Obama supports UN global gun ban less than 24 hours after reelection

reply to post by jimmyx


Politicians say one thing to your face and then go behind your
back and do whatever they want.
They eventually want the U.S. population to be disarmed,this could
be a step closer to achieving their goal.

How very convenient!! Obama is a UN lap dog and this issue has been stirring and cooking for quite some time now... Through constant rewrites and revisions etc etc.. one step at a time. Now, with the election over, they are free to move forward so they think. Meanwhile other nations are abstaining from approving this... (Like Russia).

This happened back in Sept. Most likely to prepare for what we are about to see...

n late August, an umbrella organization of 23 separate U.N. agencies known as the Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) adopted the first portion of International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS). The ISACS text is made up of 33 separate modules, some 800 pages in total. So far, eight modules have been adopted as the result of a process begun in the spring.
“Sadly, SAAMI is forced to conclude that ISACS has and will continue to fail in the creation of clear and effective guidance because of breaches in standards-setting protocols, and dogmatic adherence to unsubstantiated assumptions, agendas and biases,” Patterson said in a March statement before a U.N. committee working on the matter.

In another statement delivered at an Aug. 29 U.N. conference at the U.N., Patterson described ISACS as “. . . nothing more than a platform for adoption and pseudo-legitimization of the ‘wish lists’ of special interest groups.”

This part has yet to be written

03.30 National controls over the access of civilians to small arms and light weapons

So is marking and tracing of weapons in matter that they see fit..

This document provides guidance on adequate marking and recordkeeping of small arms, light
weapons, their parts, components and ammunition. It covers technical aspects of marking, as well as
effective recordkeeping infrastructure, for use at the national level in support of the national tracing
system.
This document is intended to help States adopt and implement measures to ensure that small arms
and light weapons, their parts, components and ammunition, are adequately marked and to encourage
the small arms and light weapons manufacturing industry to assist in developing means of protecting
against the removal and alteration of markings.

They also want to title weapons like automobiles... to trace a weapons full path of ownership...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.smallarmsstandards.org...

Originally posted by jimmyx
since i have to be nice...PLEASE read what the actual treaty document says, PLEASE note that the united states government (obama) has informed the UN that this IN NO WAY will apply to second amendment rights of the citizens of the united states....PLEASE note the treaty is to limit the sales of arms to anyone in the world...say...like...terrorists!!!

Have you forgotten that anyone who has more than three days worth of food is a terrorist? Anyone who frequents conspiracy theory sites is a terrorist? Looked in the mirror lately? The US of A has been declared a war zone so that we fall under the NDAA? Have you forgotten that the current administration may declare any one of us to be terrorists without a shred of evidence?

reply to post by jibeho


What's so bad about the UN? I kind of want to live in a Star Trek world...

Of course I am not that serious -- but I'm starting to really question all the anti-NWO and anti-UN stuff I've heard ever since I was a little kid.

I did a bit more looking and digging and just for absolute clarification on this point, NO international treaty can, in any way, be held to supercede the U.S. Constitution. Congress can pass anything it wants....there is a 3rd Branch of the United States Government and it sits 100% equal to those other two. Each have their area of focus and authority, and the Super Court's is defining what the other two can and can't do....to put it in the most simple terms (with non-US folks in mind.) Now if the Senate wants to ratify something in conflict to the U.S. Constitution, they can watch it be put down in almost instant process from the side that has already forbiden that in no uncertain terms......and has the final word on that matter.

The treaty power, as expressed in the constitution, is in terms unlimited, except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government, or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself, and of that of the states. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258

and later, while also citing the above case as support it was clarified further:

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

Reid V. Covert - 354 U.S. 1

I won't even touch Obama's documented position on gun control because it's truly not relevant here. Whatever they may or may not do domestically isn't coming from this and little can come at all with the 2009 case cited in my other post. International arms dealing IS a very serious problem though. It's not at all false to say that in too many parts of the world it's easier to get an illicit weapon than it is to get clean, potable water.

It's simply not about "Bubba Joe's Guns & Ammo" in the U.S.. It's about the arms bizzares in Pakistan and Tajikistan. It about the civil wars across Africa so flooded by guns, literal children learn to operate and maintain them at ages younger than most our children here are even trusted to be out of the house without supervision.

Good Reading

www.smallarmsstandards.org...

This could apply to any nation who approves it including the U.S.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare

Originally posted by jimmyx
since i have to be nice...PLEASE read what the actual treaty document says, PLEASE note that the united states government (obama) has informed the UN that this IN NO WAY will apply to second amendment rights of the citizens of the united states....PLEASE note the treaty is to limit the sales of arms to anyone in the world...say...like...terrorists!!!

Have you forgotten that anyone who has more than three days worth of food is a terrorist? Anyone who frequents conspiracy theory sites is a terrorist? Looked in the mirror lately? The US of A has been declared a war zone so that we fall under the NDAA? Have you forgotten that the current administration may declare any one of us to be terrorists without a shred of evidence?

You are correct that if you are labelled as a terrorist they can confiscate your guns. It's not hard to get labelled either as the examples were: Prepper, Pro-Guns, conspiracy theorists etc. I do see that they are using the label terrorist just to ban guns from you lot. Don't let the US of A be Britain you need to fight for your rights. Good luck to you all and keep safe. x

Originally posted by DJW001
Could it be that the reason you did not include any relevant links is because the UN measure Obama supports is not a ban on gun ownership, but a measure designed to control the illegal trade in weapons to militants and terrorists? It would not have any effect on domestic firearm possession, but would make it illegal for, say, Russia, to sell military equipment to pirates in Somalia:

www.un.org...

Just exactly how does our Gov't have any control over other gov't/s and another country/s.. or in what way does signing any type of legislature/bill/contract here, useful anywhere but here? It's not as though Obama was voted in as leader of the world, but only the US. Don't let the rhetoric fool you.

Read the Wax-Hatchman Act. Read the meaning of the word exact, and / or exactly in that act. The lawmakers have their own definitions to words we use-outside of any dictionary we might look to.

Originally posted by UltraMarine

We Civilians shouldn't possess guns . There are cops to protect us from Criminals . We cannot take law into our own hand .

Cops. I suppose you are referring to LEO-aka;Law enforcement officers. LEO are those who protect and serve those who impose laws upon civilians. Civilians are on our own when push comes to shove. If you need evidence of this, simply google protestors and LE.

Owning a weapon does not equal vigilante(ism), it simply gives us a way to protect ourselves against criminals. A means to protect & serve ones-self. If LE can carry weapons to protect and serve the lawmakers, certainly we should have the right to protect ourselves.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I didn't say anything about him supporting a gun ban, now did I?

Gun control is infringing on my right to obtain arms for my own defense against any corrupt forces within or without my country. It's unconstitutional.

Are you getting forgetful?? I, and others said the OP was false, as there is no proof of it. You provided the article as your proof it was true. The article proves nothing, except that the OP is false. Obama has done and said nothing to support a global gun ban.

Restricting access to certain types of weapons does not infringe on your right to obtain arms for your own defense. Not allowing mentally deranged people access to guns is not infringing on your rights - as long as you are not mentally deranged.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by badgerprints

 

You have a bad habit of not including any links in your OPs. Not good.

Call me a rebel.

Rebel?....lol More like call it bs then.

Banning Guns is a good thing. If people thing they need guns to take down criminals whats the chances of that. Too many people walking around with guns...bad temper and mentally disturbed =not a good result. What about the shooting at batman premier...etc.

posted in error

reply to post by Grey_Mysterio
Hmm... let's ban airplanes then because, just as once in a blue moon some nutjob goes on a rampage and kills dozens - once in a blue moon airplanes crash and kill hundreds!

reply to post by kaylaluv

Nowhere has Obama said he wants all guns in America to go away. Nowhere

Every basic weapons design has initially been made for combat.

Whether it is a single shot falling breech, a Mauser bolt action or a gas operated semi-automatic rifle..... today's hunting rifles were at one time weapons of war. Snipers still use bolt action rifles today.....in combat.

Obama said that weapons designed for soldiers in combat don't belong on our streets. He covered every one in his statement. He is an intelligent man, he is an attorney (well was) and he thinks before he talks. He meant what he said.

reply to post by jibeho

This part has yet to be written 03.30 National controls over the access of civilians to small arms and light weapons

This is the scary part, IMO.

Yet to be written.

Anyone thinking, "We need to pass this first, then we will see what's in it".

let me get this straight

some of you are upset that obama wants to help people stay alive?

lets get this straight


once you mention a ban......the arguement is lost

why not call it gun control....ie, no automatic weapons...
no rifles and pistols allowed in states which dont need em
s.cali, newyork, ohio etcetc......

keep the guns in the hands of the right people.....
farmers, hunters, etc

cant be a bad thing could it?

Ok lets be honest here. America has the most "armed" population in the world. Do you really think, even if some global law was passed saying no guns, that we would simply just up and hand over our weapons?

Yeah... that'll happen...

How come when your at war and you shoot the opposition its not murder or illegal in the eyes of the law? but when you defend yourself in your home and you accidentally kill someone you get arrested and charged with murder. its all about labels example: Soldier at war has the authority to kill people. Its all wrong with this world murder is murder and people should be accountable for their own actions if your life is not in danger. No one has the authority to take another ones life without good reasons. I do understand to protect yourself if your life is in danger. Some people are joining the army just so they can shoot other people as they can get away with it. They have been trained to be killing machines and to do evil which the governments have control over them like they are puppets. These shooting games that are out on pc and games consoles are to condition people to join up and kill people. Games are getting more and more life-like for a reason and that is to confuse the brain to say that its ok to kill others as its just a game. If you do research on these shoot-em-up games companies you will see that they have been heavily funded by some government for mind control. The human brain can be rewritten by using the senses by fear, pain, enjoyment, sorrow via both visual and audio. And that's why their are more killings due to brain manipulations.

This story has been proven to be a hoax?

Admin, shall we move this to the HOAX bin???

reply to post by thePharaoh

why not call it gun control....ie, no automatic weapons... no rifles and pistols allowed in states which dont need em s.cali, newyork, ohio etcetc...... keep the guns in the hands of the right people..... farmers, hunters, etc cant be a bad thing could it?

Sure could be a bad thing. Some citizens will have rights that other citizens will not.

Like a hunter that lives in Ohio will not be allowed to own a gun, according to your proposal. A hunter in a state(who knows which one, with your etc,etc) will be allowed to, because he lives in a state that 'needs' guns.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Nowhere has Obama said he wants all guns in America to go away. Nowhere

Every basic weapons design has initially been made for combat.

Whether it is a single shot falling breech, a Mauser bolt action or a gas operated semi-automatic rifle..... today's hunting rifles were at one time weapons of war. Snipers still use bolt action rifles today.....in combat.

Obama said that weapons designed for soldiers in combat don't belong on our streets. He covered every one in his statement. He is an intelligent man, he is an attorney (well was) and he thinks before he talks. He meant what he said.

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

I think he meant weapons designed to inflict massive casualties.