Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hours after election U.S. agrees to bringing Small arms treaty before General Assembly

page: 1
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
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.




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
"Tell Vladimere that after the election I'll be free to do whatever I want."

This is no surprise. The man delayed his agenda until after the election so he would be re-elected. Wonder why some of the massive regulation of Obamacare was not set to be inplimented until this January?

Because if people saw exactly how much trouble it would create, he would not have been voted in.


"The beginning of the end of the democracy is when the people discover they can vote themselves funds from the public treasury."



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Yes, after the election he has much more "flexibility". Didn't take him and Clinton long to "flex".



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   

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.


So the DOJ would have been charged and prosecuted by an international court for F&F under the treaty?

That I might be able to get behind.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,"


www.reuters.com...

Ya...unless you are a felon...then you have no rights!

Don't vote...don't own a gun...and have fun finding a decent job!
edit on 8-11-2012 by jerryznv because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
would I be stating the obvious if I said this was very, very bad.

Wonder how the right will take it if it passes



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


I tell you what Val, my daughter yesterday was in Facebook and most of the young people in there were angry about anything that has to do with arms control, even my daughter is going next week to get a permit to get a gun as many facebook members were encouraging each other to get their guns.

She said to me that if is something she will no allow is anybody in our corrupted government to take our rights to arms.

I agree with her



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

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.


Creeping incrementalism. It would affect our RKBA because that would ban imported ammunition and firearms (say goodbye to that collectible imported from Europe) and would be a step down the path to civilian disarmament.

If you read the UN gun control protoccol from 1998 (Their Vienna COnference) you see that limitation of civilian owenership of small arms is the ultimate goal. The first step is tracking and registering firearms and ammunition. The next step is stricter regulation and licensing, and the third step would be confistaction/banning of sales.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jerryznv
 


NM
edit on 8-11-2012 by chiefsmom because: off topic



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
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)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

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."



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

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.


Small Arms Treaty...Could somebody shed more light on this subject? I'm from the UK, we're not even allowed pepper spray so I'd have no idea what legal small arms are classed as. Going by the name of the treaty I'd take it as they'll take you're small arms like Pistols, but let you walk around with Bazooka's, Flamethrowers & Light Machine Guns


And if this is the case, this is complete nonsensical.

I'd liek to add too, isnt it in you're constitution that you're allowed to be armed to protect you're self from people & even the Government if need be? Surley them taking this right, allows you to protect that exact right, right?
edit on 8-11-2012 by n00bUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pjay2001
 


absolutely untrue. Read the friggin resolution. It requires that ALL domestic transfers be tracked and reported to the UN.

And of course they state that...the same way they played into the "let's just shelve it" when it took a unanimous vote, so they could go into the election not looking like they supported it. No matter what the US vote is at the GA assembly, that vote will be cast AFTER the majority has been garanteed.

THINK.

edit on 11-8-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

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."


exactly, eternal vigilance, but i just hope people can leave the fear at the door. i think our greatest adversary is fear, living in fear will cripple us all if we're not careful.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
The actual % of bazooka ownership is next to nil, and the ammo is hard to get......
Machine guns were legal in Britain once....check yer own history of national emasculation.....
Now 50 Barretts are really fine pieces but rare as well.....
All machine guns are permit owned.......
In fact the aim of the second amendment is to have a citizenry armed with light infantry weapons, capable of overthrowing an unjust goverment should the need arise......this is the subject of recent debate here.....
Is the goverment out of control?If so whatll we do about it?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Many people forget to look at how government works at this level. The U.S. government claims the right to regulate arms by way of the interstate commerce clause. It is because firearms could be sold accross state lines that the Federal government claims the right. The U.N. will use that as an example and because firearms sold within th US could enter into international trade, they will claim the right to regulate it. This small arms treaty must not be allowed to pass. It would need ratification by Congress before it could be enacted, contact your senators and representattives and voice your opinion, do it often.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by borracho
 


The UN's reason for tracking our domestic transfers of guns and ammunition is even more offensive than that. They state that rich countries must report what is manufactured and sold internal to their borders because otherwise it would be UNFAIR to under-developed countries who don't have manufacturing capabilities within their borders. In other words, because a poor country is importing all their guns and ammo they necessarily would be required to report all transfers....so that's not fair if we don't report what we do internally.



edit on 11-8-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
panic all you want, Name on thing the UN has done that is enforced, or has become law, that all follow, see if you can find it just one law any law the UN has made that all obey. This is just a dream wish by the UN, they have this and that banning this and that, like land mines, but they are still made and used, small arms will be the same, ban all you want they will still be made and used.
what if this is just a way to drive sales of them up. any one want to track the sales of AKS AR15's or hand guns



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
any one want to track the sales of AKS AR15's or hand guns


Apparently the UN does.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join