US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

America, Europe, Asia and the rest of the world
Post Reply
User avatar
DreamRyder
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:54 pm
Location: Victoria

US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

Post by DreamRyder » Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:23 am

..



..........President Trump's Announcement to Un-sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty




SOURCE: NPR https://www.npr.org/2019/04/26/71754774 ... ade-treaty
President Trump effectively "unsigned" an international arms sales agreement Friday, moving to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. The agreement sets global standards for regulating transfers of conventional arms, from rifles to tanks and airplanes.

The treaty, known as the ATT, has been in effect since late 2014. The U.S. signed on to the agreement in 2013 but has not ratified the treaty.

The U.S. withdrawal had been expected. Trump made it official at the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Indianapolis, pulling out a pen onstage and signing a paper that he said would take back the Obama administration's signature on behalf of the U.S.

The ATT has long been a target of the NRA, which claimed it would harm U.S. gun owners. Trump echoed that criticism on Friday, calling the ATT a threat to Second Amendment rights. "We will never surrender America's sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy," Trump was quoted as saying, in a White House statement announcing the change.

The White House says Trump will ask the Senate to return the amendment to the executive branch rather than consider it for ratification.

.........................................................



...............U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms



Source: FORBES https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ ... fe72f75bce
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn't approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global "Small Arms Treaty" premised to fight "terrorism", "insurgency" and "international crime syndicates" you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted - our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:


Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

Confiscate and destroy all "unauthorized" civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull - one single "bang" manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.


In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."


Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association's worst "F"-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans' rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

President Obama's record on citizen gun rights doesn't reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called "assault rifles" (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.

If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That's a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don't ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.

There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.

So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.'s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic---right? Let's hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly "pro-gun", many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president's international prestige, causing him embarrassment.

Also, don't forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously.

Now, more than ever, it's imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.
Great move Mr. President!! America First!!! Image


..
..............Arguing with people who have lost all sense of reason is like administering medicine to the dead

User avatar
Black Orchid
Posts: 25498
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:10 am

Re: US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

Post by Black Orchid » Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:49 am

I don't know anything about the UN Arms Treaty so I will have to read up on it before I comment.

If Trump is slapping the UN in the face though he is most likely right in doing so.

sprintcyclist
Posts: 7007
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:26 pm

Re: US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

Post by sprintcyclist » Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:03 am

.................. Trump made it official at the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Indianapolis, pulling out a pen onstage and signing a paper that he said would take back the Obama administration's signature on behalf of the U.S. ....................
I love Trump
Right Wing is the Natural Progression.

Texan
Posts: 2620
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:50 pm

Re: US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

Post by Texan » Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:12 am

Black Orchid wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:49 am
I don't know anything about the UN Arms Treaty so I will have to read up on it before I comment.

If Trump is slapping the UN in the face though he is most likely right in doing so.
The Treaty was invalid because it was never and will never be ratified. Politicians would lose their cushy jobs if they voted for it. It was a gun control measure that would have gone badly if implemented.

User avatar
DreamRyder
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:54 pm
Location: Victoria

Re: US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

Post by DreamRyder » Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:42 am

Black Orchid wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:49 am
I don't know anything about the UN Arms Treaty so I will have to read up on it before I comment.

If Trump is slapping the UN in the face though he is most likely right in doing so.
It's not an outright slap....it's more like a shove, coupled with a stern finger point, saying we will never permit any law to be superior to our Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!!!

America is a Sovereign Nation, & this Treaty would encroach upon American Sovereignty, making American Law.....the US Constitution.....& therefore the American People, subservient to a UN International Law. It would theoretically force the US Government clamp down on law abiding American citizens who own what yesterday was a legal firearm, but in this UN Law, it's now illegal by International Standards, & must be forcefully confiscated from, up until now, law abiding American gun owners, in total disregards of their Constitution Rights, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

It also forces the American Gun Owners to register all their firearms, not with any US Federal Registry....which is illegal in the US.....Federal Registration Databases are forbidden under US Law.....the American Gun Owners would have to Register all their Firearms in an International database, which is a roundabout way of enabling eventual confiscation.......which is why Federal Firearm Registries are illegal in the USA.....to protect the Sovereign Rights of the American People against governmental infringement. ;)
..............Arguing with people who have lost all sense of reason is like administering medicine to the dead

User avatar
DreamRyder
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:54 pm
Location: Victoria

Re: US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

Post by DreamRyder » Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:56 am

..


President Trump should look at all UN Treaties for instances where any external law may permit external legal superiority to the United States Constitution......in total disregard to American Sovereignty.

If he finds such potential instances, he should withdraw from those treaties immediately.

Any government that permits such encroachments on it's National Sovereignty is at risk of loss of that Sovereignty, to what some term, the "New World Order". :o

All previous signatories to this particular treaty have already done just that!
..............Arguing with people who have lost all sense of reason is like administering medicine to the dead

User avatar
Black Orchid
Posts: 25498
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:10 am

Re: US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

Post by Black Orchid » Tue Apr 30, 2019 12:14 pm

DreamRyder wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:42 am
It also forces the American Gun Owners to register all their firearms, not with any US Federal Registry....which is illegal in the US.....Federal Registration Databases are forbidden under US Law.....
Wouldn't it be better to have firearms registered federally? If you are denied a gun in one state, because you are a psycho, you could effectively just cross a state line and obtain a gun in another state (if you were doing it legally).
DreamRyder wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:42 am
the American Gun Owners would have to Register all their Firearms in an International database, which is a roundabout way of enabling eventual confiscation.......which is why Federal Firearm Registries are illegal in the USA.....to protect the Sovereign Rights of the American People against governmental infringement. ;)
I see no benefit in having an international data base potentially controlling gun laws in the USA.

Texan
Posts: 2620
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:50 pm

Re: US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

Post by Texan » Tue Apr 30, 2019 12:42 pm

Black Orchid wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 12:14 pm
Wouldn't it be better to have firearms registered federally? If you are denied a gun in one state, because you are a psycho, you could effectively just cross a state line and obtain a gun in another state (if you were doing it legally).
It's illegal to buy a gun outside of your home state without making the purchase through a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer. They send the gun to another FFL in your home state and you pick it up there. All purchases from an FFL require a federal background check, unless you have a valid License To Carry. That is proof that you are already background checked. Even then, you have to fill out a 4473 to buy the gun. The 4473 is kept on file for 6 months, just in case something happens.

User avatar
Black Orchid
Posts: 25498
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:10 am

Re: US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

Post by Black Orchid » Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:50 pm

Thanks. So what was behind the idea of the Treaty and what did Obama hope to achieve? To disarm? I bet Hillary carries lol.

User avatar
brian ross
Posts: 6059
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:26 pm

Re: US Takes Back Signature on Arms Trade Treaty

Post by brian ross » Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:23 pm

You do realise you're talking to American gun nuts, don't you, Black Orchid. They have, well shall we say, a rather biased view of anything to do with gun control measures. In reality, the UN Treaty had nothing to do with private firearms ownership, it was primarily aimed at the trade in firearms.

Will the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty infringe on our right to keep and bear arms?

Trump has effectively kyboshed the idea that firearms should not be traded between nations. He has effectively ended the US only firearms trade in the US which the treaty promised. Now, wasn't Trump originally for the promotion of US industries? He's now removed the most effective barrier to the trade of European firearms within the US Market. I wonder if the US firearms makers will be thanking him in two years time? :roll:
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. - Eric Blair

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests