U.S. Reverses Stance on Treaty to Regulate Arms Trade

[Tiger]

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. 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.

You can find the full article here: http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... Q920091015

[Zombie]

Wow pretty crazy shit!

[Space]

The article says nothing about private gun ownership, only arms sales abroad.

Another republicant scare tactic?

[Tiger]

The article says nothing about private gun ownership, only arms sales abroad.

Another republicant scare tactic?

S!~ Space,

Typically, I refrain from such posts as I do not intend to offend anyone or enter into an argument regarding politics. However, in light of Operation "Fast & Furious", it is clear to me that the current administration intends to limit our Second Amendment rights. The Reuters article states that "The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons." That doesn't sound to me like it's just about exporting guns.

If our elected officials decided that it was time to take away our right to own guns do you think they would just openly say "We're going to take away your right to own guns"? I seriously doubt it. I believe that it would be done one small step at a time, and this looks like the first step to me. It reminds me of a parable I read once which goes something like;

"You can catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods where wild pigs frequent and placing an adequate amount of corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the area where they are used to coming. When they get used to the section of fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that small change in environment and start to eat again. You continue this process until you have all four sides of the fence up, with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to eating the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat. When you see that they all are peacefully eating the free corn, you slam the gate shut on them and catch the whole herd."

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But, I'd rather not find out that I'm right after the gate slams shut.

[Space]

S! Tiger,

It could also be a good thing that there are limitations to giving huge amounts of weapons to other countries. Most of the threats we faced in Iraq was all shit we gave Saddam. That would have been a nice thng to avoid. Then again, without that self-created threat there would be no reason to get all excited and go to war whenever someone farts in the wrong direction. Same with selling out best jets to others. The minute you do that you create an imagined need for yet more advanced weaponry, and continue feeding the military-industrial complex. (btw, right now already 61c of every dollar you pay in taxes goes to miltary expenditures in one form or another. just sayin.)

It already is that we have limitations to the 2nd Amendment- concealed carry permits, assault weapon limitations, barrel length requirements, etc. If we can live with these existing limitations without fear of outright losing our personal weapons, then by limiting the ability to send more destructive weapons than these out in mass quantities to potentially future hostile nations we may be saving many thousands of american lives, or even pre-empting the actions which make our interventions "necessary".

While I understand that metaphor with the gate, use it often myself, I think this is republicant election-year paranoia again. God for bid any republicant ever agrees with anything that any democrap ever says, or vice versa.

[Boomer]

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But, I'd rather not find out that I'm right after the gate slams shut.

I wont be on the inside when the gates shut. As soon as they start "asking" for people to turn in their firearms that's when we need to start to panic. I would imagine that is a few years away but I am sure it is coming. We are going to be just like England, constant surveillance, and unable to defend ourselves against criminals that can still acquire firearms. An armed community is a polite community. And when you take away our ability to defend ourselves it will invite more criminals because they wont fear the fatal consequence of breaking into a home with an armed homeowner.

[Warren]

Fast & Furious, as a honest gun owner....... makes me sick to my stomach

But back to your topic.
Yeah but it was seen coming, unfortunitly. They have been beating this drum for a long time and up till now turned out to be only talk from both sides. Lots of history there.

This is without question politically driven. Election year.............. it wil be retarded.

But dont fear, there are many great people out there to protect your 2nd.
Join or donate to the NRA today.
Thank God for the Constitution.

[Tiger]

S!~ Space,

Thank you for a very articulate and respectful counterpoint. I would like to say that I agree with much of what you posted. I should also point out that this isn't really a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans. My feeling is that both sides are drunk with power and they are working toward a common goal which is unilateral government. My stepfather, Floyd Davenport, who was a WWII veteran, warned me that there were people within our government who sought to implement unilateralism. And, that what he and the others were fighting for was our sovereignty. He used to receive a newsletter called "The Duck Report" (long before the internet) where he and others like him would keep a watchful eye on the government and apply pressure as necessary. One of his Army buddies was Randolph Hurst, who used to call the house frequently to discuss such matters. I suppose that I am hyper-vigilant regarding unilateralism as a result.

[Trouble4u]

It would be impossible to take away our guns. I would not turn mine over.

But the bigger problem with this story is the thought that we would allow any other country to dictate our laws. What's the point in being a world leader if you allow a 3rd world country to boss you around?

[Space]

It would be impossible to take away our guns. I would not turn mine over.

Very few of us would, and that's the hitch in their git-along.