PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Clinton commits to UN Small Arms Treaty



Cueball1897
12-16-09, 14:16
Thread Rules:

"No new FEDERAL AWB or gun control threads. This topic is only to be discussed in the tacked thread.

State or international or municipal topics are fair game."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this doesn't belong here, moderator please have it moved.

This is a little too much on the dooms day side of things for my taste, but does anyone have any information on this?

I received the below E-mail this morning:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------










Dear fellow patriot,

With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

That’s why it’s vital you sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty!”

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before it’s too late!

You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Ever since it’s founding almost 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.

To the petty dictators and one-worlders who control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” -- it’s an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power they crave.

And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.

That’s why it’s vital you act TODAY!

The truth is, there’s no time to waste.

You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

The fact is, the last thing the gun-grabbers in the U.N. and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to react and mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.

They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” into law since the mid-1990s.

But this time, time won’t be on our side.

In fact, we’re likely to only have a few days or weeks to defeat the treaty.

Worse, there’s no longer any pro-gun Republican Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.

There’s no longer any Republican in the White House who has stated opposition to the treaty.

And you and I know good and well how Germany, Great Britain, France, Communist China or the rest of the anti-gun members of the United Nations are going to vote.

So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE of stopping the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.

As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.

With 40 Republicans, that should be easy, right?

Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

First, you know just as well as I do that not all the remaining Republicans in the Senate are “pro-gun” in any sense of the term.

Second, even with the partisan rancor in Washington, D.C., many GOP Senators get “queasy” about killing treaties for fear of “embarrassing” the President -- especially with “international prestige” at stake.

They look at ratifying treaties much like approving Presidents’ Supreme Court nominees.

And remember, there were NINE Republicans who voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

A dozen more GOP Senators only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.

So if we’re going to defeat the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” we have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!

That’s exactly where this petition comes in.

So won’t you click here to sign IMMEDIATELY?

And also, if you can, I hope you’ll agree to make a generous contribution of $200, $150, $100 or even just $35.

With your generous contribution, I’ll immediately begin contacting Second Amendment supporters through mail, phones and e-mail to turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.

Tops on the list are the “usual suspects” like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lindsay Graham and the rest of the weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate whose votes we can never count on.

I also want to begin contacting gun owners in states represented by key Democrats -- like Senators John Tester and Max Baucus of Montana, Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

And finally, I’ve designed a “special” hard-hitting program especially for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to let Nevada gun owners know exactly what he and his anti-gun pals have planned for you and me.

Facing a tough reelection in 2010, Senator Reid knows he’s already skating on thin ice with Nevada voters.

So you and I could end up putting the final nail in his political coffin -- if I can pull out all the stops.

Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Billboards. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting newspaper, radio and TV ads. The whole nine yards.

Of course, if I can raise enough resources, my goal is to expand this full program to ALL our target states.

But that’s not going to be cheap, and we may not have much time.

In fact, if we’re going to defeat the UN’s so-called “Small Arms Treaty,” we have to start NOW!

So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators.

And if you possibly can, please agree to make a contribution of $200, $150, $100, or even just $35.

Every petition and every dollar count in this fight.

So please sign the petition and include your most generous contribution of $200, $150, $100 or $35 TODAY.

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. The Obama Administration just announced they would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new GLOBAL, “Small Arms Treaty.”

That’s why its vital you and I fight back IMMEDIATELY.

Please click here to sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty.”

And if you can, please make a generous contribution of $250, $150, $100 or $35 right away!

http://www.nagr.org/UNpetition1.aspx?pid=t3

rickrock305
12-16-09, 14:44
The first glaring problem...




So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.


all this and we don't even know what it says? :rolleyes:

second glaring problem...




And also, if you can, I hope you’ll agree to make a generous contribution of $200, $150, $100 or even just $35.


And if you possibly can, please agree to make a contribution of $200, $150, $100, or even just $35.


So please sign the petition and include your most generous contribution of $200, $150, $100 or $35 TODAY.


And if you can, please make a generous contribution of $250, $150, $100 or $35 right away!




thats four times he asked for money. please, if you can't see this for what it is i don't know what to tell you. i, for one, am not that easily suckered out of my money.


when you actually have some solid info on this treaty, i'll be all ears.

Volucris
12-16-09, 14:45
It's a plea for money and it doesn't really matter what they say in my eyes. Chain mail is chain mail and it goes into the spam folder no matter how much I'd like to agree with it. 9/10 it's a collection of fallacies and falsehoods.

Get legitimate sources for every statement made in the email or it's just bunk. It reminds me of the group of people who cleverly distributed "evidence" of a false Obama birth certificate to see how many people would trust them. In the end they came out and told everyone they had been had and that the whole thing was a sham.

The internet is fun. Especially when you use it to manipulate the truth.

Too long; didn't read: It's asking for money and came in an email. It's nothing but lies.

rickrock305
12-16-09, 15:20
so as i thought, turns out your chain mail is a bunch of sensationalist garbage.


http://www.iansa.org/un/ATTvote09.htm


Today, after years of discussions and debates, the United Nations agreed a timetable to establish a 'strong and robust' Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) with the 'highest common standards' to control international transfers of conventional arms.

There is currently no global regulation of the arms trade. In a major reversal of policy, the US - the world's biggest arms trader - voted in favour of the resolution. Russia and China abstained; Zimbabwe was the only vote against. As a result of the vote, the conference to finalise the Treaty is now scheduled for July 2012.

"This is great news," said Rebecca Peters, Director of IANSA. "For too long, the world has been complacent about the devastating effect of the unregulated flow of arms."

"All countries participate in the conventional arms trade and share responsibility for the 'collateral damage' it produces- widespread death, injuries and human rights abuses," said Ms Peters. "Finally, governments have agreed to negotiate legal controls on this deadly trade."

"This is a tribute to the hard work done by campaigners around the world. Now we must build on this breakthrough and make sure a strong and effective treaty is agreed in 2012."

Today's agreement means that the ATT will be negotiated in a series of meetings concluded at a UN Conference in 2012. The resulting treaty is expected to require States to strictly regulate international transfers according to principles based on international law, significantly reducing the human cost associated with the proliferation of conventional arms.

The resolution on the ATT recognises that international arms transfers contribute to armed conflict, displacement of people, organised crime and terrorist acts, thereby undermining peace, safety, security and sustainable development.

Campaigners expressed reservations about the procedure planned for the UN Conference which could give every State the right of veto. "it is vital that governments keep up the pressure for a strong treaty, and do not allow a minority of States to block the process," said Ms Peters.

153 countries voted in favour of the resolution, 19 abstained and 1 voted against. A list showing how each country voted is available here.



so this supposed treaty doesn't even exist yet, and even if it ever does it will not affect U.S. gun policy.

you can pull your panties out of your ass now.

Volucris
12-16-09, 15:21
oh how i love smart people

rickrock305
12-16-09, 15:25
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015


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.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

Rider79
12-16-09, 16:20
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

I've never even heard of this group. Is this another American Hunters and Shooters Association?

Belmont31R
12-16-09, 16:35
Fortunately treaties have to be approved by Congress, and this wont make it through this Congress. The only bright spot on the turd that is Harry Reid is he is pro-gun.

11Bravo
12-16-09, 16:35
No matter where in development such a treaty is or is not, quoting Rebecca Peters and her ilk to support your position that the treaty won't come to be is like quoting Planned Parenthood as proof that abortion is murdering babies.
Makes no sense and is flat out bullshit.
Peters is all about banning all private ownership of all firearms worldwide.

R/Tdrvr
12-16-09, 16:46
The only bright spot on the turd that is Harry Reid is he is pro-gun.

I'm sure if his boss (and NOT the people who he represents :rolleyes:) told him to go with the UN, he would. This Congress has already proved that they could care less about what the people want.

William B.
12-16-09, 16:46
I've never even heard of this group. Is this another American Hunters and Shooters Association?

I don't know too much about these guys, but I don't think they are left-wingers. In fact, they even accuse the NRA of being anti-gun.

Rider79
12-16-09, 17:00
The only bright spot on the turd that is Harry Reid is he is pro-gun.

He's pro-gun when it works for him.

milosz
12-16-09, 17:03
The proposed treaty, as I understand it, would basically require the rest of the signatories to live up to the US's current standards on exporting small arms.

Iraqgunz
12-16-09, 19:05
I believe that the NRA or some other group published something about this U.N treaty. According to the article it would essentially have ZERO effect on the day to day gun laws within the USA.

Submariner
12-16-09, 21:06
I believe that the NRA or some other group published something about this U.N treaty. According to the article it would essentially have ZERO effect on the day to day gun laws within the USA.

True. Nevertheless, the treaty would probably stop the importation of small arms ammunition from overseas.

Iraqgunz
12-16-09, 21:31
Is that a guess or did you read it somewhere? I am not saying I trust the politicians or the motives, but I need to see something.

Does this have ability to circumvent our laws as they pertain to import and export?


True. Nevertheless, the treaty would probably stop the importation of small arms ammunition from overseas.

Ridge_Runner_5
12-16-09, 21:41
I believe one of the Founding Fathers (either Jefferson or Franklin) said "The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away."

Volucris
12-16-09, 23:06
Can we get this deleted? It's nothing but lies.

Cueball1897
12-17-09, 02:33
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/



International Gun Ban Treaty?

December 5, 2009
Bookmark and Share

Q: Has Obama found a "legal way around the Second Amendment"?

A: The administration’s agreement to talk about writing a United Nations treaty to regulate arms exports and imports is a far cry from banning possession of firearms, which Obama says he doesn’t want to do and the Supreme Court has said can’t be done anyway.

FULL QUESTION

Is this correct?

Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd. Amendment and Uses It. The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

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

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
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 firearm and 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 firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

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.

FULL ANSWER

We’ve received many queries about this chain e-mail, which refers to a proposed United Nations treaty to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons.

Much of what this e-mail claims is simply false. A "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" isn’t possible under our Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which held just last year that:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 26 June 2008: (T)he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

Furthermore, if an arms trade treaty ever materializes, the administration won’t be able to "bypass" Congress, as the e-mail maintains. All international treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before they are considered ratified and in effect.

In addition, the idea that a treaty necessarily would make U.S. citizens "subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," as the e-mail claims, is wrong. Treaties don’t subject one nations’ citizens to the laws of other nations. They do commit governments to whatever actions a treaty specifies, such as ceasing to test nuclear weapons, in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (a treaty signed by the U.S., but never ratified by Congress).

As for this particular treaty: First of all, it doesn’t yet exist. What is true is that the Obama administration, reversing the line taken by the Bush White House, has voted to support a process that could, in 2012 at the earliest, result in a treaty.

The idea of achieving an international agreement on trade in conventional arms has long been kicking around, and in 2006 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution titled "Toward an arms trade treaty." The measure instructed the UN secretary-general to get the views of all member states on "the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." A panel of "governmental experts" was tasked with providing advice as well. The resolution was approved 153-1, the only dissenter being the U.S.

Then in 2008, the General Assembly passed another resolution, this one calling for further efforts toward an arms trade treaty (ATT) through a new open-ended working group. Again, the U.S. provided the only vote against the measure.

Since President Obama took office, though, the U.S. has been more receptive to the notion. In mid-October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying: "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons." And on Oct. 28, the General Assembly voted 153-1 to move forward in preparation for a United Nations conference on the arms trade treaty in 2012 that could yield a formal document. This time, Zimbabwe was the lone naysayer (19 nations abstained).

Some critics of the concept of an arms trade treaty say they believe, like the author of the e-mail above, that it’s a back-door avenue to gun control. In fact, suspicions that the UN wants to seize Americans’ guns have been circulating since the mid-1990s. Those fears dovetail with trepidations that some have about Obama on this issue. John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, recently told the NRANews:

Bolton, Nov. 6: The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control. After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it … requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.

That’s Bolton’s opinion. The fact is that a provision in the resolution’s preamble – included at the request of the U.S. – explicitly recognizes the right of nations to regulate gun sales and ownership within their borders, including through their constitutions:

UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…

Another provision acknowledges that countries have a right to arms for "self-defence and security needs and in order to participate in peace support operations."

Also, two weeks before the General Assembly voted on the measure, Secretary of State Clinton stated a key condition of U.S. approval and made sure the caveat made it into the resolution: The 2012 conference must make its decisions by "consensus," she said. In practical terms, that means every country has veto power on the negotiated agreement, and it won’t go into effect without the approval of all. In short, no treaty will take effect if the U.S. does not agree.

Despite widespread claims like this one, we’ve seen little or no evidence that the Obama administration is doing much to regulate guns or gun ownership. As a candidate Obama did say that he favored reinstating the "assault weapons ban" and closing the "gun show loophole" (which allows some gun buyers to avoid background checks), while the NRA stirred the fears of gun rights advocates. But he also said he believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms, and that he would "protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

Furthermore, since taking office, Obama has not pushed any of his promised gun control measures. Asked about assault weapons at a press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in the spring, he said:

Obama, April 16: I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we’ve focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws. …

The only piece of gun legislation he has signed has been an expansion, not a contraction, of gun owners’ rights: In May, the president signed credit card legislation that included a provision allowing loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.

That hasn’t stopped gun rights advocates from believing that Obama is going to implement sweeping anti-firearms policies. Just since he’s been in office, we’ve been asked if Obama was raising the tax on ammunition by 500 percent (no), if he was dropping the program that allows commercial pilots to carry guns (no), if the "Obama regime" was going to require a federal license to own a handgun (no, again), and whether he was behind a move to tax guns and require owners to report their weapons on their federal income tax forms for 2009 (no - that bill died before Obama was even a U.S. senator).

Nevertheless, a Gallup poll in October found that 41 percent of all Americans and 52 percent of gun owners believe that Obama will try to ban the sale of guns. And people are acting on these beliefs: A run on ammunition has created shortages for sport shooters, and FBI background checks, required of most would-be gun purchasers, were up 25 percent in the first five months of 2009 compared with a year earlier.

These claims may keep coming, but they will continue to be unfounded — until and unless Obama takes real steps to regulate firearms, which so far he has not.

-Viveca Novak

variablebinary
12-17-09, 04:14
Even if this "treaty" had no teeth in terms of domestic law, it could foul up international commerce and wreck anything that uses imported components

geminidglocker
12-17-09, 05:02
It does'nt even matter anymore. What an irrelevant thread. They come try to take them, we kill them, they lose we win. End of story. There are a lot less of them than there are of us. I'm about sick of threads like this. :mad: