Congressmen Urge the UN to Trample the US Constitution

[DangerClose]

I believe that the treaty has to do with arms dealing across international borders. It doesnt have anything to do with our 2A.

No worries then. Obama and Holder will never go for something that restricts them from allowing illegal guns to cross the border.

 

[Whitney]

From the Horses Mouth

You may have heard of IANSA; International Action Network on Small Arms. This is a highly organized and influential group who use "feel good methods" to push their agenda, think of the children .......etc. I do not take this lightly; their identity appears based on group dynamics not individuals. This group identity is the basis for their social program and will, (if left unchecked) strip all of our individual rights. I also acknowledge the congressional responsibility with regard to ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty. It could never happen here in the United States.....right?

From the IANSA web site.
The problem of small arms proliferation is multidimensional– that is why such a broad array of organisations around the world are so concerned about it. On this page you will find the latest news and resources on some of the hot topics for groups working against small arms and light weapons.


~Whitney

 

[davidmcbeth]

They have been trying to do this for the last 20 yrs .. getting some goofy treaty to limit our rights. It goes nowhere, ever.

If it actually ever comes to the US Senate only a senator who wishes non-reelection would vote for it. Its a 100% political death run to vote for it. I would guess 98-2 against

 

[hammer6]

I am so fed up with so-called "gun rights advocates" claiming the UN gun grabbing schemes are not a threat here. Anyone who claims that is simply not paying attention. Pay no attention to what they say. WATCH WHAT THEY DO.

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/no-joke-iran-to-oversee-un-arms-trade-treaty-negotiations/

it's gotta get ratified by 2/3 of the senate...do you really think that will happen?

 

[mpguy]

it's gotta get ratified by 2/3 of the senate...do you really think that will happen?

Every one obamacare wouldn't make it. Look were we are.

Sent from my XT912 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Every one obamacare wouldn't make it. Look were we are.

Sent from my XT912 using Tapatalk 2

The procedure for the ACA, and UN Treaty are not the same, although, they both can end at the Bench--as did ACA. Also, the UN Treaty requires a greater number of Congress to vote Yea, than did the ACA.

You can sleep well tonight...and tomorrow night, the Nazi's aren't coming for you just yet.

 

[scott58dh]

NRA Takes Aim at Weapons Treaty

"Still, the Senate and House Appropriations committees have voted to restrict government funding for advancing the ATT. And last month, 130 House members sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, arguing that the treaty must not cover small arms, light weapons, or firearms ammunition. They also say it should recognize the individual right of personal self-defense and the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities."

Read more;:arrow:http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/09/nra-takes-aim-at-weapons-treaty

"It ain't over til' it's over." Yogi Bera

 

[mwaterous]

The procedure for the ACA, and UN Treaty are not the same, although, they both can end at the Bench--as did ACA. Also, the UN Treaty requires a greater number of Congress to vote Yea, than did the ACA.

You can sleep well tonight...and tomorrow night, the Nazi's aren't coming for you just yet.

Why is it that when I see your username, it's pretty much guaranteed to go hand in hand with a rude post? There's this thing called tact, which you don't seem to have much of... and it's too bad because I'd agree with you on more than one occasion if you had even a shred of it.

 

[Gil223]

You may have heard of IANSA; International Action Network on Small Arms. This is a highly organized and influential group who use "feel good methods" to push their agenda, think of the children .......etc. I do not take this lightly; their identity appears based on group dynamics not individuals. This group identity is the basis for their social program and will, (if left unchecked) strip all of our individual rights. I also acknowledge the congressional responsibility with regard to ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty. It could never happen here in the United States.....right?

Hillary and the entire left-wing Obama administration are supporting the UN's SATT. IANSA is headquartered in London (strict gun control throughout the UK, so where's the surprise in locating IANSA there?), and is run by an hysterical, foaming-at-the-mouth, liberal woman named Rebecca Peters (Peters was highly instrumental in the big gun grab in Australia). Nowhere on their website do they explicitly demand the elimination or restriction of privately owned firearms. But... their site is 'weasel-worded' in the same fashion as the UN's SATT site, and leaves enough wiggle room to fly an A320 through. The UN and IANSA are working hand-in-glove to achieve their joint goal of global gun control.

From the IANSA website http://www.iansa.org/system/files/IANSA%20ATT-SALW%20A4%20%282%29.pdf, here's a bit of their philosophy regarding 'small arms':

In order to save lives and improve human security, it is vital to regulate the global trade in all conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition. This is achievable through a global, legally binding Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that encompasses SALW in its scope of weapons. If an ATT is going to be effective it is vital SALW and ammunition is included.

It seems to me that a better way to "save lives and improve human security", would be to arm everybody. To quote Robert A. Heinlein, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Those who would impose their will upon others, will obviously disregard any and all firearms prohibitions, and thumb their collective nose at international treaties. Globalization is not the cure for anything except sovereignty and freedom. Can you imagine a UN edict saying "You can own semi-automatic firearms, but you can only buy ammunition in the standard five-round box, at the fixed price of $100 per round, and only one box each year." (Can you say black market?)

And some of the rationale used in advocating such actions:

The ATT would therefore be a cornerstone in the construction of peace, the advancement of human security and the achievement of development goals as well as an important contribution in the field of disarmament, nonproliferation and small arms control.

At the risk of repeating myself, "Those who would impose their will upon others, will obviously disregard any and all firearms prohibitions, and thumb their collective nose at international treaties." The term 'criminal' is not (yet) applied to those who follow laws, it is used to describe those who consistently violate the law. Only the most ignorant of LACs would embrace such laws/treaties... while those of us who could see the potential hazards to life, liberty, freedom, the pursuit of individual happiness and the forfeiture of national sovereignty would immediately have the label of 'criminal' place upon us. We would become statutorily defined as such.

Most of us probably failed to participate and celebrate the "Global Week of Action Against Gun Violence" (June 11-17, 2012) this year, due to the conflict in scheduling with the first annual "Global Week of Action Against Those Who Commit Gun Violence". This year's keynote speaker, 'Uncle Ted', addressed the issue of "Those who commit gun violence should be shot on the spot!"

Here is their definition of one of the "Key Terms" (found on page two) :

Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) "Broadly speaking, small arms are those weapons designed for personal use”. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns. “Light weapons are those designed for use by several persons serving as a crew." See 1997 UN Report of the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms

They included all handguns and personal shoulder-mounted weapons (except shotguns) "inter alia" (meaning: among other things)in their must be controlled list. And we all know better than to trust (or even believe) anything that comes from a "Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" (whose government(s) was/were represented, and who declared the panel members to be "experts"?). Governments world-wide insist that any document(s) they 'ratify' must leave room for modification in whatever area they impact, but only at the discretion of the publishing government. So will it be with implementation of the UNs SATT. We cannot expect any organization wishing to control human activities and freedoms, to be forthright in the expression of their endgame desires! Just my thoughts on the SATT process. Pax...

 

[scott58dh]

NRA = No they're NOT perfect, but right now they are our biggest ally to deal with 2nd Amnd. issues & the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.

So, I urge you to consider supporting the NRA during this critical Election year.

A good article to read is, "God, Guns & Guts Made America Free, Let's Fight to Keep All Three". John G. Mitchell, NRA 1978

Read more;:arrow: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1760005/posts

 

[scott58dh]

This is a copy of an e-mail which I just sent to State Senator Collins of Maine.

Dear Ms. Collins,

I'm quite sure that you are aware of the critical issues at stake this election year.

IMHO, one that is of the utmost importance, at this time, is the peoples Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We as a Free Society are witnessing the blatant disregard for our Constitution & Bill of Rights from the top down.

Please take the time to make known to your associates that the Voters of America are watching how You All in D.C. are going to react, respond & DEFEND our Rights.

So, if you haven't done this already, please read the following information about a far reaching issue that has the ability, if allowed, to strangle the taxpayers & Patriots of this Great Nation of ours.

Thank You for your time !
Respectfully, God Bless You & God Bless the USA !!!
Scott

"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty’s Criteria for Transfers Pose Problems for the U.S."

"The framework on which the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), currently being negotiated, is likely to be based is clear: It will set out criteria that signatories must apply to proposed arms transfers and require them to decide whether the proposed transfer poses a risk under any of those criteria. But these criteria are likely to be ill-defined, and the ATT's "checklist" model differs fundamentally from the "guidance" model that the U.S. currently employs. Worst of all, the ATT will enumerate criteria that will be easy to expand in ways that the U.S. cannot control. If the ATT is to exist, it should be based on a commitment by willing and democratic signatories to develop effective systems of border and export control."

"Key Points,

1 The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will be finalized in late July, but its likely framework is already clear.

2 This framework rests on the effort to establish criteria by which the potential consequences of arms transfers must be assessed.

3 The ATT criteria are likely to be ill defined and to be incompatible in many ways with both the U.S. national interest and the criteria the U.S. currently employs.

4 The ATT’s model for using these criteria is incompatible with the model employed by the U.S. under Presidential Decision Directive 34, which dates from 1995.

5 Unless the ATT departs fundamentally and unexpectedly from its current track, it will, if ratified, require the U.S. to revise PDD 34.

6 Any ATT should be based on requiring effective border and export control by willing and democratic signatories"

Read More; link;;-> http://www.heritage.org/research/re...iteria-for-transfers-pose-problems-for-the-us

 

[scott58dh]

Well, don't be surprised by that (IRAN Assigned To Oversee UN ARMS "NEGOTIATIONS")

Generally speaking, this country is being led by Anti-American ideology & whatever "THEY" can accomplish to weaken our Great country in these next few months (before the next election) is their primary focus

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Why is it that when I see your username, it's pretty much guaranteed to go hand in hand with a rude post? There's this thing called tact, which you don't seem to have much of... and it's too bad because I'd agree with you on more than one occasion if you had even a shred of it.

I have zero tact. Don't be so emotive. Welcome aboard.

 

[KYGlockster]

it's gotta get ratified by 2/3 of the senate...do you really think that will happen?

It is the Federal Government, what do you think? Let's not forget that these treaties are the work of the President, and the Senate knows the President doesn't like looking like a fool. I guauntee if Obummer gets it to the Senate, the vote will be extremely close. Look at the most anti-gun Supreme Court Justice to ever set on the bench that Obummer nominated! She is the biggest threat to our gun rights, and she is now a justice! Never say never!

 

[KYGlockster]

"Yes, President Obama soars with, and like an eagle...I have seen it with my own two eyes!"

Thank the good Lord he is about to fly into a Tornado come November!!!! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

From,
"A weak, cowardice American!" (As Obummer and Holder call us!)

 

[mpguy]

The procedure for the ACA, and UN Treaty are not the same, although, they both can end at the Bench--as did ACA. Also, the UN Treaty requires a greater number of Congress to vote Yea, than did the ACA.

You can sleep well tonight...and tomorrow night, the Nazi's aren't coming for you just yet.

I know this. I was just making the comment that it could happen. Not personally worried about Nazi's. I have ways of dealing with those sort's of people.

Sent from my XT912 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I know this. I was just making the comment that it could happen. Not personally worried about Nazi's. I have ways of dealing with those sort's of people.

Sent from my XT912 using Tapatalk 2

Doesn't the idea of a Nazi in a gas-chamber make you all warm and fuzzy inside?--it does me.

We will be just fine after President Obama is reelected...promise. More kool-aid anyone?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

"Yes, President Obama soars with, and like an eagle...I have seen it with my own two eyes!"

Thank the good Lord he is about to fly into a Tornado come November!!!! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

From,
"A weak, cowardice American!" (As Obummer and Holder call us!)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but Obama is going to win. The pickle Republicans are in, havening to vote for eight years of Romney. What a turn of events.--have fun casting that Romney vote, my Republican friends.

 

[Sig229]

We will be just fine after President Obama is reelected...promise.

Oh, because the last three years have been "fine".

Look, Im not a Republican and not a Romney supporter.
Bet lets be honest with each other, its currently amateur hour at the White house.
A child could see that.

 

[TFred]

1) The Constitution will still be the "supreme law of the land" and a treaty cannot be elevated above the Constitution -- ergo, 2A will still stand.

2) Those in charge will do as they please regardless. (potentially cancelling out the 2A as usual)

While #2 has been shown to be true, unfortunately your #1 is not.

As Dick Morris has been trying to tell everyone, the US Constitution has what is called "the Supremacy Clause."

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (My emphasis added.)

In case you didn't know, "notwithstanding" means "in spite of!" If this treaty is signed and ratified, it will take on the full authority of the US Constitution, "in spite of" what the Second Amendment might say.

Morris also gets into some weeds for which I have no cites, but he claims that if the treaty is signed, then its implementation cannot be halted, such as by a judicial order, until such a time as it is rejected by the Senate.

It's not entirely clear what all terrible things will happen, but you can be sure with Obama and Clinton involved, they will be dire and many.

TFred