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.

 

RED ALERT: The U.N. comes after America’s guns: Barack Obama’s OK of a Gun-Control Treaty Would

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
www.washingtontimes.com...


The true scope of the anti-firearm crusade of the United Nations, which began more than a dozen years ago, finally is coming into clear focus, as the White House readies to sign the Arms Trade Treaty adopted with U.S. support this past April by the U.N. General Assembly. The reach of this long-term, carefully crafted agenda is truly breathtaking, going far beyond the publicly articulated goals of even the most radical of homegrown gun-control groups.

Since the first major U.N. meeting in July 2001, officially launching the so-called “Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects,” this bureaucratic behemoth on the banks of the East River in New York City has been attempting to stretch its tentacles into the domestic regulation of firearms. If the administration of President Obama signs the Arms Trade Treaty, the U.N. will have taken a major step toward its ultimate goal — regardless of whether the treaty is ever submitted to the Senate for ratification.


This is major, major news folks. This would be an illegal, traitorous act on the end of Barack Obama and anyone in the US government supporting this. Here are some of the astounding provisions of the Arms Treaty:


Restricting civilian possession of firearms only to those “at the lowest risk of misusing them.”

Limiting sales and other transfers of firearms only to commercial transactions at licensed “sales premises” (in other words, no transfers at gun shows).

Only persons licensed and periodically relicensed by the national government could possess firearms.

All firearms must be registered with the national government.

All persons wishing to possess a firearm must pass a rigorous exam administered by the national government.

All firearms must be stored in locked containers separate from ammunition, and “bolted to a heavy or immovable object.”

Only a predetermined number of firearms and rounds of ammunition may be possessed by a properly licensed civilian.

Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.



No civilian could own or possess a firearm for self-defense unless he first demonstrates a clear and convincing need.

The most clear and obvious need is to defend ourselves from this tyrannical government and the UN. So there, that justifies gun ownership for the whole country!


But seriously, it gets even worse:


Individuals licensed to own firearms are subject to periodic and random inspections of their homes or businesses.

In order to be granted a license to possess a firearm, an individual must secure recommendations from “responsible members of society,” attesting to their “suitability to possess a small arm.”


This is a HUGE power grab if this goes through. It will be time for massive rallies if they dare attempt to push this through. Obama is a treasonous criminal that needs to be thrown in Guantanamo Bay. The Red Line is drawn!

www.washingtontimes.com...



Related Thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 19-8-2013 by Merlin Lawndart because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2013 by Merlin Lawndart because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Yeah...already a thread on this, which you even linked to??


The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”


Sorta contradicts your title "UN comes after America's guns."



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

One need read no further than the introduction to this missive to understand its goal. The operative focus is strict regulation of civilian possession of firearms by the “central” or national government. This is necessary because “some civilians misuse small arms” by using them illegally or “improperly stor[ing]” them. The document bases this notion of government control of firearms and ammunition on “international law” — an inaccurate interpretation of such body of laws, but one that fits conveniently the U.N.’s agenda.


Doesn't the us pay the majority of the UN's bankroll ?

Why yes It does.

So the administration is continuing his assault on the second and ninth amendments.

They are not going to stop trying to disarm US.

Anyway they can they will try.
edit on 19-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
People can still own guns, 2nd Amendment will still stand.

Granted, there would be a lot more red-tape, but you can still go out and buy a gun.

I seriously doubt this will ever happen, or if it does be as horrifying as it sounds. There is to much money in the arms trade to really make this ever happen.

ETA: I don't agree or like it, just stating that people can still own guns, there'd just be some really crazy sounding hoops to jump through.
edit on 19-8-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I personally believe there is quickly coming a time when American citizens won't be able rely on our trust law enforcement. I can see the need to keep firearms away from dangerous people, and to stop illegal gun trade, but what happens when we have no way to defend ourselves from ourselves (if that makes sense). I certainly wouldn't bring a bow and arrow to a gun fight.

This is going to hurt law abiding people more than it will criminals, at least I think.
edit on 19-8-2013 by gikari because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by gikari
I personally there is quickly coming a time when American citizens won't be able rely on our trust law enforcement. I can see the need to keep firearms away from dangerous people, and to stop illegal gun trade, but what happens when we have no way to defend ourselves from ourselves (if that makes sense). I certainly wouldn't bring a bow and arrow to a gun fight.

This is going to hurt law abiding people more than it will criminals, at least I think.


I think your argument is one of the more powerful ones against this power grab. Granted as I previously said people COULD still own guns, but it would a lot more difficult. In the end, as you suggested this might dissuade law-abiding people from owning guns due to the "hassle".

Criminals will always find ways of getting guns.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
Yeah...already a thread on this, which you even linked to??


The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”


Sorta contradicts your title "UN comes after America's guns."


First of all, that thread is 4 days old and the article posted was written today, so not sure what your point is.

Secondly, the title of my article is from the Washington Times and is not my own, I was simply re-posting. You would've know these two things if you would've read properly.

Thirdly, if you even read half of the article and provisions, you would understand there is absolutely NOTHING constitutional about this treaty.

Come on, man.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Wow, how paranoid can one get. This only affects international sales of guns. (kinda needed this before that whole fast and furious thing didn't we?)

But of course, the chicken littles of this board are going to go crying into their AR-15s (*Sob* Out of my cold dead hands baby, cold, dead, hands. *Snif*)

This post will of course be ignored, as this thread will get tons of stars and flags for something that makes no sense, isn't really happening the way the OP is portraying it, and doesn't affect US Citizens private gun collections in any way shape or form.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Yea, i covered this last December. I have information about it on my thread (if you don't mind the brazen advertising
), link as follows

UN Arms Trade Treaty, it's alive

What that treaty is going to do is add overhang and fees to those that want to own a gun.
edit on 19-8-2013 by cenpuppie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
Wow, how paranoid can one get. This only affects international sales of guns. (kinda needed this before that whole fast and furious thing didn't we?)

But of course, the chicken littles of this board are going to go crying into their AR-15s (*Sob* Out of my cold dead hands baby, cold, dead, hands. *Snif*)

This post will of course be ignored, as this thread will get tons of stars and flags for something that makes no sense, isn't really happening the way the OP is portraying it, and doesn't affect US Citizens private gun collections in any way shape or form.


Have any idea WHATSOEVER how many gun manufactures import their products these days ?

'Assembled in the USA' not quite the same thing as 'Made in the USA'.

Most of the popular guns Glock,Saiga.,etc

This effects every gun owner, and manufacturer in this country and the world.

The UN and those countries on it's security council has no rights to even try this.

Especially when they are largest arms dealers in the world,and sit on that council.

Just makes people ripe for the slaughter when they want to 'nation build'.
edit on 19-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
It's not simply illegal and traitorous. It's a waste of his time. It can't happen the way the story is presenting it unless Obama finds a way to kill 9 Supreme Court Justices first and replace them... THEN get a case before the new court to reverse a series of decisions (across 200 years) supporting the absolute supremacy of the US Constitution over * ANY * treaty, alliance or agreement outside it. That includes the precious UN and their arms control measures (Which are actually BADLY needed outside the U.S. and the legal firearms market around the world)

He can try till he's blue in the face. While those 9 Justices are still serving? Nothing holds past the first review they have on it...and THIS is where the Supreme Court being THE ultimate and absolute authority on what is and is not legal in this nation matters. It means everything.

Pray those Justices enjoy VERY good health through at least 2016. Every last one of them.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


Well, they can put his name to what ever fancy papers he wants,
fact is, in order to take the guns, someone has to actually come
and take them.

That will be no easy task, and many officals will die in the process of
trying.
They may have our guns, Lead first, that is the only way the american
people are going to give them up.

If pushed, this will start a war here in the states. The gun owners outnumber
the gun grabbers. Granted gun grabbers have much nicer equipment and
fancy toys, but when it comes down to it, we outnumber them and they will
fail in taking the guns from the people.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 

Your post won't be ignored because you need to be called out for being a liar. My OP shows that it absolutely and directly effects all American gun owners. BTW, your attempt at ridicule and insults is pathetic.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
What about the rights of individual states? Seems like no one remembers they trump the Feds. Unless, of course, they are ridiculously strict (California emissions for one). They seem to spread like cancer from state to state.

I'll wait until states decide their view before I worry about it. Hell, my Sears .22 from 1940 holds 19 rounds and I can't even remember how many Mini Mags. I'm sure as hell not modifying that to fit 10 or less rounds, It was a gift to my great grandmother who gave it to my grandmother and finally ended up with me.

Plus I'm fairly certain that should this be implemented, My state would jump on the band wagon in the next week. People (mostly politicians) seem to not remember that NYC is not the only part of this state and force ridiculous laws on the rest of us 200+ miles away.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
This really isn't about paranoia either, it's about safety and your basic rights (whatever they mean anymore). It a affects everyone from Americans to Antarcticans (spelling?). I suggest that anyone who has an unregistered gun, don't register it. Oh, and invest in a 3d printer, lol.

3d gun actually fires


edit on 19-8-2013 by gikari because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2013 by gikari because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Simply put the second amendment prevents our government from having a thing to do with this, so yes when the Article cited or the OP says its treason - well it is.

There really is no plausible way around that part that says "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" The Constitution does not read "Arms domestically produced shall not be infringed" nor "Except arms imported" or anything of the kind.

Same goes for licenses, permits and all the other clap trap bandied about on the matter.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


It's still a bunch of hogwash as the US Constitution trumps any international treaty anyway. There is no way shape or form in which the UN could possibly enforce this treaty on the US. We will ignore it like we ignore all other treaties we signed in this country since it's inception. (really, has anyone anywhere figured out that the US doesn't really give a crap about treaties?)

Don't worry "Law abiding gun owners" will still be able to shoot up schools, and churches, and theatres, and marketplaces just like always.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 





Granted, there would be a lot more red-tape


And how is this not infringement.

It clearly say our right shall not be infringed upon.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
It can't happen the way the story is presenting it...


wrabbit, you're a smart guy. You should see that the story is presenting it in such a way that it, literally can't happen that way.

1) The UN has already declared that it won't interfere with individual states rights

Reaffirming the inherent right of all States to individual or collective selfdefence
in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter,
Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms
and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on
private ownership, exclusively within their territory,


2) Even if the treaty did infringe on the second amendment (which it doesn't!) it wouldn't have any impact on the United States because of Reid v. Covert, 1957.

the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.


It's scare tactics written up by the NRA to get more members and more money from the conservative base.

OT: When was the last time anything the NRA said came true? In respect to 'gun grabbing,' of course.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


What if they decide to change something later


Something that would be unconstitutional and they 'do it anyway'


Now it goes to the SCOTUS


Then they call it a tax.

One reason they are pressing this button is to protect the smugglers and the international borderless merchant bankers.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join