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.
Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by SWCCFAN
Why are you posting a article from 6/07/2011? and acting like it something current? Has the senate ratified this treaty? How far along are we in this process? Why would they work on this during a election year? or is this more fear mongering from the right propaganda machine?
"Treaty" has a much more restricted meaning under the constitutional law of the United States. It is an international agreement that has received the "advice and consent" (in practice, just the consent) of two-thirds of the Senate and that has been ratified by the President. The Senate does not ratify treaties. When the Senate gives its consent, the President--acting as the chief diplomat of the United States--has discretion whether or not to ratify the instrument. Through the course of U. S. history, several instruments that have received the Senate's consent have nonetheless remained unratified. Those instruments are not in force for the United States, despite the Senate's consent to them.
Originally posted by pushmepullu
reply to post by SWCCFAN
well, due to a burglary that occurred upon finishing the read of your post i'm afraid there isn't any firearms on the premises for the fed to confiscate. if this is true it would be the final nail in the coffin for our dear old uncle sam.
UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty - 1st meeting
...
Yet, armed conflicts had killed, injured or displaced civilians and had negative impacts on aid, he said. “Poorly regulated trade in weaponry is a major obstacle to everything we do,” he added, noting that armed conflicts had hampered emergency assistance deliveries and, in the last decade, armed attacks had killed nearly 800 humanitarian workers. “An agreed set of standards for arms exports along with strict national legislation can help begin to change all that.”
Such a treaty would also bolster the ability to promote social and economic development and women’s empowerment, support peacekeeping and peacebuilding and protect civilians while fostering the rule of law, he said.
...
...
“An agreed set of standards for arms exports along with strict national legislation can help begin to change all that.”
...
Originally posted by UnaChispa
Like beezzer said, I'd find it amusing as well. Who would be the ones collecting the weapons? Law enforcement? Military? It would be virtually impossible.edit on 8-7-2012 by UnaChispa because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MidnightTide
Originally posted by UnaChispa
Like beezzer said, I'd find it amusing as well. Who would be the ones collecting the weapons? Law enforcement? Military? It would be virtually impossible.edit on 8-7-2012 by UnaChispa because: (no reason given)
They don't have to collect, all they need to do is make it law for you to bring in your firearms in for new licensing requirements. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic weapons firearms. It isn't going to be some immediate Feds gonna go take all the firearms, it is going to be a slow process. Why would they want to start a civil war when you can slowly make everyone submit.
Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by kennylee
It happened during Katrina, no one really resisted. As I said, there isn't going to be some massive military, police OP, they don't have to do it that way. Just a few at a time, you will hear about some in the news.....some will fight back, but they will just be labeled as domestic terrorists.
Originally posted by SWCCFAN
Here is the youtube video. As of this posting it is being uploaded it should be done with in the hour.
Please spread the word and make this go viral.
I know some that read this may not agree, but I would rather die on my feet before I live on my knees.