The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,873 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
LYING DOG ON GUN CONTROL





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.



On Wednesday Obama Took the 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 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.



Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the
direction in which our country is headed.



We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter
(Socialism/Dictatorship).

Psalm 109:8
Ecc. 10:2

IN GOD WE TRUST
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,145 Posts
That act of treason will result in war.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
And this surprises anyone? Marxism won't work with an armed populous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,541 Posts
By-passing the will of the people will be remembered come November if we keep on reminding voters and convince them to go to the polls.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
Not me, but they can be unelected if the beggers don't vote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,634 Posts
If this is true, and they do try and use the united nations to circumvent the constitution won't the NRA take it to court. And how would they able to enforce foreign law on U.S. soil. I think if they actually try this Obama would be remembered as one of the most horrible presents in American history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
A few things to consider.

The US Supreme court just decided that gun rights are an individual right.

There is a case in the Supreme Court to decide if that individual right transfers to the individual states. Same basic argument, same court.

Last, any treaty agreed to by the President, or brought to these shores by the the State Department, needs ratification by the Senate. The treaty would need to pass with 60 votes. No way are the democrats going to have the votes.

Look at the ratings of US Senators and party affiliation as provided by the NRA. Not happening.

No need to bring the health care stuff up - totally different circumstances, established law with more pending. Actually, for this to take affect, there would need to be a constitutional amendment.

This stuff does not just happen with a wink and a nod by the president and his cronies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
Bluetick said:
A few things to consider.

The US Supreme court just decided that gun rights are an individual right.

There is a case in the Supreme Court to decide if that individual right transfers to the individual states. Same basic argument, same court.

Last, any treaty agreed to by the President, or brought to these shores by the the State Department, needs ratification by the Senate. The treaty would need to pass with 60 votes. No way are the democrats going to have the votes.

Look at the ratings of US Senators and party affiliation as provided by the NRA. Not happening.

No need to bring the health care stuff up - totally different circumstances, established law with more pending. Actually, for this to take affect, there would need to be a constitutional amendment.

This stuff does not just happen with a wink and a nod by the president and his cronies.
That being said, the American people, especially the ones that voted for the adminstration of change, better wake up and see what they really put in office. Not just about gun control but many other aspects of our rights and way of life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Haven't found a link to the exact language in the first post. Bells went off after a second read. Sounds very similar to the false HB 2099 thing.

Bells whistles and a huge call to arms.


Here is a real article from Reuters on the issue:

<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015" target="_blank">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.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."


The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.


The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty. </a>


As all can see. Nothing here - as of yet about US sales of personal weapons. They are talking about international arms sales... International - That's tanks, missiles, artillery, and yes standard military arms.

I can almost bet, the first post is out of an email - circulating on the net..


Now - is this something to keep an eye on? Yes!

Is this something to oppose? Yes.

Frankly, is this something that is likely to happen anytime soon under the terms mentioned in the article? NO.

Consensus needs to be had between the three big guys on the block. Now add all the other countries.

This does need opposed. For no other reason than what it is. Sounds like some beauty queen got a big desk with a microphone... "world peace".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Not sure if this is the first post on this or not - but...


The article here is from November 3, 2009:

http://www.gunssavelife.com/blog/?p=439

If you note - the first paragraph or two from the real article are lifted along with the news service name. A bait and switch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The NRA Offical Position on the Arms Treaty being discussed </span>


<a href="http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5224" target="_blank">The UN And International Treaties

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Over the last few weeks, we have received many inquiries regarding the UN and the impact of international treaties on our Second Amendment freedom.

The NRA has been engaged at the United Nations and elsewhere internationally in response to anti-small arms initiatives for over 14 years. In most cases, agendas for the elimination of private ownership of firearms are disguised as calls for international arms control to stem the flow of illicit military weapons. These instruments are generally promoted by a small group of nations and a large number of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working in conjunction with departmental bureaucracies in multi-national institutions such as the UN and European Union.

The new U.S. administration, to no one’s surprise, has changed direction in the UN with respect to international small arms control initiatives that were resisted by the previous administration.

The current issue under discussion, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is in the early stages of the negotiation process. There is no actual draft text at this time. Work on the ATT is scheduled to continue by a consensus process between now and 2012. It should be noted that any treaty must be approved by two thirds of the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Attempts to thwart our freedoms should be no surprise, given the anti-gun climate of the international community in general, and the current U.S. administration in particular.

More generally, the NRA does not concern itself with foreign policy or arms control initiatives—except to the extent they would directly or indirectly affect Second Amendment rights.

We have been actively opposing transnational efforts that would limit Second Amendment freedoms. For many years, NRA has been monitoring and actively fighting any credible attempts on the part of the UN to restrict our sovereignty and gun rights. As a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at the United Nations since 1997, NRA gives gun owners a strong voice in the UN’s debate over global “gun control.” As one of over 2,000 NGOs representing everyone from religious groups to the banking industry, NRA has access to UN meetings that are closed to the general public, and is able to distribute informational materials to participants in UN activities.

Most importantly, NRA’s status as an NGO allows us to monitor more closely the internal UN debate over firearm issues and report back to our members. The role NRA plays within the UN as an NGO is almost identical to the role our registered lobbyists play every day on Capitol Hill and in state capitals across the nation—educating and informing decision-makers of the facts behind the debate, and working to protect the interests of American gun owners and NRA members.

Due to our NGO status, NRA was able to take an active role in thwarting the absurdly titled “UN Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” in 2006, and the previous meeting, the “UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons” in the summer of 2001.

The UN Small Arms Conference ended in deadlock with no formal conclusions or recommendations, due in large part to the NRA. In the final analysis, the complexity of the issue and the concerns of hunters, sport shooters and firearm owners world-wide prevailed. The failure of the program was total; no recommendations on ammunition, civilian possession or future UN meetings, or for that matter any other subjects, were adopted.

In addition to its UN activities, NRA is a founding member of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA). The WFSA is an association of hunting, shooting, and industry organizations that was founded in 1996. The WFSA includes over 35 national and international organizations, and represents over 100 million sport shooters worldwide.

NRA members may rest assured that we are actively engaged in international matters. We have never hesitated, nor will we hesitate, to use the political and other resources available to us to resist any international agreement that could in any way affect our Second Amendment rights.

</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Last post on this.


Keep your powder dry for the real fights - not the ghost battles - like this. Everyone lives and breaths the NRA here - so allow them to be your guide when you get these sort of news updates.

The NRA will make darn sure everyone knows when to man the ramparts! They will be very clear as to the threat, the means to battle it, and how.

Keep the powder dry and don't be so quick to jump.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
You = a majority of the people who live in PA! And in the remaining 8 months a whole lot of damage can be done beyond which the November elections won't be able to fix.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top