Kerry Commits U.S. To U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Gun Grab

page: 1
24
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+5 more 
posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
news.investors.com...


Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: news.investors.com... Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook


Say what the #?
I think this Adminstration has push this BS far enough.

Just saw this on FB and I am in shock, but not surprised. Obama jumped right back into these talks after he was re-elected. How it will impact our 2nd Amendment rights I am not sure, but the article indicates that it may. Thanks Obama!
edit on 3/20/2013 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


It is one of those "America supports this for the entire world!!!! It just won't affect us at home is all> Shhhh.

P



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
news.investors.com...


Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: news.investors.com... Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook


Say what the #?
I think this Adminstration has push this BS far enough.

Just saw this on FB and I am in shock, but not surprised. Obama jumped right back into these talks after he was re-elected. How it will impact our 2nd Amendment rights I am not sure, but the article indicates that it may. Thanks Obama!
edit on 3/20/2013 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)


Snf op nice find, I havent heard anything about this, I just heard it was up, but nothing about them agreeing to it.

Lol, I wander if feinstein has any pointers for them about how easy it will be to try and implement it here.

I dont think they realise that most Americans can give a flying @#! $ about the UN or their stupid treaties.


What was the phrase from that one movie???

Oh ya....This is America!!!♥



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Congress Should Show Leadership in Advance of the ATT Negotiations
www.heritage.org...


The treaty also contains, at its heart, a troubling paradox. It is supposedly based on respect for national sovereignty and implementation at the national level. But the criteria it sets out for assessing proposed transfers of conventional arms are not defined solely at the national level. The criteria are also vague and easily politicized.

Thus, the ATT is likely to restrain law-abiding democracies far more effectively than it restrains lawless dictatorships, because only the law-governed nations will take its evolving standards seriously. Precisely because—unlike many nations—the U.S. is a law-abiding nation that actually implements treaties to which it is party, it cannot accept an ATT containing commitments that are subject to redefinition by other nations.


Sorry guys, I have my sister coming in from out of state and I have to run. This article may shed a bit more light on the issue.

Heritage Foundation has been on this issue, like a duck on a june bug.



The U.S. Cannot Fix the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
By Theodore R. Bromund, Ph.D.
March 13, 2013

www.heritage.org...


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Nobody can commit another individual to anything said individual isn't fully prepared to comply with.

Kerry, et al, can do as they wish. They can promise what they wish.

At the end of the day, it is up to each individual to determine where their line in the sand is drawn and to act accordingly.

I know where my line is drawn and what my response will be should it be trespassed. My decision will not be dictated by any other than myself.

When you look in your mirror tomorrow morning, ask yourself "who owns me?". Ask it in all seriousness because your response will eventually dictate your level of resistance to those who have already determined the answer to that question for you.

I believe most will bristle to the question and respond in a way that is not supported by their actions to date.

History repeats itself. At a pivotal point in the near future we will have to decide whether to live on our knees or die on our feet. Far more important than ourselves is our posterity. Would you trade your life so that your posterity can be free of this tyranny?

Again, you have to look into the mirror and make a choice. Is your life worth more to you than the life of your children and theirs? Are you willing to sacrifice your life so that your children and theirs can live in a world without crippling bureaucrats sucking them dry of every little penny they make?

If you are more concerned with your life and your happiness, I applaud you for your honesty and hope it works out as you expect.

For those who realize that the system is broken and designed to enslave your children for no less than the next three generations, we have to make our stand so they don't view us with disgust and disregard while they are slaves to a system that we allowed to enslave them.

WE have dropped the ball. Either we pick it up and fix things or we be prepared for our posterity to curse us for leaving them the mess that is heading their way.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Pretty sure it has to be ratified by congress for it to mean anything here in the states.
Still I wish this thing would go away and never return, We all know that it really means nothing for the countries that do not wish to abide by it anyhow, so really what is the point?



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


Yes, if not ratified by Congress it is called a soft treaty and it has less teeth. This is the same as the Agenda 21 that GH Bush entered us into with the UN back in, I think 1993. It is not a good thing, and is a part of their incremental method to eventually force us where they want us.

And be clear, they want to disarm us.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_
Pretty sure it has to be ratified by congress for it to mean anything here in the states.
Still I wish this thing would go away and never return, We all know that it really means nothing for the countries that do not wish to abide by it anyhow, so really what is the point?

Not only does it have to be ratified by Congress but if it violates the Constitution in any way, it's invalid no matter how big a deal they make of signing it. It's not really much of a question on that for how it ends, either...since there is significant precedent in the Supreme Court for upholding Constitutional Supremacy over any other agreements or treaties. They have to pass muster and unless the literal Constitution itself is changed (Not in this climate..no way they'd get through the unbelievable process of doing a full numbered amendment) then nothing Congress or the President says or does, changes that.

I had understood this to be more about International arms trading and not touching domestic though. I've heard plenty and seen the email chains floating around saying the opposite for years ..but reading the material last year of any official nature, looked like it was about stopping C-130's worth of guns from being quietly peddled to half the planet. After all, the American economy has been largely war/industrial focused since WW-II. The US sure hasn't been fighting all those years....just making sure others who were are well stocked and fully supplied.


(Along with Russia, China and a few other major arms producers, of course)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I would love to live in this fairy tale world where nobody needs gun anymore, but they want us to do this while at the same time arming police officers the same as the military, DHS is buying 2.1 billion rounds of ammo, and 2,700 Armored APCs and not explaining why. No it is not time to put down our weapons yet by a long shot. I will not go gentle into that good night.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   
The UN can put together all the bills / laws / agreement it wants. The fact of the matter is it does in fact violate the Constitution.

A trump card so to speak, can be played thanks to a US Supreme Court ruling from a hundred plus years ago.

The ruling occurred in the Head Money case. That ruling affirmed the US Constitution the Supreme Law of the land while placing treaties one step down. It specifically prohibits the ability of our government to be granted new powers, ones not spelled out in the Constitution, via foreign treaty.

Secondly it ruled that any foreign treaty the US signs onto is subordinate to the constitution. The treaty becomes a part of the federal body of law. Because of this, Congress can change the treaty criteria via legislation. In addition it allows citizens to challenge those treaties in US courts.

Head Money Case - 112 U.S. 580

In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal.


What does this mean? It means if the people want to get rid of this crap, then they must get involved in government, holding their elected officals accountible, firing them when they fail / ignore their job requirement and oath of office while voting people in who wish to lead, not for greater power, but for common purpose to make this county what it once was.

Get involved people.
edit on 21-3-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
HAhahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaahhaahahahhahahhaahahhahahahahahahaahahaha
: lol:



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
This is a treaty about INTERNATIONAL GUN TRADE not personal gun ownership.

It is designed to curb gun running, not void the 2nd amendment.

What is this place coming to?

The motto here is "DENY IGNORANCE" not "FEIGN OUTRAGE".



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Clearly you need to read more about it and its scope based on the language contained in it. It could very well apply to "normal" weapons owned by civilians. The only hang up Kerry has with it now is the Ammunition component of the treaty. They have until the end of the month to work out the details in a manner that will illicit support from the US, Russia and China.

It would still have to be scrutinized by Congress.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I am sure this would have prevented Fast and furious, Siria, Lybia, and Egypt and the rest of the US sponsored unrest.


The US is the power behind the UN.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





The UN can put together all the bills / laws / agreement it wants.


I don't care what the UN puts together,all their bills are illegal, I didn't vote them into Congress.
If Congress would take up any of their bills, then I would worry.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


True enough.

However, there's something to keep in mind: Even the Heller case, which was ruled upon favorably by the Constitutionalists on the bench, still had unanimous dissent from the Activists, despite the OBVIOUS Constitutional support for Heller's case.

Now imagine in the next 3 years the landscape of SCOTUS changes, and we get another activist appointment? Constitutionality could become meaningless, and the Constitution itself would get the Dr. Frankenstein treatment to become the "living and breathing" document the "Liberals" have long dreamed of.

In that scenario, this treaty would just be the tip of the iceberg.

Every unimaginably anti-2a law they could think of would be rushed through, knowing many --if not all-- would get challenged and ultimately make their way to SCOTUS, where they would be upheld under their new vision of Constitutional muster.

A new SCOTUS appointment is the Holy Grail for this administration, and it could happen. Great Old Ones help us if this happens.

-Mordeen



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Here is how that Treaty works:

It doesn't effect the largest arms sellers in the world us,Russia,China,France,Britian etc.

IT only effects you.

How about the un actually do something useful and pass an international ban on drones.

The world gun grab much like all gun control doesn't do a damn thing.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
This is a treaty about INTERNATIONAL GUN TRADE not personal gun ownership.
It is designed to curb gun running, not void the 2nd amendment.
What is this place coming to?
The motto here is "DENY IGNORANCE" not "FEIGN OUTRAGE".
So basically the international gun trade treaty is aimed at what? reduce violence in troubled nations? or favor specific countries to sell guns other than US? Just curious.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Art. VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”
Gunlaws.com
PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Can the U.N. Gun Treaty Trump the Constitution?

It shouldn’t, and the U.S. Senate won’t ratify it (67 votes would be needed), but too many people in government would like to see international control over us, a main goal of the U.N.
www.ammoland.com...

there's the actual article
bailouts shouldn't happen either but they did
please read

edit on 21-3-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



For the years 1980 through 1993, 16.2 million civilian guns were imported, and 4.6 million were exported, according to the BATF.
www.gunsandcrime.org...
edit on 21-3-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mordeen
 

I think you hit the biggest fear 100% accurate. If SCOTUS changes while Obama and whatever political theory someone wants to say he's following at this point is still in power .. We are in a world of hurt. Just as the SCOTUS basically shot the crap out of Obamacare while smiling at him, and assured our rights to the 2nd ..again, while smiling at the President in 2009 ...a NEW SCOTUS balance could find directly opposite and we'd be just as screwed as we currently find ourselves blessed.

As they giveth, they can taketh away. No doubt...and a bad thought, eh? Lets wish the Super Court members a very Happy and Healthy 4 years at least. Every one of them.






top topics



 
24
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join