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.

 

UN fails to reach deal on global arms trade treaty, as US asks for more time

page: 1
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

UN fails to reach deal on global arms trade treaty, as US asks for more time Read more: www.foxnews.com...


www.foxnews.com

UNITED NATIONS – U.N. member states have failed to reach agreement on a new treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade.

Some diplomats and treaty supporters blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the month-long negotiating conference.

Hopes had been raised that agreement could be reached on a revised treaty text that closed some key loopholes by Friday's deadline for action. But the United States announced Friday morning that it needed more time to consid
(visit the link for the full news article)




edit on Jul-27-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
This is good news for the 2nd Amendment !!

I think Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama are probably not so happy.

It seems also that some U.S. Senators were asking for more 2nd Amendment protections as well.


WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of 51 senators is threatening to oppose a global treaty regulating international weapons trade if it falls short in protecting the constitutional right to bear arms, as the United Nations bumps up against a Friday deadline for action.

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.

"Our country's sovereignty and the constitutional protection of these individual freedoms must not be infringed," they wrote.

Bipartisan group of senators threatens to oppose UN arms treaty as deadline looms



www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Holder needs more time to slip the Mexican Drug Cartels some more firepower....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Everyone needs to be ready for the hell storm that approaches us.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
We all know the goal of the U/n small arms treaty hell just read those words and listen to them small arms treaty which means small arms.

IT doesn't effect goverments that sell them like the US,France,Great Britian,Russia,China or 2 bit dictators the goal of that is to disarm the people of the world so that 2 bit dictators,and other countries can roll right on over whoever they want.

Don't really look at this as a "win" because they will not stop until people are completely defenseless.
edit on 27-7-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Asks for more time? Should have told them to piss off....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Gun Control isn't about guns....it's about control.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
They will keep trying but they will also keep losing. 270 Million guns are estimated to be in private hands. A % would surrender them. Perhaps a large one. If 2/3rd were given up, 90 million remain. I'd worry more if the Supreme Court hadn't also so recently made it's positions loud and clear on the 2nd amendment and it's status.

I don't think we ought to care much about what the UN passes because it means about as much as we let it. Can the Senate ratify a treaty outlawing political speech or peaceful protest and see it hold up as law? Of course not. The 2nd was incorporated by the Heller case, as I understand it. That was a very big deal in making the difference. It's on Par with the 1st Amendment for meaning across the states and generally speaking, without changing the Constitution, this treaty would do nothing here but set up another Constitutional fight between branches.

Obama is having a pretty rough time with the Court here lately. Why would he think this would come out better? They'd have to literally overturn themselves as the living members who so recently defined it.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
We all know the goal of the U/n small arms treaty hell just read those words and listen to them small arms treaty which means small arms.
Small arms treaty? Where'd you get that from?

It's only a small arms trade treaty to those that haven't bothered to read the language contained within it, or the scope of what it considers "arms".


+11 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~ Thomas Jefferson
(Understand now why gun-grabbers want gun control so badly!

No 11 is all they need to tell the UN



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."

Barnhill, John Basil (1914).



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
i might be way off here - admittedly ignorant about international politics - but why exactly is the US needed? Why do they care if WE (US) have arms? Its kinda none of the UN's business. We are a sovereign country....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by theroguelion
 


They are part of a movement toward a one world government. As it stands now, we are a particularly powerful part of the world, up until our economy implodes at least. They can't establish their aspirations without our consent really.
edit on Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:46:41 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by theroguelion
i might be way off here - admittedly ignorant about international politics - but why exactly is the US needed? Why do they care if WE (US) have arms? Its kinda none of the UN's business. We are a sovereign country....


some background is in this other thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

good info.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I wonder why no one addressed the elephant in the room?

Why now? Why after this Colorado shooting? Why suddenly after all of these little "happenings" that just so happens to take place at the beginning untill the very end of this BS treaty.

It had to be planned in such a way.


I'm sorry, that's just way too much coinkidink for me to take as truth. Something else is going on here.. It just seems to obvious to not be a given.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by article
 


Only if you choose to see it that way because of your own ignorance on the subject, yes.

If you actually look into it, this Treaty has been in the works since as early as 2003.

And I don't really think the US has baulked at this because of domestic, pro-gun pressure, but rather a desire to protect its $55 billion a year Arms industry. The pro-gun lobby are useful scapegoat to blame it on.

It seems to me that the main argument against this in the US from the pro-gun lobby is that imported guns, say a barretta, would require the US to record its "end user" (the person purchasing the gun) and keep this info for 20 years.

Now, many states already require gun registration so this particular argument I find confusing.

Any laws introduced by the ATT are for international trade only, not domestic trade, so if that is such a problem, why not just make your own in the US? There's an opportunity there for an entrepreneur.

Oh, it isn't a small arms treaty at all. It covers all weaponry, be it a hand gun or a tank.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
the U.S. is not the U.N...they need to mind their own business and leave our country to US...



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Its all about elections.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
As long it's just FoxNews claiming that the US needs more time... That's mostly plausible.

If that lying sack of excrement, Obama had claimed that the US needs more time then we'd be done here.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by article
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I wonder why no one addressed the elephant in the room?

Why now? Why after this Colorado shooting? Why suddenly after all of these little "happenings" that just so happens to take place at the beginning untill the very end of this BS treaty.

It had to be planned in such a way.


I'm sorry, that's just way too much coinkidink for me to take as truth. Something else is going on here.. It just seems to obvious to not be a given.




This has been in the works for a while now so I actually think the Colorado shooting was planned to make it easier to pass the small arms treaty. The US didn't say 'no', just that they needed more time.




top topics



 
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join