Forgive me if this has been covered, but I couldn't find it anywhere. The Obama administration, through Hillary, has been pushing the U.N. to finish a bill, ( U.N. Small Arms Treaty ), on banning semi-auto weapons and making mandatory registration of all other guns. This bill is being moved along so as to be up for signing by 2012, before any new elections can interfere. It is my understanding that after the U.S. signs the bill it has to be ratified by 2/3s of the Senate and it will be the law of the land. OPINIONS? / OTHER INFO?
the senators who vote for that bill will be essentially voting themselves out of office, and I think they realize that.
Unfortunately that didn't seem to bother them when they voted on ObamaCare. Aside from all the other evils of registration, I'm sure if they got their way there would be a registration fee on each gun which would rise each year until you couldn't afford them anymore. Maybe that's the plan...
Ayuh,... This is just another attempt by the Liberal Progressives to do an endrun around Our Constitution... Nothing more,... Nothing less....
Feb 2, 2011 Last Friday, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to the ATF stating that his office had "received numerous allegations that the ATF sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers, who then allegedly transported these weapons throughout the Southwest border area and into Mexico." Could this have been the prelude to the , " You never want a serious crisis to go to waste", scenario, where the solution would have been the passage of the U.N. small arms treaty? Blame gun-dealers on the border of selling assault weapons to drug dealers, get the anti-gun crowd worked up and finally introduce the bill to the public as the solution???
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/gunwalker_goes_primetime.html I think it was an ATF op gone full-retard.
The U N Small Arms Treaty is still being hammered out. It isn't about our civilian guns but about the international small arms trade and is supposed to make it more difficult terrorists and insurgents to get guns. It would have no effect inside the U.S. as our Constitution trumps any and all treaties. Further 50 Senators have an NRA rating of "A" so that would kill any type of restriction on civilian ownership of guns.
Feb 16 20011, According to Rand Paul; Kentuckys newly elected Senator Rand Paul has pleased conservatives with his calls for fiscal and constitutional conservatism, ranging from abolishing the Department of Education and all foreign aid to proposing substantial cuts to the federal budget. Now Paul has joined the crusade to end Secretary of State Hillary Clintons efforts to work with the United Nations to pass a new Small Arms Treaty. In an email to his supporters, Paul explains, Disguised as an International Arms Control Treaty to fight against terrorism, insurgency and international crime syndicates, the UNs Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, global gun control scheme. According to Paul, if ratified, the UN Small Arms Treaty would force the United States to enact stricter licensing requirements, confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms, ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons, and create an international gun registry.
Signing a treaty and making a law are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. Countries sign treaties all the time, get their photo taken, talk about how great the treaty is and then ignore it after all the PR is gained. That's how treaties work.
The Clinton's have been working on banning so called assault weapons since Bill was in office and for a time they were successful in banning certain guns that could take high capacity clips. I hope your right, but I just don't trust this crowd and looking for back doors to bypass the constitution is exactly what they do best. Why would U.S. Senators be showing concern over it at this juncture if it was so unimportant??
Ayuh,... I suggest you do some lookin' around, 'n bring yerself up to speed,... As your very Wrong in your assumptions...
This myth has been circulating for some time and was a chain e-mail as well, getting anti-controllers all atwitter. The actual treaty provisions support individual country's sovereignty. 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." All one need do is look it up at Factcheck to see it's all a charade intended to stir up fear and loathing.
This was in the Factcheck link you provided; Statement by John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 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.
between the lines Joseph Farah Obama's 'civilian national security force' Posted: July 15, 2008 1:00 am Eastern 2011 With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions. For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since. In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Question; What would he need this for????