and instead I am hoping he is more like his father on this regard.

The fact is that we do need a change. A change back to what the United States is supposed to be, and not for the government to make more excuses to take away our rights, and our money. (visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 17-2-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: to fix link

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:44 PM
That is all well and good, but I think you missed the more important issue here. The "Small Arms Treaty" that he opposes. This is the first I had heard of it.

If passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

* Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
* CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
* BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
* Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

TPTB are preparing to screw us over big time. They cannot defeat the 2nd amendment guarantees, so they try to do it through an international treaty. What really sucks is that we still have to many liberal pantywaist senators who might approve this godforsaken travesty of a treaty should it be signed.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:07 PM
there is no whay this will pass

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:13 AM
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

Actually, they are all important issues, but you are right I forgot to include the UN firearms ban part.

You will find a lot of people, mostly gun-grabbers, or people who don't care about the Second Amendment, claim that the UN is not trying to ban firearms from citizens, but in fact the truth is quite the contrary, that is mainly what the UN wants with their firearms regulations and treaties. I do hope that any treaty with the UN, or with ANY other global group can be postponed until sHillary is out of office, as well as the entire Obama administration. Most, if not all of the people in Obama's administration are pro UN to the point that they want to give power to the UN over the U.S., and not only for the UN agenda 21.
edit on 18-2-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:18 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
I would prefer we get out of the un entirely.

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:36 AM
teaty is illegal to start with you can not sign a treaty with another country if it violates a preexisting part of constitution if this treaty is ratified i think there would be a massive protest in front of un and white house of citizens
flexing there constitutional right to bear arms.there is an old saying you want my spear than come and take it. nobody would willingly give up there arms.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:31 PM
well from the horse mouth this article sates i short no they do not want to seize your weapons but then if you read this as i did then there is a problem because that is what they want to do, now pleas read the two and post your view. this is what has me going, pay real close attention to the wording "The majority of people who die directly from conflicts worldwide -- tens of thousands of lives lost each year -- and hundreds of daily crime-related deaths can be traced to illicit small arms and light weapons." do you see?

edit on 22-2-2011 by bekod because: word corection

edit on 22-2-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in