Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
UN Arms Trade Treaty can overide the 2ND admendment
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dennishoddy" data-source="post: 1847165" data-attributes="member: 5412"><p>From the NRA:</p><p></p><p>Americans in general don’t like being told what to do. This embodied in our Bill of Rights, which ensures that no one can tell us what to say, how to worship, who to associate with, or how to defend ourselves, and was the driving force behind a spat we once had over taxation without representation. It’s also why the global elites and their subservient media have had to work overtime recently, in order to ram the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty down our throats during the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty taking place July 2-27th.</p><p>So far, American gun owners have been wary of the six-year proceedings, and thankfully, our elected officials are listening and have taken a stand. During last July’s final ATT Preparatory Committee, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) led 58 senators in signing a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing their opposition to any treaty that limited civilian firearm ownership or put a burden on American gun owners. Similarly, July 2nd, 130 lawmakers sent a letter to the president and secretary of state making clear their opposition to "an ATT that infringes on our constitutional rights."</p><p>First, it should be noted that there is no final draft of the treaty at the time I am writing this. So any statements by news organizations or commentators claiming to know the final scope of the treaty are bogus. This makes remarks like those of William Hartung of the Center for International Policy, who writes in an op-ed for Reuters, "the treaty makes it clear it is only intended to regulate the transfer of arms across international borders, not their sale within individual countries," knowingly false.</p><p>What are available at this point are the documents and statements produced by those who are party to the treaty negotiations. These documents offer a true depiction of what could be covered in the scope of this treaty.</p><p>At the present, the document with the most information on what a future treaty might look like is the "Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty." Contained within are several passages that should spark the interest of any gun owner. Of particular interest is the document’s numerous calls for the regulation of "end-users." In a section entitled, "National authority and systems," the document makes clear that "Each State Party shall take all appropriate measures necessary to prevent the diversion of imported arms into the illicit market or unintended end-users," and "Importing States shall provide appropriate documentation and other information, inter alia, end-user certification, requested by the exporting State to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to verify the delivery to the approved end-user." Unless civilian firearms, ammunition and equipment are explicitly excluded from the treaty, the "end-users" will certainly be American gun owners, as NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre made clear in a forceful address to the conference.</p><p>In his opening remarks to the final conference on the ATT on July 3, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made clear that regulation of all firearms, and corresponding equipment, regardless of purpose, is on the table during these negotiations. In his address, Ki-moon stated, "You will also need to define the scope of the treaty to cover a comprehensive array of weapons and activities and that leaves no room for loopholes." Aside from the fact that Ki-moon’s use of the term "loophole" makes him sound like one of our domestic gun-banners, any loophole-free system covering a "comprehensive array of weapons" would inherently necessitate countries imposing internal controls on civilian firearms.</p><p>Mexico, hardly known as a bastion of good governance, has been one of the most candid supporters of a treaty that includes civilian firearms, going so far at one point as to suggest the treaty encompass swords, bows and arrows. In a July 5th statement, Mexico’s chief negotiator made clear, "This treaty must cover all type of conventional weapons, without differentiation on its supposed use. Criminals do not differentiate between weapons manufactured for shooting sport and those developed for military snipers when they intend to kill. We cannot make this differentiation either."</p><p>A July 5th statement from South Africa’s negotiator concurs. The statement notes, "South Africa supports an ATT that will regulate all arms transfers, both military and commercial. Thus, it should not be limited to the weapons covered by the UN Arms Register, but should include small arms and light weapons, as well as ammunition."</p><p>Norway’s Minister of International Development offered similar remarks July 3rd, which read (emphasis theirs), "Regarding scope, we consider it vital to include all conventional arms, regardless of whether they are labeled military or non-military. I would like to underline the importance of including small arms and light weapons. I would also like to underline the importance of including ammunition."</p><p>On July 3rd the Pacific Islands Forum, an inter-governmental organization representing Australia and New Zealand (among others), revealed their intentions. The Forum’s ambassador for disarmament, stated, "Member’s of the Forum support the conclusion of an ATT which is broad in scope, and capable of comprehensively covering the full range of conventional weapons which are traded on the international market, including small arms and light weapons and ammunition&#8230; Members of the Forum do not support proposals that arms for civilian use &#8211; such as sporting and hunting firearms &#8211; should be excluded from the scope of the Treaty."</p><p>So we gun owners can either believe pontificating globalists and the mainstream media, both of which have been openly hostile to our rights for decades, or the documented admissions of parties to the ATT negotiations. I suggest we err on the side of caution.</p><p>No treaty can override the U.S. Constitution, but if signed and ratified the ATT would hold the same weight as laws passed by Congress. And even if the ATT were to be signed and not ratified, President Obama or any future anti-gun president could use it in concert with the vast power of the executive branch as a vehicle to shape domestic gun policy. That’s why all gun owners need to pay close attention to the proceedings this month in New York. To stay on top of the latest ATT developments and to find out how you can help stop this treaty from burdening American gun owners, visit nraila.org.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dennishoddy, post: 1847165, member: 5412"] From the NRA: Americans in general don’t like being told what to do. This embodied in our Bill of Rights, which ensures that no one can tell us what to say, how to worship, who to associate with, or how to defend ourselves, and was the driving force behind a spat we once had over taxation without representation. It’s also why the global elites and their subservient media have had to work overtime recently, in order to ram the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty down our throats during the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty taking place July 2-27th. So far, American gun owners have been wary of the six-year proceedings, and thankfully, our elected officials are listening and have taken a stand. During last July’s final ATT Preparatory Committee, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) led 58 senators in signing a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing their opposition to any treaty that limited civilian firearm ownership or put a burden on American gun owners. Similarly, July 2nd, 130 lawmakers sent a letter to the president and secretary of state making clear their opposition to "an ATT that infringes on our constitutional rights." First, it should be noted that there is no final draft of the treaty at the time I am writing this. So any statements by news organizations or commentators claiming to know the final scope of the treaty are bogus. This makes remarks like those of William Hartung of the Center for International Policy, who writes in an op-ed for Reuters, "the treaty makes it clear it is only intended to regulate the transfer of arms across international borders, not their sale within individual countries," knowingly false. What are available at this point are the documents and statements produced by those who are party to the treaty negotiations. These documents offer a true depiction of what could be covered in the scope of this treaty. At the present, the document with the most information on what a future treaty might look like is the "Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty." Contained within are several passages that should spark the interest of any gun owner. Of particular interest is the document’s numerous calls for the regulation of "end-users." In a section entitled, "National authority and systems," the document makes clear that "Each State Party shall take all appropriate measures necessary to prevent the diversion of imported arms into the illicit market or unintended end-users," and "Importing States shall provide appropriate documentation and other information, inter alia, end-user certification, requested by the exporting State to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to verify the delivery to the approved end-user." Unless civilian firearms, ammunition and equipment are explicitly excluded from the treaty, the "end-users" will certainly be American gun owners, as NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre made clear in a forceful address to the conference. In his opening remarks to the final conference on the ATT on July 3, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made clear that regulation of all firearms, and corresponding equipment, regardless of purpose, is on the table during these negotiations. In his address, Ki-moon stated, "You will also need to define the scope of the treaty to cover a comprehensive array of weapons and activities and that leaves no room for loopholes." Aside from the fact that Ki-moon’s use of the term "loophole" makes him sound like one of our domestic gun-banners, any loophole-free system covering a "comprehensive array of weapons" would inherently necessitate countries imposing internal controls on civilian firearms. Mexico, hardly known as a bastion of good governance, has been one of the most candid supporters of a treaty that includes civilian firearms, going so far at one point as to suggest the treaty encompass swords, bows and arrows. In a July 5th statement, Mexico’s chief negotiator made clear, "This treaty must cover all type of conventional weapons, without differentiation on its supposed use. Criminals do not differentiate between weapons manufactured for shooting sport and those developed for military snipers when they intend to kill. We cannot make this differentiation either." A July 5th statement from South Africa’s negotiator concurs. The statement notes, "South Africa supports an ATT that will regulate all arms transfers, both military and commercial. Thus, it should not be limited to the weapons covered by the UN Arms Register, but should include small arms and light weapons, as well as ammunition." Norway’s Minister of International Development offered similar remarks July 3rd, which read (emphasis theirs), "Regarding scope, we consider it vital to include all conventional arms, regardless of whether they are labeled military or non-military. I would like to underline the importance of including small arms and light weapons. I would also like to underline the importance of including ammunition." On July 3rd the Pacific Islands Forum, an inter-governmental organization representing Australia and New Zealand (among others), revealed their intentions. The Forum’s ambassador for disarmament, stated, "Member’s of the Forum support the conclusion of an ATT which is broad in scope, and capable of comprehensively covering the full range of conventional weapons which are traded on the international market, including small arms and light weapons and ammunition… Members of the Forum do not support proposals that arms for civilian use – such as sporting and hunting firearms – should be excluded from the scope of the Treaty." So we gun owners can either believe pontificating globalists and the mainstream media, both of which have been openly hostile to our rights for decades, or the documented admissions of parties to the ATT negotiations. I suggest we err on the side of caution. No treaty can override the U.S. Constitution, but if signed and ratified the ATT would hold the same weight as laws passed by Congress. And even if the ATT were to be signed and not ratified, President Obama or any future anti-gun president could use it in concert with the vast power of the executive branch as a vehicle to shape domestic gun policy. That’s why all gun owners need to pay close attention to the proceedings this month in New York. To stay on top of the latest ATT developments and to find out how you can help stop this treaty from burdening American gun owners, visit nraila.org. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
UN Arms Trade Treaty can overide the 2ND admendment
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom