"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin;
"And when politicians find that honor and character matter less than buying votes and a constituency, that too will herald the end of the Constitution. When that happens we must work tirelessly to change their minds, or their occupation!" - Hoping The Blind Will See

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

U.S. Reverses Stance On Treaty To Regulate Arms Trade

This should worry each and every one of you. this was an article from October 14th, 2009. This action is nearly 7 months old, but have you heard anything about it? Can you imagine any treaty that would override our Constitution? A year ago I'd have said you were out of your mind. Now? I think we better pay attention!

(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.
VERY SERIOUS WARNING.............by DON HUSTED

LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT

IF THIS PASSES, THERE WILL BE WAR

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 [and it was], so will gun control. 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.

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!

1 comment:

  1. It seems like somebody is trying to put a scare into you! I thought I would look into this allegation that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are trying to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights. Here's what I found:

    1) The treaties that the email talks about have nothing to do with Americans owning guns in the USA.

    2) Private citizens could never be deprived of Constitutional rights by an international treaty.

    Snopes.com looked into this email a little while ago - they're a website that separates e-mail fact from e-mail fiction. Here's what they figured out: (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp)

    The UN has not even drafted a small arms treaty yet.

    The treaty in that Reuters article "has nothing to do with restricting the sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of a potential U.N. arms treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of small arms," and "even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States."

    And no matter what, the President doesn't have the power to overrule the Constitution. Besides, if you look at the past year, it's pretty clear that Obama doesn't even want to! Last year, Congress actually ended a ban on guns in National Parks. (http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/guns-national-parks-firearms-now-allowed-yellowstone-yosemite/story?id=9910171)

    The fact is, Obama hasn't done a thing to limit our 2nd Amendment rights - and the law has gotten looser in a lot of places. The New York Times put it this way: "When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition. And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24guns.html)

    I guess some people are so certain that Barack Obama wants to take their guns that they just can't believe the facts: Gun laws have been loosened around the country since the 2008 election, and nothing short of a Constitutional amendment or a radical Supreme Court ruling could take away your right to keep and bear arms.

    Regardless of how you feel about the president, I think we can agree that this kind of dishonesty and playing on people's fears doesn't help us have any kind of productive discussion about politics.

    ReplyDelete