Anyone heard about this?

[1Admin]

Another forwarded email- anyone hear anything on this?

The 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 USState Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the USGovernment 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 Nationsand 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 UScitizens 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 Stateshas signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the UShas signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the UShas 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.

Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.

We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictatorship).

[qrprat77]

Date on the article is 2009.
I think we've already killed this treaty, right?

[1Admin]

Didn't notice the 2009 date........ I get a LOT of forwarded cra... ahhh stuff sent to me.

So the current UN arms treaty crap is now dead?

[qrprat77]

I think the vote is the 27th, but unless this unpleasantness in CO affects it, it's not going to get out of the Senate.

[Grand58742]

I think the vote is the 27th, but unless this unpleasantness in CO affects it, it's not going to get out of the Senate.

There's the key factor right there. I'm sure there are a lot of politicians salivating over the opportunity to implement another ban or restriction. I'm making my high cap orders early and picking up another AR lower just in case.

[WiseOwl]

A lot of the tin foil folks are saying that this Manchurian candidate in Colorado is going to be some fuel for the liberal fire on this.

[Patriotic Sheepdog]

We still need to watch this. Here is a report from the NRA-ILA Dated July 20, 2012

Full Report: Disinformation Continues as U.N. Arms Treaty Takes Shape

In New York this week, the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty continued trying to draft a treaty to impose worldwide controls on small arms, including civilian-owned firearms.

The NRA has made clear its opposition to any treaty that includes civilian firearms, and continues to note that a majority of the United States Senate stands with American gun owners in opposition to such a treaty. We have led the effort to mobilize opposition to the treaty in Congress, and not only a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate, but also 130 House members, have voiced strong opposition to the treaty. Ignoring that reality, U.N. conferees are working to regulate not only civilian small arms, but also ammunition and firearm parts.

Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie.

For example, the most recent draft treaty includes import/export controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the "end user" of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

And even if the U.S. never ratifies--or even signs--the treaty, many other nations will. The cost of complying with the treaty would drive up the price of imported firearms and probably force some companies to take their products off the U.S. market.

That's not all. This week, the delegates focused on an endless series of drafts that would either ban exportation or require states to consider the risk of exporting, if the arms could be used to commit crime, or could "be diverted to unauthorized end users" or "the illicit market." Exports could also be blocked if they would "support" or "encourage" terrorist acts or "provoke, prolong or aggravate acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace," or could be used in "gender-based violence" or to inflict "human suffering." Anti-gun activists here and abroad have long claimed that gun ownership in general does all of these things, so any of these provisions could be abused by foreign governments to shut off exports to law-abiding Americans.

The NRA has spent nearly 20 years lobbying against U.N. attacks on civilian firearms ownership. As a U.N.-recognized NGO (non-governmental organization) we have attended meetings and conferences and we have spoken out directly at the U.N. about our unfailing opposition to any treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.

As the conference completes drafting the treaty, the NRA will continue to gather information on what provisions are included, and will work with our allies in the international community as well as Congress to oppose adoption of any anti-gun treaty or any other international restriction on our constitutional freedoms.

[Greg B.]

Scheisse?!

[Matt In Oklahoma]

A lot of the tin foil folks are saying that this Manchurian candidate in Colorado is going to be some fuel for the liberal fire on this.

It aint tin foil anymore, i just watched both sides of my state house during a news deal they do sell assault weapons out and all 3 the 2 politicians and the reporter were admitted gun owners/users and all 3 openly stated there is no place for assault weapons and things need to be changed but "in keeping with the spirit of the 2nd" of course. They all 3 stated that they do not believe if someone had been armed it would have helped but in fact made it worse with reckless gunfire. Several comments from folks I know (gun owners) yesterday were on the amount of ammo and how that needs to be controlled more.
This coming from a gun friendly state, we may be in for a rude change

[WiseOwl]

It aint tin foil anymore, i just watched both sides of my state house during a news deal they do sell assault weapons out and all 3 the 2 politicians and the reporter were admitted gun owners/users and all 3 openly stated there is no place for assault weapons and things need to be changed but "in keeping with the spirit of the 2nd" of course. They all 3 stated that they do not believe if someone had been armed it would have helped but in fact made it worse with reckless gunfire. Several comments from folks I know (gun owners) yesterday were on the amount of ammo and how that needs to be controlled more.
This coming from a gun friendly state, we may be in for a rude change

I just love how a semi auto fancy sport rifle is considered an assault rifle. That ish just ticks me off.


So my bic pen and my louisville slugger are considered assault weapons also? I can put a being down with either one. Gotta love that liberal media.

[Patriotic Sheepdog]

There has probably been more forks responsible for deaths than "assault rifles in civilian hands". I mean, those forks have put more food into peoples mouths that lead to obesity...then to diabetes and cholesterol issues...then hypertension...then cardiovascular disease...you get my point.

[Greg B.]

The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. As I understand it, the whole reason for the Second Amendment is to enable We The People to replace an out of control government. Forceably, if necessary. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. The only rationale for more (or any) gun control laws is that the government, as it should, fears the people. It has gotten so bad, now, that government replacement may not be enough. We may have to take our country back from the baby blue helmets.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

What kills me is to hear people say "The founding fathers did not mean assult rifles" or "Military Grade Weapons"... The intent was that we could carry equal or superior (if possible) to the military. I come to that conculsion by context.

During the revolution the average Minutemen carried a "Rifled" musket but the regular "Red Coats" carried a "smooth bored" musket. The rifles gave the Minutemen more accuracy and greater range. IE THEY OUTGUNNED THE ARMY. Our

[Triple-sod]

Being British I’ve always had a lot of respect, and indeed quite a bit of envy for America’s second amendment.

Always makes me laugh to hear liberals and lefties over there saying things like, 'All that armed resistance stuff is so 18th century, these days revolution is about people taking to the streets, peaceful protest!' :rolleyes:

Totally missing the fact that an unarmed populous are not only defenseless against a tyrannical state but also completely dependent on it to protect them...

[BioG8r]

Here is a breakdown of the weapons used in the Deadliest US shootings...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/deadliest-us-shootings/