Kerry Signs UN Arms Treaty!!!

[waterman13]

I'll say it Easy. Look a bit Reptilian? Evil bastard! Makes one wonder. I agree. 

This kind of stuff is real, it's demon possession, it's getting worse everyday. As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man. Demon possession and genetic manipulation.

Wm13

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.

Kept sniffing the MSM glue, that will help. Oh yeah, and breathing their chem trail air, drinking the fluoridated water, and eating their GM food stuffs.

Wm13

[TPSprayduster]

Wm is that all you got? Can't answer the question then go on with you water sampling

[Muleslayer]

Wasn't john Kerry a draft dodger during nam?

This is treason.

It looks like we are in for a fight in our own backyards.

[waterman13]

Wm is that all you got? Can't answer the question then go on with you water sampling

You'll see, when the UN troops come rolling down your street with their little blue helmets on.

Good luck with that.

[divemaster5734]

Here's a video from the time the UN was working on it.

The Senate passed a "resolution" prohibiting the USA from signing it, and in June the House voted to ban any funding of it.

Yet, that's EXACTLY what o did.

To those that support it, I say you are being intentionally obtuse.

There is NO WAY to justify suppotying this unless you just do not love America and expect politicians to support the constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZuvwLD94nwA

[easy]

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.

let the games begin. kerrys nothing but a spineless coward just like his daddy obama

[sportfisher]

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.

they look so happy and proud of themselves.

[Maggie123]

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.

 

**************

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 ? 

 

Evening Dog... I knew you weren't just another pretty face dear. I think you are plenty smart and reasonable too.

 

I do not like the UN... I think they are uneffective and have actually condoned some pretty messed up actions against innocent people.

 

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet but from what I have read this appears to be all about preventing countries from exporting arms to terrorist. Ahem... sound a little familiar? How Kerry could sign that with a straight face is beyond me. The US guberment will arm whoever the hell they want if they think it will get them what they want. I think this is just a dog and pony show for the world to see...

Kerry like a "good guy" signs it and then the senate refuses to ratify it. Oh Well.  "We tried" they'll say... Just my theory and prediction.

 

This treaty is all about countries exporting arms and has nothing to do with our 2nd ammendment rights says so right here...

 

"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State (Country) to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system"

 

 

This part also reassured me that it is about exporting arms...

 

Article 2 Scope (What this covers)

1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

(a) Battle tanks;

( Armoured combat vehicles;

© Large-calibre artillery systems;

(d) Combat aircraft;

(e) Attack helicopters;

(f) Warships;

(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and

(h) Small arms and light weapons.

 

Really hard to edit for some reason... wierd I didn't put that smiley face there for ( and couldn't get rid of it. Oh now I see hahaha that is a symbal for a smily face in this format. hahaha

 

Edited September 26, 2013 by Maggie123

[Maggie123]

Heck the senate very well may ratify it... I dunno.

[Maggie123]

Sorry I didn't have all my thoughts collected for my first post but it just hit me that this could also be to prevent Russia and China from arming our enemies... anyone know if they are signing this too? Not that I would trust a treaty... but maybe this is to prevent them from arming up Iran.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Maggie123

[Timberwolf3]

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.

 

REALLY??? WHO is drinkin' the KOOL-AID???

Evening Dog... I knew you weren't just another pretty face dear. I think you are plenty smart and reasonable too.

 

I do not like the UN... I think they are uneffective and have actually condoned some pretty messed up actions against innocent people.

 

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet but from what I have read this appears to be all about preventing countries from exporting arms to terrorist. Ahem... sound a little familiar? How Kerry could sign that with a straight face is beyond me. The US guberment will arm whoever the hell they want if they think it will get them what they want. I think this is just a dog and pony show for the world to see...

Kerry like a "good guy" signs it and then the senate refuses to ratify it. Oh Well.  "We tried" they'll say... Just my theory and prediction.

 

This treaty is all about countries exporting arms and has nothing to do with our 2nd ammendment rights says so right here...

 

"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State (Country) to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system"

 

 

This part also reassured me that it is about exporting arms...

 

Article 2 Scope (What this covers)

1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

(a) Battle tanks;

( Armoured combat vehicles;

© Large-calibre artillery systems;

(d) Combat aircraft;

(e) Attack helicopters;

(f) Warships;

(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and

(h) Small arms and light weapons.

 

Really hard to edit for some reason... wierd I didn't put that smiley face there for ( and couldn't get rid of it. Oh now I see hahaha that is a symbal for a smily face in this format. hahaha

 

Maggie! Did you not read what Dog posted??? Seems like he put out some very valid questions as to what the agenda is, and no one could come up with what the answers were to his concerns......(Look at (h) of the Article 2 Scope you posted, what does that mean for US and the FEEL GOOD items from the UN that Dog posted.)  Please do not get me wrong, I do not mean any disrespect,   but WE DO NOT want the UN to have anything to do with how WE live in OUR country, and this would just be a foot in the door for them. Who knows where in the h3ll they would take it from there!!!    Great post Dog!!!   SEMPER FI BROTHER!!!

[Maggie123]

Maggie! Did you not read what Dog posted??? Seems like he put out some very valid questions as to what the agenda is, and no one could come up with what the answers were to his concerns......(Look at (h) of the Article 2 Scope you posted, what does that mean for US and the FEEL GOOD items from the UN that Dog posted.)  Please do not get me wrong, I do not mean any disrespect,   but WE DO NOT want the UN to have anything to do with how WE live in OUR country, and this would just be a foot in the door for them. Who knows where in the h3ll they would take it from there!!!    Great post Dog!!!   SEMPER FI BROTHER!!!

 

No disrespect taken Timberwolf.

I read every word Dog posted and I appreciated all his hard work in doing that. I just was reading the treaty in a different context.

Now why would I want to come back and do a whole argument against every line he was talking about when I could just say "I read it differently". Did you not read the part of my post that showed we will continue to have our rights under our constitution according to the dayum treaty? I am just trying to figure out what is real and what is not... just like you are.

 

After further thought... I am wondering if this isn't a condition from the UN to stop the placing of sanctions against the US for arming terrorist in Libyia and Syria. You have any idea of what the implications of that might be?

[jon29]

END OF THE WORLD!!     

[Man_Kind]

 

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 [/size]treaty requires that each signatory country “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list,”[/size]

 

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.

In my home state RI, US Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed have their heads so far up Hobumas arse they can smell his breath.

I call these morons once a week but never a response.

[TPSprayduster]

Maggie, some people will continue to holler about this treaty your points are sound, nut other folks have this paranoia about any thing that concerns the exports of wpns to third world wars. Probably have an investment in the trade. Still looking for the verbiage concerning taking guns from people. If you are an exporter worry if not. Then don't. But yet again it is the presidents way of taking your guns another internet story.

[dog53]

No disrespect taken Timberwolf.

I read every word Dog posted and I appreciated all his hard work in doing that. I just was reading the treaty in a different context.

Now why would I want to come back and do a whole argument against every line he was talking about when I could just say "I read it differently". Did you not read the part of my post that showed we will continue to have our rights under our constitution according to the dayum treaty? I am just trying to figure out what is real and what is not... just like you are.

 

After further thought... I am wondering if this isn't a condition from the UN to stop the placing of sanctions against the US for arming terrorist in Libyia and Syria. You have any idea of what the implications of that might be?

 

I read it differently Mag

"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State (GOVT) to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system"

 

We do not want regulation and control by this GOVT in regards to our conventional weapons .

 

Sweety anytime you have TP agreeing with you .

Its a good indication your on the wrong track.

 

Im not in to conspiracies . I just have trust issues. 

 

 

 

 

"

[R2D2]

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 am surprised that some one would pull their upper orifice out of their lower orifice to comment on these two scum bags! Considering the action goes against the very core of the once great Constitution. Some folks just don't seem to be up to speed.

No disrespect taken Timberwolf.

I read every word Dog posted and I appreciated all his hard work in doing that. I just was reading the treaty in a different context.

Now why would I want to come back and do a whole argument against every line he was talking about when I could just say "I read it differently". Did you not read the part of my post that showed we will continue to have our rights under our constitution according to the dayum treaty? I am just trying to figure out what is real and what is not... just like you are.

 

After further thought... I am wondering if this isn't a condition from the UN to stop the placing of sanctions against the US for arming terrorist in Libyia and Syria. You have any idea of what the implications of that might be?

 

Maggie let me help you out here. "Anything that this marxistkenyanpresident is only somewhat of a resemblance of the truth". He  is and his minions are way to far on the left to wee or  know the truth. As was karl! 

[divemaster5734]

I wonder if this was the intentional smoke screen to cover the more urgent matter.

 

The Senate had a vote on the o care bill..

 

Even after his 24 hour delay, Cruz voted in favor of the bill he just spent a  trashing.

 

You would think even if he know he would lose he would stand up just to make a statement.

 

I believe the senate will vote this UN treaty down, but in the meantime o care is about to get funding..

[Shabibilicious]

I am surprised that some one would pull their upper orifice out of their lower orifice to comment on these two scum bags! Considering the action goes against the very core of the once great Constitution. Some folks just don't seem to be up to speed.

Maggie let me help you out here. "Anything that this marxistkenyanpresident is only somewhat of a resemblance of the truth". He  is and his minions are way to far on the left to wee or  know the truth. As was karl! 

 

First off, you insult this person......then you back it up with the above highlighted nonsense.  I guess those in the majority around these parts can play by a different set of rules.  As always, just my opinion.    

 

GO RV, then BV

[divemaster5734]

First off, you insult this person......then you back it up with the above highlighted nonsense.  I guess those in the majority around these parts can play by a different set of rules.  As always, just my opinion.    

 

GO RV, then BV

If you are looking at it from a purely objective point of view, in order to arrive at your conclusion, one must first completely ignore nearly every single word, act, and policy, that has been uttered from the o administration for the last 5 years.

 

So, once you make yourself forget all the destruction, lies, deceptions, and murders committed by o, well, OK, it may be unfair to say those things about o and his puppet minions.

 

However, refusing to take into account o's actions, isn't just obtuse, naive, dangerous, AND, anti-Christian.

 

How can I say that?

 

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves".

 

It doesn't say be a dumbazz. Even doves fight for their right to be.

 

Shabbs, while you have been careful in your approach, there comes a point when the facts become overwhelming and the conclusion is obvious.

[sandstorm]

Watch out. The senate doesn't have to ratify it, if its never brought to the floor. Their is a loophole, where it stays valid, withou senate ratification.

Harry Reid will never bring it to the senate

[divemaster5734]

Watch out. The senate doesn't have to ratify it, if its never brought to the floor. Their is a loophole, where it stays valid, withou senate ratification.

Harry Reid will never bring it to the senate

Are you sure about that?

 

I honestly didn't know about the loophole, but if true, it's already over..

[sandstorm]

Are you sure about that?

 

I honestly didn't know about the loophole, but if true, it's already over..

i remember hearing that exact line. Am I sure? I will look it up to verify. But the idea is, if Obama signs it and it never goes to the senate it becomes de facto, until its voted on. I will look try and research some more.

[sandstorm]

I believe it would relative to the treaty of Versailles, where the senate did not vote, but was recognized.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the senate passed it. Harry Reid might try. Heck, look at obamacare, almost 70% of this country hates it, and democrats will still vote for it

Look under accession of a treaty, it's the replacement for ratification

[desimo]

Obutt and his administration has been pushing for civil war and a 'radical reforming of America' ever since he got into office.  He WANTS civil war and martial law.  If there is martial law then the UN can send their troops over here.  It has already been signed and agreed that this could and would happen.  If there is martial law then FEMA rules and the Constitution is suspended.  This can be checked by a simple Google on the matter.