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.

 

US does NOT sign UN gun treaty

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I don't know if this is a legit site. Great if it's true. Someone in DC must have realized just what could happen.
www.thegunmag.com...
edit on 27-7-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


I was under the impression that the treaty was signed a long time ago,
it just wasn't ratified.


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
If this is true Im going to go celebrate by buying some guns... and if its not, same response.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
How about gun treaty's in Africa where the warlords and stealing children and/or committing mass genocide? Leave the U.S. the hell alone.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Hallelujah!



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Very wise of our elected officials. Don't anger the armed masses...lol



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Don't care, they can sign all of the treaties they want to, it does not trump my unalienable rights.
I am not the only one who feels this way.
All of us will defend the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
If it is put into law, it seems we'd have a hit list of domestic terrorists, warm up the drones.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Where is this information? i was under the impression obama was signing it monday......think Obama pulled out in a last ditch effort to up his approval rating? man I gotta find that info, I can't wait to blog about that. Seriously IM me if you have a link.


Never mind I see the link............!@#$$$
_javascript:icon('
')
edit on 07/26/2012 by wideawake100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


Nice....Went to site, I'm about to go blog about this right now...Thanx.. I hope to god this is correct.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
How about gun treaty's in Africa where the warlords and stealing children and/or committing mass genocide?


That was the objective of the treaty, to curtail the multi-billion dollar arms industry.


Leave the U.S. the hell alone.


There was nothing in the treaty that would affect the United States or its right to bear arms. However, put the words 'United Nations' and 'arms treaty' together and you have the multi-million dollar NRA machine throwing a hissy fit and dumping hundreds of thosands of dollars worth of ad revenue, lobbying, e-mails and robo-calls thus sparking a chain of events of other gun-rights organizations freaking out and doing the same thing.

In fact, three years ago before the treaty was even officially proposed the NRA wrote a letter to the UN saying they opposed it.

More information can be found here.


"This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line," said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA.


Remember that the next time Wayne LaPierre tells you Obama's going to come take your guns away.
edit on 27-7-2012 by links234 because: Sources.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by jjkenobi
How about gun treaty's in Africa where the warlords and stealing children and/or committing mass genocide?


That was the objective of the treaty, to curtail the multi-billion dollar arms industry.


Links, I'm sorry but I think most people on here just don't get it. They're so wrapped up in the anti-UN, anti-globalist mindset that they didn't even bother to look into what the small arms trade treaty was, and jumped to the assumption that it was an attempt to curtail gun sales in the US.

And the reason the US did not sign it is not because we are trying to protect our citizen's right to bear arms. We didn't sign it because our government has a vested interest in illegal multinational arms dealing.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

edit on 27-7-2012 by drwizardphd because: double post again



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I would not jump for joy yet. There are no verifiables in that story. No links to any .gov site, no politicians name, and no link to any other site reporting the same thing.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Don't know if this site is any more reputable then the blog in the o.p. but here is more info:

UN Fails to Reach Deal...


A bipartisan group of 51 U.S. senators on Thursday had threatened to oppose the global treaty regulating international weapons trade if it falls short in protecting the constitutional right to bear arms.

In a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the senators expressed serious concerns with the draft treaty that has circulated at the United Nations, saying that it signals an expansion of gun control that would be unacceptable.

edit on 27-7-2012 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
some current info here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The US along with Russia and China are saying they need more time.

reply to post by drwizardphd
 

Originally posted by drwizardphd
And the reason the US did not sign it is not because we are trying to protect our citizen's right to bear arms. We didn't sign it because our government has a vested interest in illegal multinational arms dealing.

You could be onto something there. That's been my suspicion recently also but I need to do more research in that area.

It's hard to watch so many Small Arms Trade Treaty threads pop up where instead of looking at the details of it objectively and without bias, members jump right on the "They want our guns!" bandwagon and away they go.

Your take however is worth consideration. Of course they will feign concern over Second Amendment infringements with the left hand, meanwhile the right hand...


•The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests. state.gov/ATT

I'll watch this - and other - ATT threads to see how it eventually plays out.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by 5pooky
 


Hence the reason for the right to bare arms in the first place , the last fail safe of freedom .



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by 5pooky
 


Hence the reason for the right to bare arms in the first place , the last fail safe of freedom .


if one is that weak they define freedom by a gun, than the world is sadder than i believed it to be



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Now everyone can stop with the batman shooter conspiracies



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
This must not be true. Cause if it was, this thread should have hundreds of flags. Everyone been up in arms thinking theeyd sign it and take your arms... So why not show your appreciation for those who didnt sign it. This is how you show them you support their action here.. Flag!



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join