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.

 

Obama Administration to sign U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that will BAN GUNS IN THE U.S

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Didn't see this story posted. Sorry if it is. It is an updated story of 1 that came out in february. I have been looking for actual text of this treaty. It's popping up all over the internet with little more than speculation. However, given the past record of those involved and knowing a leper can't change it's spots, I'm worried.

****130 members of the House, however, are not convinced the treaty does not pose a threat to the Second Amendment. On June 29, they sent a letter to Obama and Secretary of State Clinton expressing concerns about the treaty.****
www.nraila.org...
www.infowars.com...




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
This is big and people need to be aware of what is at stake and be aware of who the players really are in this scheme.

my thoughts from a related thread on the Treaty.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


It's leopard not leper although leper kinda works too



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


I'm pretty sure that it's "a leopard can't change it's spots...". This treaty is a round about way of circumventing the 2nd amendment, just as Agenda 21 is a round about way of circumventing one's right to property. All Progressives throughout American history have found ways to circumvent the Constitution and natural rights, and Obama is no different. The reality of it is that there is no way that they will be able to enforce it on guns already owned. I think that this will mainly effect new purchases.


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
New guns or old guns, it makees NO difference.
The administration which signs any such treaty is in direct violation of the costitution.
They and all their supporters should be charged with treason...............


+2 more 
posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Let's get serious instead of hunting for typos.

The UN Secretary General said the following


“Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally-binding arms trade treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence,” he said.


This treaty will have no effect whatsoever on taking weapons from terrorists, gangs, war lords etc... It only serves to strip people of the ability to protect themselves from said thugs. Period. It's a joke..


Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference last February, National Rifle Association vice-president Wayne LaPierre accused Obama of working behind the scenes with the U.N. on a “treaty that could effectively ban or severely restrict civilian ownership of firearms worldwide.”

“I've been around long enough to know that the U.N. has little regard for our Constitution and none at all for the Second Amendment,” LaPierre said. “But I never thought I’d see the day when an American White House would tolerate a proposal that would literally gut one of our most fundamental freedoms in this country.”

cnsnews.com...

Obama will cave to the international peer pressure. He lacks the fortitude to stand by and uphold our Constitution.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
this is long awaited and just the messed up future we have ahead of us.....it's written in the scripture that we will have to submit to this evil that is given power over us.....no ,I don't like it anymore than you don't...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty
Lawmakers join general in declaring pact a threat to freedom
by Jack MinorEmail | Archive

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.


“There has been a decree by the administration by the president and the secretary of state saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons,” Boykin warned. “That means the United Nations, an international body will decide how you and I as Americans can buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are. This is a dangerous trend.”

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.


Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.
edit on 7/7/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
They can sign the treaty and pass whatever legislation they want......I see absolutely no way they could get the guns out of the hands of Americans.

Does anyone realize what would happen if they decided to start taking the guns away from people? You would finally see the revolution so many people have talked about.

TPTB know this and you know it.

I wouldn't worry about it.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


Do not worry, only an amendment to the Constitution can take away the rights to arm and own weapons in the US.

No bills can do it.

No politic rat will even dare to bring the Constitution into the table for that.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Obama could care less about the Constitution. His record proves that. As for any kind of fortitude, he, like Romney and all the other career politicians catering to lobbyist desire, is nothing more than a corporate puppet.
For the last decade, Ron Paul has stood alone fighting to preserve constitutional freedoms above the will of corrupt political agenda.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Numbers33four
 


You're right about leopard. My bad. I knew I read it in the Bible somewhere. Jeremiah 13:23



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 




I'm with you.

Let's see them try to enforce it.
They'd get their UN butts kicked off US soil so fast it would make heads spin.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Well... considering that it takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate to ratify an international treaty, I'm not too worried.

And if those panty-waists, in their powder blue helmets, show up to take my guns... I will give everything to them in a very orderly fashion. First I will start with my ammunition and will give them 1 carefully placed round at a time!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I think many of you who shrug this off and say it could never happen, could never be enforced, etc..

Don't underestimate how smart these criminals are. They aren't going to knock on your door and demand your guns. Their strategy is not full on confrontation. They are much more insidious than that.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
I think many of you who shrug this off and say it could never happen, could never be enforced, etc..

Don't underestimate how smart these criminals are. They aren't going to knock on your door and demand your guns. Their strategy is not full on confrontation. They are much more insidious than that.


Maybe not, but they can then start to work it so we can't purchase new firearms or ammo.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Maybe not, but they can then start to work it so we can't purchase new firearms or ammo.


That is exactly what they are doing. They're going after US manufacturers with this. The domestic market will be impacted to some degree without them even having to apply it domestically. Brilliant.

One of the next steps is to micro laser engrave all ammunition. I can also see them passing a cripplingly expensive firearm owners safety insurance bill for all firearms and ammunition purchased. Of course it won't be mandatory, but failure to purchase will result in a penalty.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


It was said in your OP.

130 members of the House, however, are not convinced the treaty does not pose a threat to the Second Amendment.

The 130 are not neccesarily worried about our rights, they are worried that if signed many will exercise our rights and eradicate all who voted for such a backwards idea.
If I am threatened with tyranny, I will exercise my rights and duty to this nation.
I do not want ANY war but, "they" certainly do not want a war that is aimed at them.
That is exactly how it will go down if needed.
One thing the Mexican cartels have shown us, NO MATTER how big or how much security you have, anyone can be gotten to.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join