desimo Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 Just finished emailing my Congressmen. I doubt it would even be read but atleast I did my part. Enough is enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaduku Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 Someone else please give me your interpretation of the last 2 sentences of the article. GO RV, then BV It means LIES, LIES, AND MORE LIES whenever it comes out of DEMONCRATS AND LIBERALS mouths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog53 Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 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. Maggie dearest This ain't just another pretty face sweety . I know what state means it means the GOVT Did YOU really read the whole thing cause I did I am not a lawyer but I can see a whole lot of vauge loop holes our GOVT could use. Here`s just a few. 1. A international Instrument to Enable States (GOVT) to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, What are they going to consider timely and reliable and whats there description of illicit ? 2. Bearing in mind that civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict and armed violence, Will chicago be the catalyst in which the UN decides they can no longer sit back and watch the armed violence ? 3. Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law, Hmmm this treaty will determine what guns can be used for the above No No No dont like that one at all 4. Mindful also of the role regional organizations can play in assisting States (GOVT) Regional organizations ? waaa we gonna invite hezbolla to the party 5. responsibility of all States (GOVT) in establishing and implementing their respective national control systems; After Obama care just the word "implementing " sacres the shat out of me 6. Each State Party(GOVT) shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty. Im already on enough of their list 7. Each State (GOVT) Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms. Broadest range ? 8. A State (GOVT)Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party. Thats just to vague 9. (a) would contribute to or undermine peace and security; ( could be used to: (i) commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law; (ii) commit or facilitate a serious violation of international human rights law; Yeah this goes along the lines of their quest to force their idea of justice in the zimermin case . HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 10. Each State(GOVT)Party shall take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1). Such measures may include requiring brokers to register or obtain written authorization before engaging in brokering. Yeah "BROKERS" that means sellers guys . Want to sell a gun we will need the proper authorization sounds like to me 11. Each State (GOVT) Party shall take appropriate measures to enforce national laws and regulations that implement the provisions of this Treaty. appropriate measures ? Dont like the sounds of that 12. In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, model legislation, and effective practices for implementation. Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide such assistance, upon request. Kiss my a$$ 13. The Conference of States Parties shall: (a) Review the implementation of this Treaty, including developments in the field of conventional arms; ( Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation and operation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; © Consider amendments to this Treaty in accordance with Article 20; (d) Consider issues arising from the interpretation of this Treaty; (e) Consider and decide the tasks and budget of the Secretariat; (f) Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of this Treaty; and (g) Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty Well there it is. They can change this in any direction they want at any time they want OK Mag so are you really ok with this kiddo ? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandstorm Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 All this coming from an administration arming terrorists, who claim to be rebels or freedom fighters in Syria. Keep guns away from criminals! You liar Did you forget your administration gave arms to cartels in the fast and furious? Bunch of hippocrits The u. S. arms rebels in Egypt, Libya, and Syria to go overthrow their governments, and somehow their the voice of reason! Arm the Middle East, but demand Americans have gun control and lose theirs. Typical Obama policy, helps everyone but america 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nstoolman1 Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 We don't need a treaty we have the 2nd A. If the Government would simply allow people to excercise it we would be happier. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 It means LIES, LIES, AND MORE LIES whenever it comes out of DEMONCRATS AND LIBERALS mouths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My bad Kad. I should have been more specific.....my question wasn't directed towards you. Thanks for the Kad standard issue response though. GO RV, then BV 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. Reread the above highlighted statement, think it over without bias......and get back to me. GO RV, then BV 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog53 Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 My bad Kad. I should have been more specific.....my question wasn't directed towards you. Thanks for the Kad standard issue response though. GO RV, then BV Reread the above highlighted statement, think it over without bias......and get back to me. GO RV, then BV I agree shabs neither side can be trusted at this point. dems repubs same thing lying bastards 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 I agree shabs neither side can be trusted at this point. dems repubs same thing lying bastards I can respect that Dog.....although I don't feel comfortable referring to a female politician as a bastard........proper raisin', I guess. GO RV, then BV 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwave Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 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. 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. I am about 1000% sure that everyone here does not love this country. Soooo sad. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinar_stud Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 People in this forum clkaim to be constitutionalists. there is a small problem. NO treaty is valid unless ratified by the senate. Its all BS to keep people scared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyangel Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 I am one voice for so many of the women out there. There are many of us that stand for the United States Constitution. We realize that this treaty is Un-Constitutional. It goes against the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms. We understand this administration is using verbiage in this treaty that is very deceiving. Its put in a way to persuade you one way, but totally meaning something different that benefits them. So its saying in layman terms...without citizens having weapons, they can have their way with us. Dog53, I commend you for bringing your information over. Okay gentlemen, we Patriotic women have your backs, we will stand at your sides, we will make our voices heard. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinarMillionaire Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 "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.Meanwhile, Obama has been arming Al-Qaeda and whomever he else he wants, humm, Mexican drug cartels for just another. It's starts out like Obamacare, 2,700 pages in the "law" and an additional 20,000 plus pages of "regulations". Folks, this is the proverbial "Camels nose under the tent". If the U.N. starts making laws that bind American politicians hands, then it's no longer...government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people. But some foreign pisswads. Then it's all over but the crying. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandstorm Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 But, as we are there, so is other factions on the other side. It is what it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divemaster5734 Posted September 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 What are they going to consider timely and reliable and whats there description of illicit ? Will chicago be the catalyst in which the UN decides they can no longer sit back and watch the armed violence ? Hmmm this treaty will determine what guns can be used for the above No No No dont like that one at all Regional organizations ? waaa we gonna invite hezbolla to the party After Obama care just the word "implementing " sacres the shat out of me Im already on enough of their list Broadest range ? Thats just to vague Yeah this goes along the lines of their quest to force their idea of justice in the zimermin case . HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Yeah "BROKERS" that means sellers guys . Want to sell a gun we will need the proper authorization sounds like to me appropriate measures ? Dont like the sounds of that Kiss my a$$ 13. The Conference of States Parties shall: (a) Review the implementation of this Treaty, including developments in the field of conventional arms; ( Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation and operation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; © Consider amendments to this Treaty in accordance with Article 20; (d) Consider issues arising from the interpretation of this Treaty; (e) Consider and decide the tasks and budget of the Secretariat; (f) Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of this Treaty; and (g) Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty Well there it is. They can change this in any direction they want at any time they want Well said Dog. There's a couple other issues not mentioned. between the village idiot, clinton, and o, the UN police now have more authority than any police force, including the FBI, CIA, or any other federal or state entity. The UN has possession of all those bases that were closed by bush, then made national parks, then given to the un to help pay off our national debt by collecting day use fees.. yeah right. The UN, which was started by the CFR to be their muscle for the NWO, does not recognize as having autonomous authority. If we were subject to this treaty, only 70% of member nations could change anything about it and everyone would have to comply. So, that means the US could say no, they want to keep their hunting rifles, but we would still "lose the right", if say iran, cuba, russia, and a few others got together and threw the "vote". Sheesh, are we REALLY going to TRUST the whole world wants to take that unicorn ride on the rainbow? Wow, thats as stupid as voting for a freaking bill so we would know whats in it. Sorry folks, I'm not taking anymore of the blind stupidity screwing with my life. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Montana Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 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. I have to respectfully disagree with you. The UN is a joke and letting them have ANY power over us, even if it's only in writing like this, is a mistake. When our "leaders" willingly submit control to them, we have a problem... and that's what Kerry has done. There is no reason at all that we should be weakening ourselves, and that's all that is happening here... and we don't even have an upside or benefit resulting from this action. Bottom line? It's plain stupid. That's my 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaydadea Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 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 itPublished September 25, 2013FoxNews.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. We've been previously warned that the likes of this would happen. No one seems to listen. Now it's real. We are being taken over little by little by the same folks our forefathers fought against when America came to be. If there's a buck in it. Kerry is all over it. They'll quietly push this crap and soon your're kids and and grand kids will suffer for it. There is no UNITED NATIONS! Analyze United. ALL BS! In order to control, you must disarm! There's your UN. Kerry is all over it since he lost every ounce of credibility he ever earned over the Syria crisis. What a jerk! Pay attention people, this is not good. Even Hillarious left it alone. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divemaster5734 Posted September 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 (edited) I have to respectfully disagree with you. The UN is a joke and letting them have ANY power over us, even if it's only in writing like this, is a mistake. When our "leaders" willingly submit control to them, we have a problem... and that's what Kerry has done. There is no reason at all that we should be weakening ourselves, and that's all that is happening here... and we don't even have an upside or benefit resulting from this action. Bottom line? It's plain stupid. That's my I remember as a kid when the first UN "forces" showed up at some disaster. All the grown ups in the room started laughing, they were not armed and had no purpose or authority, and were the global joke. It is only through financial manipulation they have been granted any power. They don't even follow their own mandate, but expect others to. The fact we are even having this discussion and having to plead our case to other Americans is extremely disturbing. Edited September 25, 2013 by divemaster5734 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog53 Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 A Lot of you old timers will remember the League of nations That was the first attempt at what they are pulling now. It didn't pan out and the banksters lost Now the UN has become the next attempt. Much more powerful , Better supplied, well equipped, monetarily stable. Yeah. Were in deep shat here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaydadea Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 Adam, Respect to ya Brother. Not sure if you posted to me or Divemaster. Slay says the UN needs to stay the hell out of our business. I'm not knocking the Government whatsoever. Hell, I worked for them all my life. The current Administration? Different story. Worst in US History. The President of color was supposed to unite the Country. What the crap happened? Our current administration is a damn joke with nothing in mind but a vacation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desimo Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 Historically I have been optimistic about many things. Regarding the mess our nation is in presently has me an extreme realist. I honestly do not know if we have another three years left in us without a major event shifting us back to a state of normality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxinjersey Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 We've been previously warned that the likes of this would happen. No one seems to listen. Now it's real. We are being taken over little by little by the same folks our forefathers fought against when America came to be. If there's a buck in it. Kerry is all over it. They'll quietly push this crap and soon your're kids and and grand kids will suffer for it. There is no UNITED NATIONS! Analyze United. ALL BS! In order to control, you must disarm! There's your UN. Kerry is all over it since he lost every ounce of credibility he ever earned over the Syria crisis. What a jerk! Pay attention people, this is not good. Even Hillarious left it alone. You nailed it Slay... any proponent of such treaties and ideas is simply naive to the continuing agenda of the "soft tyranny" we live in... the slow erosion of Constitutional ideas and rights. Transformation, one tiny step at a time... as simple as "a foot in the door"... Once they're in... conditioning the public through altruistic language, "trust", then attrition. Those who see through it... don't give up! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easyrider Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 john kerry does NOT look human lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog53 Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 john kerry does NOT look human lmao hahahahahah Yeah he`s alien like . One butt ugly dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPSprayduster Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 Are we still hollering about the export of conventional wpns to third world countries. Are we that paranoid that the UN is trying to take your guns. People keep on listening to Alex jones, WND, Breibart and whomever gun manufacutures are underwriting. The UN is not going to regulate our 2nd Amendment. Keep on beliving this BS some folks are spining about this UN Treaty. ONly a certain few have linked this to current administration don't drink the KOOL AID. This is silly to contiued to be so paranoid about the UN coming to America and taking your guns. But some are still going to scream until they are blue or red in the face. If you can find it in the treaty that they are going to take your guns i will give you all my dinars. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaydadea Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 john kerry does NOT look human lmao I'll say it Easy. Look a bit Reptilian? Evil bastard! Makes one wonder. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts