127 replies to this topic

[Tsukasa]

While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.


OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT.

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States

On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.  Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!

THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.

As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.c...E59E0Q920091015

Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed. This is a very serious matter! Silence will lead us to Socialism!!!

[Cleomenes]

I know how much the left wants to restrict gun ownership, but this is not going to make that happen.  Even if we've signed a treaty on some kind of weapons ban, international treaties are trumped by the U.S. Constitution.  As long as the 2nd Amendment is around and isn't castrated by the Supreme Court, no international treaty can overrule it.  Thank God.

[Wickian]

I wonder if Obama can comprehend the civil violence that will result as a backlash of a successful gun ban.

[AliveInDeath7]

Alot of people around here won't give up their guns without a fight.

[Startraveler]

Tsukasa, on 20 May 2010 - 09:50 PM, said:

Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.

Really? A seven-month old Reuters article about the U.S. expressing willingness to enter into negotiations two years from now indicates that Clinton signed a treaty?

Quote

The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.

A complete ban on weapons? What does the State Department have to say about that, one wonders:

Unlike chemical or biological weapons, an Arms Trade Treaty cannot be a ban on conventional weapons. When conducted responsibly, arms transfers are a legitimate commercial enterprise and support global stability.

The international arms trade provides nations with material necessary to fulfill the most basic functions of a government – protecting its citizens and enforcing its national sovereignty.

What we are after is a means to have all nations do what the United States already does: examine each conventional weapons transfer before it is authorized to be certain that it will enhance … not undermine … security and stability.

We all know that there is a dark side to arms transfers that can have devastating consequences for people and regions.

Irresponsible transfers can support terrorists, enable genocidal, and create, sustain, and compound proliferation nightmares.

The Arms Trade Treaty discussions have gained momentum by a shared recognition of the disruptive and oppressive impact of illicit or ill-advised arms transfers by a number of countries and organizations.

That is why we need to explore a legally binding measure to better control transfers across international borders.

For the Arms Trade Treaty to be effective at thwarting irresponsible transfers, it must ensure that members effectively implement national laws that criminalize such transfers and allow for the monitoring of commerce. Without this, it won’t necessarily deter or stop terrorism.

So-called “legally-binding instruments” are absolutely meaningless to such terrorists. They are criminals who don’t and won’t abide by any reasonable agreements.

This means that the most only effective way to inhibit their activity is indirectly.

All states must recognize the obligation to enact and enforce laws within their territory that criminalize, isolate, and punish those terrorist groups operating within their territory or profiting from transactions that originate in or transit through their territory.

And, if the state claiming sovereign jurisdiction does not have the capability for such enforcement, then the international community must make available the resources to create such capability, both in the short and long run.

This means that any international instrument hoping to make real impact on “illicit” arms transfers must focus on requiring each party to put in place those necessary means to eliminate such rogue non-state actors both from within their territory and on the receiving end of their international commerce.

It means that weak states, where terrorists operate with relative freedom, must adapt to the very real and very difficult requirements any effective instrument will lay out for them.

They must take all necessary steps to become an effective, law-abiding state.

At the same time, conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States.

Our government has always supported effective action to control and ensure responsibility in the international transfer of arms. That’s because we believe that stable societies and secure environments are the best places for the growth of freedom and prosperity.

So we are a leading advocate of ensuring that arms transfers are done only for legitimate purposes. We carefully consider them before they are approved – I should know since I sign off on some of them – and put in place safeguards designed to ensure that small arms are used in the manner for which the transfer was intended.

The United States has one of the most comprehensive sets of requirements in the world that must be satisfied before a U.S. manufacturer is authorized to transfer arms internationally.

Every month, literally thousands of applications for export of weapons are reviewed in detail by our Government.

We have a strong and robust regulatory body. The transfer of arms are approved only when there is realistic and reasonable evidence the intended recipient has shown that they have a legitimate need and sufficient safeguards are there to preclude either deliberate or unintended re-transfers to unapproved end uses. We also consider the effect of the transfer on regional stability.

This process requires enormous effort. It is expensive. And it results in denying exports in questionable circumstances.

Although this can work to the commercial disadvantage of U.S. firms, it is the price we have to pay to try to stem the flow of conventional arms to terrorist groups, rogue states, and others who would undermine the rule of law.

It is also why the United States believes that it is the responsibility of the entire international community to settle for no less than the highest possible standards in international agreements and reporting activities.

We believe that robust and vigorous regulation and enforcement would make it much more difficult for terrorist groups or rogue nations to destabilize regions or support terrorist activity.

Wow, that's not what you said it was at all. Shocking!

Quote

By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.

Yes. That's exactly how treaties work. No need for 2/3 of the Senate to vote for it or anything. I guess that's why after the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto Protocol it had the full force of law in the U.S. (Note: it didn't.)

Quote

As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

There are two forms of government health insurance (Medicare and Medicaid) and one form of government-run health care (the VHA). None of these were invented by Obama.

[Antimony]

Well, good on him!, is my spontaneous reaction. Americans are crazy with regards to gun laws and I still can't understand how you can fail to see that more guns means more violence, not more protection. It's staring you in the face.

But anyhow, I doubt very much that it would be as easy as the OP wants to make you believe. Although I wish it were so.

Just a lot of hype, I'd say.


ETA: Just read what Startraveler posted at the same time...Well, there you go.

Edited by Antimony, 20 May 2010 - 10:48 PM.

[AliveInDeath7]

Antimony, on 20 May 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

Well, good on him!, is my spontaneous reaction. Americans are crazy with regards to gun laws and I still can't understand how you can fail to see that more guns means more violence, not more protection. It's staring you in the face.

But anyhow, I doubt very much that it would be as easy as the OP wants to make you believe. Although I wish it were so.

Just a lot of hype, I'd say.

Really? Because what would happen if the economy collapsed and everything became completely chaotic? What would you defend yourself with?

And what if someone was breaking in your house? Yes, you could call the police, but by then you'd be dead.

[Wickian]

Antimony, on 20 May 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

Well, good on him!, is my spontaneous reaction. Americans are crazy with regards to gun laws and I still can't understand how you can fail to see that more guns means more violence, not more protection. It's staring you in the face.

I disagree.  Guns don't make people any more violent than they would be without them.  It's still a fact that only criminals will use guns for illegal purposes.

[danielost]

Tsukasa, on 20 May 2010 - 09:50 PM, said:

While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.


OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT.

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States

On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.  Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!

THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.

As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.c...E59E0Q920091015

Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed. This is a very serious matter! Silence will lead us to Socialism!!!

doesnt the senate have to approve all treaties.  obama doesnt have a majority or high enough majority to think this will be a cake walk.

[danielost]

Antimony, on 20 May 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

Well, good on him!, is my spontaneous reaction. Americans are crazy with regards to gun laws and I still can't understand how you can fail to see that more guns means more violence, not more protection. It's staring you in the face.

But anyhow, I doubt very much that it would be as easy as the OP wants to make you believe. Although I wish it were so.

Just a lot of hype, I'd say.


ETA: Just read what Startraveler posted at the same time...Well, there you go.

i hate to disagree with you but where gun control has become law violance has increased doubling or tripling.  even in england the unarmed bobbies are now carring guns to protect themselves.

[Rhomphaia]

Antimony, on 20 May 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

Well, good on him!, is my spontaneous reaction. Americans are crazy with regards to gun laws and I still can't understand how you can fail to see that more guns means more violence, not more protection. It's staring you in the face.

Are you quoting legitimate sources or spouting opinion as if it were fact?

[Halfwolf]

When a State passes a Concealed Carry Measure violent Crime goes down at a rate of 2% for every year the Law has been in effect. Those are FBI Crime Stats.
  Congress has to ratify any Treaty signed that is why Kyoto is worthless in the US.
There are 80 to 100 million Gun owners in the USA which means over 200 million guns as most Gun owners own more than one. Who is going to collect those guns ? Who will give them up voluntarily ? This has been a Progressive dream for decades and it will continue to be a dream.

[SRCivic98]

danielost, on 21 May 2010 - 12:57 AM, said:

i hate to disagree with you but where gun control has become law violance has increased doubling or tripling.  even in england the unarmed bobbies are now carring guns to protect themselves.

well it sure beats the hell out of "Stop! or I'll say stop again!" type method.

honestly I believe that you tell or force people to give up their guns or firearms and knives....then you'll be playing with a can of gasoline while smoking a cigarette near by it. Which means, don't even try it.

[socrates.junior]

Is that what that means?

[Jack_of_Blades]

Antimony, on 20 May 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

Well, good on him!, is my spontaneous reaction. Americans are crazy with regards to gun laws and I still can't understand how you can fail to see that more guns means more violence, not more protection. It's staring you in the face.

Humans have been looking for ways to kill each other since the dawn of time. If you take away guns they are
just going to start using knives, baseball bats, of brass knuckles.

*At the original post* I'll keep my guns you can keep your fear mongering.