Obama Green Lights UN Gun Grab Hours after Election

[BucEyedPea]

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/...21107?irpc=932

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

"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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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/...ond-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]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

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.