Advertisements
Home

UN to Set Up a U.S.-based Disarmament Specialist

Leave a comment

This is from The New American.

A Tyrant once said, “To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens.” Adolph Hitler.

A more recent tyrants said,“We Must Brainwash People Against Guns” Eric Holder.

I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”Then Senator Barack  Hussein Obama.

Now we are looking at this crap coming down the pike.

It’s no secret that President Obama and the would-be global governors at the United Nations are anxious to disarm the American people. Now they’re looking to hire some help in getting it done.

From the UN’s Programme of Action and Arms Trade Treaty, to his own executive orders, Obama is pursuing every available avenue toward de facto repeal of the Second Amendment and the God-given right to keep and bear arms that it protects.

Over the next few weeks, though, the UN is looking to add personnel to its gun grabbing gestapo. In a job advertisement open until July 26, the UN is looking for a “Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Officer.”

What will this bureaucrat’s bailiwick be? Here’s a summary of the job description as posted by the UN:

Act as a Focal Point for DDR [Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration] components for 2-3 missions, responsible for planning, support to implementation and evaluation;

Advise, develop and review (as appropriate) initial DDR functional strategy and concept of operations for further development into a full programme by the DDR component and the National DDR Commission;

Provide Headquarters support in planning the civilian and military logistics support for DDR;

Continually review DDR programme strategy and implementation through relevant documents, reports and code cables;

Conduct field missions to assess implementation of established DDR programmes;

Identify potential problems and issues to be addressed and suggest remedies to DDR units in the field; and

Liaise with others (UN, regional organizations [sic] and Member States) providing DDR training.

As if the list of tasks assigned to the disarmament specialist isn’t enough to fire up patriots who own firearms and refuse to have them seized by the UN or the Obama administration, the UN wants to base this office in New York City!

It is more than a little incompatible that a country that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that has such disdain and disregard for those rights that it is opening a disarmament office in that country.

Lest anyone think that there’s nothing to fear from this agent of disarmament, consider the definitions of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration provided by the UN on an information page linked to the job opening announcement:

Disarmament is the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and often from the civilian population.

Demobilization is the formal and controlled discharge of active combatants from armed forces and groups, including a phase of “reinsertion” which provides short-term assistance to ex-combatants.

Reintegration is the process by which ex-combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income. It is a political, social and economic process with an open time-frame, primarily taking place in communities at the local level.

The objective of the DDR process is to contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin. DDR helps create an enabling environment for political and peace processes by dealing with security problem that arises when ex-combatants are trying to adjust to normal life, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development.

Notably, the UN will require the DDR specialist to help disarm ex-combatants. Is this mission not an eery echo of recent efforts in the United States to keep veterans from owning firearms? Perhaps, unbeknownst to the American people, President Obama has already been using his infamous “pen” and “phone” to carry out the disarmament of veterans in furtherance of some higher-level UN strategy.

Could it be also that the rapid militarization of local law enforcement in the United States could be another tactic in the piecemeal, surreptitious deployment of “troops” capable of carrying out a forcible forfeiture of firearms?

As reported by the National Rifle Association’s Ginny Simone, there are those on the inside who have raised the warning voice.

Simone reports that in 2012, Ambassador Faith Whittlesey, a U.S. delegate to the UN Small Arms Conference, revealed that the UN’s ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans in the name of global peace and an end to armed violence.

“In New York, right here on our own shores, we’ve got a Trojan horse. They won’t accept U.S. firearms policy,” Whittlesey said. “They want to take the decision away from the U.S. electorate and undermine our Constitution.”

Regardless of the reason, Americans must adamantly refuse to allow the UN to establish an office of disarmament on our own shores. We must demonstrate our ancestors’ zeal for liberty, particularly regarding the fundamental right to oppose tyranny by force of arms.

If we do not, we may soon be subject to the full expression of the authority of the U.S.-based DDR specialist and be left defenseless in the fight against absolutism.

 

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues.  Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

 

 

Advertisements

Barack Obama’s Gun Control Record Revealed

1 Comment

This is from Bullets First.

 DemocRats have the filibuster in the Senate.

Will Obama use no filibuster as renewed gun grab attempts?

Will Obama use the no filibuster rule to ram through a

gun confiscation attempt?

Given Obama’s history about firearms we can only

guess what Obama will try.

Somehow, there are people who confess they are gun owners, who keep saying that Barack Obama is no threat to the Second Amendment.  They actually go so far as to say that he has strengthened the Second Amendment during his first term.

Short post today, first, as I have discussed before, he HAD to accept the Amendment to the Credit Card Reform bill that allowed carrying of firearms in National Parks.  He had the chance to allow guns in parks on its own and he refused.  That means HE WAS AGAINST THE BILL.

Then there are his Supreme Court Judges, specifically Sotomayor who lied to congress about her belief in the Second Amendment only to rule against its definition of an individual right the first time it came up.

Now, lets look at a quick rundown of where the President really stands on the issues:

  • Renews support for gun control through UN Arms Trade Treaty (Nov 2012)
  • Calls to renew the Assault Weapons Ban (Oct 2012)
  • I believe in 2nd Amendment, but not war weapons on streets. (Oct 2012)
  • Fast-and-Furious: no prosecutions for Mexican gun/drug snafu. (Jun 2012)
  • Tells Sarah Brady will continue to push gun control “under the radar” (March 2011)
  • Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
  • Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
  • FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
  • Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
  • Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
  • 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
  • Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
  • Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
  • Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
  • Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
  • Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

That is Obama’s REAL record on the issue of the Second Amendment from his time in Chicago through this past week..  Lip service saying he “believes in the 2nd Amendment” but does everything he can to marginalize and eliminate it.  Voted for bans and draconian limits on purchasing.  Opposed measures to protect firearm industry from frivolous lawsuits hoping to bankrupt them. Pushing a treaty that will impose gun controls from a foreign entity.  And refuses to hold anyone accountable for a gun walking program that has killed Americans that was, despite his lies, begun under HIS administration to foster a public outcry for more gun control.

So if you are reading this and are a Obama supporter, that’s fine because you are free to support whosoever you choose in this country.

Just stop trying to pass off Obama like some 2nd Amendment Champion when in reality he is a gun grabbing Chicago politician who will be a gun control champion now that he doesn’t have to be re-elected anymore.  If you can look at a mountain of evidence of word and deed and keep your head buried in the sand then even Obama coming to your home, ripping the gun from your hand and pistol whipping you with it because he doesn’t believe you should have it, wouldn’t be enough to get your off the kool aid.

He hates the Second Amendment and has a record fighting against it that goes back 15 years. I fear if left unchecked, his reach into the future will be much longer.

Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/11/13/barack-obamas-gun-control-record-revealed/#B1UxLLwu6uH4CsXh.99

 

Sens. Moran, Manchin, Inhofe & Half of Senate to White House: U.S. Will Not Be Bound By Arms Trade Treaty

1 Comment

This is from Ammoland.

There is one thing I need to correct in this article.

Senator Jim Rish is  a Republican from Idaho not  Indiana.

One of my Senator Dan Coats(RINO-In.) has signed has signed

Senator Jerry Moran(R.-KS) letter opposing the UN Treaty.

My other Senator Joe Donnelly(dippy crap)did not.

Please Thank your Senator if they signed this letter.

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- Today, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) led a bipartisan group of 50 U.S. Senators, including Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), in reiterating to President Obama that the Senate overwhelmingly opposes the ratification of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and will not be bound by its obligations.

“The Administration’s recent signing of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a direct dismissal of the bipartisan Senate majority that rejects this treaty,” Sen. Moran said. “Throughout this process, it has been disturbing to watch the Administration reverse U.S. policies, abandon its own ‘red line’ negotiation principles, admit publicly the treaty’s dangerous ambiguity, and hastily review the final treaty text. Today I join my colleagues in upholding the fundamental individual rights of Americans by reiterating our rejection of the ATT. The Senate will overwhelmingly oppose ratification, and will not be bound by the treaty.”

“Under no circumstances should this country surrender our gun rights to the control of the United Nations,” Senator Manchin said. “While we can work toward improving the regulation of the international trade of weapons, I am very concerned that the rights of law-abiding Americans would be violated by entering into this agreement. I strongly oppose any treaty that infringes on our Second Amendment rights.”

“The Senate spoke out against the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty this past March when 53 Senators voted for my amendment to the Senate budget resolution to block U.S. involvement in the treaty,” Sen. Inhofe said. “Despite clear opposition, the Obama Administration proceeded in misleading the U.N. and making the United States a signatory nation of this treaty. It is time that the Administration puts this failed effort to rest once and for all and instead focus on the serious economic and national security problems that threaten our country.”

In the letter to the president, the Senators outline six reasons why they will not give advice and consent to the treaty and are therefore not bound to uphold the treaty’s object and purpose.

“We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations,” the 50 Senators wrote to President Obama.

The six reasons for opposing ratification of the ATT include:

  • The treaty failed to achieve consensus, and was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. This violates the red line drawn by the Obama Administration;
  • The treaty allows amendments by a three-quarters majority vote, circumventing the power and duty of the U.S. Senate to provide its advice and consent on treaty commitments before they are assumed by the United States;
  • The treaty includes only a weak non-binding reference to the lawful ownership, use of, and trade in firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights. This poses a threat to the Second Amendment;
  • The State Department has acknowledged that the treaty is “ambiguous.” By becoming party to the treaty, the U.S. would therefore be accepting commitments that are inherently unclear;
  • The criteria at the heart of the treaty are vague and easily politicized. They violate the right of the American people, under the Constitution, to freely govern themselves. The language restricts the ability of the United States to conduct its own foreign policy and allows foreign sources of authority to impose judgment or control upon the United States; and
  • The State Department has acknowledged that the treaty includes language that could hinder the United States from fulfilling its strategic, legal and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel.

The letter is signed by a bipartisan group of 50 U.S. Senators including: Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Jeffrey Chiesa (R-N.J.), Daniel Coats (R-Ind.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Jim Risch (R-Ind.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), David Vitter (R-La.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/u-s-will-not-be-bound-by-arms-trade-treaty/#ixzz2hqURBYT5
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Abbott warns arms treaty could spur Texas to sue

Leave a comment

This is from The Statesman in Austin,Texas.

More Red State Attorney Generals need to follow Texas’ lead.

This UN gun grab needs to be stopped now.

 

By Chuck Lindell

American-Statesman Staff

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, no stranger to suing the federal government since President Barack Obama took office, repeated his warning Wednesday that U.S. ratification of a United Nations arms treaty would bring “swift legal action” from Texas.

Secretary of State John Kerry signed the Arms Trade Treaty on Wednesday, saying it would improve world safety and limit terrorist access to weapons.

But Abbott said the treaty, if ratified by the U.S. Senate, would endanger the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the U.S. Constitution.

“By signing this treaty, the Obama administration has attempted to subject Americans’ right to bear arms to the oversight of the United Nations. The very reason we fought for independence was to free ourselves from the dictates of leaders in other lands,” Abbott said.

“We are alarmed that the president’s action today includes ‘small arms,’ which could draw law-abiding gun owners and gun store operators into a complex web of bureaucratic red tape created by a new department at the UN devoted to overseeing the treaty,” he said.

If senators ratify the document, “Texas stands ready to lead the charge to have the treaty overturned in court,” said Abbott, who is running for governor in the 2014 GOP primary. Abbott issued a similar warning in April, when the United Nations finished negotiations on the treaty.

Kerry scoffed at critics who oppose the treaty based on Second Amendment fears, saying it would not regulate domestic weapons sales.

“This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. It recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess and use arms for legitimate purposes,” Kerry said, according to the Associated Press.

Strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and a number of U.S. senators, the treaty faces a difficult path to ratification.

The treaty, according to the AP:

• Requires ratifying countries to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers.

• Prohibits the transfer of weapons that could be used to promote acts of genocide or war crimes, violate arms embargoes or could be used in attacks on civilians.

• 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.

The treaty will take effect when 50 countries ratify it. Although 91 nations have signed the treaty, only four have ratified it thus far.

 

Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it

1 Comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

We need to keep up pressure on our Senators to oppose this treaty.

My opinion of John”Lurch” Kerry has always been low it is lower now.

Signing this treaty is why Obama wanted Lurch as Secretary Of State.

I am worried that Obama will try to ram the treaty down our throats by Executive Order/Action.

 

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.

 

Kerry to sign UN arms treaty, despite senators’ opposition

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

God, Guns and family bonds built this nation.

I will be damned if I set by and watch them destroyed.

We need to ban together and keep our country safe from the UN Gestapo.

 

Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation on Wednesday, a senior State Department official told Fox News — despite warnings from lawmakers that the Senate will not ratify the agreement.

A State official said the treaty would “reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes,” while protecting gun rights.

“The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents,” the official said.

U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed that the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, sent a letter to Kerry declaring it “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.

 

GUN OWNERS: Don’t Let Obama Sign UN Arms Trade Treaty

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Obama would love to have the U.N.s thugs in America confiscating guns.

I know Americans will not let anybody take their guns.

If Obama and the U.N. try confiscation I see 1776 happening. 

 

 

Your guns are in danger. Obama has stopped defending the Second Amendment. He did not get his gun control agenda passed in the Senate. So, he’s unconstitutionally trying to use the United Nations to control your guns. Don’t let him.

Obama is getting dangerously close to signing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. If he signs this treaty and the Senate ratifies it, the Second Amendment is toast. And your guns will be in the control of dictators around the world.

This sounds like a bad movie or a conspiracy theory, and I wish it were. But it’s real. 130 bipartisan members of Congress signed a letter that Rep. Mike Lee wrote to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.

The 13-page letter asks Obama and Kerry NOT to sign the Arms Trade Treaty and instead listen to the American people for once. If you are a gun owner, you should express this same sentiment to all of your elected officials. Ask them to oppose the Arms Trade Treaty.

In simple terms, here’s how the Arms Trade Treaty threatens gun owners, freedom, and the 2nd Amendment:

A ‘National Control List’ Would Be Established

Article 5 of the Arms Trade Treaty creates a “National Control List.” Global leaders around the world who sign the treaty: “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.”

Obama promised us he was not going to establish a national gun registry. “He’s not seeking a registry,” White House Spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on March 25, 2013.

In his twisted mind, Obama told the truth but not the whole truth. He didn’t want a national registry. He wanted a global registry. He wanted foreign governments to know whether you own a gun. That way, if you even think about jumping ship and leaving the United States to seek freedom elsewhere, there will effectively be an asterisk next to your name. Probably something like:

  • Name:Jimmy Brown
  • Criminal Activity:None
  • Gun Owner:Yes.
  • Notes:Watch out for this dude; he’s a duck hunter. He shoots lots of waterfowl in the fall. No criminal record. But, be alert. Could be a terrorist.

The beautiful and talented actress Audrey Hepburn once said: “I don’t want to be alone, I want to be left alone.” Tell Obama to listen to Audrey. Tell him to stay away from your guns. And leave you alone.

United Nations Would Control All Guns and Ammo

The New American reports that Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Arms Trade Treaty give the UN the authority to apprehend the right of private citizens to: “own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns.” Ammunition, parts and components also fall under UN purview.

Funny thing is, no government or group of governments will ever, ever, ever have the “right” to do this. As humans, we have an inherent right to our private property, including our bodies. We also have an inherent right to use self-defense to protect our bodies. Reason tells us this. Whether we choose to use our own fists or a Glock, we have a natural, God-given right to hold off lethal attacks with force.

No one has the authority to take away your natural rights. A bully with a pack of international bullies backing him up can only use force to extort your natural rights. That’s what Obama’s administration is trying to do; extort decent and law-abiding Americans like you.

Stand up for reason, justice and freedom. Tell Obama not to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty and tell your Senators not to ratify it if he tries to send it their way.

How liberal anti-gun activists view the American Constitution

1 Comment

This is from Fox News Opinion.

We are defiantly through the Looking Glass.

We need to keep the House in Republican in hands and

take back the Senate.

 

Last month, the House of Representatives unanimously adopted an amendment to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act to prohibit funding for the implementation of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) for one year.

The Obama administration says it will sign the ATT soon.

The House amendment was vigorously opposed by a group of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) led by Oxfam America, and including Amnesty International, the Arms Control Association, and the National Association of Evangelicals.

 

Obviously, the NGOs’ lobbying was ineffective. But that won’t keep them from continuing to try to shape the interpretation and the implementation of the treaty, which is a creature of their own making, in ways that seek to impinge on U.S. sovereignty.

And now, the U.N. wants to pay NGOs around the world to keep up their efforts, which include this ongoing and misguided effort to make the treaty trump U.S. law.

The amendment that so angered the NGOs was offered by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.). And their arguments against it were odd indeed. In an email to lawmakers (see below), the groups claimed the Kelly Amendment would “infringe on the commander-in-chief authority of the president.”

This is an odd and revealing – not to mention completely wrong – reading of the U.S. Constitution. The president has inherent powers as commander-in-chief, but control of the purse strings is not one of them. That authority resides in Congress.

Moreover, the U.S. hasn’t even signed the ATT yet. After it does, the Senate would have to ratify the treaty. The idea that barring the expenditure of funds to implement an unsigned and unratified treaty somehow violates the president’s Constitutional authority is truly bizarre.

The NGO argument contained further oddities. They claimed that the Kelly Amendment “could require the Pentagon to no longer implement the rigorous export control system it currently employs.”

Wrong again: while the Amendment was about the Defense Department’s budget, it’s actually the State Department that controls the U.S.’s export control system.

But leave aside the incorrect implication that the Pentagon runs the U.S. system. The NGOs are asserting that even though the U.S. has not signed anything yet, its entire arms export control system and the ATT are already legally inseparable and beyond Congressional control. To ban funding for the treaty is, according to the NGOs, to drop the entire U.S. export control system.

This is an amazing claim.

The NGOs assert that “maintaining a strong export control system is, in fact, ‘implementing’ the Treaty” and thus that the system the U.S. “currently employs” is mandated by the treaty. It would therefore seem that, according to the NGOs, the ATT already profoundly limits the freedom of the U.S. to run and reform its own export control system.

But according to the NGOs, the ATT does more than control and freeze the U.S. export control system. The NGOs believe it compels the U.S. to alter its foreign aid programs. As they put it, because other nations may sign and implement the ATT, “Pentagon programs and projects [against arms trafficking] . . . will be required to adapt to this new reality.”

This is a strange “new reality” indeed. An unsigned and unratified treaty cannot “require” the U.S. to do anything. It certainly cannot change programs that exist to pursue objectives approved by Congress. Moreover, these programs have no connection to the U.S. implementation of the ATT, which was the subject of the Kelly Amendment.

The Pentagon does not conduct its activities “pursuant” to the ATT or “in accordance with and in furtherance of these global standards.” It conducts them pursuant to U.S. policy, as directed and funded by Congress. If Congress wants to enact a bill that would explicitly violate the terms of the ATT, it may do so. Such a bill would prevail over the ATT as a matter of domestic law.

Throughout their email, the NGOs completely fail to distinguish between the ATT and the authority of Congress: as they see it, everything the U.S. does in the realm of arms export control is already regulated by the ATT.

In fact, that’s the NGO strategy: Set up the ATT as the controlling moral and legal authority for U.S. policy, then slowly reinterpret the ATT to drag U.S. policy into alignment with their preferences.

It’s hard to think of a more blatant demonstration of the fact that the most vociferous supporters of this treaty see it as a way to constrain the U.S.

Moreover, the U.N. is in on the NGO game too. It recently announced a “Trust Facility” that will “support all aspects of the Arms Trade Treaty’s implementation, including small arms and ammunition controls.” To that end, the Facility will fund NGOs—not to mention institutions such as universities— so they can provide “legal or legislative assistance” to promote ratification of the treaty by “as many countries as possible.”

In other words, the U.N. will fund NGO lobbying for the ATT here, there and everywhere, no matter how erroneous, misguided and counter to U.S. sovereignty their activities may be.

The U.N. has no business doing this. The Trust Facility is further evidence that the U.N. is far too cozy with the NGOs. The only consolation is that, if the success of last month’s NGO lobbying effort is any evidence, the U.N. is backing the losers.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/08/how-liberal-anti-gun-activists-view-american-constitution/#ixzz2YrLMqFTV

 

President Obama To Ban Importation of Ammo, Magazines and Gun Accessories Without Congressional Approval

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The preservation of Firearms Ownership.

We better be vigilante or Obama will shaft us.

Obama thinks he can dictate laws and what laws he will obey.

Over the course of the last month, while Americans were distracted with the threat of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and the devastation wrought by the Boston bombings, President Obama was quietly working behind the scenes to craft laws and regulations that will further erode the Second Amendment.

Congress, and thus We the People, may have unequivocally rejected federal legislation in March which aimed to outlaw most semi-automatic rifles, restrict magazine capacity, and force national registration, but that didn’t stop President Obama from ceding regulatory control over firearms importation to the United Nations just two weeks later.

What the UN Arms Trade Treaty, passed without media fanfare by 154 counties, would do is to restrict the global trade of, among other things, small arms and light weapons. Opponents of the treaty argue that loopholes within the new international framework for global gun control may make it illegal for Americans to purchase and import firearms manufactured outside of the United States.

To further his gun-grabbing agenda, however, President Obama and his administration didn’t stop there.

Now they’re taking another significant step against Americans’ right to bear arms — and they’re doing it through Presidential Executive Action, a strategy that, once again, bypasses Congressional oversight and the legislative process.

…it appears that the BHO Administration is taking executive action on firearms importation. Take a few minutes to read this: After Senate setback, Obama quietly moving forward with gun regulation. Here is the key portion of the article:

“The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services – U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”[Emphasis added.]

Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke a of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use.

That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.

I strongly recommend that you stock up on magazines, ammunition and spare parts for any of your imported military pattern guns, as soon as possible! Once an import ban is implemented, prices will skyrocket.

Source: James Rawles‘ Survival Blog via The Prepper Website

Just five days ago the President vowed to push forward on gun control without Congress (see video below) and Nancy Pelosi argued that no matter what Congress says, gun control is inevitable.

This latest round of Executive Actions is what they meant.

A direct on attack on the second amendment is difficult if not impossible, so they are trying to slither their way in through the backdoor by restricting international trade so we can’t import new firearms, by restricting access to accessories and gun parts, by heavily taxing ammunitionand gun purchases, by mandating policies like forcing gun owners to have liability insurance, and of course, by identifying potentially dangerous gun owners and simply taking their firearmsbecause of public safety concerns.

The President recently suggested that the American people have spoken, and that they want guns to be restricted, banned and heavily regulated.

If that’s so, then how is that a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly rejected the President’s bid to restrict and outlaw private ownership of millions of weapons and gun accessories?

Going through the United Nations and now implementing Executive Actions to bypass America’s Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances is an act of desperation.

Those who would take our rights have been left with no choice but to try and force their agenda upon us through dictatorial means.

This article is brought to you courtesy of Mac Slavo.

 

Texas AG to Obama: I’ll sue if U.N. Arms Treaty is ratified

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Times.

I say Bravo to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

More Red State Attorney Generals need to do the same.

 

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying that the state will head to court over the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty should Mr. Obama sign it and the U.S. Senate ratify it.
“The UN has concluded its negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty,” Mr. Abbotwrites. “It is now up to you to sign it — or reject it. Do not sign this treaty.”

Mr. Abbott writes that he understands the apparent purpose is to combat illegal arms trafficking around the world, but that the treaty could draw law-abiding gun owners and gun operators “into a complex web of bureaucratic red tape created by a new department at the UN devoted to overseeing the treaty.”

“As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document,” he continues. “Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology that could be used by those who seek to undermine our liberties to impose any number of restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.”
Darryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups have distorted the meaning of the treaty. He said it is about the global trade of dangerous weapons, not individual rights within the United States.

“It does not affect, in any way whatsoever, the ability of an individual American to go down to Kmart and purchase a hunting rifle,” he said. “This is not about what one person in Colorado might sell to a person in Wyoming.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was pleased with Tuesday’s overwhelming vote by the U.N. General Assembly to pass the treaty, but “as is the case with all treaties of this nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty.”

The U.S. Senate recently approved a nonbonding amendment opposing the treaty.

Mr. Abbott goes on to write that the U.N. “cannot be trusted” with the United States’ Bill of Rights, and that it includes “foreign governments that have shown hostility to the kinds of constitutional liberties guaranteed to Americans. All Americans are harmed when unaccountable international bodies like the UN are empowered to interfere with our protected freedoms.”

“If the UN Arms Trade Treaty is not stopped at the federal level, I — and my fellow state attorneys general — will take up the fight to preserve the Constitution. Ratification of this treaty would compel immediate legal action to enforce the Constitution’s guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” he concluded.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/texas-ag-obama-ill-sue-if-un-arms-treaty-ratified/#ixzz2PMP30ZDY
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: