obama to sign the UN small arms treaty July 27 2012

Fuck the treason obama signs this shit and the senate ratifies it. they are the traitors.
And should die a traitors death.

Not traitors but still opening the door to excessive litigation; there is no way around the fact the treaty impacts the property rights of firearm manufacturers.

Is the manufacturer the only one violated? I feel pretty taken back lol think its a scare tactic from Obama and UN buddies? this guy thought he would have a super majority and communize us? Am I right on?
I'm pissed
:lol: Senate ratification - no way?

It really isn't "communizing" or whatever you choose to label it, but I do see a possible infringement of the 2nd Amendment any many lawsuits arising out of this if ratified.
 
Those arms makers and dealers which make gazillions of dollars a year chanelling small arms to Third World countries, contributing to the bloodshed, are going to fight this tooth and nail. And they will be pouring millions of gallons of bongwater, generating enough diversionary smoke to greenhouse the entire planet, and putting up enough deflective mirrors to power the state of Nevada with solar power.

OBAMAZ GONNA TAKE UR GUNZ!!!!

Here's a little background on the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Sorry it's not from the NYT, but they don't seem to want to cover it...

Small Arms Treaty of 2012 – Elimination of the Second Amendment | Independent Sentinel

They’re not covering it because it’s moronic idiocy.

And presidents don’t ‘sign’ treaties, treaties are authorized by a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

the president or his designated representative does indeed sign treaties with other countries. However, they are not in force until ratified by the Senate.
 
Here's a little background on the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Sorry it's not from the NYT, but they don't seem to want to cover it...

Small Arms Treaty of 2012 – Elimination of the Second Amendment | Independent Sentinel

They’re not covering it because it’s moronic idiocy.

And presidents don’t ‘sign’ treaties, treaties are authorized by a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

the president or his designated representative does indeed sign treaties with other countries. However, they are not in force until ratified by the Senate.

Clayton ran away from the thread when I told him the same thing.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess...
 
Can anyone show me language in the treaty (if written) which takes away the 2nd amendment here in the US?

So far, everything I've read talks about trade between nations, nothing strictly domestic.
 
Some on the extreme right are openly discussing treason:

Vanderboegh warns of civil war if UN small arms treaty enforced - National Conservative | Examiner.com

Frightening.

Bush was against because he thought NATIONAL controls the appropriate course, now the NRA is against it because they FEAR domestic control. Have conservatives actually read this treaty?
____________________________________________________________

a statement released by Hillary Clinton and the State Department that it was overturning the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed a proposed Arms Trade treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

the National Rifle Association, who claim that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations.[11]

They've gotten the LOST and the START completely wrong so I doubt they'll bother educating themselves about this either.

Jeeez.

What is WRONG with the right wing? No matter what it is, they go running around screaming the sky is falling, Obama is coming after our guns and bibles and jeezus krist, they don't a friggin' clue.
 
Not traitors but still opening the door to excessive litigation; there is no way around the fact the treaty impacts the property rights of firearm manufacturers.

Is the manufacturer the only one violated? I feel pretty taken back lol think its a scare tactic from Obama and UN buddies? this guy thought he would have a super majority and communize us? Am I right on?
I'm pissed
:lol: Senate ratification - no way?

It really isn't "communizing" or whatever you choose to label it, but I do see a possible infringement of the 2nd Amendment any many lawsuits arising out of this if ratified.
No really I like that term and think it fit 100% correctly but yeah you can call whatever "marxize" socialize and it fits. You don't mess with the second amendment or our religion - Christianity if your in DC
 
Here's what the UN folks are saying...

Thursday's negotiations got off to a very slow start due to procedural issues, and adjourned late due to more of the same. Some countries did make statements that illustrated the deep divisions in the assembled body, especially over the issue of civilian firearms.

While the New Zealand delegate stated that, "The task is not to regulate state's internal matters, such as conditions of domestic sales of arms or national systems of gun control or registration," the delegate from Mexico took the opposite tack, saying individuals' rights (i.e., the Second Amendment) are not an excuse for "products traded without controls." This statement continued Mexico's efforts to blame its drug cartel problem on American guns. The Mexican delegate then went on to say specifically that civilian firearms needed to be included in the ATT.

And, in a joint position statement issued this week, French, German, British, and Swedish government officials said, "We believe that an arms trade treaty should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies."
NRA-ILA | U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations Underway

And no, Conservative, the treaty isn't written yet...
 
Can anyone show me language in the treaty (if written) which takes away the 2nd amendment here in the US?

So far, everything I've read talks about trade between nations, nothing strictly domestic.

From the individual threatening civil war, I read their mistaken belief that it will nullify the 2nd Amendment, there are portions that indicate a restrictions on arms sales, and records of sales/ Thus I use the term "encroachment". Actually reading the treaty is most helpful. Those who have only read or heard about certain provisions, some of which are fantasies, believe it will "take away all 2nd Amendment rights". There remains a valid question however about the restriction on commerce in firearms.
 
Just a fair warning that obama does not have a functioning brain in and election year

Obama can sign no treaties until the Senate ratifies it.

That's not true here is an example of a treaty signed by a president bu not ratified by congress
Why does the United States sign environmental treaties but not ratify them? U.S. presidents have negotiated and signed several environmental treaties that ultimately could not obtain Senate ratification.
Signed but not ratified: Limits to U.S. participation in international environmental agreements

http://www.berlinconference.org/2010/programme-overview/bang-signed@2c_but_not_ratified-192.pdf
 
Can anyone show me language in the treaty (if written) which takes away the 2nd amendment here in the US?

So far, everything I've read talks about trade between nations, nothing strictly domestic.

From the individual threatening civil war, I read their mistaken belief that it will nullify the 2nd Amendment, there are portions that indicate a restrictions on arms sales, and records of sales/ Thus I use the term "encroachment". Actually reading the treaty is most helpful. Those who have only read or heard about certain provisions, some of which are fantasies, believe it will "take away all 2nd Amendment rights". There remains a valid question however about the restriction on commerce in firearms.

As soon as you read it from the 'gloom and doom' perspective, you start to see how that 'encroachment' can become 'nullification'.

For example, their restrictions on ammunition can easily be used to make all small arms into wall decorations. Those same restrictions can make it almost impossible to reload your own ammo. Their intention is to disarm us, one way or the other. If Fast & Furious doesn't convince you of that, I don't know what could.

But let me try...

The first thing you have to realize is that we're the LAST armed population on Earth, thanks to the 2nd Amendment. Every other "1st World" country has either onerous restrictions or outright bans on personal arms. THAT'S what they're trying to accomplish here. "An armed society is a polite society." They don't plan on being polite.

The 'illegal' arms trade is, by definition, CRIMINAL. It's also accomplished in MASSIVE quantities. SHIPLOADS. Fast & Furious was 2,000 weapons, not enough to fill a single 53' box trailer. If gunshops in 4 states can't fill a single trailer in a year, with the help of the ATF, how are all these restrictions supposed to accomplish their stated goal of reducing the illegal arms trade?

Simple answer, it's not.

But it is going to SEVERELY curtail our freedom, our 2nd Amendment RIGHT, to own and enjoy firearms.

And they KNOW it.
 
Here's what the UN folks are saying...

Thursday's negotiations got off to a very slow start due to procedural issues, and adjourned late due to more of the same. Some countries did make statements that illustrated the deep divisions in the assembled body, especially over the issue of civilian firearms.

While the New Zealand delegate stated that, "The task is not to regulate state's internal matters, such as conditions of domestic sales of arms or national systems of gun control or registration," the delegate from Mexico took the opposite tack, saying individuals' rights (i.e., the Second Amendment) are not an excuse for "products traded without controls." This statement continued Mexico's efforts to blame its drug cartel problem on American guns. The Mexican delegate then went on to say specifically that civilian firearms needed to be included in the ATT.

And, in a joint position statement issued this week, French, German, British, and Swedish government officials said, "We believe that an arms trade treaty should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies."
NRA-ILA | U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations Underway

And no, Conservative, the treaty isn't written yet...

So, so far, only the Mexicans have actually 'said' that civilian firearms should be included, is that correct?

I'm relatively sure the 2nd amendment will remain intact and in force in this.
 
It needs to be made a crime for legislators to ratify treaties that take away US sovereignty and supersede US law. There's cooperation and then there's abject treason. This stuff is the latter.

What next? Quartering foreign troops?
 
Just a fair warning that obama does not have a functioning brain in and election year
Election year or not, he has never had a functioning brain. He does what his handlers want him to.

I wonder if he realizes the election isn't a sure thing, so he is going to do as much damage as possible before he gets booted out. His handlers had him following their plan from day one and he hasn't deviated from that.
 
Here's what the UN folks are saying...

Thursday's negotiations got off to a very slow start due to procedural issues, and adjourned late due to more of the same. Some countries did make statements that illustrated the deep divisions in the assembled body, especially over the issue of civilian firearms.

While the New Zealand delegate stated that, "The task is not to regulate state's internal matters, such as conditions of domestic sales of arms or national systems of gun control or registration," the delegate from Mexico took the opposite tack, saying individuals' rights (i.e., the Second Amendment) are not an excuse for "products traded without controls." This statement continued Mexico's efforts to blame its drug cartel problem on American guns. The Mexican delegate then went on to say specifically that civilian firearms needed to be included in the ATT.

And, in a joint position statement issued this week, French, German, British, and Swedish government officials said, "We believe that an arms trade treaty should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies."
NRA-ILA | U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations Underway

And no, Conservative, the treaty isn't written yet...

So, so far, only the Mexicans have actually 'said' that civilian firearms should be included, is that correct?

I'm relatively sure the 2nd amendment will remain intact and in force in this.

The joint statement from the EU folks scares me more than Mexico. They want control of ammunition and everything it takes to MAKE ammunition. If they didn't, the language wouldn't be there.

You can't make a bullet if you can't buy gunpowder.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top