PDA

View Full Version : Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control


Equalizer2
11-15-2009, 9:39 PM
WEAPONS OF CHOICE

Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control

NRA guests warn international treaty would strip 2nd Amendment rights

Posted: November 14, 2009
7:05 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
2009 WorldNetDaily

Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House
made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a
gun control treaty with the United Nations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S.
had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade
Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush
administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the
United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.

Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly
unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on
the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a
final accord in 2012.

"Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the
United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the
international transfer of arms," Clinton said in a statement. "The United
States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this
area."

Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous
submission of America's Constitution to international governance and an
attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control
laws it couldn't pass through Congress.

'Shooting Back' tells of lives saved from attackers. Learn the Bible's
defense of bearing arms from a man who defended his church from terrorists

Bolton, for example, told Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National
Rifle Association's NRA News and host of the NRA's Daily News program, "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."

He continued, "There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about
saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small
arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and
what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations
are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on
the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the
top of their agenda."

Brian Wood, disarmament expert for Amnesty International, explained in a
Bloomberg report why his organization and others are pushing for the U.S. to
join Arms Trade Treaty talks. Wood said the U.S. is the largest conventional
arms trader in the world and the unregulated trade of conventional arms "can
fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism."

"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 Rebecca Peters, director of the
International Action Network on Small Arms in an Agence France-Presse
interview. "Now finally governments have agreed to negotiate legally binding
global controls on this deadly trade."

But Bob Barr, a former U.S. representative and presidential candidate of the
Libertarian Party, explained in a separate interview with the NRA's Simone
how a treaty that looks like it's all about fighting international crime
will necessarily lead to erosion of Second Amendment gun rights:

"Even though [treaty advocates] all say, 'We are not going to involve
domestic laws and the right to keep and bear arms, that won't be affected by
all this,' that's nonsense," Barr said. "There's no way that if you buy into
something like this and a treaty is passed regulating to ensure that
firearms transfers internationally don't fall into the hands of people that
the U.N. doesn't like, there's no way that that mechanism will work unless
you have some form of national regulation and national tracking."

Bolton not only agrees with Barr's assessment but also sees the treaty as an
Obama administration end-run around the Constitution:

"After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out
that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the
Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," he
said. "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."

Clinton's October statement of support for the treaty negotiations was filed
with a caveat that the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty operate under the
consensus rule of decision-making, essentially that its provisions be
adopted unanimously.

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the treaty,"
she stated, "and to avoid loopholes in the treaty that can be exploited by
those wishing to export arms irresponsibly."

But Bolton warned gun owners not to think the consensus rule will stop the
treaty from passing.

"Consensus at the U.N. is a way of saying unanimity, everybody agrees, but
in fact, the U.N. in the last eight years could have been very close to
consensus on exactly this kind of treaty but for the Bush administration,"
Bolton said. "So I don't think her comment about consensus offers Second
Amendment supporters any consolation, because absent the United States,
nobody is really going to put up an objection to this."

Citizens wishing to speak out on the issue can contact the State Department
or the National Rifle Association.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116041

cortayack
11-15-2009, 11:03 PM
A treaty with the U.N is unConstitutional...but who follows the Constitution anymore..............

GearHead
11-15-2009, 11:12 PM
In order for a treaty to become domestic law it needs to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate...and the Democrats DO NOT have that kind of swing...

That and all treaties that violate the Constitution are inapplicable...this all seems rather alarmist to me.

Farquaad
11-15-2009, 11:19 PM
We haven't even ratified the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty and I'm supposed to loose sleep over this :chris:

POLICESTATE
11-15-2009, 11:33 PM
If you read the article they talk about something that happen last month on the 14th but try to make it sounds like it's news this month. Doesn't help WND's credibility much.

Aegis
11-16-2009, 10:00 AM
He better be more worried about growing the economy and reducing the unemployment rate. A bad economy is going to be the reason his party loses control of the house and senate in 2010.