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.


Arms Trade Treaty

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:16 PM
The pressure is already on Obama to back off this UN treaty

Over 100 members of Congress appear to share the concerns of a former Army general who has sounded the alarm over efforts by the Obama Administration to push through the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT.

As WND reported, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin earlier this year, in a video in which he claimed Obama was leading America down the path of a quiet, Marxist revolution, blasted the ATT, also known as the small arms treaty, saying it would regulate private gun ownership.

Now some 130 lawmakers, consisting of mostly Republicans, but also including Democrats such as Reps. Jason Altmire, Sanford Bishop, Jerry Costello, Danny Davis and Peter DeFazio sent off a letter to the Obama administration opposing the treaty.[

The letter states that Congress is concerned the treaty could “pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”

The letter goes on to declare that the Second Amendment guarantees the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms” and the U.S. has no business supporting a treaty that infringes on the Bill of Rights.

Will Obama decide to uphold our Constitution or will he wipe his feet on it AGAIN

The congressional letter also takes issue with the “moral equivalence” of comparing America to totalitarian regimes and calls upon the administration to break consensus and reject the treaty. It goes on to remind the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “the Constitution gives the power to regulate international commerce to Congress alone.”

This is not the first time Congress has sent letters to the administration opposing the small arms treaty. Last year, Congress sent off a similar letter addressing many of the same concerns. This letter was signed by 12 Democrats who joined 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.

The letter stated, “The Arms Trade Treaty must not in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sale of firearms or ammunition.”

It went on to state, “The establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter.”

Who will Obama side with?? My money is in the UN because Obama has patterned his "Obama Doctrine" after the master plans set forth by the UN and the Responsibility to Protect Group.

This type of Regulation also plays right out of the handbook of Soros' Open Society

This is from 2001

In March, The Open Society Institute, part of the Soros Foundation Network, released "Gun Control in the United States,"a strikingly simplistic evaluation of gun laws in the 50 states. Directed by Rebecca Peters, an Australian gun prohibitionist, this document, posing as analysis, arbitrarily awards various point values to each state that has imposed gun control restrictions favored by the group.

Such restrictions include, for example, compact handgun prohibitions, gun registration and gun owner licensing, various gun sale regulations and gun storage requirements. States that do not allow local jurisdictions to impose gun laws more restrictive than state law, those that prohibit the filing of junk lawsuits against the firearm, and those that do not duplicate the federal age requirement for possessing a handgun are penalized in the Society`s point system.

Take note of this last statement

In the final analysis, The Open Society`s only measuring rod is its own hatred of guns—the more objectionable a law is to a law-abiding gun owner . . . the harder a law makes it for a law-abiding citizen to acquire or possess a gun . . . the closer a law moves toward a total prohibition on gun ownership, the better the Society likes it.

The Open Society Funds Gun Control Networks throughout the US and in no less than 33 Countries throughout the world and most certainly welcome this UN treaty with open arms considering the massive scope of the international UN gun Grab. The connections are quite clear.

Flashback to 2010 and the name Rebecca Peters (Look her up if you're not familiar with her work)

In the video below, we learn that Rebecca Peters, director of of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), is working with the United Nations and governments around the world to grab guns. Peters and IANSA are funded by the globalist George Soros.

Prior to working with IANSA, Peters worked for Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Soros has dedicated a large percentage of his income gained from manipulating international stock and currency markets to push for gun control. He exploits the usual “liberal” useful idiots to push his gun-grabbing agenda.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:04 PM
I'm going to point this out again, for those who are too quick to jump off the bandwagon and tell us to quit worrying:

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, 1852

There's a reason people keep saying that....

edit on 7/5/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:23 PM
Perhaps it's time for a full blown armored assault by the USMC on U.N. headquarters since basically it's operations could be considered a clear and present danger to the U.S. Constitution and American citizens. Of course all people in the building would be given a days notice before troops completely level the building to the ground.

As a Canadian citizen I know what it is like to have highly restrictive gun laws passed for an *ENTIRE* country when in fact inner city ordinances for cities like Toronto could satisfy left wing liberals who need to feel good about implementing gun laws that do *NOTHING* to curb the problem of inner city gun crime. It's a city issue with *certain* citizens not being civilized enough to own firearms, not a country wide problem as people on the left would lead you to believe.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:18 AM

Originally posted by emberscott
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

The American people should be made aware of this,

Why? Why would you even bother the american people with this? They do not care. leave them alone.

and we should fight against this measure,

Fight? Fight for what? Why? You did not fight the US Patriot Act, The US Patriot ACT II, bnor any of the extensions. You did not fight the NDAA.

Oh but now.. now you want to put the gloves on and get into the ring. Go sit down.

more so if you believe in the U.S. Constitution, and in the right of every American to own and bear arms, as the Second amendment in our United States Constitution states.

Nodding my head in confusion. Now I think I should go sit down.

We are getting closer, and closer to their final goal for a One World socialist/social/Democracy/fascist Government.

The signing of this treaty might as well be the last obstacle by the world elites to force us to accept their One World Socialist/Fascist Government.

It is too late.. the world has already been lost. Look around.

Posts like these always crack me up. You have no idea what's in store for this countries' baddies. Oh, and before you ask, yes I do know what's in store.
edit on 6-7-2012 by WiindWalker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:32 AM
For those of you who forgot. Back in 2009, during Obama's Honeymoon period, Eric Holder revealed that Obama wanted to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. What came after that promise??

Fast and Furious scheme designed to Blame US Gun Shops for "illegal weapons" sales to Drug Cartels. That was phase one.

Phase two. Work with the UN on a worldwide gun grab to prevent the citizens from defending themselves against tyranny.

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

These words say quite a bit when you apply them to the context of today as the Fast and Furious scandal continues to unravel. Looks like Holder took the HINT from Mexico.

Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

Be aware of the UN creeping into US domestic affairs. The NAACP wanted to involve the UN in regards to Voter ID laws

The UN also criticized US Immigration Laws.

First time I have ever seen the UN get involved in our business in our country. LOOK OUT!! The UN needs to broken up.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by jibeho

Some very eye opening information jibeho. It's not surprising the U.N. and Obama have an agenda to make it difficult for American citizens to acquire firearms, they want *Everyone* to be *responsible* for criminals and groups who use guns to murder each other on a daily basis in the U.S. instead of actually taking on the real issues regarding gun crime. Most "old school" Democrats I have talked to on the air via amateur radio are pro Second Amendment, it's something that the republicans and the "old school" Democrats have in common. Obama trying to pass something as disgusting as this agenda through the proper channels in government would have a snowballs chance in hell.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:04 AM
ok so heres the deal, Obama can sign the bill all he wants but it wont do a thing in taking "our" guns away. But if the senate ratifies (senate represents states). then we could be in some hot water. It will then most likely go to the SCOTUS, and after obamacare we all know how thats going to turn out.
edit on 6-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:14 AM
Fact: Any attempt to remove the Second Amendment and disarm the people will result in open warfare in the US.

It may not be pretty and it certainly will not be an organized resistance movement. Think of it as more like 1 out of every 3 houses in your neighborhood firing off homemade fireworks on the 4th of July, only no where near as safe and tranquil as that. In fact it may look like those fireworks were set off by completely drunk 8 year olds.

Make no mistake, a serious gun grab will result in more small arms being fired than was used in Europe during WWII as there are about 300 million privately owned firearms in the US. At the absolute most, 50 million might be removed from private ownership. These numbers do not take in account the number of firearms owned by police and military which are stored in weapons depots across the country. Many of which are only guarded by a stout lock.
edit on 6-7-2012 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by Maxmars

Nice primer Maxmars!

Let's be perfectly clear on the PROCESS. BEFORE the President can ratify a treaty, Senate MUST give its consent by 2/3 majority. Without the Senate's consent, the President cannot, by executive order nor decree, enter the country into an international treaty unilaterally.

This is yet another check and balance placed upon the system to ensure that the will of the people and the interest of the several states are protected.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:19 AM

Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
If you read the actual UN page, they're talking about regulating international transfers of war related arms

In other words, some country is not too happy with their weapons sales for a while?
Some country wants to regulate so that everyone has a level playing field with respect to weapons sale?

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:20 AM
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.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:30 AM
Obama sure does try to do a lot of things that he knows is going to piss of millions of people.

Bad Puppet- No ReElection.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:49 AM
I think this treaty is more about keeping the big 5 international weapons dealers with a monopoly in arms sales than it is about taking Americans firearms. It look like the U.S., China, Russia, UK, and France want to corner the world market.
From my reading saying this treaty is a backdoor arms grab on the American populace seems like a stretch. I don't see it anywhere in the treaty and have yet to see anyone else point it out.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by lokdog
Thats what regulating anything is all about
Controlling for the limited few and stop the flooding from newly emerging economies where they can be possibly flooding the market with their versions of goodies. How many countries do you know jumping on to the 'drone' bandwagon these days?

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:53 AM

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.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by Destinyone

It's a back door to gun control. You can say it's not. I believe it is. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


It's only a back door to gun control if you buy your guns illegally.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but you're wrong. We can't agree to disagree because this is not a matter of opinion. Factually, the treaty does nothing to stifle or otherwise hinder our 2nd amendment rights.

There is no such thing as buying guns illegally in the U.S.

There is only buying them without paying a transfer tax on it...Which is constitutionally illegal to charge anyways.

There is only one way you can read "Shall Not be Infringed".

That means impeding it in no way.

That's alright...I have a feeling that things are about to change in this country anyways...


posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by adjensen

Wow... are you really that close minded that you can't see what's in front of you?...

Can you tell me how in the world will they be able to account for every arms sales, and make sure it is not sold illegally?... Let me help you since it seems you can't think on your own... By registrating EVERY FIREARM...

Even with registration, how do you make sure that certain firearms do not reach the international illegal market?... For example legal weapons that are stolen from houses, or from cars, etc. By banning such firearms...

You have to learn to read between the lines, and btw, every person who like you claims the Second Amendment has not been infringed in the U.S... Are you going to tell us that there are no legislation, or laws that restrict or ban firearms in the U.S.?... REALLY?...

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:44 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
You have to learn to read between the lines, and btw, every person who like you claims the Second Amendment has not been infringed in the U.S... Are you going to tell us that there are no legislation, or laws that restrict or ban firearms in the U.S.?... REALLY?...

Um, I'm pretty sure that I never said that. In fact, I believe that I said the opposite above.

What I DID say is that this particular treaty, unless you can show me otherwise, is about regulating weapons of war and defense contractors, not taking your handguns away. If you think that the UN is going to require the registration of hunting rifles and handguns in order to prevent Lockheed from selling tanks to Syria and submarines to Somalian pirates, you're really making a reach, and when you're demonstrated to be wrong, it undermines people who point out REAL risks.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by Masterjaden

Oh yes there is. There is an illegal/Black market of firearms that exists in the U.S. Such weapons come from China, Russia, European countries, and even from South America.

U.S. auhorities have, in the past, stopped entire container ships coming from countries such as China, which had illegal firearms ready to be sold in the black market in the U.S.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by adjensen

That is what gun grabbers ALWAYS claim... But the truth is the oppposite of such claims.

Here is THE TRUTH about treaties like this one...

GLIMUN 2009 : Illicit Trade in Small Arms

Small arms and light weapons destabilize regions; spark, fuel and prolong conflicts; obstruct relief programs; undermine peace initiatives; exacerbate human rights abuses; hamper development; and foster a "culture of violence." Because they are easier to transport, hide and obtain illegally than generalized armaments, small arms are a much more likely to exist outside the control of governmental organizations and instead reside with people who engage in violent criminal or insurrectionist activity. Within the UN Framework, progress in establishing norms of international cooperation in the regulation of small arms was begun with a 1996 resolution on General and Complete Disarmament and has been an active area of work for the UN, including the 2001 Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

The goal is GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT, and the illicit trade in weapons is being used as an EXCUSE to obtain this goal...

edit on 6-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in