URGENT:UN Arms Treaty and Obama says, "Guns are just for hunting and target shooting"

AngryBodhi · Jul 27, 2012

Citations from the nra and obviously biased blogs tells me all I need to know.

Do you honestly think if a treaty did interfere with Beretta's (and others) ability to import arms into the US that there wouldn't suddenly be factories springing up in the US? I know plenty of people who could use jobs. Hmmm... maybe I should go start my own blog and get people to write to their congress person, espousing how this treaty will create jobs. I mean, why not, my argument obviously doesn't have to be based on any sort of reality. /Endsarcasm

In all seriousness, I agree with being vigilant, but until the final wording has been hashed out and the treaty up for ratification, it's a little too soon to be fanning the flames.

DocWalker · Jul 27, 2012

beebobby;1795833 I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons;[/QUOTE said:
Fun he said this but let Eric Holder and the ATF sell guns to criminals.....another do as I say not as I do guy.

Redbaron007 · Jul 27, 2012

Here's my $.02.

First IMHO, this treaty is/will be in conflict with the 2A. Therefore, hopefully, if for some reason this is signed by the King and is also passed by the senate; hopefully the courts will hold it in conflict with the 2A and strike it down. Of course this has many variables...a more liberal Senate and more liberal Supreme Court (which one vote could change a lot). I hope this path doesn't occur.

Second, I don't see this passing in the UN. I don't think they can come to an agreement in the near future. However, if they do pass it, I think Romney will be elected and thus it won't get signed.

Third, what concerns me is this ATT has been in the works since Bush's first term. It didn't have a prayer until the King was elected and they have indicated they will review/possibly support it. I don't think the King will be in power when this get's passed by the UN. The problem I see, is they (the UN) continue to hit this year after year and now it is getting press regularly. With the continued spin from the libtards and the UN, when will the sheep think this ATT will be a good thing? Is it this year or next, prolly not. I relate this to Health Care...this is not a debate on whether Obamacare is good/bad....but from my recollection, the thought everyone should have healthcare, as a right, was not an issue 25 years ago.

See where I'm going. The UN isn't going away anytime soon. I hope we never have a president who will cede authority to the UN to regulate the USA.

So, IMHO, this will be a fight from here on out with the public and with politicians.

twoskinsonemanns · Jul 27, 2012

KYGlockster said:
In "my neck of the woods" firearms are not registered. I believe you are mistaking the mandatory background check that an FFL must conduct for some form of registration. When you purchase a firearm from an FFL, you fill out a form 4473 and they call and have an instant background check conducted on the buyer based on the information in the 4473. This is a background check and nothing more, and the government does NOT receive information about your firearm like the Serial Number, nor do they gain any information that would allow them to register your firearm. All they know from the 4473 is whether you are purchasing a Long gun or a Handgun, or possibly more than one of each, and your personal information. The 4473 form then sets in the business for 20 years, or until the business goes out of business. The firearm is not
registered with the Federal government in any way, and all information that is derived from the check is to be discarded within 24 hours. Your home state may register firearms, but KY doesn't, nor does the Federal government. I can purchase a firearm in KY from an FFL and I don't even have the instant background check conducted on me. In KY, if you have a CDWL you are exempted from the check; you just fill out the 4473, pay for your firearm and walk out the door. I can also go to the guy on the street corner trying to sale his AK and hand him the money and walk away with my new firearm; private sales are as legal as eating dinner.

I base my comments on previous government intrusions into our lives, especially when it involves firearms. I have read the entire treaty, and not only does it mention "illicit sales" and such, but also "unauthorized end users." Based on the language, who could be an unauthorized end user except citizens? It even states that the treaty does not affect military or law enforcement weapons, as long as they are weapons owned by the STATE! I can read this document and put 2 and 2 together and get 4. I have studied World history enough to know what the true meaning of this document is, and I have studied previous legislation and treaties that come from the United Nations to know where they stand on Individual rights, and State sovereignty. This document is the beginning of the end for our Gun rights, and I know the government does not have the peoples best interest in mind any longer. The government today does nothing unless it erodes our rights and gives them more power, so I do not trust the government.
We will see in time if my comments are baseless or if they turn out to be true.

Oh come on! IT is registration, it is just done by the FFL. If you think it's just for the back ground check why do they insist the records be kept? Why can the they ask for the records during an investigation? Why do ALL records get turned over the the ATF when the FFL goes out of business?

twoskinsonemanns · Jul 27, 2012

KYGlockster said:
He was speaking about semi-automatic versions of the AK-47, not automatic versions. These weapons are not illegal either, if they are registered pre-86 firearms they are fully transferrable. Post-86 full-auto AKs are illegal, but not Pre-86! Semi-automatic versions are in millions of households across the United States, and so are semi-automatic ARs. They do belong in the hands of civillians, as do the fully automatic originals, but they have been unconstitutionally legislated from the hands of American citizens. Our Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed." Our government obviously does not know what infringed means.

Awesome post!

9026543 · Jul 27, 2012

Redbaron007 wrote:

"I hope we never have a president who will cede authority to the UN to regulate the USA."

To late for that. We already have one in power that will do that very thing.

Redbaron007 · Jul 27, 2012

9026543 said:
Redbaron007 wrote:

"I hope we never have a president who will cede authority to the UN to regulate the USA."

To late for that. We already have one in power that will do that very thing.

True.....we also had Bill Clinton who seemed to want to follow the UN. IIRC, even Sr Bush leaned that way.

Hopefully, the King won't!

JmE · Jul 27, 2012

AngryBodhi said:
In all seriousness, I agree with being vigilant, but until the final wording has been hashed out and the treaty up for ratification, it's a little too soon to be fanning the flames.

But, why do we need to sign this treaty anyway; to curb "illicit" firearm traffic around the world? That's not the proper role of our government! Regardless of the final wording, it's not something to which the government should be hitching our wagon.

AngryBodhi · Jul 27, 2012

JmE said:
But, why do we need to sign this treaty anyway; to curb "illicit" firearm traffic around the world? That's not the proper role of our government! Regardless of the final wording, it's not something to which the government should be hitching our wagon.

We don't need to sign it. The last I heard about it was the the US had thus far refused to sign, citing need for "further review". I haven't seen anything official yet, but the deadline for signing is tonight so we'll see.

JmE · Jul 27, 2012

AngryBodhi said:
We don't need to sign it. The last I heard about it was the the US had thus far refused to sign, citing need for "further review". I haven't seen anything official yet, but the deadline for signing is tonight so we'll see. {emphasis added}

Well, now I'm genuinely confused...

AngryBodhi said:
In all seriousness, I agree with being vigilant, but until the final wording has been hashed out and the treaty up for ratification, it's a little too soon to be fanning the flames. {emphasis added}

I'm not following.

AngryBodhi · Jul 27, 2012

JmE said:
I'm not following.

Let me clarify. The UN imposed deadline is tonight. UN deadlines mean jack squat. However, no one is signing anything until the wording has been finalized, which it has not. And if I remember how this process works, even if Obama signs a treaty, it still has to be ratified by congress. But as I said, the last I heard of it, Obama/Hillary had refused to sign.

AngryBodhi · Jul 27, 2012

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." Wasn't the last count at 51 senators that oppose the treaty?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

JmE · Jul 27, 2012

AngryBodhi said:
Let me clarify. The UN imposed deadline is tonight. UN deadlines mean jack squat. However, no one is signing anything until the wording has been finalized, which it has not. And if I remember how this process works, even if Obama signs a treaty, it still has to be ratified by congress. But as I said, the last I heard of it, Obama/Hillary had refused to sign.

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying the two statements as they seemed completely contradictory. Now I understand what you were trying to convey.

The Donkey · Jul 28, 2012

Article 11
Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

"Each State Party shall maintain records IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS NATIONAL LAWS . . . with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.

Such records MAY contain: quantity, value, model/type, [bla, bla, bla], and end users as appropriate."

This is permissive language.

It wouldn't change national laws about what records are kept.

It wouldn't REQUIRE signatory nations to keep any records of end users -- and doesn't authorize the feds to create/keep records they are otherwise not allowed to create/keep.

If the final version did require these records to be kept, Obama probably would not sign it, and the Senate would DEFINITELY NEVER ratify it.

In fact, the Senate probably would not ratify it no matter what it eventually says, because 67 senators would be required, and at least 34 Senators will either want to demagogue it, or would be too afraid of what possible future opponents would do to them if they ratify any document that contains the words "United Nations" or "Treaty" anywhere near the words "Small Arms" on the title page.

Turn the alert status down to green fellas: its better for your heart.

Barnett3006 · Jul 28, 2012

I don't know if the NRA actually stopped anything or not, they are certainly taking credit for it. Apparently the UN ATT conference has broken down and will not be issuing a final draft of the treaty...this time.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/nra-stops-un-arms-trade-treaty.aspx

also this...

http://www.uticaod.com/latestnews/x1225362517/UN-states-fail-to-reach-global-arms-trade-treaty

so it appears to be dead, for now...

since9 · Jul 28, 2012

Dead is dead. Works for me.

Meanwhile, I'm working my ASS off to ensure it remains dead the world over, and will never see the light of day in our country.

Who's with me? Well, stand up!

SouthernBoy · Jul 28, 2012

AngryBodhi said:
You're entire argument is based in the assumption (you know what they say about assumptions right?) that UNAUTHORIZED END USERS = All private citizens of the state. Your own argument states "Notice it says nothing about individuals!" Nowhere did I see an exact definition of who qualifies as an "unauthorized end user" or even who gets to decide the definition. If anything, this is the part of the treaty that would worry me.

As for registration requirements, I don't know how things work in your neck of the woods, but every time I've purchased a firearm from a licensed FFL, they've run the necessary background check and registered my firearm before I was allowed to leave with my purchase. Business as usual. Whether or not you agree with this practice is one thing, but the treaty doesn't change that.

As to "Foreign police on our soil", the treaty merely establishes the existence of a unit to help participating states implement the provisions of the treaty. No where does it give the unit enforcement powers (it is the UN after all) nor does it mandate that states do anything but pay for the help. It also doesn't state who is on said unit or who gets to decide.

I have seen too many blogs and articles on this subject where the writer openly admits to having no knowledge of the exact wording of the treaty and then proceeds to state his opinion of what the treaty MIGHT say and uses his unfounded speculations to substantiate an argument that Obama is coming for your guns. I'm all for open political discourse but it seriously irks me when people willfully spread misinformation under the guise of substantiated fact. But I guess if it works for the antis it can work for us too right?

You folks have registration in Washington state? I didn't know that. We don't have anything of the sort here in Virginia... thank God.

Barnett3006 · Jul 28, 2012

since9 said:
Dead is dead. Works for me.

Meanwhile, I'm working my ASS off to ensure it remains dead the world over, and will never see the light of day in our country.

Who's with me? Well, stand up!

Whats your plan?

mwaterous · Jul 28, 2012

AngryBodhi said:
Citations from the nra and obviously biased blogs tells me all I need to know.

What does this statement remind me of?

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

Only objective opinions will be accepted here!

since9 · Jul 29, 2012

Barnett3006 said:
Whats your plan?

Simple: Write! Exercise my First Amendment rights in defense of my Second Amendment rights (and others).

Like this:

According to Edith Lederer, of the Associated Press, "Member states failed to reach agreement Friday on a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade." She added, "some diplomats and supporters blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the monthlong negotiating conference." - Source

That may very well be true, but I seriously doubt the US wasn't the only detractor. Most nations nation actively protecting the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms do so as a means of both personal and national security. I can't imagine any of them ever subjugating those rights to the United Nations, particularly with the UN's less than stellar record. - Source

Both Amnesty International and "a Western diplomat" blamed the U.S. for derailing the talks on the last day. Yes, the U.S. pulled out, and for good reason: We don't want any aspect of our freedoms, including our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, subjugated under UN control. Both China and Russia pulled out as well, yet one thing surprisingly absent was criticism of those two nations. On the UN website itself, under their Arms Trade page, state: "The United Nations, in its work to assist people all over the world, is confronted with many of the negative impacts of lax controls on the arms trade. Think of peacekeeping, delivering food aid, improving public health, building safer cities, protecting refugees, eradicating poverty or fighting crime and terrorism."

Sounds nice, doesn't it? Yet I believe their main reason to push for disarmament, however, involves..." read more.

URGENT:UN Arms Treaty and Obama says, "Guns are just for hunting and target shooting"

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran