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

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Probably if you purchase a gun from a store they record some details such as the serial number as i can remember reading that the ATF do check these stores and go counting guns and serial numbers, so in theory there will be no change for a person buying a gun as it will be the background paperwork to which its only the stores problem not the owner

and as for banning imported ammo then i smell an opportunity for someone to set themselves up and make a load of money supplying bespoke ammo




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
Probably if you purchase a gun from a store they record some details such as the serial number as i can remember reading that the ATF do check these stores and go counting guns and serial numbers, so in theory there will be no change for a person buying a gun as it will be the background paperwork to which its only the stores problem not the owner

and as for banning imported ammo then i smell an opportunity for someone to set themselves up and make a load of money supplying bespoke ammo


That is the way it is now. Federal Form 4473 is filled out for all weapons sold and most states require a background check for legal handgun sales. Other states require a waiting period (cool down period) of 5 to 10 days before a weapon can be transferred to a purchaser. Most states that have a concealed carry permit program will allow a permit holder to immediately purchase a weapon without a background check. They assume the check was done to obtain the permit.
Stopping the import of weapons and ammo is a double edged sword. If all imports are stopped then legal weapon manufacturers will fill the gap of weapon demand, keeping jobs here in America. On the other hand, cheap imported ammo is fun to shoot and I purchase a lot of it.
We could stop all this second amendment trouble with one piece of legislation. Ban all gay people from legally owning weapons.




crazy like a fox...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
There are many states where no registration is required in order to purchase a gun (i.e. resale). In addition, the form you fill out when you do purchase a new gun from a dealer is maintained at the gun dealer NOT with the federal government. This treaty would require that the federal government maintain records and then report to the UN every sale. Maintained within that information would be your name tied to that serial number because their goal is to be able to trace back to the "last legitimate" owner of the gun, lest it eventually (somewhere down the line) fall into what they deem "illicit" activity.

So, if you resale a gun or barter a gun and that gun goes on to end up in someone's hand that the UN deems involved in "illicit" activities, you can be held accountable. In addition, the UN has no authority to even decide who is "legitimate" in their phrase "last legitimate owner". Any American citizen who does not have a felony barring them from gun ownership is a legitimate owner, whether there is EVER record of them purchasing that gun or not.

NO...the UN needs to go away.
edit on 11-8-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I can hear Alex Jones mouth all over this one.

But nooo, the American sheeple voted this guy back into office for the greater good right? ?

This will not happen unless Obama run for UN Secretary General, then we have something to really sweat about..seriously.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


I really messed up yesterday or at least I think I may have. I broke the first official rule of survival and told my neighbor that I did have a weapon. She is an older woman and the way she asked was in line with what main stream sees as a globalist take over of our gun rights, or so I thought.

It was casual conversation and yet afterwards I got this horrible sinking feeling like I had exposed myself.

My point here is that even though I told her it was a family heirloom and passed down from my Grandpa, not even sure if it will work, I was left wondering about how people will be turning in not only their own family but neighbors too.

I tried to open discussion about having a neighborhood watch meeting, but she did not seem interested in that. She seems to think out here in the country we can handle ourselves.

Anyway. Yeah I felt like I opened my big fat mouth inappropriately.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkofmimir
would I be stating the obvious if I said this was very, very bad.


That is not obvious at all, just why do you think that?


"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.


What part of that treaty upsets you? Unless you are a illicit arms trafficker!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Just keep turning the heat up on that pot of water. Most of the frogs aren't even twitching yet !



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
This simply adds to the list of restrictions on owning a weapon.

As one poster pointed out it is creeping incrementalism--one more turn of the crank,
one incremental drop of the swinging pendulum.

Under this treaty all domestic gun transfers will reported to the UN. Next another small step
will be taken and you will have to register with the UN to own a gun.

Remember "...Congress shall make no law"?? Well, guess what, Congress DIDN'T make a law.
...In fact, they weren't even consulted.
edit on 8-11-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


I forgot to add, I believe the banning of all guns would be a GREAT thing!

Ban them all! No military weapons, no police weapons, no Trident subs, Apache helicopters
or aircraft carriers. Ban them all from the biggest nuclear devices down to the smallest derringer
one-shot .22 calibers.

And then when you've rounded all of them up....EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM,

Stop by my house, and I'll give you mine as well...
edit on 8-11-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Good luck America, our right to bare arms when't years ago over here long before my time and i resent that fact.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
First of all the only thing anyone has agreed to is to a debate on the treaty. The only reason major weapons exporters are allowing the talk is to see if they can word it to give them a bigger advantage on the international arms market. You can expect Russia, China, UK, France and the US to only allow this treaty if it gives them a bigger peice of the pie. Of course UN treaties have no real power and most likely even if signed everyone would ignore it like they do al the others but, if the major powers can corner part of the market using it, then you can bet they will. And no this has nothing to do with your guns at home, this is about one thing. Money.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Well Obama did tell the Russians he would have more room to maneuver after his re election, And it looks like he aint wasting anytime.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


from the OP

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.




Letting UN intrude.... lets call it what it is.... Loss of Soverignty

betcha that Soros was the puppet master on this issue of USA-guns



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Oh well, I'm once again giving up on this cesspool of a site. They prefer to promote threads that make false claims about real issues, thereby willingly and intentionally trying to diminish the issue at hand by allowing the propagation of false and hyperbolic claims about serious issues than can impact our rights.

It's been #ed up around here for about 6 years running and isn't getting any better.

Good luck everybody with spinning your own tall tales.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


This is a treaty concerning the international arms trade and aims to limit illicit selling of weapons, such as to countries with human rights violations. How frickin' horrible. It says nothing about banning weapons from citizens. Moreover, its about arms trafficking, which includes all kinds of weapons besides small weapons, i.e. rifles, pistols and shot guns. Or are you for rocket-propelled grenades being sold to militants, terrorists and dictators.

A quote from the article you cite:

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms" [said a US official at the UN].

Googling the term "UN arms trade treaty" gives as one of the top hits a UN page on the matter, which says:

"The global trade in conventional weapons -- from warships and tanks to fighter jets and machine guns -- remains unregulated. No set of internationally agreed standards exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use."

This treaty is about the inter-country trade/transfer of conventional arms of all sorts, not just small arms as your title claims, and it is about transfer between countries, not regulating firearms within countries.

Did you bother to read the entire article or do any other research on this matter before you created this thread? Nope, not from hyperbole of your post or its. And yes, no surprise that the Obama administration held off on this before the election becase the GOP would rile up Americans like yourself by making false claims about this treaty.

There are way too many weapons in the world as it is and the fact that arms sales amount to over $70 billion dollars globally is obscene as well as dangerous. Am also curious, are you of a supposedly peace-loving religious sect, such as Christianity or Judaism, one of which's fundamental tenets is "thou shall not kill"?

And then there's the fact that there are already at least three threads on the ATS home page regarding this topic. Besides not actually figuring out what this treaty is about, people evidently can't be bothered to see if a post on the topic already exists before posting a redundant one.
edit on 9-11-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-11-2012 by MrInquisitive because: elaborated upon my post



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Here is a snip from an article a couple years old, but still inherently true.


The small-arms control process has proceeded with a speed dictated by a politically driven desire to achieve rapid success and with a corresponding failure to devote serious attention to a complex issue that involves virtually every state in the world. Recasting arms control as a human rights issue has made negotiating a treaty easier by making it less serious. That is a problem, not a virtue.

Fifth, at times, the campaigners appear to believe that they know what they are talking about. In the most literal sense, this is untrue.

While the U.S. and some states regularly publish information on their exports of conventional arms, most states do not. Thus, the publicly available data are extremely unreliable--especially the data for dictatorial suppliers such as Russia and China and most of the world's importers. Furthermore, there are absolutely no regularly published, official statistics on, for example, Iran's supply of weapons to Hezbollah or Hamas. Campaigners rely on statistics published by Western governments, which minimize the responsibility of non-Western regimes, and on information provided by organizations such as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

SIPRI itself admits that "the only means of making assessments of the financial value of the arms trade is to rely on official data provided by governments and industry bodies. There are significant limitations on using official national data in this way." This is correct. Even SIPRI's data for U.S. exports are badly flawed and incomplete. For instance, SIPRI reports that the U.S. sold no conventional arms to Slovakia in 2006 or 2007,but the U.S. reported $10.57 million in sales for fiscal year (FY) 2007. The data for other nations are of even lower quality.

This is not a minor technical problem, but a fundamental barrier to negotiating a serious treaty because it affects even the most important conventional weapons. For example, the precise destination of the 33 T-72 tanks seized by pirates off Somalia in September 2008 remains publicly unknown.

If the world cannot determine where major weapons systems are headed, it has no chance of policing small arms.[11] If the treaty were to cover-- as Control Arms demands--"small arms and light weapons, heavy weapons, military support equipment, components and parts, technology for making arms and 'dual use' items which have both civil and military applications," it would become even more impossibly broad because it would include almost every conceivable industrial item.[12]

The low quality of the data is particularly troubling given that the world's dictatorships and terrorist groups rely on receiving arms from states that regularly conceal their trade. One analyst has summed up the situation by noting that China, in particular, is "the country of choice when you want to buy cheap and simple weapons, such as Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenades and artillery shells."

For example, in April 2008, a Chinese vessel making a delivery from Beijing sought to land more than 77 tons of small arms in South Africa for shipment to Zimbabwe. A Chinese spokeswoman defended the extensive arms trade between China and Zimbabwe as "normal" and "prudent and responsible."[14] The shipment became known only because dockworkers in Durban, South Africa, refused to unload the cargo.[15] It appears that the cargo was eventually delivered by way of Angola.[16]
www.heritage.org...

SO what we see is that all the "data" that the UN is trying to push as fact is just what the west has published. The west is a major heavy weapons systems dealers. The US probably makes more from high end contracts for weapons systems than on the small arms trade. The small arms trade has been since the fall of the soviet union, an eastern dominated enterprise. Most of it is unchecked and unknown.

The dangerous part of these measures is that they wish to clamp down on western business. They want to take responsibility away from the governments involved and swing it to our business´ lap. The cause of war and death is not arms, or the arms trade. These are PRODUCTS of other factors that lead to the selling and buying of weapons, especially small arms.

It is absurd for the UN to try and impose these restrictions on what are mostly WESTERN businesses that import and export small arms, because the real meat of the issue is illicit weapons being dealt from the east. China the biggest one of them. It is no wonder why they support these measures since their small arms trade will flourish. They will replace the aging and mostly sold off former soviet stock pile with new manufactured, cheap weapons. That is HUGE money. This will only cripple the small arms business in the west, mostly the US. The small arms trade in the west is well controlled and regulated. Especially by the UN after all the resolutions passed by 9/11 to counter illicit support of terrorists, either in resources or arms.

This is a target on American industry, which will hike the price of arms and munitions for OUR countries, not the war zones that have already existed in the rest of the world.

This is a passive and underhanded way to make arms unobtainable in the US and Europe.

THAT is why we should avoid these sort of comitments, that only target us.

edit on 9-11-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
For those of you who don't see the big deal that this is... keep burying your heads in the sand.

This is a HUGE deal and is designed SPECIFICALLY to keep YOU from defending what's yours when the time comes for those in power to TAKE IT BY FORCE. This will do NOTHING to stem the tide of arms to hezbollah or any other number of non state actors... except YOU!



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:48 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.


Do you really believe that? The Globalists are moving forward with lightning speed with their NWO. You just do not understand that they need to take away the guns so we cannot fight them. Don't be naive. You and many others do not understand how diabolical these people are, what liars they are.

The bad guys will always have the guns, and make no mistake, look at Fast and Furious, our own govt will give the bad guys guns while taking them away from the good citizens.
edit on 10-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


See my post to Pjay. Don't be naive. The globalists are arming the bad guys and will take away the weapons of the good citizens so they cant resist the NWO.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


Ms Clinton has been working hard for this treaty. It is just the conservative part of Congress who won't cave on gun control. But I'm beginning to wonder about our Speaker. With treaties like this, Globalists just do whatever they want without Congress.
edit on 10-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join