PDA

View Full Version : Gun Ban issue



freefall319
04-08-2010, 09:00 PM
{took this off another forum, Full Article Here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

WASHINGTON (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.

On Wednesday Obama Took the 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, so will gun control.

BonMallari
04-08-2010, 09:50 PM
First of all your link doesnt work....second I think wherever you got that was someones opinion..NOT FACT...as a card carrying NRA member if the above were true the alarms would be up

dnf777
04-08-2010, 10:21 PM
Most things on the internet that exclaim "this is not a joke or false warning", are usually either a joke or a false warning.

freefall319
04-08-2010, 10:37 PM
I was able to find the main article it is talking about ARMS EXPORT SALES. It is an International treaty to regulate arms exports legally and illegally. It's mostly international not domestic. Most likely is a hoax.

YardleyLabs
04-09-2010, 05:52 AM
Presumably you also know that a treaty is not binding on the US unless it is ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate (67 votes).

ducknwork
04-09-2010, 06:11 AM
Presumably you also know that a treaty is not binding on the US unless it is ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate (67 votes).

WHEW! Glad we only have 59 dems...;)

Hoosier
04-09-2010, 08:15 AM
Presumably you also know that a treaty is not binding on the US unless it is ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate (67 votes).

And they know the majority of Americans wouldn't want something like that, so they would never ratify it.:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
04-09-2010, 08:41 AM
And they know the majority of Americans wouldn't want something like that, so they would never ratify it.:rolleyes:
Even if they did, treaties have the force of laws, but do not override the Constitution. However, there is nothing that would prevent a Constitutional amendment from being adopted to repeal the second amendment -- except voters.

road kill
04-09-2010, 08:44 AM
Even if they did, treaties have the force of laws, but do not override the Constitution. However, there is nothing that would prevent a Constitutional amendment from being adopted to repeal the second amendment -- except voters.


Not sure if you have been paying attention , BUT.......Congress doesn't much care what the voters want!!:D



rk