PDA

View Full Version : While the USA had their eyes glued to the oil spill this was happeni...




tangent4ronpaul
06-17-2010, 01:51 PM
Check out the last two links as well.

While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises,Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.




OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States

On Wednesday the Obama administration took its 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 firearmand 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 firearmthey own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!

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. Read the Article 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. View The Full Article Here

Click on the link below for further acknowledgement..


http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015


Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed. This is a very serious matter! Silence will lead us to Socialism!!!

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATT.shtml
http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/un-small-arms-treaty

heavenlyboy34
06-17-2010, 01:54 PM
UN=NWO! :eek:

Original_Intent
06-17-2010, 02:05 PM
I thought treaties still needed to be voted on by the Senate, if not the full Congress. Didn't we sign the UN Treaty on the Rights of Choldren but it was never passed and is thus not in force?

I am not saying we should not fight this every step of the way, but I don;t think the Prez and teh Secretary of State can completely sidestep the Constitution this way. If they did I think we would have a 100 million man armed march on Washington DC.

ninepointfive
06-17-2010, 02:20 PM
wowowowowoow

I'm in the process of fact checking. Is this true?
I'm about to send this out to 200 people on my email list:

Kylie
06-17-2010, 02:37 PM
I've seen at least 3 threads on other boards about this in the last few months.

It cannot be done without Congress' approval.



And I double-dog-dare them to try to pass it. People will lose their effing minds.

ninepointfive
06-17-2010, 02:57 PM
YouTube - Dudley Brown warns of the UN "Small Arms Treaty" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziBumhGG0qc&feature=player_embedded)

Kotin
06-17-2010, 02:59 PM
Good luck enforcing this in the south..

heavenlyboy34
06-17-2010, 03:03 PM
Good luck enforcing this in the south..

ditto for AZ. We love our guns here in the wild west! :cool::):D

catdd
06-17-2010, 03:27 PM
bump n sign

sevin
06-17-2010, 03:57 PM
I've seen at least 3 threads on other boards about this in the last few months.

It cannot be done without Congress' approval.



And I double-dog-dare them to try to pass it. People will lose their effing minds.

Agreed. Most people in the U.S. would flip out if Congress approved this, so I don't think they will unless they all want to be unemployed next year.

Wow. In a small way, the system still works. Just barely.

malkusm
06-17-2010, 04:06 PM
Well, I have a copy of a booklet by JBS called "Global Gun Grab," first published in 2001, that predicts exactly this.

I'll be damned.

RideTheDirt
06-17-2010, 04:44 PM
Molon Labe!

Kylie
06-17-2010, 04:47 PM
Agreed. Most people in the U.S. would flip out if Congress approved this, so I don't think they will unless they all want to be not breathing next year.

Wow. In a small way, the system still works. Just barely.



Fixed it for ya ;)


I don't own any guns, but I would be willing to bet the peeps who do will consider this war if it's passed.

phill4paul
06-17-2010, 04:47 PM
Sure, they can try it. It'd sure speed up a return to a limited government if they did.

silentshout
06-17-2010, 04:56 PM
This isn't going to happen. It would be a stupid thing to do.

ninepointfive
06-17-2010, 05:24 PM
Sure, they can try it. It'd sure speed up a return to a limited government if they did.

:D

robertwerden
06-17-2010, 05:29 PM
I call bullshit on this entire thread.

ninepointfive
06-17-2010, 05:34 PM
I call bullshit on this entire thread.

do explain, mr. revolver

Juan McCain
06-17-2010, 06:22 PM
It cannot be done without Congress' approval.


Such a treaty would not be approved/ratified by Congress -
so BO pays a heavy price with voters with a dumb strategy.

Zippyjuan
06-17-2010, 06:26 PM
Letter the NRA sent out on the issue:
http://therightsideofaustin.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/hillary-clinton-and-the-un-arms-trade-treaty-rumor/

Friday, May 28, 2010 We continue to receive numerous inquiries regarding UN international treaties, and their impact on our Second Amendment rights. The latest rumor making its way around the Internet claims that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually signed a UN small arms treaty.

Contrary to this widely circulated e-mail, Hillary Clinton has not signed any small arms treaty. She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.

As we noted in an update from last November, the UN Arms Trade Treaty will be drafted between now and 2012, and even if signed, would not take effect in the U.S. until it was ratified by the Senate.

Please rest assured that, as we said in November, NRA will be actively involved in this process and will oppose any treaty that would attempt to impose limits on our Second Amendment rights. In the meantime, we urge gun owners to follow this issue in NRA’s magazines and NRA-ILA’s Grassroots Alerts. We also urge gun owners not to circulate misinformation on this issue.


Treaty has not even been negotiated yet so anything about what it will or will not do is purely speculation. This is agreeing to talk- nothing more at this point.

Here is what they are saying about Wiki about it- again, this is just speculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

What would an Arms Trade Treaty look like?
International non-government and human rights organisations including Amnesty, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (who lead the Control Arms Campaign) have developed analysis on what an effective Arms Trade Treaty would look like.[10]


It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:

• Be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity;

• Facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime;

• Violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes;

• Be diverted from its stated recipient;

• Adversely affect regional security; or

• Seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development.


Loopholes would be minimized. It would include:

• All weapons – including all military, security and police arms, related equipment and ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment;

• All types of transfer – including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer and transhipment, in the state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts and aid; and

• All transactions – including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security.


It must be workable and enforceable. It must:

• Provide guidelines for the treaty’s full, clear implementation;

• Ensure transparency – including full annual reports of national arms transfers;

• Have an effective mechanism to monitor compliance;

• Ensure accountability – with provisions for adjudication, dispute settlement and sanctions;


It must include a comprehensive framework for international cooperation and assistance.

NGOs are also advocating that the Arms Trade Treaty must reinforce existing responsibilities to assist survivors of armed violence, as well as identify new avenues to address suffering and trauma.

moostraks
06-17-2010, 07:21 PM
http://beforeitsnews.com/news/76/511/Fact-Checking_the_UN_8220;Small_Arms_Treaty_8221;.html

Here is another decent article regarding the possibility of this coming to fruition.

"Whoa. OK, so let’s get back to the UN Dispatch, who is supported by the UNF, who is an open advocate of the UN and the amazing work they do throughout the world. What do they say? Here’s an excerpt from their statement on this treaty.

Needless to say, the UN does not want to confiscate Americans’ firearms. What many member states do want to do, however, is make it more difficult for guerrilla movements, insurgents and irresponsible governments from easily obtaining small arms. Nine years ago, member states proposed setting in motion a treaty process that would do just that. The Bush administration, though, opposed the treaty process. This was problematic for the cause, as it were, because the United States is among the world’s largest exporter of small arms. Any treaty without the United States on board would not be very effective.

The Obama administration does not share the previous administration’s view of the utility of a small arms trade treaty. This fall, Secretary Clinton made clear that the United States would support the arms trade treaty process. However, understanding that any treaty requires senate passage, the United States set one big condition on the treaty negotiation process: that it proceed by consensus. This means that unanimity is required for all votes, which, in turn, gives the United States an effective veto over the entire process. This has not seem to quell the conspiracy spinners, who apparently remain convinced that the UN is plotting to take Americans’ guns away. But the fact of the matter is, this treaty process is all about restricting the international transfer of small arms to irresponsible end users, like terrorist groups, militias that use child soldiers, or governments that use the weapons to commit terrible human rights abuses.

Oh. Right—nothing to see here. Except that we have a Secretary of State who is in apparent support of such a treaty. And that we don’t know what that treaty says, and probably won’t until it’s on the table for signatures. Perhaps it’s like the recent health care debacle, of which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. Wouldn’t that be nice? I just love surprises."