Kerry Signs UN Arms Treaty!!!

[divemaster5734]

No kidden.

 

Against Americans wished, the o administration has signed the treaty.

 

It still has to be approved by the senate.

 

it is time to call, fax, email your reps and demand they vote NO....DM

 

Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it

Published September 25, 2013

FoxNews.com

Facebook1926 Twitter843 LinkedIn2

Sept. 24, 2013: President Obama walks past Secretary of State John Kerry during a meeting at U.N. headquarters in New York.AP

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement. 

As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a "significant step" in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights. 

"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong," he said. "This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes." 

U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement. 

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate. 

He claimed the treaty raises "fundamental issues" concerning "individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution." 

The National Rifle Association blasted the plan, claiming it would impose an "invasive registration scheme" by requiring importing countries to give exporting countries information on "end users." 

"The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "These are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American. The NRA will continue to fight this assault on our fundamental freedom." 

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, also sent a letter to Kerry declaring the treaty "dead in the water," since a majority of senators has gone on record against the agreement. 

"The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats," he wrote.
Kerry, who is in New York attending the U.N. General Assembly session, announced earlier this year that the administration planned to sign the treaty. 

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country. 

Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify. 

Over the summer, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to President Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons. 

The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify. 

What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don't, and how stringently it is implemented. 

The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, has said it expects many of the world's top arms exporters -- including Britain, Germany and France -- to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year. 

The coalition notes that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that "history will be made" when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed "to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death." 

Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature -- and ratification -- will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders. 

The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. 

It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals. 

In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.

 

[Kaduku]

I will reserve my comments on these two TREASONOUS SOBs... don't want to get another 3 days suspension!       .

 

 

 

"GOD BLESS AMERICA, IN GOD WE TRUST"!

[Wayfarer]

C'mon, now. Try not to listen to these 'pumpers'. The treaty is a good thing. We have to finally accept that America exists among other nations of the world striving for peace, not war. This treaty is a good thing. Don't let anti-Obama sentiments prevent you from seeing that. In other words, "don't through the baby out with the dirty bath water.

[Man_Kind]

Get the rope !

[Shabibilicious]

If anybody is a gun-right supporter, diverting conventional weapons to the illicit market place..........then I understand your angst.    

 

GO RV, then BV

[Kaduku]

C'mon, now. Try not to listen to these 'pumpers'. The treaty is a good thing. We have to finally accept that America exists among other nations of the world striving for peace, not war. This treaty is a good thing. Don't let anti-Obama sentiments prevent you from seeing that. In other words, "don't through the baby out with the dirty bath water.

REALLY...WOW!!!!  you must be ANTI AMERICAN, ANTI 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND ANTI U.S. CONSTITUTION,

[Yukon Silvermoon]

Come take 'em.  I'll give 'em over.  Hot and empty.  

Edited September 25, 2013 by Yukon Silvermoon

[divemaster5734]

C'mon, now. Try not to listen to these 'pumpers'. The treaty is a good thing. We have to finally accept that America exists among other nations of the world striving for peace, not war. This treaty is a good thing. Don't let anti-Obama sentiments prevent you from seeing that. In other words, "don't through the baby out with the dirty bath water.

Your not serious are you?

 

Our guns are the ONLY thing keeping us from obliteration.

 

This "treaty" effectively gives away our sovereignty to the UN.

 

it will open the door to more UN regulation of America's guns, and will lead to the confiscation of all privately owned arms.

 

This treaty is NOT a good thing.

 

I am shocked you said what you did. 

[Man_Kind]

 

Your not serious are you?

 

Our guns are the ONLY thing keeping us from obliteration.

 

This "treaty" effectively gives away our sovereignty to the UN.

 

it will open the door to more UN regulation of America's guns, and will lead to the confiscation of all privately owned arms.

 

This treaty is NOT a good thing.

 

I am shocked you said what you did.

 

I agree dmaster !

Again, get the rope !

[Shabibilicious]

Someone else please give me your interpretation of the last 2 sentences of the article.   

 

GO RV, then BV

[waterman13]

C'mon, now. Try not to listen to these 'pumpers'. The treaty is a good thing. We have to finally accept that America exists among other nations of the world striving for peace, not war. This treaty is a good thing. Don't let anti-Obama sentiments prevent you from seeing that. In other words, "don't through the baby out with the dirty bath water.

Sorry, you are wrong. It is the end game plan, for a one world government, a total police state world wide. You will have absolutely NO RIGHTS, it's NOT a good thing. IMHO

Wm13

[Wayfarer]

REALLY...WOW!!!!  you must be ANTI AMERICAN, ANTI 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND ANTI U.S. CONSTITUTION,

 

Nope. None of those things. But I'm...Ahem...glad you 'asked'.

 

This treaty has NOTHING in it about our personal guns. I've owned many; let's make that clear.

 

My original statement was about America and its place in the world. We're not in the Alamo any more. We now find ourself the most powerful country in the world.

 

However, our country is also now inter-connected with the rest of the world. How must we act? Are we a 'war-mongering' nation? Or do we encourage peace and try to set an example?

 

As for 'one world' government and black helicopter stuff, there has never been any evidence that the UN has that kind of power or authority, except in our imaginations or movies. It's actually very weak; that's how it was designed. So it poses no threat. Actually, I wish it was stronger to be able to put down many of the rebel insurrections in the world.

 

What else can I say?

Edited September 25, 2013 by Wayfarer

[kenshin7]

and all the other countries will continue to sell guns to them ,  and we at home will lose ours

[dog53]

C'mon, now. Try not to listen to these 'pumpers'. The treaty is a good thing. We have to finally accept that America exists among other nations of the world striving for peace, not war. This treaty is a good thing. Don't let anti-Obama sentiments prevent you from seeing that. In other words, "don't through the baby out with the dirty bath water.

 

Just so you know I`m the one that gave you a neg. I dont like doing it anonymously

 

this treaty is not a good thing.  Shabs yes the last to sentences doesn't effect us but theres a hell of alot more in it then just that.

This treaty would demand that all countries enrolled in said treaty will unconditionally provide a list of all firearms in the US and names of those in possession .

That hand guns , rifles and even grandpa`s shotgun. Serial #`s and names. The UN would be entitled to come in and inspect said weapons to insure that these weapons are properly stored.

 

I have a real problem with that

The UN can Kiss my a$$ along with any GOVT inspector that thinks I am going to open my door to any UN official and let them in my home.

It ain't happening.  

 

 

Article 5 of the treaty requires that each signatory country “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list,”

 

Anyway they can sign all they want it will have to be ratified .

Thats where we come in.

Make the effort to call your representatives to let them know if they sign it they will no longer have a job.

Edited September 25, 2013 by dog53

[BIGSKY1]

Ostupid and company along with the UN are not doing anything that's in the best interest of what's left of this Constitutional Republic. I have not read it but I don't even know why we would need to sign some piece of crap put forth by the UN, we need the UN the hell out of the USA !!! IMHO

[Wayfarer]

Just so you know I`m the one that gave you a neg. I dont like doing it anonymously

 

this treaty is not a good thing.  Shabs yes the last to sentences doesn't effect us but theres a hell of alot more in it then just that.

This treaty would demand that all countries enrolled in said treaty will unconditionally provide a list of all firearms in the US and names of those in possession .

That hand guns , rifles and even grandpa`s shotgun. Serial #`s and names. The UN would be entitled to come in and inspect said weapons to insure that these weapons are properly stored.

 

I have a real problem with that

The UN can Kiss my a$$ along with any GOVT inspector that thinks I am going to open my door to any UN official and let them in my home.

It ain't happening.  

 

 

Article 5 of the treaty requires that each signatory country “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list,”

 

Anyway they can sign all they want it will have to be ratified .

Thats where we come in.

Make the effort to call your representatives to let them know if they sign it they will no longer have a job.

 

Dog, Thanks for your honesty. 'Real' men don't need to hide what they do, IMO.

 

I didn't know those other things were in the treaty. Are you certain? If what you say is true than I'm certainly against it. But try to find out, because, based on past experience with pumpers, that sounds like something they would say.

[wpsmit]

Your not serious are you?

 

Excellent John McEnroe impression, divemaster!

 

As for our friend wayfarer, I think you need to just keep on walking our friend. The words you post are very disturbing to a whole lot of people. No not gun-crazed idiots. Freedom loving believers in our country, our Constitution, and our ability to govern ourselves without a bunch of foreign politicians telling us how our country should be.

[Maggie123]

Has anyone read it? I'll admit I haven't. I'm just running out the door but I will see if I can pull it up and post a link to it later.

 

I've heard it was about 17 pages long but it might be worth the time to read it to see what is actually in there.

 

If this is about us not arming terrorist anymore then you all know where I stand.

[Wayfarer]

Excellent John McEnroe impression, divemaster!

 

As for our friend wayfarer, I think you need to just keep on walking our friend. The words you post are very disturbing to a whole lot of people. No not gun-crazed idiots. Freedom loving believers in our country, our Constitution, and our ability to govern ourselves without a bunch of foreign politicians telling us how our country should be.

 

Walk where, wpsmit? This is my country as much as it is yours! Or do you disagree with that?

[Maggie123]

Thank You Dog I see you gave the link.

 

Where it is talking about "states" in article 5... it means countries. Read it in that context and it isn't as bad as your thinking.

 

It is talking about list for exporting arms.

[pattyangel]

Your not serious are you?

 

Our guns are the ONLY thing keeping us from obliteration.

 

This "treaty" effectively gives away our sovereignty to the UN.

 

it will open the door to more UN regulation of America's guns, and will lead to the confiscation of all privately owned arms.

 

This treaty is NOT a good thing.

 

I am shocked you said what you did. 

 

Agreed.

 

Thanks Dog

 

Research and read between the lines of what is being stated.  Their plan is to rule over the United States, taking away our sovereignty.  They want to make a treaty that will overrule the right of the citizens of the United States to bear arms. 

 

 

The nations standing army is its citizenry.  We don't need no stinking  UN involved. 

[wpsmit]

Walk where, wpsmit? This is my country as much as it is yours! Or do you disagree with that?

Just an expression relating to your id - 

wayfarer  (ˈweɪˌfɛərə) - n - a person who goes on a journey, especially on foot

And yes I do agree that it is your country as well as mine. just saying you may well be in the minority here on DV with your opinion      

[dog53]

Dog, Thanks for your honesty. 'Real' men don't need to hide what they do, IMO.

 

I didn't know those other things were in the treaty. Are you certain? If what you say is true than I'm certainly against it. But try to find out, because, based on past experience with pumpers, that sounds like something they would say.

 

Not a problem if you go back to my post where you see the treaty in blue.

Click on it and it will take you right to the treaty.  

Best read it then decide

[Wayfarer]

 

Just an expression relating to your id - 

wayfarer  (ˈweɪˌfɛərə) - n - a person who goes on a journey, especially on foot

And yes I do agree that it is your country as well as mine. just saying you may well be in the minority here on DV with your opinion      

 

 

Got it. Also appreciate your 'spin' on my handle. Forgive me for assuming 'the worst'. Yes, I do realize that I'm very much a part of a minority. Seems like you belong here too. Then again, there are many members who disagree with the emotion/passion pumpers. Problem is, they have been cowed into silence by the intensity of the fervor aligned against their intellectual positions.

 

But I sincerely believe that everyone here loves this country.

Not a problem if you go back to my post where you see the treaty in blue.

Click on it and it will take you right to the treaty.  

Best read it then decide

 

Thanks. I read it.

 

I agree with Maggie. 'States' mean 'Countries'. I've seen this usage before. Besides, I refuse to believe that a president, any president, will 'sell' this country to any foreign interest. Not only are there are too many checks and balances, newspapers, military generals, etc., would know. My motto is, when the generals start talking against a president, then I'll start thinking about revolution. Because, each military branch has its own intelligence bureau. They will know.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Wayfarer

[desimo]

To those who say this has nothing to do with legal arms in America, I ask a question.  Have you ever known a politician NOT to twist, turn and misuse ANYTHING to their benefit?  This WILL be used against the American gun owner if ratified.  Remember, Hitler was not against gun ownership.  He just wanted to say who was able to own therm.