Obama signs secret UN deal to ban ammo, guns, importation

dmnEPC

dmnEPC

New member
Dec 23, 2010
5,994
95
0
The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve the Arms Trade Treaty that would effectively regulate global trade in conventional weapons. For the first time this would link sales to the human-rights records of buyers.
The 193 countries represented voted as following: 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions. The three nations voting against it were Iran, Syria and North Korea.


Read more: UN Arms Trade Treaty Passes By Overwhelming Vote : Freedom Outpost
Click to expand...

Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) indicated that passing a treaty that countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea will ignore will simply tie the hands of countries like the United States. “The U.S. Senate is united in strong opposition to a treaty that puts us on level ground with dictatorships who abuse human rights and arm terrorists, but there is real concern that the Administration feels pressured to sign a treaty that violates our Constitutional rights,” Mr. Moran said. “Given the apparent support of the Obama Administration for the Arms Trade Treaty, members of the U.S. Senate must continue to make clear that any treaty that violates our Second Amendment freedoms will be an absolute nonstarter for ratification.
Click to expand...

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, we are pleased to join with the consensus” on the treaty, adding that before the White House gets to planning on how to get it through the Senate, it will first review and assess the language of the treaty itself.”
Click to expand...

The good news is King Obama doesn't have the votes to get this through congress. Although I would imagine he could scrounge up a pen to sign another executive order.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JqXwCDJg_A"]Emotional Obama vows gun control 'without Congress' - YouTube[/ame]
 


mattseh said:
Since when is something secret, if there is a WF thread about it?
Click to expand...

When sensationalising a title, certain word's help conversions. Its all about the clicks. Sorry if a little of that may have spilled over.

King Obama just likes to hide in plain sight. You won't find this covered in the mainstream (hence the secret)

Obama doesn't need congress to support him on this treaty. He can and will do as he pleases to enforce his treaty. Kiss your .mil surplus goodbye.
 
To further nitpick at the title : Obama hasn't signed anything. The US rep at the UN along with 153 others voted in favor of a treaty. The formal public push for this started in 2001.

Maybe not on this forum, but when the sole focus of every issue is "Obama, Obama, Obama" in a preaching to choir type of way - even when 153 other nations are involved - the view of much of the general public becomes "those angry rednecks only oppose this because of Obama, therefore it's probably a good thing."
 
For the first time this would link sales to the human-rights records of buyers.
The 193 countries represented voted as following: 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions. The three nations voting against it were Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a real leftest plot. Thanks for revealing it.
 
Finally a use for the US Senate. Obama must be stopped before he starts mucking up our supply of assault weapons from the US. Sure the ATF would still give us some but they are total vaginas about it. Thanks -Mexico
 
mattseh said:
Since when is something secret, if there is a WF thread about it?
Click to expand...

WF has the WIA. Amongst these acronyms lies the most ruthless truth seekers in all the land. Lives have been ruined and plots have been revealed because of these shadowy sentinels.
 
Moxie said:
To further nitpick at the title : Obama hasn't signed anything. The US rep at the UN along with 153 others voted in favor of a treaty. The formal public push for this started in 2001.

Maybe not on this forum, but when the sole focus of every issue is "Obama, Obama, Obama" in a preaching to choir type of way - even when 153 other nations are involved - the view of much of the general public becomes "those angry rednecks only oppose this because of Obama, therefore it's probably a good thing."
Click to expand...

Who are you supposed to focus on? Its only 1 guy that keeps going behind the backs of Congress and the People. When its 1 guy constantly undermining hundreds of years of 'progress'.

The day he stops using the Constitution and Bill of Rights to wipe his ass, will be the day I stop posting about him.

QnIdIqE.jpg
 
It's an UN agreement that states countries will not sell arms to terrorist groups like Hezbollah, or other groups such as mexican drug cartels.

Has nothing to do with your 2nd amendment rights.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
It's an UN agreement that states countries will not sell arms to terrorist groups like Hezbollah, or other groups such as mexican drug cartels.

Has nothing to do with your 2nd amendment rights.
Click to expand...
LOL

They said the same thing about the Patriot Act. But I still have to deal with

illegal check points
tracking all of my financial dealings
tracking all my communications
them violating my families personal space to fly on airplane
the potential of being locked up without a judge, jury, or even an attorney. Only the executioner.

Yep you're right. Nothing to see here. Im sure he has our best interests in mind.

“The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services — U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”[Emphasis added.]
Click to expand...

Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke a of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use. That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.
Click to expand...

The wording of the actual treaty is still open to interpretation. Think of this more as laying the groundwork for the long con. With the senate only 7 votes away from passing this, its not unreasonable to assume they could change their minds (for the children) at some point. The president has publicly stated he is going to move ahead with gun control with or without congress.
How can one consider his next move (this treaty) to be anything but an assault on the people.
 
dmnEPC said:
Who are you supposed to focus on?
Click to expand...

Like I said, in this case 153 nations voted for it, and numerous people have been involved in the process of pushing for it since at least 2001.

Its only 1 guy that keeps going behind the backs of Congress and the People.
Click to expand...

How so? Executive orders? Those are a matter of public record and the majority of complaints against him don't have to do with those. They instead are more about things that first came out of congress, and with continued policies from past administrations.

For example, "Obama phones" were in place when Bush was President, they were approved by congress, and the legal system allows them. So if Obama had never been born, the phones would still have been around. See any problems with only focusing on one guy, when that one guy wasn't even needed for the thing to exist?

When people imply that Obama is similar to a dictator and refer to things like the yearly NDAA as an explanation for that, it makes no sense. Congress, including a Republican House, introduces and approves of it before it reaches his desk, and then the courts have to uphold it if anyone challenges it.

It's an impeachable offense for a President to go beyond their powers defined in the Constitution. How many members of congress have called for him to be impeached?

Any executive order can be challenged legally. One of the few instances of it happening against Obama, was by a Chinese company, so I guess you don't even have to be a citizen to do so.
 
Moxie said:
Like I said, in this case 153 nations voted for it, and numerous people have been involved in the process of pushing for it since at least 2001.
Click to expand...

And yet it took Barack hussein Obama (first US President to chair the UN security council) to get it done. All the while violating the constitution in the process

Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Click to expand...

How so? Executive orders? Those are a matter of public record and the majority of complaints against him don't have to do with those. They instead are more about things that first came out of congress, and with continued policies from past administrations.

For example, "Obama phones" were in place when Bush was President, they were approved by congress, and the legal system allows them. So if Obama had never been born, the phones would still have been around. See any problems with only focusing on one guy, when that one guy wasn't even needed for the thing to exist?

When people imply that Obama is similar to a dictator and refer to things like the yearly NDAA as an explanation for that, it makes no sense. Congress, including a Republican House, introduces and approves of it before it reaches his desk, and then the courts have to uphold it if anyone challenges it.

It's an impeachable offense for a President to go beyond their powers defined in the Constitution. How many members of congress have called for him to be impeached?

Any executive order can be challenged legally. One of the few instances of it happening against Obama, was by a Chinese company, so I guess you don't even have to be a citizen to do so.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ARkiJM2bA]Proof Obama will sign NDAA (S.1867) 1031 "American Citizen Indefinite Detention Law" - YouTube[/ame]

Do not kid yourself into thinking the current administration does not have a far reaching powers. He has pushed through countless {obama care,bail-outs}bills. There have been countless impeachable offenses committed by the current president. Nobody has the stones to do anything about it.


Even though Obama is drunk with power and a war monger, I do however agree the focus shouldn't just be on Obama. The rest of the criminals in Washington are just as guilty for trampling on our rights
 
When I lived in the US I was pro gun control, mostly because I knew even if I bought one gun every day I was still outgunned by the redneck militia. But here south of the border I carry a gun every day and I'm anti gun control (for the US) convenient right?

Hope the Republicans grind his bones to make their bread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom