Obama administration is pushing for global arms control
<blockquoteThe United Nations is deliberating over a treaty that will place comprehensive limits on the international weapons trade. The language of the draft agreement is so expansive it wouldn’t take an Obama-appointed judge very long to extend the treaty to cover the domestic firearms market as well. If American jurists continue to be enamored by the popular trend to consider international precedence when making U.S. rulings, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.
This week, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” The scope of the proposed treaty is vast. It covers tanks, military vehicles, aircraft (including drones), ships, submarines, missiles and ammunition. It seeks to regulate arms import, export, transfer, brokering, manufacture under foreign license and technology transfer. The proposed global regulation instructs countries to “take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.”
The George W. Bush administration opposed the treaty when it was first proposed in 2006. However, the Obama administration is giving it high-level support. This has generated legitimate alarm on Capitol Hill. Last week, more than 125 members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton registering strong objections about the treaty language being drafted, which they say is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” In particular, the members are concerned about an international arms treaty that infringes on “the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal self-defense on which the Second Amendment is based.” They conclude that the ATT “should not cover small arms, light weapons or related material such as firearms ammunitions.”
What a laugh – as though any arms producing country wants anything more than rhetoric – and as for O’Bama (if he is being quoted correctly) then he should immediately withdraw all American support and aid along with every other moral country from Afghanistan where it is now shown that a poor woman gets shot for some trumped up charge and the population appeared to be siding with the Taliban – no aid – no support – let them get on with it and allow good people of the world to prosper
Well I have been living in Australia for a long time, and let me tell you – there was no more peaceful country on earth to live in – no citizen carried arms, or even needed to consider it – except farmers on their “ranches” to deal with sick and injured animals etc. But now, the violent movies have done their bit and gangsters are commonplace in the big cities. When I was a child two and two made four. Glorifying guns means people are killed by guns. Watch any Al Capone movie. I don’t have guns on my aeroplane, ’cause the war is over. I thought we won? Peaceful people don’t need guns.
“Peaceful people don’t need guns.”
I suppose peaceful countries don’t need armies.
As long as there are people who are not peaceful, then those who seek peace must arm themselves in defense.
Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty
Lawmakers join general in declaring pact a threat to freedom
Published: 4 days ago
Over 100 members of Congress appear to share the concerns of a former Army general who has sounded the alarm over efforts by the Obama Administration to push through the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT.
As WND reported, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin earlier this year, in a video in which he claimed Obama was leading America down the path of a quiet, Marxist revolution, blasted the ATT, also known as the small arms treaty, saying it would regulate private gun ownership.
“There has been a decree by the administration by the president and the secretary of state saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons,” Boykin warned. “That means the United Nations, an international body will decide how you and I as Americans can buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are. This is a dangerous trend.”
Now some 130 lawmakers, consisting of mostly Republicans, but also including Democrats such as Reps. Jason Altmire, Sanford Bishop, Jerry Costello, Danny Davis and Peter DeFazio sent off a letter to the Obama administration opposing the treaty.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obama-told-to-back-off-u-n-gun-treaty/
Look at Mexico … toughest gun control laws in the world …. tens of thousands murdered by drug gangs. Only the criminals have the guns, the same criminals who supply US Liberals with their mind altering drugs. Look at the middle east. The only way people can protect their freedom is to fight an oppressive government. Look at Egypt, Syria, Tunsia, Libya … will the US need armed people to fight Democrat oppression of Freedom?
Gamecock. You are clearly a fighting man, and I respect that. And Benofhouston – Of course we need armies. Armies under the control of the will of the people – sheriffs are not enough – and not the army and guns in control of the people which is in the process of turning the middle-east into a bloodbath. Only then will the citizens be able to leave their 45′s at the bar lobby, in good faith.Better still, leave your guns at home for some sporting shooting and western games with the kids. When I was a child, “cap-guns” did the job, “real guns” were for the movies – people like Tom Mix. Real heroes.
Biggles you are confused. Guns do not beget violence, they simply allow it to be expressed. If guns are not available then knives and other weapons are employed instead. Most the of the massacre in Rwanda was done with machetes. What you have to ask is what are the real roots of violence and what can be done about them? That’s a much more difficult question to answer and there may not be practical solutions in all cases. And while society continues to ponder that, I’ll keep my gun handy, just to maintain parity with those that would try to harm me and mine. An armed society is a polite society.
Paul, no, not really confused, just wish we had the “polite” people populating Australia that we had 30 years ago when guns were totally unnecessary. It is an indictment on civilization that you need to carry a gun to stay “polite”. It’s not what that Christ fellow advised. OK OK Peter (and the others?) carried swords, point taken. It is, nonetheless an indictment of the direction of our society, that anyone should need carry a gun. Even most police did not carry guns here 30 years ago.
Guns make the 100 pound woman the equal of a 200 pound rapist.