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]

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"?

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]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

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/leahbar...un_grab_treaty

[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/[[/quote]

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Does your insanity know no bounds? Your gun grab consists of more talks scheduled for March woo hoo!

[whoman69]

dey took r guns

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

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-lega...tical-analysis

[BucEyedPea]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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.