PDA

View Full Version : Hillary starting talks on small arms treaty


MrBrent
10-19-2009, 9:12 PM
Obama administration doesn't have to pass laws in congress to control guns, just sign a treaty.:eek::eek:

http://www.iansa.org/

In a major policy reversal, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the US will support an Arms Trade Treaty at the UN. In a statement released on 14 October, Secretary Clinton committed the US to “actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons.”

The decision brings to an end years of US opposition to the treaty proposal, and has been welcomed by IANSA members around the world. Africa Coordinator, Joseph Dube, said: “The US decision to support strong global controls on the arms trade is great news for Africa. As Hillary Clinton saw for herself on her recent seven-nation visit, conflict over natural resources is devastating the continent, and most families here have suffered from gun violence, either directly or indirectly. We hope the US will show positive leadership and push for a strong treaty, to help break the cycle of violence that is keeping Africa poor.”

Jasmin Nario-Galace of the Philippine Action Network on Small Arms also hailed the announcement:”The widespread availability of arms in my country is a contributing factor to the rates of injury and death, human rights and international humanitarian law violations, as well as the intensification of armed conflicts. These conflicts make poverty worse as resources are diverted away from development efforts. I see some rays of hope in this statement.”

A resolution to start negotiations on an ATT has been tabled at the First Committee of the UN General Assembly. Campaigners at the UN welcomed the proposed start of negotiations, but are gravely concerned that requiring decisions at the proposed UN Conference in 2012 to be made on the basis of consensus may derail progress towards achieving a strong and robust treaty.

The US is the world’s largest supplier of conventional weapons, accounting last year for almost 70% of global arms sales, according to the Washington Post. "Whether or not this resolution passes, the United States now must proactively and cooperatively engage with countries around the world to create a workable, robust treaty," said Daryl G. Kimball, ACA executive director of the US-based Arms Control Association.

jamesob
10-19-2009, 9:25 PM
i personally think that guns made here should not go to forign counties so they can later be used against us. they should make their own and besides not to many u.s made guns end up in africa, they use ak's.

Uriah02
10-19-2009, 9:28 PM
the problem is this may lead into international organizations attempting to make gun laws on our country. International laws which we may submit ourselves to can easily become an infringement on the people (us) unless we protest it.

RRangel
10-19-2009, 9:28 PM
Yes, Hillary and the current administration must support those dictators keeping their peons people in check.

ac427cpe
10-19-2009, 9:30 PM
So... we get to see gun control fail on an international level now?

Hunt
10-19-2009, 9:32 PM
it's all about the power and the money, global slavery for all

Woodymyster
10-19-2009, 9:47 PM
Well the good news is that if this treaty becomes the law of the land, then maybe Izhevsk will make a come back and come out of bankruptcy. :D

Legasat
10-19-2009, 10:07 PM
That will just be one more thing the candidates for 2012 have to run on...

nicki
10-19-2009, 10:14 PM
This was actually discussed at quite a bit at the SAF GRPC and the issue is far deeper than just our gun rights, it is our national sovereignty.

Our country is the only country where the government gets it's powers from the consent of the governed and where our rights come to us from GOD.

Every other country, rights come from the government and they can be modified or regulated out of existence anytime.

This is something that we must keep a eye on, this international treaties will screw us if we don't watch out.

Nicki

locosway
10-19-2009, 10:15 PM
So, doesn't this not matter since it directly goes against the constitution?

7x57
10-19-2009, 10:25 PM
So... we get to see gun control fail on an international level now?

"Now?" You mean beyond the various genocides, death squads, and massacres against disarmed populations we already have?

7x57

radioburning
10-19-2009, 10:37 PM
So, doesn't this not matter since it directly goes against the constitution?

Since when does the constitution matter when it comes to anti-gun laws?:cool2:

7x57
10-19-2009, 10:57 PM
Since when does the constitution matter when it comes to anti-gun laws?:cool2:

Since June 27, 2008. :cool2:

7x57

ac427cpe
10-19-2009, 11:01 PM
"Now?" You mean beyond the various genocides, death squads, and massacres against disarmed populations we already have?

7x57

Of course! Obviously it's just because of the lack of a law. From an institution whose power is completely based on a country's desire to remain in the system... :rolleyes: it wasn't meant to be taken as a serious comment.

dantodd
10-19-2009, 11:01 PM
Jasmin Nario-Galace of the Philippine Action Network on Small Arms also hailed the announcement:”The widespread availability of arms in my country is a contributing factor to the rates of injury and death, human rights and international humanitarian law violations, as well as the intensification of armed conflicts.


ORLY? Human rights are usually violated by governments. So, will this actually disarm governments and their "black militia" or will is simply prevent those abused from fighting back?



The US is the world’s largest supplier of conventional weapons, accounting last year for almost 70% of global arms sales, according to the Washington Post.

Of course, notice when they talk about 70% they drop the "small" part of arms. So, for all conventional weapons, such as fighter aircraft, tanks, stinger missiles etc. etc. etc. which are also almost exclusively sold to the national military and not to separatist groups. What a deceptive statement.


Also, the congress has to pass any treaty for its terms to become law. The legislature is our check on the power of the executive to sign treaties. In other words, this won't become U.S. law unless Obama and Clinton can sell it to the Blue Dogs.

tombinghamthegreat
10-19-2009, 11:10 PM
The US is the world’s largest supplier of conventional weapons, accounting last year for almost 70% of global arms sales, according to the Washington Post.

Look at the source, not exactly a reliable source. The Russians has far surpass the US in small arms in the long run. An example is the AK47, which there have been about 70-100 million made, which a large number of them was spread out. Compare that to the M16 which made like 8 million.

M198
10-19-2009, 11:13 PM
Good thing it will take a two-thirds majority to ratify this in the Senate. No way they will get the 67 votes necessary to ratify it. I don't think you could get two-thirds vote to agree that sunshine is good and the sky is blue in today's Senate.

dantodd
10-19-2009, 11:19 PM
Look at the source, not exactly a reliable source. The Russians has far surpass the US in small arms in the long run. An example is the AK47, which there have been about 70-100 million made, which a large number of them was spread out. Compare that to the M16 which made like 8 million.

Yes, but they didn't claim the US led the world in "small arms" that the treaty wants to limit only "conventional arms" which can be anything non-NBC. The statement sounded good AND it was factual BUT it was misleading, something the gun grabbers are adept at.

loather
10-20-2009, 2:04 AM
... the sky is blue ...

Oh stop it. Everyone knows it's orange.

Err, do I sound too much like a politician now?

CABilly
10-20-2009, 2:30 AM
Ouch. Why would they plant such a wormhole in the Constitution?

Article VI, paragraph 2:

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.

CHS
10-20-2009, 7:15 AM
First they blame Mexico's corrupt government and drug problems on our guns, now they are blaming Africa's?

Wow..

I'm glad that the international oil and diamond trade have NOTHING to do with the warfare that plagues Africa. I'm glad that tribal and racial hatred and fighting have NOTHING to do with the problem.

I'm so glad that we've finally got it figured out. If we just stop sending guns over there everything will be fine!

dantodd
10-20-2009, 7:18 AM
First they blame Mexico's corrupt government and drug problems on our guns, now they are blaming Africa's?


And in all those pictures of violent groups in Africa you will notice they are almost always carrying AR-15s and M-16s made in America. You never see them carrying Russian or Chinese AKs.

CHS
10-20-2009, 7:22 AM
And in all those pictures of violent groups in Africa you will notice they are almost always carrying AR-15s and M-16s made in America. You never see them carrying Russian or Chinese AKs.

No, you don't get it. They have GUNS over there. So they MUST be from AMERICA!

Get it now?

GrizzlyGuy
10-20-2009, 8:12 AM
This is one more instance of the Obama administration pursuing their unstated plan of systematically giving up American sovereignty to a world government. Other instances where they support signing international treaties that would then become the law of the land, overriding our laws and Constitution, including its Bill of Rights:

Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25466-DC-Independent-Examiner~y2009m10d19-Obama-to-surrender-US-sovereignty-at-UN-global-warming-conference

Convention on the Rights of the Child
Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
http://www.timesexaminer.com/political/29-obama-white-house-trading-sovereignty-for-more-un-presence

Fortunately, he needs 2/3 of the Senate to agree with him for the treaties to become binding. I don't think 2/3 of our Senators will go along with his one-world agenda.

OlderThanDirt
10-20-2009, 8:23 AM
Good thing it will take a two-thirds majority to ratify this in the Senate. No way they will get the 67 votes necessary to ratify it. I don't think you could get two-thirds vote to agree that sunshine is good and the sky is blue in today's Senate.

Yup. There is a big dumpster behind the Capital building for treaties that have been negotiated by the State Department, signed by the President, but never ratified by the Senate. It seems to be the normal process where the US plays along with Europe and the turd world, but never actually commits to the treaty.

yellowfin
10-20-2009, 9:24 AM
So... we get to see gun control fail on an international level now?On the contrary, gun control works very, very well for the real purposes of those who implement it. It's the choice of despotic leaders everywhere. Quite honestly it really disgusts me as to how those pushing it here are not clearly publicly outed and punished for attempting to be the same.

7x57
10-20-2009, 9:37 AM
And in all those pictures of violent groups in Africa you will notice they are almost always carrying AR-15s and M-16s made in America. You never see them carrying Russian or Chinese AKs.

That's understandable. You can maintain an AR with a hammer or just a big rock, unlike those delicate AKs. Too sophisticated and expensive for non-industrial cultures, you know. ;)

7x57

bulgron
10-20-2009, 10:26 AM
Ouch. Why would they plant such a wormhole in the Constitution?

Article VI, paragraph 2:

I'm under the impression that the federal courts can negate a treatise if they find that it violates US civil liberties. I'm vague on the details, though, and could easily be wrong.

Legasat
10-20-2009, 11:33 AM
No way they could get 67% in the Senate today. It's the future that gives me pause for thought.

kcbrown
10-20-2009, 12:35 PM
Ouch. Why would they plant such a wormhole in the Constitution?

Article VI, paragraph 2:

That clause says that treaties have the same status as laws passed by Congress: they are "supreme laws of the land" and have precedence over state constitutions and state laws.

It does not say that treaties have greater precedence than the Constitution itself! Quite the opposite: treaties are made "under the authority of the United States", and the United States derives its authority from the Constitution. Therefore, no treaty that contradicts the Constitution is valid.

FreedomIsNotFree
10-20-2009, 4:47 PM
A treaty can only become law of the land if it does not conflict with existing domestic law. In regards to firearms, that arena is clearly outside the realm of control by treaties.

truthseeker
10-20-2009, 5:19 PM
the problem is this may lead into international organizations attempting to make gun laws on our country. International laws which we may submit ourselves to can easily become an infringement on the people (us) unless we protest it.

Do you REALLY think that American's will "LET" another country take OUR GUNS!?

yellowfin
10-20-2009, 7:33 PM
Do you REALLY think that American's will "LET" another country take OUR GUNS!?An egregiously large percentage of the population wouldn't know they were being taken as they do nothing to stop their own states and cities from disarming them. It would be impossible to tell the difference between the local government and a 3rd world dictator ruling NYC, Baltimore, Newark, Trenton, Boston, or Rochester. Any rifle they would point out the door at an invading foreign army they should have been aimed at the one that invaded them from just a few miles away, but they dropped their pants, bent over, and grabbed their ankles instead.

POLICESTATE
10-20-2009, 7:42 PM
Do you REALLY think that American's will "LET" another country take OUR GUNS!?

I don't see why Americans should let another country do anything to them period. However I don't like all these treaties we've been doing the last 100 years, I think it's high time we tear them up and adopt the creed "America: a friend to all and an ally to none"

That was the original vision of our foreign policy when the nation was founded after all. And if someone wanted to screw with us, we put the hurt on them, like the pirates on the Barbary Coast or whatever :chris:

AngelDecoys
10-20-2009, 7:45 PM
Treaties do not supersede the Constitution.
Reid v. Covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert)

yellowfin
10-20-2009, 7:47 PM
Treaties do not supersede the Constitution.
Reid v. Covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert)That's fine if you assume that those who want to go the treaty route actually intend to abide by the rules. I'll give about a butterfly's chance of surviving being sucked into a jet engine that they care what is legal or right.

kcbrown
10-20-2009, 7:58 PM
That's fine if you assume that those who want to go the treaty route actually intend to abide by the rules. I'll give about a butterfly's chance of surviving being sucked into a jet engine that they care what is legal or right.

Then it gets struck down by the judiciary, just like with any other law.

Or not. Just like with any other law.

Regardless, treaty stipulations are implemented as laws within the country in question (the U.S. in this case), and I expect can be challenged by the people the same way.

yellowfin
10-20-2009, 8:07 PM
Laws are challenged in court, alright, but VERY SLOWLY and usually not until after they've done tons of damage and then they still only have a CHANCE at being struck. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like that one little bit, too much like having your hand chopped off and put in a bucket of ice and then being handed a phone with the number of a surgeon to reattach it.

kcbrown
10-20-2009, 8:11 PM
Laws are challenged in court, alright, but VERY SLOWLY and usually not until after they've done tons of damage and then they still only have a CHANCE at being struck. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like that one little bit, too much like having your hand chopped off and put in a bucket of ice and then being handed a phone with the number of a surgeon to reattach it.

I completely agree.

This is why I believe there needs to be some sort of direct and rather severe penalty for voting for a law that is later ruled unconstitutional -- like a few years in jail or something.

Not sure how to deal with the fact that such a penalty would give the judiciary a lot more power, but on the other hand, since most laws are an abridgement of someone's freedom, the fact that it would slow the passage of laws to a crawl can hardly be said to be a bad thing...

USAFTS
10-20-2009, 8:46 PM
I am just a regular citizen but can someone answer a question for me?

If our president signs ANYTHING that serves to dissolve our national sovereignty...how is that not TREASON? How would that possibly be supporting and/or defending the Constituition of the United States?

Just curious how he could possibly (logically) spin an act like that.

locosway
10-20-2009, 8:50 PM
Because anything he signs doesn't matter unless Congress ratifies it.

If you tried to prosecute him for treason you'd just get laughed at.

USAFTS
10-20-2009, 9:32 PM
Because anything he signs doesn't matter unless Congress ratifies it.

If you tried to prosecute him for treason you'd just get laughed at.

I realize that loco, my focus is more on the fact that he would even consider it. Doesn't trying to give away our freedom speak to his fitness to be president of the ONLY free country on the planet? Seems like a bad career move.

locosway
10-20-2009, 9:45 PM
He's at the top. No matter what he does it's all down hill from there. So good or bad, it doesn't matter unless he really cares about re-election.

I wish the people of this country had a means to take control back short of a revolt. It's sad to see people die when all they want is the basics.

POLICESTATE
10-20-2009, 9:54 PM
There is always impeachment :)

kcbrown
10-20-2009, 9:56 PM
He's at the top. No matter what he does it's all down hill from there. So good or bad, it doesn't matter unless he really cares about re-election.

I wish the people of this country had a means to take control back short of a revolt. It's sad to see people die when all they want is the basics.

Pass a Constitutional amendment that stipulates that any member of Congress that votes in favor of a law that is later struck down as unconstitutional goes to jail, and any president that passes such a law does, too. And also have it stipulate that presidential pardons do not apply to those who get nailed by this amendment.

That will take care of the problem nicely. Only thing is, you'd need some sort of separate branch or something to enforce it, or give the judiciary their own enforcement capability. Having the executive branch be the enforcement arm of the judiciary (as, I think, it is now) isn't exactly the best setup if the President (or ex President) ends up being the target of arrest.

Ducman
10-20-2009, 9:59 PM
first it was Mexico, now the UN :confused: oh boy :rolleyes:

mountaindweller
10-20-2009, 10:12 PM
It's a bull**** smoke screen to get the growing cowardly public all goo goo gaa gaa over the adminstration. In an attempt to show "LOOK AT US>>>>LOOK AT ALL THE GOOD WE ARE DOING"....continuing over-look the real problems that affect the world. And come on.....a global restriction....who the F#CK does she (the admin. think they are?).....you can't "lock down the world" with your laws, that's ignoring history and it will lcome back so hard to bite you in the *** it's scary. Scary times we are in.

M198
10-21-2009, 12:56 AM
I think that some people on here might need to calm down and take a small step back here. The OP stated that "Obama administration doesn't have to pass laws in congress (president doesn't pass laws, congress does, and he either vetoes them or doesn't) to control guns, just sign a treaty (actually he would need 2/3 of the Senate to approve first)." It's a bit hysterical. Some international treaty designed to stop gun runners dumping Soviet block AK's into Africa has no bearing on domestic gun laws. Somehow, the conversation turned to third world dictators seizing guns in Newark. Seriously? I think that Californian gun owners have more pressing matters to attend to. The biggest threat that any treaty poses is one with Mexico giving Federales access to American gun registration info for tracking purposes. This will never happen because it's a blatant threat to our national sovereignty and the 4th amendment. To the poster who said laws are slow to be overturned and cause a lot of damage, sometimes they are and sometimes they do. Most of the time, controversial laws will be challenged as to their constitutionality long before they are set to take effect. If they are set to take effect before the matter of constitutionality is decided, a stay order can be issued to prevent the law from being enforced before the judge/panel rules.

HAVOC5150
10-21-2009, 1:27 AM
I MY OPINION I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD STOP IMPORTING MACHETES TO AFRICA. DON'T THEY USUALLY CHOP PEOPLES ARMS OFF OR HACK THEM TO DEATH INSTEAD OF SHOOT THEM.

SJgunguy24
10-21-2009, 4:41 AM
I think that woman needs to shut her pie hole. The only reason she was given that position is they didn't want to hear her whining for 4 fricken years.

Africa is a self induced hell hole. Look at South Africa, for years it was a prosperous nation. Mandela gets out of prison, becomes president and the country implodes.
You can give all the aid and take every gun away, they will still butcher each other until there is nothing left. They no nothing but war, it's sad but you have to wipe the slate clean or let them kill each other off and start fresh.
It's no different that the gang problem here in the states.

MrBrent
10-23-2009, 6:50 PM
As a followup on this go to http://www.nranews.com/#/news and click on program archives just above the video screen and select oct 23 and listen to the John Bolton interview regarding this subject. Its about 20 minuets long but very informative but scary.

Dirtbozz
10-23-2009, 10:46 PM
Ouch. Why would they plant such a wormhole in the Constitution?

Article VI, paragraph 2:

I brought this Article up in a thread last year. I was advised by many on that forum that no treaty could circumvent our Constitutional rights. The 2ND Amendment, especially once incorporated, will take precedence.

Hunt
10-24-2009, 6:40 AM
too many communist.

MrBrent
10-24-2009, 6:59 AM
I brought this Article up in a thread last year. I was advised by many on that forum that no treaty could circumvent our Constitutional rights. The 2ND Amendment, especially once incorporated, will take precedence.

I'm no constitutional scholar by a long shot so I really don't know how it all works. I just know that this is starting to pop up in the news and on Radio and TV. I watched the 20 minuet interview with John Bolton about how this works in the UN and what the agenda is and it is not good for us. I posted a link a few posts ago on how to see that interview. I agree that the 2/3rd may be tough but a lot of damage can be done with executive orders as well. I just encourage people to listen to someone I believe is an expert on the subject unlike me.

Hunt
10-24-2009, 10:54 AM
the UN has Millenium Development Goals completely disarming all civilian populations is one of the goals.

CHS
10-24-2009, 11:29 AM
the UN has Millenium Development Goals completely disarming all civilian populations is one of the goals.

Really? Where is it?

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

I can't find that published anywhere on their Millennium Goals website.

CaliforniaLiberal
10-24-2009, 12:41 PM
I am not well informed about international law. Doesn't any treaty negotiated by the State Department have to be approved by the Senate before the US is actually bound by it?

Can anyone cite any examples of international treaties or UN agreements or regulations that have had any real impact on the individual rights of Americans?

I believe that the US military uses FMJ bullets because of International Treaty. And isn't white phosphorus also prohibited? And there was some deal about a Mexican citizen who was convicted of murder in the US but Mexico protested because their embassy wasn't properly notified by the US law enforcement.

But I'm talking about the rights of US citizens as individuals. Have any US citizens here at home been arrested or charged under international law?

CL

ac427cpe
10-24-2009, 2:19 PM
I am not well informed about international law. Doesn't any treaty negotiated by the State Department have to be approved by the Senate before the US is actually bound by it?

Yes, 2/3 vote in the senate to ratify domestically. The US doesn't like to give up much sovereignty to international law (at least traditionally it didn't).

CaliforniaLiberal
10-24-2009, 4:28 PM
Isn't the UN a paper tiger? Aren't they pathetically weak without the means to enforce their resolutions without the participation of individual countries? If they had the power to disarm they would have disarmed Israel fifty years ago.

How much power did the UN have when they objected to G.W. Bush's invasion of Iraq? Did the US pay even the slightest attention? Wasn't Bolton the most anti-UN guy that we could find to send to the UN as ambassador from the US to let them know we didn't give a hoot about the UN?

Haven't ALL of the major UN actions since it was founded been with the initiative, assent and support of the US? Actual troops on the ground actions I mean, not unenforced resolutions not worth the paper they're written on.

Who are these people trying to spread fear of the UN? Isn't it ridiculous?

Educate me. What is it that I don't know?

CL

Meplat
10-24-2009, 5:00 PM
Discretionary issue is unconstitutional. The GCA-68 is unconstitutional. The NFA is unconstitutional. How's all that workin' out for ya.:D

So, doesn't this not matter since it directly goes against the constitution?

Meplat
10-24-2009, 5:38 PM
That's all well and good if you are the judge.:43:

I think that some people on here might need to calm down and take a small step back here. The OP stated that "Obama administration doesn't have to pass laws in congress (president doesn't pass laws, congress does, and he either vetoes them or doesn't) to control guns, just sign a treaty (actually he would need 2/3 of the Senate to approve first)." It's a bit hysterical. Some international treaty designed to stop gun runners dumping Soviet block AK's into Africa has no bearing on domestic gun laws. Somehow, the conversation turned to third world dictators seizing guns in Newark. Seriously? I think that Californian gun owners have more pressing matters to attend to. The biggest threat that any treaty poses is one with Mexico giving Federales access to American gun registration info for tracking purposes. This will never happen because it's a blatant threat to our national sovereignty and the 4th amendment. To the poster who said laws are slow to be overturned and cause a lot of damage, sometimes they are and sometimes they do. Most of the time, controversial laws will be challenged as to their constitutionality long before they are set to take effect. If they are set to take effect before the matter of constitutionality is decided, a stay order can be issued to prevent the law from being enforced before the judge/panel rules.

ZRX61
10-24-2009, 6:31 PM
Our country is the only country where the government gets it's powers from the consent of the governed and where our rights come to us from GOD.
Nicki

Neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights appear in any religious book. & further more, neither was written by any mythical being, hth.

Hunt
10-24-2009, 7:57 PM
Really? Where is it?

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

I can't find that published anywhere on their Millennium Goals website.

you are looking at the scrubbed versions put out for the benefit of the MSM
Kofi Anan,
. "I would also
urge that they support regional disarmament measures, like the moratorium on the
importing, exporting or manufacturing of light weapons in West Africa."

http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/wethepeople.pdf p. 52

this is just one reference I don't have time to research but I have seen the terms "complete civilian disarmament" a few years ago, as part of the MDG's, they may have set it aside in other documents due to the civilian arming response to BO's election.
I doubt it is completely scrubbed off www look around search -"UN civilian disarmament, small arms control, UN gun control", you will find this is one of the UN goals.

here this is more about it http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RS22108.pdf I think they are scrubbing and playing down anti 2A they see the response to the BO election.

tommygunr
10-24-2009, 9:46 PM
Obama administration doesn't have to pass laws in congress to control guns, just sign a treaty.:eek::eek:

http://www.iansa.org/

In a major policy reversal, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the US will support an Arms Trade Treaty at the UN. In a statement released on 14 October, Secretary Clinton committed the US to “actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons.”

.

Looks there trying to control the export of small arms out of the United States . Will most likey be used to control the import as well:censored: but l don't think this will affect our rights . It could mean a surpluse of small arms for us . :thumbsup:

Hunt
10-24-2009, 9:50 PM
Looks there trying to control the export of small arms out of the United States . Will most likey be used to control the import as well:censored: but l don't think this will affect our rights . It could mean a surpluse of small arms for us . :thumbsup:

so you think the fine print in these UN treaties and agreements aren't intended to take our right us?

CaliforniaLiberal
10-24-2009, 9:58 PM
UN Press release from July 2001. Did you know that the NRA is an organization recognized by the UN?


http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/facts.htm


SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

UN CONFERENCE ON THE ILLICIT TRADE IN SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS
in All Its Aspects, New York, 9-20 July 2001



The United Nations has received a steady flow of correspondence about the objectives of the United Nations Conference. The following points address some common questions and misconceptions.
The focus of the United Nations Conference is on illicit trade in small arms, not the legal trade, manufacture or ownership of weapons.

Assault rifles and other small arms and light weapons have become the weapons of choice in many internal conflicts waged around the world. They are weapons manufactured to military specifications for use as lethal instruments of war. These weapons often end up in the possession of organized crime syndicates, drugs traffickers, and warlords who promote strife for personal gain. Because these weapons are light and easy to use, they are put in the hands of 300,000 child soldiers.
The Conference is about finding ways to curb and eliminate illicit trafficking in such weapons. The Conference is not about outlawing the legal manufacture or trade of these weapons, nor their legal, private ownership.

Stricter national legislation and greater international cooperation will help to control illicit trafficking of small arms.

It is conservatively estimated that forty percent of illicit small arms and light weapons have been diverted from the legal trade. Strengthening controls over the legal trade diminishes the opportunity for weapons to fall into the wrong hands.
Each Member State creates its own internal gun laws. The United Nations has no jurisdiction over any State’s national legislation.

The UN Conference will have no effect on the rights of civilians to legally own and bear arms.

The United Nations Charter (Article II, paragraph 7) specifically forbids the UN from intervening in matters that are within a Member State’s domestic jurisdiction. The UN Conference is being held as a result of a unanimous decision by Member States and will not interfere with any State’s internal laws or regulations and will not violate national sovereignty. The Conference will seek to promote global peace, security and development through promotion of international norms and cooperation to combat the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons.

The Conference will result in a consensus document agreed upon by all Member States.

The Conference will conclude with an agreed programme of action containing measures that all States can take to control the trade in illicit small arms. The final document will not be international law. Rather, it will be a political statement and a promise that States make to their own people, themselves and to other States. As per customary UN parliamentary proceedings, the Conference document will not single out any Member State, and no State is forced to accept any decision it does not agree with.

This Conference will not produce a legally binding treaty.

Some States propose to work together to mark and register small arms in order to improve their cooperative law enforcement capacities to trace weapons. Others have proposed that only legally authorized manufacturers and brokers be able to produce and trade in small arms and light weapons. These are proposals at this stage.

The United Nations is seeking to strengthen the law enforcement capacities of States through cooperation in information sharing and openness about arms trading and production.

Greater cooperation in enforcement of import and export control and brokering regulations, for example, will strengthen the capabilities of all States.

Public interest groups from around the world will be represented at the Conference.

One hundred and seventy-seven (177) different non-governmental organizations from five continents will send representatives to the Conference. They have a wide range of views. Some have considerable expertise and experience in the area of small arms and light weapons. Many are from gun-affected countries. The largest coalition of NGOs is represented by the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), a group of NGOs concerned about the proliferation of small arms. The United States-based National Rifle Association (NRA), a recognized NGO at the United Nations, will be joined by several other organizations particularly concerned about the rights of gun owners in the United States. All NGOs accredited to the Conference have the same rights and privileges.

Small Arms Destruction Day (Monday, 9 July) events by Member States can raise awareness of the damage caused by small arms.

Several States proposed that the opening day of the Conference be proclaimed Small Arms Destruction Day as a ceremonial gesture for raising public awareness. Events will take place around the world and at Headquarters. The ceremonies are to symbolize that once surplus and illicit weapons are identified and collected, they should be destroyed. Such an event in a post-conflict or post-strife situation helps boost confidence among affected populations that the guns that wrought such damage are destroyed once and for all.




Published by the United Nations Department of Public Information in cooperation with the Department for Disarmament Affairs – July 2001
Visit the Department for Disarmament Affairs website at http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms

CaliforniaLiberal
10-24-2009, 10:17 PM
so you think the fine print in these UN treaties and agreements aren't intended to take our right us?


"The UN Conference will have no effect on the rights of civilians to legally own and bear arms.

The United Nations Charter (Article II, paragraph 7) specifically forbids the UN from intervening in matters that are within a Member State’s domestic jurisdiction. The UN Conference is being held as a result of a unanimous decision by Member States and will not interfere with any State’s internal laws or regulations and will not violate national sovereignty. The Conference will seek to promote global peace, security and development through promotion of international norms and cooperation to combat the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons."


Looks to me like they're trying to reduce illegal arms trafficking between countries. Kind of like enforcing present laws against the illegal use of firearms by criminals instead of passing more laws against law abiding gun owners.

CL

Hunt
10-25-2009, 7:08 AM
"The UN Conference will have no effect on the rights of civilians to legally own and bear arms.

The United Nations Charter (Article II, paragraph 7) specifically forbids the UN from intervening in matters that are within a Member State’s domestic jurisdiction. The UN Conference is being held as a result of a unanimous decision by Member States and will not interfere with any State’s internal laws or regulations and will not violate national sovereignty. The Conference will seek to promote global peace, security and development through promotion of international norms and cooperation to combat the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons."


Looks to me like they're trying to reduce illegal arms trafficking between countries. Kind of like enforcing present laws against the illegal use of firearms by criminals instead of passing more laws against law abiding gun owners.

CL

good, the UN, Hillary and Obama one less thing to worry about. I feel better now that I can trust them

Dirtbozz
10-25-2009, 8:33 AM
good, the UN, Hillary and Obama one less thing to worry about. I feel better now that I can trust them

You don't really believe that, do you?

hill billy
10-25-2009, 9:13 AM
If our president signs ANYTHING that serves to dissolve our national sovereignty...how is that not TREASON? How would that possibly be supporting and/or defending the Constituition of the United States?

It would be but don't worry, I haven't seen any evidence that Mr. Obama has supported or defended the COTUS to date.

Since June 26, 2008. :cool2:

7x57


Fixed it for you.

CaliforniaLiberal
10-25-2009, 9:41 AM
I don't think we are in as much danger from our federal government as many other forum members do.

CL

RRangel
10-25-2009, 11:47 AM
"The UN Conference will have no effect on the rights of civilians to legally own and bear arms.

The United Nations Charter (Article II, paragraph 7) specifically forbids the UN from intervening in matters that are within a Member State’s domestic jurisdiction. The UN Conference is being held as a result of a unanimous decision by Member States and will not interfere with any State’s internal laws or regulations and will not violate national sovereignty. The Conference will seek to promote global peace, security and development through promotion of international norms and cooperation to combat the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons."


Looks to me like they're trying to reduce illegal arms trafficking between countries. Kind of like enforcing present laws against the illegal use of firearms by criminals instead of passing more laws against law abiding gun owners.

CL

We have currently serving one of the most anti-gun presidential administrations in our history. President Barrack Obama served as a Chairman of the dubiously anti-gun Joyce Foundation that attempted to subvert the very Supreme Court decision making process that made the Heller decision possible. He's never come across an onerous gun law or ban he didn't like. Hillary Clinton also has a terrible reputation.

If it were not for the trying times, and the presidents infatuation with his healthcare power grab, gun owners might not be so lucky today. Those who seem to be giving the UN and their small arms conference a pass make themselves suspect. There's a reason that the former administration spoke out against such agreements. Gun owners don't have that luxury today.

When dictators and totalitarian regimes get together with elements of our own suspect administration to discuss “illegal arms trafficking” understand that most sane persons know “the people” will not be better for it. The concern that gun rights advocates have is appropriate.

forgiven
10-25-2009, 2:10 PM
She wanted this before when her hubby was in office.

tazmanian devil dog
10-25-2009, 9:05 PM
Hillary or should I say "Hitlery" is a TRAITOR!!! Plain and simple.

bubbapug1
10-25-2009, 9:18 PM
The smart Dems know gun control lost them control of the house in 1994 and will NOT go down that path...Apparently Hillary never "got" it and feels her agenda trumps the constitution.

What an elitist attitude from someone who tolerates a hubby dipping into the hired help...

dantodd
10-25-2009, 9:22 PM
Our country is the only country where the government gets it's powers from the consent of the governed and where our rights come to us from GOD.


Neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights appear in any religious book. & further more, neither was written by any mythical being, hth.

That is a non sequitor. Since our rights do not come from the Constitution nor the bill of rights the inclusion of such documents in holy scripture is irrelevant to the argument you are making. hth.