US does NOT sign UN gun treaty

Good thing, otherwise a lot of bloodshed could happen if they tried taking guns away from the citizens. And awwww shuck, someone must'a kyped all my guns........... bummer for me and the government.

reply to post by links234


That's what i read. When i actually decided to read the damn arms treaty i was shocked that they didn't mention anything close to taking americans guns or challenging the 2nd amendment.

However the language to stomp on them could have been added and can be added. That's probably why they are asking for more time. The UN just (superficially at least) wants accountability for weapons being sold to those countries that turn around and commit a massacre.

Did you know that there are more registered hunters in Va, NC, and SC than there are US Military Personnel?

Did you know that there are 47 otherstates with hunters... not just registered hunters, but unregistered hunters, and gun owners?

Did you know that this is an election year and a lot of local and state Democrats have their backs to the wall thanks to Mr Obama?

You do know that Republicans are trying to displace the above Democrats.

You did know that mentioning UN and Arms Treaty in the same sentence scares the hell out of the above.

All Mr Obama has to do is support this UN Treaty and it further galvanizes and empowers the Republican and Conservative base.

Thus, and I hope it is true, the treaty will not be signed by the US.

Oh, they're going to sign it! Maybe not this time or next time but they will sign something before our dollar crashes. The last thing they want, is for the dollar to crash and when people realize all the money they've saved isn't worth a thing anymore. The last thing they want is for a guy who lost everything and now wants to shoot someone to be armed.
Expect a cpl more mass shootings that will be far worse than the recent shooting, to try and get a gun ban signed.

I don't think this is a legit article. Gun Owners of America, the NRA, and every other pro gun org isn't saying a word about this.

Originally posted by benrl
If this is true Im going to go celebrate by buying some guns... and if its not, same response.

I'd settle for buying and drinking a beer, or three.

Article 20
Amendments

At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.

Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.

Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.

A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.

This Treaty is just a foot in the door. Amendments WILL be added later and WILL be voted into it with 2/3 majority vote. Go look who would make up 2/3 of UN Council!

The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end):
Azerbaijan (2013) India (2012) South Africa (2012)

Colombia (2012)
Morocco (2013) Togo (2013)
Germany (2012) Pakistan (2013)
Guatemala (2013) Portugal (2012)

It would only take 10 of the countries listed to put an amendment in to take all of your guns away.Ask yourself, how many of those countries like us?

reply to post by ohioriver

It would only take 10 of the countries listed to put an amendment in to take all of your guns away.Ask yourself, how many of those countries like us?

They can put an amendment in but no one would obey it. People may be asleep now but when you start taking away people's guns theyre going to wake their sleeping selves up and realize they have a tyrannical government on their hands. The first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people so theyre helpless, then implement more laws so they cannot do anything but be helpless to stay helpless. Power comes with arms, those things break the language barrier, with the business end pointed at you there's no mistaking the silent threat. Dictator's only understand one language, the launguage of firearms in their faces.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by GoldenRuled

 

I was under the impression that the treaty was signed a long time ago,
it just wasn't ratified.

The TREATY cannot be signed UNTIL it is RATIFIED by the US Senate.
However, someone has said that the US Senate gave OBAMA authorization to SIGN the TREATY
in the OBAMACARE LAW somewhere around Page 800-850 in the ObamaCare.pdf

I have not found it myself, but if the language is in the BILL, we are SCREWED !

It's true! Arms treaty must wait after UN agreement fails.

Great news! For those who support the treaty and an arms ban, you can't have it, first and foremost because it's your constitutional right, second, guns are not to blame for violence and crime, but your society values. Read this:

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols. This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.stephenhalbrook.com...

Here is a very good outline on our rights under the constitution.
www.libertygunrights.com...

reply to post by Patifier


You have to serve in the national militia or you don't get to own a gun.
You need to pass a test annually to own a gun.
Don't forget you have to re-register your gun license every five years.
You can only own three guns.
You have to own a certain kind of gun safe to own certain kinds of guns.
Every gun is registered.
There is no such thing as concealed carry unless you work for the militia or as a security officer.

Gun crime is tracked though. There were a reported 89 cases of gun assualt in 2007.

If you wanted America to be more like Switzerland you would have to institute a large amount of gun contol, you would likely have to completely dismantle the national military. Essentially, you would eliminate the second amendment as a 'natural' right.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Start waking up when they take peoples' guns? They rolled over for it in the UK when the gun ban went in place, even inoperative heirlooms were put under the steam roller.


While the video is sort of alarmist, the ban in the UK is a fact and I'm willing to bet they've seen in increase in violent crimes of other natures, like stabbings.

Think about hurricane Katrina here in the states. They disarmed registered gun owners in neighborhoods that were not affected by the hurricane in the name of public safety.

Cheers
CM

reply to post by CajunMetal

Think about hurricane Katrina here in the states. They disarmed registered gun owners in neighborhoods that were not affected by the hurricane in the name of public safety.

That was in a localized area, on a nationwide scale it would be so alarming. NRA and other gun clubs would be beating the drums of war. The second amendment was installed so that if the need ever arose where we had to throw down a tyrannical government, it would be more easily expedited. Giving up our guns would be a bad idea. Criminals are always going to have their guns because of the black market, disarming the people would leave them prey to rising warlords and put us right back into the feudal system where the lordships have the weaponry, and we're nothing but powerless peasants.

reply to post by g146541


Yeah man you said it best. Unalienable rights indeed, but we must know the process of informing the proper offices in our country of our presumed rights; because within dealing with the masses they prefer to assume that everything applied is also everything that is presumed.

Great avitar dude

Kind of takes a massive wee wee on all those Colorado shooting conspiracy theories doesn't it? The ONLY reason I saw put forward for the conspiracy case was that it was to ensure that American arms were restricted or taken away altogether... Wonder what they'll use to justify their theory now?

reply to post by benrl


SAY DON'T TREAD ON ME! Take liberty my friend. I feel I shall take part in a free world kegger with my pistol in my lap. and my bible on the night stand. I won't run from This threat for how far have I to run before they catch me? No YOU CAN NOT have our weapons! simple and plain plain and simple. Bottom line life is for all of us not just some elite few. Screw the pyramid!

Wow, the lack of attention this thread has garnered is a very strong indicator of the level of confirmation bias on this site.... The number of posts on this thread saying it was proof of a conspiracy in the Colorado case would be through the roof if it was called US DO sign UN treaty...... Instead we have a mere handful of replies and almost no interest....

Personally, I was very interested to read the post by drwizardphd about the true nature of the treaty. I hadn't bothered to look into it myself as the issue (on here anyway) was centred around the curtailment of US citizens rights to bear arms, and I live in the UK... But, it's interesting to note that the treaty would have no direct impact on this right anyway... Thanks for that....

Wow I thought the liberals wanted to ban guns?

I guess not.

Why did everyone think they would?

Why has nobody had their guns siezed under Obama like the radicals said he would?