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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Rep. Paul Broun on the UN Small Arms Treaty

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:36 PM

I had a friend send me this video on skpye. The Youtube page has a caption above the video that said:

This video is unlisted. Only those with the link can see it.

So I thought I would share it with ATS. The video ask for you to sign a survey ...

Yeah like that is going to do anything. However its a Congressman making the claim that this treaty could ban all privately owned semi-automatic firearms.

I hope the US signs on to this treaty. It will be April 19, 1775 all over again.


posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:45 PM
This video is listed on the NAGR page.
Why does the NAGR want to keep this video private?
I would ask the NRA, gun confiscation cannot and will not happen in the US.
How can someone take something from you that they have no right to?
I smell fearmongering somewhere, can't put my finger on it though...

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:46 PM
i doubt it will pass, even if it did they couldn't confiscate firearms that are already grandfathered in. only the purchase of certain new firearms, and private firearm sales.

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by g146541

I smell fearmongering somewhere, can't put my finger on it though...

WHO gives a flying F---.

Fear monger all he wants, if even one bit of this is true it should be fought.

Hell even if its not lets make a big enough stink over it that they would think twice next time they even try to pen something that even HINTS they want to take our Rights to GUNS.

I Care not if I sound like a fear monger, Nor do I care if I sound like some Crazy Conspiracy Tin Foil hat wearing NUT.

This can not stand period.

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:49 AM
reply to post by benrl

calm down turbo nobody is taking our guns away

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Jakewirick
reply to post by benrl

calm down turbo nobody is taking our guns away

Uhhh the last time I check "Disarmament" mean taking away arms.

The goal of the UN disarmament is to allow only the chosen people, ie. Governments, to have small arms.

With our second amendment we are a threat to world government. They cannot impose their will on an armed populace quite as easily as the can an unarmed one. Wouldn't you agree?

This Arms Trade Treaty stands in direct conflict with our Second Amendment, which is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Militia is not the military. It is we the people that are not part of the military. We the people were given the right to keep and bear arms to deter invasions, assist the government in quelling uprisings, and lastly a means to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

Our private ownership of firearms for the most part keeps tyranny in check.

Here is an example of how it has worked:

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by Jakewirick

calm down turbo nobody is taking our guns away

Hmm, it would seem they are, you watch the news last night? funny that an atrocity popping up to push for stricter gun control.

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by benrl

yea that is pretty crazy what happened the other night, I'm sure people will be talking about gun control a lot more from now on. Still taking law abiding citizens guns away will not solve the problem. Of course i don't want that to happen but at the same time I'm not too worried.

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 01:32 PM
I am really sure that Russia and China some of the largest arms suppliers in the world are going to abid by that "Treaty".

There has not been a conflict in the last 6 decades there has been an ak-47 behind "freedom fighter" and "dictator" alike, between "terrorist" and "whoever" a like.

The goal of the small arms treaty is to disarm the world so that people can't fight back but it is also a progressive agenda to disarm the people here so that goverment can't roll over them like a jdam.

As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.

-- Jeff Snyder

But it is not only the US government is that charade it is the UN an entity that has no power over the American citizen.

The UN small arms treaty is like what we currently have the cops are better armed, the military is better armed and there is the average law abiding citizen caught in the middle whose only means of self defense is apparently harsh words.

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by SWCCFAN

Unfortunately, I don't think the people have the will to fight like they did then...too much flouride in the water...

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by neo96

Our Senate would still have to ratify legislation accepting the UN Treaty, the way I understand it. The O admin knows that if they can't get it ratified before elections, it's not going to happen for a while.

The Obama administration’s push for Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in 2012 appears to have been stymied by Republican opposition. According to the Daily Caller, 34 Republican Senators have now stated that they will not vote to ratify the treaty, which gives the United Nations control over 70 percent of the Earth’s surface. Therefore, if the treaty is brought up for a vote before the full Senate and all those now opposing it remain steadfast, it will be defeated.

People can scream and yell about how terrible the evil rich Republicans are, but in this the words of candidate Obama, "It's the right thing to do".

while this pertains to the LOST Treaty, I imagine the Senate may resist on the Small Arms treaty as well.

edit on 21-7-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in