How much is it really worth to the far left to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens? They had better think hard on that question, since gun registration and gun confiscation laws are inherently unconstitutional and inherently violate God's laws.
Posted on 04/02/2013 9:47:36 AM PDT by ColdOne
The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday signed off on a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade, brushing aside worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the American gun market.
The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to a countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.
With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There are a lot of p o’d people out there who will vent that anger.
How much is it really worth to the far left to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens? They had better think hard on that question, since gun registration and gun confiscation laws are inherently unconstitutional and inherently violate God's laws.
First thing I am going to do is squeal on all my blood relatives who are gun collectors who voted for Obama.
At least I can show them HOW their little police state works that the dumbasses voted for!
Good on you! The less weapons their side has, the better.
too bad we [the US] are NOT allowed to participate, due to our international smuggling of small arms to mejican drug cartels for use as insurrectionist tools against their, and our gubmints...
wait, what ??? you say that wasnt even mentioned in the politikin ???
oh well, since my RIGHT to life, and defense thereof is GOD granted, and I have no ability/desire/authority to give that away to islamic tyrants around the world [and in the white hut], I guess theyll just have to send...
pretty...blue...helmets...
Count me in! I’ll bring all my ‘scary’ rifles/guns
no need, Obamacare is still not a treaty
Why?
Because ALL 100 of them value wealth, safety, and stability...
Kinda like 0bama, who will exit the presidency on Jan. 20, 2017...vertically or horizontally, his choice.
People generally act in their self interest.
5.56mm
Make them pay.
What would Michael Collins do?
I agree wholeheartedly. Neither has the Executive or any other branch of Government. The Constitution trumps any treaty, if we follow the Constitution. Unfortunately, there seem still to be differences over what the shall not be infringed part of the Second Amendment actually means. It has been infringed frequently.
The Constitution does not include in the enumerated rights set forth in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere such things as a right to drive an automobile, to practice law or medicine, etc. Those have been treated as privileges rather than as rights. The exercise of privileges perhaps should require State or Federal licenses. The exercise of rights, such as the right to bear arms, should not.
I don't understand the constitutional bases for requiring permits -- similar to but in some cases more stringent than drivers' licenses -- to own and to use firearms,. Yet we do that.
Should the new arms control treaty be ratified by the Senate (on a 2/3 vote, as required under Article II), Federal implementation seems likely to create another morass of Federal gun control laws. Should it? Of course not. Will it? That's a different topic altogether. I suspect that it is likely to do so.
Even should the Senate not ratify the UN treaty, there is a possibility that the President, by Executive decree Order might try to implement it domestically. What will we do then? Cry? I don't know and hope not to find out.
Sorry Barry this one is going to be DOA in the Senate.
Ok, I'll get right on that.
My kinda 300 win mag. Top it off with high mag Leupold glass and show the world what a “hunting rifle” can really do.
HE HE HE HE HE.....
...and just like March of 2010, my fellow conservatives are arguing with me and lecturing me about how this gun control treaty will never pass.
The circumvented the Constitution to get Obamacare.
Why will they follow it now?
I said it would be harder than Obamacare.
I was looking for the treaty text and it wasn’t easy to find at www.un.org.
Not sure how this affects a typical gun owner unless they have a foreign purchase. The section on “reporting” is troubling - maintain qty, value, model and end-users. Backdoor gun registration. It covers “small arms and light weapons” which sounds like it covers all gun urchases that cross country boundries.
I may be wrong but it seems a gun purchased at a local walmart falls outside the scope of this thing.
....”Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it.”...
Who’d of guessed!
The new bill requiring liability insurance will be the way to a universal registry. Guess who has close relationships with insurance companies for information on everyone.
That’s actually comforting. Thanks.
No. I have been arguing since 2007 that this particular treaty is a threat even with only a signature, and that it can be ratified by as few as 34 Senators.
Do you dispute that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.