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 pjay2001
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,"
Originally posted by pjay2001
reply to post by Valhall
I guess you didn't read the whole article, including this:
An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.
"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.
Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by NavyDoc
you and i both know the last part of that will never happen and is a fantasy land thought, by any stretch of the imagination.
i do urge people to stay on top of it, as i do, but to feed the fear is just not something i will not do because in the end if they truly do come for our guns, the law will be the last thing on our minds.edit on 8-11-2012 by LittleBlackEagle because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Valhall
www.reuters.com...
This has been a calculated move since day one as far as the U.S. actions and the UN as a whole. When the small arms treaty was brought before the special committee earlier this year the only way it could be passed was with a unanimous vote of all 170 members. They decided to shelve the resolution and instead present it, at a later date this year, to the UN General Assembly where it will not require a unanimous vote.
So now the U.S. has agreed to have it presented.
Here we go folks.
Economy first on agenda? No
Volatile geopolitical issues first on agenda? No
Saying yes to letting the UN intrude on our rights to obtain small arms and ammunition first on the agenda? Apparently so.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by NavyDoc
you and i both know the last part of that will never happen and is a fantasy land thought, by any stretch of the imagination.
i do urge people to stay on top of it, as i do, but to feed the fear is just not something i will not do because in the end if they truly do come for our guns, the law will be the last thing on our minds.edit on 8-11-2012 by LittleBlackEagle because: (no reason given)
Never say never. Just because it is currently very unlikely, we should not let our guard down completely.
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."