PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Obama Green Lights UN Gun Grab Hours after Election


BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 02:50 PM
Reuters

Just hours after he was reelected U.N. arms treaty is backed. Looks like he really is going to govern like Allende still.

"U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies."


"But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions."

"Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in support of the resolution."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107?irpc=932

La literatura
11-10-2012, 02:55 PM
What's your opposition to this? Do you think the UN is going to take your guns away?

stonedstooge
11-10-2012, 02:56 PM
So instead of taking guns away in the US, it will take jobs away?

La literatura
11-10-2012, 03:02 PM
So instead of taking guns away in the US, it will take jobs away?

How many US jobs are sustained by illicit international gun trade?

LiveSteam
11-10-2012, 03:21 PM
How many US jobs are sustained by illicit international gun trade?

Own any guns?

BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 03:21 PM
So instead of taking guns away in the US, it will take jobs away?

It targets gun trade and ownership. The language of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) uses the term "all aspects" throughout the document. It lacks clear definitions.

There is a .pdf here:

Document can be seen at: UN’s “Outcome document” for the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspectshttp://iapcar.org/?tag=arms-trade-treaty

Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action
It sounds on the surface to just be about regulating control of weapons from rogue nations but..."strengthening and enforcement of national laws, regulations and administrative procedures to prevent the illicit trade and illegal manufacture of small arms and light weapons, the development of national action plans, ..."

Dick Bull
11-10-2012, 03:23 PM
It targets gun trade and ownership. The language of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) uses the term "all aspects" throughout the document. It lacks clear definitions.

There is a .pdf here:

Document can be seen at: UN’s “Outcome document” for the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspectshttp://iapcar.org/?tag=arms-trade-treaty

Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action
It sounds on the surface to just be about regulating control of weapons from rogue nations but..."strengthening and enforcement of national laws, regulations and administrative procedures to prevent the illicit trade and illegal manufacture of small arms and light weapons, the development of national action plans, ..."

Real quick. What is your objection to strengthening laws on exports that would make it more difficult to traffic weapons?

LiveSteam
11-10-2012, 03:24 PM
Real quick. What is your objection to strengthening laws on exports that would make it more difficult to traffic weapons?

The import part

Dick Bull
11-10-2012, 03:39 PM
The import part

I can't speak too much on this, because there is a lot I don't know, but I have questions

Is it felt this will help control the illegal arms trade?

mikey23545
11-10-2012, 03:44 PM
Real quick. What is your objection to strengthening laws on exports that would make it more difficult to traffic weapons?

I need to hear Brian Terry's opinion on the matter before I can comment.

DementedLogic
11-10-2012, 03:47 PM
I can't speak too much on this, because there is a lot I don't know, but I have questions

Is it felt this will help control the illegal arms trade?

New laws are going to stop criminals from breaking laws?

BigRedChief
11-10-2012, 03:51 PM
Own any guns?No, I don't own a gun. No interest in hunting either. But, I'm a staunch advocate of gun rights. Until you change the constitution, the constitution is clear.

This "Obama is coming for your guns" is just pure unadulterated bullshit. He's been in office for 4 years. He had a super majority in the senate and control of the house for two years, If he was just waiting for the right time to take away your guns, wasn't that the perfect time. This is a Fox News/NRA scare tactic. It's never going to happen.

Dick Bull
11-10-2012, 03:58 PM
New laws are going to stop criminals from breaking laws?


Well no. If that was the case nobody would be in jail, because those laws would have prevented them from doing the crime. However, making it more difficult to do has more value then doing nothing.

mikey23545
11-10-2012, 04:02 PM
No, I don't own a gun. No interest in hunting either. But, I'm a staunch advocate of gun rights. Until you change the constitution, the constitution is clear.

This "Obama is coming for your guns" is just pure unadulterated bullshit. He's been in office for 4 years. He had a super majority in the senate and control of the house for two years, If he was just waiting for the right time to take away your guns, wasn't that the perfect time. This is a Fox News/NRA scare tactic. It's never going to happen.

Thank heavens Romney didn't win because he was going to rip up Roe v Wade, end Medicare, and put blacks back into chains.

Just like every other Republican president has done, of course.

Dick Bull
11-10-2012, 04:03 PM
Thank heavens Romney didn't win because he was going to rip up Roe v Wade, end Medicare, and put blacks back into chains.

Just like every other Republican president has done, of course.

I hear a little bit of sugar works wonders on sour grapes.

La literatura
11-10-2012, 04:04 PM
Thank heavens Romney didn't win because he was going to rip up Roe v Wade, end Medicare, and put blacks back into chains.

Just like every other Republican president has done, of course.

Okay, so mikey is on record saying that the "Obama taking our guns!" is hyperbolic bullshit. Thanks for your contribution.

La literatura
11-10-2012, 04:09 PM
Own any guns?

My family owns guns, and none of them were purchased in black market illegal international swaps. Did you regularly purchase your guns on the black market from a Russian dealer named Vladimir? If so, I can see why this might be a problem for you.

Bowser
11-10-2012, 06:21 PM
This sucks. I really liked watching FPS Russia's videos.

Ugly Duck
11-10-2012, 06:41 PM
What does FactCheck.org have to say about it? Oh, here it is....

Q: Does the Obama administration intend to “force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens” through a United Nations treaty?

A: No. The administration plans to negotiate a treaty to regulate the international export and import of weapons.
It says that it won’t support any treaty that regulates the domestic transfer or ownership of weapons, or that infringes on the Second Amendment.

HonestChieffan
11-10-2012, 06:45 PM
No, I don't own a gun. No interest in hunting either. But, I'm a staunch advocate of gun rights. Until you change the constitution, the constitution is clear.

This "Obama is coming for your guns" is just pure unadulterated bullshit. He's been in office for 4 years. He had a super majority in the senate and control of the house for two years, If he was just waiting for the right time to take away your guns, wasn't that the perfect time. This is a Fox News/NRA scare tactic. It's never going to happen.

Sure. Trust politicians.

Lzen
11-10-2012, 06:53 PM
No, I don't own a gun. No interest in hunting either. But, I'm a staunch advocate of gun rights. Until you change the constitution, the constitution is clear.

This "Obama is coming for your guns" is just pure unadulterated bullshit. He's been in office for 4 years. He had a super majority in the senate and control of the house for two years, If he was just waiting for the right time to take away your guns, wasn't that the perfect time. This is a Fox News/NRA scare tactic. It's never going to happen.


I'm sure they said that about DC and Chicago, too. Dems tried to take away the guns in those places. It is logical to assume that Obama would want to do the same since he is a left wing ideologue.

Messier
11-10-2012, 06:58 PM
I'm sure they said that about DC and Chicago, too. Dems tried to take away the guns in those places. It is logical to assume that Obama would want to do the same since he is a left wing ideologue.

Oh, I see the problem people are having. They think Obama is left wing.

KCTitus
11-10-2012, 07:12 PM
Meh...this doesnt have anything to do with private ownership of guns. That's insane.

Oh and if we still have the internet when Homeland Security is going around rounding up guns from private citizens, someone please bump this and rub it in my face, please?

On a related note, bought my first AR-15 yesterday and 1000 rounds of ammunition. It was a good day.

LiveSteam
11-10-2012, 07:23 PM
My family owns guns, and none of them were purchased in black market illegal international swaps. Did you regularly purchase your guns on the black market from a Russian dealer named Vladimir? If so, I can see why this might be a problem for you.

I own & have owned many many guns made from all around the world. From Mouser & Browning to Tula & Chicom. & I really dnt give a fuck one way or the other. The GOV is not coming to take what I have & never will.
I just dnt wanna see more regulations on buying foreign made & imported rifles & hand guns. Which I think this will do at some point.

LiveSteam
11-10-2012, 07:24 PM
If the GOV ever decided it wanted to really bring down the hammer on gun control it will be done through ammo sales & tax

BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 09:01 PM
What does FactCheck.org have to say about it? Oh, here it is....

Q: Does the Obama administration intend to “force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens” through a United Nations treaty?

A: No. The administration plans to negotiate a treaty to regulate the international export and import of weapons.
It says that it won’t support any treaty that regulates the domestic transfer or ownership of weapons, or that infringes on the Second Amendment.

If you believe that I have a bridge to sell ya'. It's not like I didn't know what the administration said already. It's the language of the document that allows them to get away with saying that to fool the public. Factcheck has not really done its homework.

BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 09:02 PM
Meh...this doesnt have anything to do with private ownership of guns. That's insane.

Oh and if we still have the internet when Homeland Security is going around rounding up guns from private citizens, someone please bump this and rub it in my face, please?

On a related note, bought my first AR-15 yesterday and 1000 rounds of ammunition. It was a good day.

Gun purchases are up since the election. But you haven't read the document to see the lack of definitions and how things can change with how it's written.

VAChief
11-10-2012, 09:18 PM
Gun purchases are up since the election. But you haven't read the document to see the lack of definitions and how things can change with how it's written.

Didn't they go up after the election in 2008? Seems like those that could profit from the hyperbole will rake it in again. Ironic.

BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 09:32 PM
Didn't they go up after the election in 2008? Seems like those that could profit from the hyperbole will rake it in again. Ironic.

Okay, so now why is this not a gun grab once you parse the language in the document?

Dick Bull
11-10-2012, 09:39 PM
Okay, so now why is this not a gun grab once you parse the language in the document?

Because....

Nevermind, too easy.

LiveSteam
11-10-2012, 09:44 PM
Because....

Nevermind, too easy.

Fuck that never mind bullshit. Answer that question of hers .

banyon
11-11-2012, 08:26 AM
Okay, so now why is this not a gun grab once you parse the language in the document?

Because you didn't parse it? And only incorrectly paraphrased it in a way that no one who understands how to read legal documents would do?

whoman69
11-11-2012, 08:41 AM
It targets gun trade and ownership. The language of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) uses the term "all aspects" throughout the document. It lacks clear definitions.

There is a .pdf here:

Document can be seen at: UN’s “Outcome document” for the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspectshttp://iapcar.org/?tag=arms-trade-treaty

Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action
It sounds on the surface to just be about regulating control of weapons from rogue nations but..."strengthening and enforcement of national laws, regulations and administrative procedures to prevent the illicit trade and illegal manufacture of small arms and light weapons, the development of national action plans, ..."

Sounds horrible! Stop the illegal gun trade?! Why I never!

BigRedChief
11-11-2012, 10:21 AM
I'm sure they said that about DC and Chicago, too. Dems tried to take away the guns in those places. It is logical to assume that Obama would want to do the same since he is a left wing ideologue.How the fuck is Obama going to circumvent the 2nd amendment with an executive order? And if not by executive order, how the fuck does he take away your guns without the house of representatives cooperation?

Come on man, this is just NRA and Fox news scare tactics.

RedDread
11-11-2012, 10:33 AM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y49/Fooster/Amurrica.jpg

Bowser
11-11-2012, 10:36 AM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y49/Fooster/Amurrica.jpg

LMAO

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 11:08 AM
It's gun grab. Meanwhile, gun sales and ammo rose after the election. Others think so as well. Keep your heads in the sand lickspittles.

HolyHandgernade
11-11-2012, 11:12 AM
I don't own any guns, but I'm very interested to see who gets there's taken away from them. Can we sticky a thread to keep count? You know, since its been green lit now and all.

Bowser
11-11-2012, 11:13 AM
It's gun grab. Meanwhile, gun sales and ammo rose after the election. Others think so as well. Keep your heads in the sand lickspittles.

So illegal gun trade is good?

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 11:16 AM
It's nice to see how the left prefers UN global governence over the US sovereignty and her Constitution. Too many treaties have the effect of over riding our Founding document. Welcome to globalism.

Bowser
11-11-2012, 11:20 AM
It's nice to see how the left prefers UN global governence over the US sovereignty and her Constitution. Too many treaties have the effect of over riding our Founding document. Welcome to globalism.

So will they go door to door collecting guns, or where there be a neighborhood dropoff point? Will we be expected to give up our firearms on an honor system, or will there be a questionaire sent in the mail?

Hopefully it's a questionaire and not phone calls at all hours. Those are annoying.

VAChief
11-11-2012, 11:23 AM
How the **** is Obama going to circumvent the 2nd amendment with an executive order? And if not by executive order, how the **** does he take away your guns without the house of representatives cooperation?

Come on man, this is just NRA and Fox news scare tactics.

Again, who profits from the hysteria?

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 11:24 AM
Obama is calling for renewal of assault weapon's ban. Tie this into the language on the UN gun grab as one of those national laws.

Dick Bull
11-11-2012, 11:29 AM
It's gun grab. Meanwhile, gun sales and ammo rose after the election. Others think so as well. Keep your heads in the sand lickspittles.

You have leveled up on your dumbassery.

Seriously, please tell me exactly where it says "we gonna take yo gunz"

Otherwise shut yo crazy mouth.

Dick Bull
11-11-2012, 11:30 AM
It's nice to see how the left prefers UN global governence over the US sovereignty and her Constitution. Too many treaties have the effect of over riding our Founding document. Welcome to globalism.

You are an idiot. Even if Obama signed a treaty that took away gun rights, it would still have to be ratified to be enforced.

La literatura
11-11-2012, 11:32 AM
It's nice to see how the left prefers UN global governence over the US sovereignty and her Constitution. Too many treaties have the effect of over riding our Founding document. Welcome to globalism.

Can you name one single treaty that overrides the Constitution?

La literatura
11-11-2012, 11:34 AM
You are an idiot. Even if Obama signed a treaty that took away gun rights, it would still have to be ratified to be enforced.

And then it would be struck down as unconstitutional using Reid v. Covert (1957) principles. BucEyedPea is gullible, naive, and almost completely ignorant of Constitutional law principles.

banyon
11-11-2012, 11:38 AM
It's gun grab. Meanwhile, gun sales and ammo rose after the election. Others think so as well. Keep your heads in the sand lickspittles.

We'll just have to take your word for it, huh?

Only on the internet can someone who has probably never fired a gun know better than gun owners who try to base things on facts.

"remember the alamo" !

Bowser
11-11-2012, 11:38 AM
And then it would be struck down as unconstitutional using Reid v. Covert (1957) principles. BucEyedPea is gullible, naive, and almost completely ignorant of Constitutional law principles.

http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/486/688/688486.gif

Bowser
11-11-2012, 11:41 AM
And they can't take away our fully automatic weapons. We're going to need every gun that goes full rock n' roll when Texas seceeds to fight out the influx of illegal Texans crossing the border!

banyon
11-11-2012, 11:42 AM
So will they go door to door collecting guns, or where there be a neighborhood dropoff point? Will we be expected to give up our firearms on an honor system, or will there be a questionaire sent in the mail?

Hopefully it's a questionaire and not phone calls at all hours. Those are annoying.

She will want to keep it vague, to minimize the accountability when she's wrong later on.

BigRedChief
11-11-2012, 11:45 AM
Can you name one single treaty that overrides the Constitution?:hmmm: wonder how the people using these scare tactics get around that slight little problem called the consitution?

Dick Bull
11-11-2012, 11:46 AM
And they can't take away our fully automatic weapons. We're going to need every gun that goes full rock n' roll when Texas seceeds to fight out the influx of illegal Texans crossing the border!

Fucking Illegal Texicans, coming to take away our jobs.

Dick Bull
11-11-2012, 11:49 AM
And then it would be struck down as unconstitutional using Reid v. Covert (1957) principles. BucEyedPea is gullible, naive, and almost completely ignorant of Constitutional law principles.

Yeah, I didn't even touch on the SC because the likelihood of a treaty like that passing the senate is remote at best.

aturnis
11-11-2012, 11:52 AM
And then it would be struck down as unconstitutional using Reid v. Covert (1957) principles. BucEyedPea is gullible, naive, and almost completely ignorant of Constitutional law principles.

So FoxNewsing? Limbaaauughnomnomnom?

Idiot Republicans.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 12:07 PM
:hmmm: wonder how the people using these scare tactics get around that slight little problem called the consitution?
Treaties become the law of the land here.

"Treaties can be compared to contracts. If a party fails to obligations can be held liable under international law. "( wiki)

“In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. "~ Chief Justice Marshall in 1829

Thus, too many treaties with the UN override U.S. Sovereignty. The UN is establishing more and more global governance via rules through treaties. It is through the treaty power this can happen. ( I say if a treaty contradicts the Constitution it should not be enforced....but there are people and groups in power or connected to power that don't agree with that. So there is no guarantee.)

Dick Bull
11-11-2012, 12:15 PM
Treaties become the law of the land here.

"Treaties can be compared to contracts. If a party fails to obligations can be held liable under international law. "( wiki)

“In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. "~ Chief Justice Marshall in 1829

Thus, too many treaties with the UN override U.S. Sovereignty. The UN is establishing more and more global governance via rules through treaties. It is through the treaty power this can happen. ( I say if a treaty contradicts the Constitution it should not be enforced....but there are people and groups in power or connected to power that don't agree with that. So there is no guarantee.)

I totally agree, a treaty is just like an act of legislature, however treaties or acts of legislature take precedence over the constitution.
The constitution can strike down an act of legislature if it doesn't agree with the constitution.

That being said, nobody has seen the specific "gun grab" as you mentioned so more than likely it's not.

Dick Bull
11-11-2012, 12:22 PM
By the way BEP here is the line I put myself on in this thread: 1)Your UN gun grab statement is undocumented speculation. The language doesn't exist in the treaty. 2) Even if it did then the (a) senate would have to ratify it and (b) it would not stand up under supreme court review because (i) the constitution is the supreme law of the land and neither (1) a treaty or (2) an act of legislature can override it.

HolyHandgernade
11-11-2012, 12:57 PM
It's nice to see how the left prefers UN global governence over the US sovereignty and her Constitution. Too many treaties have the effect of over riding our Founding document. Welcome to globalism.

Yes, it is nice isn't it?

It also must be nice to transfer all irrational fears onto "something" an ambiguous *they* want. It always makes the point sound so thought out and well founded. It often makes me pause in the middle of the day and ponder, "Wait, maybe that was something I wanted? How dastardly of me!"

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 03:22 PM
Yes, it is nice isn't it?

It also must be nice to transfer all irrational fears onto "something" an ambiguous *they* want. It always makes the point sound so thought out and well founded. It often makes me pause in the middle of the day and ponder, "Wait, maybe that was something I wanted? How dastardly of me!"

Nope

banyon
11-11-2012, 05:25 PM
Great retort. Brilliant.

How much effort does it take to perpetually hold your hands over your ears when anyone points out anything that threatens the house of cards you've built for yourself?

DrunkBassGuitar
11-11-2012, 05:36 PM
So will they go door to door collecting guns, or where there be a neighborhood dropoff point? Will we be expected to give up our firearms on an honor system, or will there be a questionaire sent in the mail?

Hopefully it's a questionaire and not phone calls at all hours. Those are annoying.

They're going to go door to door and take them away so they can be melted down in to Participation Trophies for when Obama turns the NFL into a flag football league. :mad::mad::mad:

La literatura
11-11-2012, 05:54 PM
Nov. 11, 2012: Veteran's Day.

Twitter is ablaze with stories of Federal Agents seizing guns at people's homes tonight, using an Executive Order warrant signed by Obama, Eric Holder, and Ban Ki-moon. Over 4000 incidents being reported by some bloggers. Around 80% of reported incidents occurring in red states.

DaFace
11-11-2012, 05:58 PM
Obama's gonna take everyone's guns. Texas is seceding. Just another day in the DC forum.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:09 PM
Obama's gonna take everyone's guns. Texas is seceding. Just another day in the DC forum.

I am not saying he will wind up doing that—he's gonna put it under the UN though, if he can. Otherwise, why would he back this and wait until after the election. We don't need another UN treaty to erode sovereignty.

Dick Bull
11-11-2012, 06:17 PM
I am not saying he will wind up doing that—he's gonna put it under the UN though, if he can. Otherwise, why would he back this and wait until after the election. We don't need another UN treaty to erode sovereignty.

There are countless examples in this thread why Obama can't put the US under UN control. You just are choosing to ignore them. Wish leads to the second part of your statement. He choose to wait until after the election because he didn't wish to risk the potential backlash caused from others like you: people who think this is going to be a UN gun grab.

DaFace
11-11-2012, 06:19 PM
I am not saying he will wind up doing that—he's gonna put it under the UN though, if he can. Otherwise, why would he back this and wait until after the election. We don't need another UN treaty to erode sovereignty.

You realize you're a bit of a nut job, right?

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:21 PM
You realize you're a bit of a nut job, right?

Now explain to me why you don't think this won't erode US sovereignty nor affect gun ownership.
Why are gun enthusiasts and sites protesting this while also stocking up?
I think being suspicious of such moves is healthy. I don't take freedom for granted.

DaFace
11-11-2012, 06:22 PM
Now explain to me why you don't think this won't erode US sovereignty nor affect gun ownership.
Why are gun enthusiasts and sites protesting this while also stocking up?

You're not the only one.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:23 PM
You're not the only one.

Well, it's just your opinion. I don't think you're informed about what's going on with global governance especially with the kind of people in the UN.

I guess Investors Business Daily are "nuts" too.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110812-632785-obama-pushes-arms-treaty-global-gun-grab.htm

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:29 PM
Second Amendment: Within hours of re-election, the administration fast-tracked a treaty in the United Nations that transcends borders and tramples our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It was no coincidence.

Less than 24 hours after President Obama's re-election, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations helped move the U.N.'s Arms Control Treaty a step closer to enactment. America joined 157 other nations in voting Wednesday to finalize the treaty in March. None was opposed and there were 18 abstentions.

U.N. delegates and gun-control activists had complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as openly supporting the pact. But once the election was over, the Obama administration had more flexibility to pull the trigger on supporting the pact.

The Obama administration, which reversed long-standing U.S. opposition to the treaty in 2009, says the treaty does not threaten our Second Amendment rights and applies only to international arms trade. But its record of opposition to private gun ownership and its deference to international bodies and their authority give us pause. [ What you're not looking at daFace.

So does a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms. It notes that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and demands that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would ... minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."

Is an American defending his home against intruders just such a "misuse"?

Even if the treaty applied only to transfers of small arms between nations, would that mean restrictions on our ability to aid allies such as Israel and Taiwan? Would we be forbidden from supporting resistance movements around the world that rise up against the very dictators who support this treaty?

The treaty establishes a bizarre moral equivalence between countries that trade arms to defend freedom and those that do so to suppress and extinguish it.

The U.S. is one of the few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government. They were guns owned by civilians that freed us from British tyranny. The fact that tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human-rights violators want to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110812-632785-obama-pushes-arms-treaty-global-gun-grab.htm#ixzz2By3Y2bBh


Wake up! This is a BAD idea! Obama is a liar. He said Obamacare was going to be revenue neutral. How'd that turn out?

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:34 PM
You're not the only one.

So can you explain why this is not a bad idea thus making it "nuts" to post?

La literatura
11-11-2012, 06:36 PM
Well, it's just your opinion. I don't think you're informed about what's going on with global governance especially with the kind of people in the UN.

I don't think you know any one person who is regularly or even occasionally involved with the UN.

DaFace
11-11-2012, 06:38 PM
So can you explain why this is not a bad idea thus making it "nuts" to post?

Na, there's no point. Based on only really hanging around in here for two weeks, it's clear that you (and many others) are more about sensationalism and overreaction than reasonable debate.

La literatura
11-11-2012, 06:39 PM
The treaty basics were written in 2001, so by "long-standing U.S. opposition" they essentially mean "opposition under the Bush Administration"

La literatura
11-11-2012, 06:41 PM
So does a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms. It notes that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and demands that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would ... minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."

Is an American defending his home against intruders just such a "misuse"?

LMAO Yes, Investors.com, that's exactly what that means. The UN is against defending your home from intruders. Where exactly is this paper anyway?

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:41 PM
Na, there's no point. Based on only really hanging around in here for two weeks, it's clear that you (and many others) are more about sensationalism and overreaction than reasonable debate.

Really? Then why has this treaty had long-standing U.S. opposition, if this is sensationalist?
Why did Obama wait until after the election?
Why did the UN claim Obama feared reaction from Republicans?
Why does Investor's Business Daily put it up as news and opposes it?
Why are gun rights enthusiasts opposed to it?

Really, you'd tell the people who secured our liberty in the 1700's they were sensationalists and sided with the Tories.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:43 PM
Na, there's no point. Based on only really hanging around in here for two weeks, it's clear that you (and many others) are more about sensationalism and overreaction than reasonable debate.

Putting up something that is thought to be a dangerous move does not make it National Enquirer sensationalism.
Just because it's a "hot" topic doesn't mean there can't be reasonable debate on it. I don't see you calling out the naysayers lack of reason.
I asked you to provide a reasoned argument but you didn't offer anything. You did offer an insult though...and yet you're calling for reasoned debate.

La literatura
11-11-2012, 06:47 PM
Why did Obama wait until after the election?
Why did the UN claim Obama feared reaction from Republicans?

Because they were smart enough to know that there are people who are as dumb as you who thinks this means some small arms trade treaty is going to thwart the 2nd Amend.

La literatura
11-11-2012, 06:52 PM
So can you explain why this is not a bad idea thus making it "nuts" to post?

Have you read any of the legislative history or documents on this issue the UN? What do you think their concern is: A) Joe Blo in South Dakota who hunts deer and keeps a handgun in his dresser in case of an intruder or B) a tribal gang who intercepts aid going to Somalian refugee camps with guns purchased illegally from Eastern European dealer for minerals he ships back to drug producers?

There's no chance you've done any research on this issue outside of your own echo chamber. You're a pathetic, intolerant, and unreasonable hack whose only connection to the outside world your internet message boards.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:54 PM
TownHall piped in on what is bad about this treaty last July.

NRA: "All In" Against Obama and the UN "Gun Grab" Treaty

The threats by the UN Arms Trade Treaty to the Second Amendment have been made well aware at this point and in ten days, the terms of the treaty will be finalized. Despite the UN’s feigned claims to the contrary, like a Myths & Facts section in the press kit, actions seems to speak louder than words:

The U.N. is aware of the political dangers of appearing to stomp openly on the Second Amendment. It uses code words; it runs closed meetings—a veteran of the process tells me that meetings were normally open until the National Rifle Association began showing up at them—and, above all, it plays a long game. A big problem with talking about the ATT as a “gun grab” treaty is that the U.N. works by taking slices: when it comes to the U.N., being outraged by one development is no substitute for focusing on how the slices pile up over time.

Lest we forget how we’ve arrived at this point in the first place though. In October 2009, the Obama administration voted for the U.S. to participate in negotiating the ATT – a dramatic reversal of the Bush administration’s position. This reversal, of course, comes as no surprise to avid defenders of the Second Amendment and was deeply concerning to dozens of U.S. Senators. After all though, the administration’s utter disdain for Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms is ubiquitous. Attempts to undermine it are happening by more of a ‘death by a thousand cuts’ strategy, however, rather than a single, more conspicuous blow. It’s evident in everything from Fast and Furious to the ATT and unleashing OSHA on a gun range fining spree (a must-read).

Well, the NRA isn’t having any of it and recently came out with an excellent video, which makes that point very clear, while also offering a good run-down of the treaty, how it could affect Americans and the Obama administration’s role in all of this.

Clips from a speaker at the UN :


“It’s my firm conviction that illicit trade cannot be tackled without involving the legal arms trade.”

“They claim they want to stop small arms from going to terrorist and guerilla groups but this small arms treaty really isn’t gonna do anything to stop that…”

“What you’ll wind up with is gun control on an international level specifically designed to be used against honest law abiding people.”

“Our freedoms are not negotiable.”

Yeah! Nothing to be worried about. The left always says that.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2012/07/17/nra_all_in_against_obama_and_the_un_gun_grab_treaty

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:56 PM
The Heritage Foundation’s Ted Bromund on the four most important domestic concerns posed by the treaty:
quote]
1. Transfer requirements. First, there are specific textual requirements. The most recent draft text states, for example, that the ATT will apply to “all international transfers of conventional arms” but then goes on to define “international transfers” as “the transfer of title or control over the conventional arms.”

Does this mean that any transfers, including domestic ones, count as international and are thus subject to the treaty’s provisions? There are similar concerns related to the potential reporting requirements of the treaty and thus to the possible creation of a U.N.-based gun registry. If it is to be true to its published red lines, the U.S. cannot accept any of this.

2. International business. Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights.

3. Further review of the rules. This is not the end of the process. The ATT will be elaborated at review conferences, where the U.S. goal is to develop “best practices” for its implementation. Similarly, if President Obama were to sign the ATT but not submit it to the Senate for ratification, the U.S. would hold itself obligated to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the ATT.

4. Constitutional interpretation. Finally, the ATT is part of a process that will inspire judges and legal theorists who believe that the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted in light of transnational norms. This is the most important problem of all, though it is broader than the ATT. [ One of my larger concerns. ]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/13/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-and-the-second-amendment/[[/quote]

La literatura
11-11-2012, 06:59 PM
After all though, the administration’s utter disdain for Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms is ubiquitous. Attempts to undermine it are happening by more of a ‘death by a thousand cuts’ strategy, however, rather than a single, more conspicuous blow.

The cuts are so small, in fact, that you can't even feel, see, or examine them. But like all the diseases Howard Hughes had, THEY ARE THERE.

La literatura
11-11-2012, 07:03 PM
2. International business. Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights.

Now we're getting somewhere. I have a sneaking suspicion that the gun industry isn't quite thrilled with possible safeguarding regulations about which overseas markets they can and can't indulge in.

Dave Lane
11-12-2012, 07:03 AM
Does your insanity know no bounds? Your gun grab consists of more talks scheduled for March woo hoo!

whoman69
11-12-2012, 07:30 AM
dey took r guns

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 08:42 AM
Does your insanity know no bounds? Your gun grab consists of more talks scheduled for March woo hoo!

Link?

Even if true, it shows what Obama wants, via fast-track, and that he waited until after the election to avoid Republicans who would make an issue of it. It's on his agenda.

Do you know what "fast-track" means in politics? Well, it's not good. It's how we got those trade agreements which sucked jobs out of the country.


Fast track was conceived as a mundane procedural mechanism to enhance the president's credibility in negotiating complex multilateral trade agreements by streamlining the congressional approval process into an up-or-down vote in return for enhanced congressional oversight. It allows the President to negotiate international trade agreements knowing that Congress will provide a timely vote on the agreement without amendments. Given its seminal importance to the trade debate, however, fast track has acquired greater significance and controversy.


Fast Track argues that the time has come for the United States to end its perennial debate over the process by which we approve international trade agreements – ...

http://www.brill.com/fast-track-legal-historical-and-political-analysis

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 08:44 AM
Another definition of fast track
Noun:
A route, course, or method that provides for more rapid results than usual.
Verb:
Accelerate the development or progress of (a person or project).

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 09:05 AM
BTW, it's not just Obama but Hillary Clinton has been busy with this one along with whole pack of ardent “gun control” supporters. This treaty is anti-American.

La literatura
11-12-2012, 09:10 AM
BTW, it's not just Obama but Hillary Clinton has been busy with this one along with whole pack of ardent “gun control” supporters. This treaty is anti-American.

Our Founding Fathers fought and died for unregulated international arms trade with tribal gangs.

durtyrute
11-12-2012, 09:12 AM
factcheck.org?.....ROFL ROFL ROFL

Is that a real site, perhaps I check factcheck.org to find out

Dick Bull
11-12-2012, 09:17 AM
factcheck.org?.....ROFL ROFL ROFL

Is that a real site, perhaps I check factcheck.org to find out

The irony in this is that you typed the website's name twice plus a bunch of other crap and you only had to type it once in the browser. Yes it's real and accepted.

durtyrute
11-12-2012, 09:18 AM
The irony in this is that you typed the website's name twice plus a bunch of other crap and you only had to type it once in the browser. Yes it's real and accepted.

Thank you, god of all that is accepted.

Dick Bull
11-12-2012, 09:20 AM
Thank you, god of all that is accepted.

You are welcome.

FishingRod
11-12-2012, 09:20 AM
This particular situation doesn’t really alarm me but, those that are pooh-poohing the idea an executive order can’t create policy that is unconstitutional are either naive or just ok because it is "your" guy doing it now.

It is clearly unconstitutional for an American citizen to be abducted, detained, flown out of the country without due process, representation or any charges filed for years, yet it happens. There are those that would argue that executive orders are by their very nature unconstitutional.

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 09:27 AM
This particular situation doesn’t really alarm me but, those that are pooh-poohing the idea an executive order can’t create policy that is unconstitutional are either naive or just ok because it is "your" guy doing it now.

It is clearly unconstitutional for an American citizen to be abducted, detained, flown out of the country without due process, representation or any charges filed for years, yet it happens. There are those that would argue that executive orders are by their very nature unconstitutional.

Yeah, next EO that may be coming is Obama's Cybersecurity Executive Order leaving control over the internet to the UN. This is why I say he will govern like Allende—by decree which consolidates power as he leaves out Congress. He famously declared that “we can’t wait” for Congress to act. He favors the UN more. As he spoke about ten years of war ending, he approved a plan for the UN to invade Mali. A president doesn't have this kind of power. Yet, to hear some of the same people criticize Bush for the same stuff is incredible.

Dick Bull
11-12-2012, 09:30 AM
This particular situation doesn’t really alarm me but, those that are pooh-poohing the idea an executive order can’t create policy that is unconstitutional are either naive or just ok because it is "your" guy doing it now.

It is clearly unconstitutional for an American citizen to be abducted, detained, flown out of the country without due process, representation or any charges filed for years, yet it happens. There are those that would argue that executive orders are by their very nature unconstitutional.

What particular case do you have an example of?

La literatura
11-12-2012, 09:36 AM
Yeah, next EO that may be coming is Obama's Cybersecurity Executive Order leaving control over the internet to the UN. This is why I say he will govern like Allende—by decree which consolidates power as he leaves out Congress. He famously declared that “we can’t wait” for Congress to act. He favors the UN more. As he spoke about ten years of war ending, he approved a plan for the UN to invade Mali. A president doesn't have this kind of power. Yet, to hear some of the same people criticize Bush for the same stuff is incredible.

LMAO

Seriously, Mali was a great country, and then some terrorists overthrew their leadership and the country is plunging into civil war, and when Mali's democratically elected leaders appeal for help, and the UN wants to send peacekeeping forces, you consider it an invasion?

Your ignorance is so incredibly deep you can't possibly climb out.

Dick Bull
11-12-2012, 11:09 AM
LMAO

Seriously, Mali was a great country, and then some terrorists overthrew their leadership and the country is plunging into civil war, and when Mali's democratically elected leaders appeal for help, and the UN wants to send peacekeeping forces, you consider it an invasion?

Your ignorance is so incredibly deep you can't possibly climb out.

I have recently tried a new firefox addon called total ignore. It is awesome, whenever someone quotes BEP it shows he quote as "totally ignored." Beats having to listen to her dumb ass.

LiveSteam
11-12-2012, 11:25 AM
I have recently tried a new firefox addon called total ignore. It is awesome, whenever someone quotes BEP it shows he quote as "totally ignored." Beats having to listen to her dumb ass.

LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO

T-post Tom
11-12-2012, 11:36 AM
It's true. Obama wants your guns. ALL OF THEM. But that's not all he wants. He wants your soul. So get your guns and a Bible...hunker down...this is happening.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ns0xDdQ43aQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

FishingRod
11-12-2012, 11:39 AM
What particular case do you have an example of?

Why Jim’s case of course.

Do to information from a reliable unnamed source Jim is suspected of consorting with terrorists. Jim was apprehended sent off to a prison in a foreign country never to be seen again. The Government has no comment and can’t confirm nor deny they had anything to do with Jim’s disappearance because, it may or may not be a matter of national security.

CoMoChief
11-12-2012, 11:48 AM
Real quick. What is your objection to strengthening laws on exports that would make it more difficult to traffic weapons?

because our govt will STILL traffic the weapons like they've been doing for decades.

This bill is designed to limit gun ownership of the American people.

Throughout history, big govt's have never wanted their people armed.

The only way keeping govt from being a total tyranny, is the fact that most Americans own firearms.

Iowanian
11-12-2012, 12:46 PM
"When you think it's time to bury them, it's time to dig them up."


Fuck the UN. Fuck anyone who thinks the United Nations should have ANY authority of ANY kind over ANY right of ANY American.


Fuck the UN.

Iowanian
11-12-2012, 12:53 PM
Russian Mafia, the Chinese, Somali warlords, Pakistani tribesmen and Mexican drug cartels...........all plan to stop trading in firearms after the UN passes this agreement, because they sure don't want to be caught trading weapons against the wishes of the U.N.

La literatura
11-12-2012, 02:23 PM
"When you think it's time to bury them, it's time to dig them up."


**** the UN. **** anyone who thinks the United Nations should have ANY authority of ANY kind over ANY right of ANY American.


**** the UN.

They don't. Any authority to the UN comes from the granting of our elected representatives. You're just repeating old John Birch tactics from the 1950s.

banyon
11-12-2012, 06:18 PM
The Heritage Foundation’s Ted Bromund on the four most important domestic concerns posed by the treaty:
quote]
1. Transfer requirements. First, there are specific textual requirements. The most recent draft text states, for example, that the ATT will apply to “all international transfers of conventional arms” but then goes on to define “international transfers” as “the transfer of title or control over the conventional arms.”

Does this mean that any transfers, including domestic ones, count as international and are thus subject to the treaty’s provisions? There are similar concerns related to the potential reporting requirements of the treaty and thus to the possible creation of a U.N.-based gun registry. If it is to be true to its published red lines, the U.S. cannot accept any of this.

2. International business. Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights.

3. Further review of the rules. This is not the end of the process. The ATT will be elaborated at review conferences, where the U.S. goal is to develop “best practices” for its implementation. Similarly, if President Obama were to sign the ATT but not submit it to the Senate for ratification, the U.S. would hold itself obligated to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the ATT.

4. Constitutional interpretation. Finally, the ATT is part of a process that will inspire judges and legal theorists who believe that the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted in light of transnational norms. This is the most important problem of all, though it is broader than the ATT. [ One of my larger concerns. ]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/13/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-and-the-second-amendment/[

Why didn't you read the beginning of your own article?

Let’s start with three basic points:
1. No external power, and certainly not the U.N., can disarm U.S. citizens or deprive us of our Second Amendment rights by force. If there is a Second Amendment problem, it comes from the actions of U.S. authorities.

2. The U.N. and many of its member states are hostile to the private ownership of firearms.
3. The U.S. is exceptional: It is one of the few nations that has a constitutional provision akin to the Second Amendment. (i.e. it supercedes treaties).



Or the end?

Just because the ATT is not a “gun grab” treaty does not mean it raises no domestic concerns

banyon
11-12-2012, 06:19 PM
This bill is designed to limit gun ownership of the American people.



If it is designed to do that, then whoever designed it must be the worst treaty designer in the world, because they forgot to mention anything related to that in the actual treaty text.

BucEyedPea
06-09-2013, 09:12 PM
If it is designed to do that, then whoever designed it must be the worst treaty designer in the world, because they forgot to mention anything related to that in the actual treaty text.

Nope—not true.

My Post here details parts of the treaty right from the treat here:
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=9721099&postcount=16

Must suck to be you banyon.

BucEyedPea
06-09-2013, 09:16 PM
A majority of the Senate told Barack Obama not so sign the 2nd Amendment violating UN Gun Treaty, but he's going to do it anyway. He has got to be one of the most arrogant presidents.

"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official languages is completely satisfied,” John Kerry said.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) had submitted an amendment to the budget bill in March urging this administrtaion Obama “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.” His amendment won approval in a 53 to 46 vote.