Obama backs U.N arms treaty?


S&WM&P40

New member
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the United States - the world's biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers -reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.

'MONTHS AWAY' FROM DEAL?

Countries that abstained included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran. China, a major arms producer that has traditionally abstained, voted in favor.

Among the top six arms-exporting nations, Russia cast the only abstention. Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in support of the resolution.

The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.

The resolution said countries are "determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty."

Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."

Brian Wood of Amnesty International said: "After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights."

The treaty would require states to make respecting human rights a criterion for allowing arms exports.

Britain's U.N. mission said on its Twitter feed it hoped that the March negotiations would yield the final text of a treaty. Such a pact would then need to be ratified by the individual signatories before it could enter into force.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. interest group, strongly opposes the arms treaty and had endorsed Romney.

The United States has denied it sought to delay negotiations for political reasons, saying it had genuine problems with the draft as written.

How do you see this playing out for US citizens? How would this even work, would signing this treaty make the 2nd amendment obsolete? What kind of impact will this have?
 

So does that mean his administration is going to quit running guns to Syria?
If this isn't the pinnacle of hypocrisy I don't know what is.

Why not just leave the gun unloaded and rely 100% upon the "element of surprise"?
 
and morons voted him back for another 4 smmfh........who in their right mind would vote for him again after he signed the ndaa and didn't keep any of his previous campaign promises .....although we didn't have much of a choice between romney and obama to begin with but dayum just dayum if ya do and damned if ya don't
don't blame me i wrote in ron paul
heheh
 
[video=youtube;HJr_ggTeq64]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HJr_ggTeq64[/video]
 
What good are new laws when we don't have the will to enforce the old ones? We have plenty of gun laws in this country, many of which are not enforced. All this UN treaty will accomplish is create an ever larger black arms market. Why don't we lock up those that abuse the privilege of self protection? What a novel ideal.
 
Obama can not approve a UN treaty on his own because it has to be ratified by congress. It will never pass.
 
and morons voted him back for another 4 smmfh........who in their right mind would vote for him again after he signed the ndaa and didn't keep any of his previous campaign promises .....although we didn't have much of a choice between romney and obama to begin with but dayum just dayum if ya do and damned if ya don't
don't blame me i wrote in ron paul
heheh

Some morons didn't vote at all, because Romney is a Mormon... and then there are those morons that 'wrote in' someone who didn't have a chinaman's chance...
Those morons are the one's responsible for Onutjob's win.
 
And this is exactly why the 2nd amendment exists. Watch this disturbing video. Its not clear exactly what the context is but it is enought to show his mentality in general:
 
and morons voted him back for another 4 smmfh........who in their right mind would vote for him again after he signed the ndaa and didn't keep any of his previous campaign promises .....although we didn't have much of a choice between romney and obama to begin with but dayum just dayum if ya do and damned if ya don't
don't blame me i wrote in ron paul
heheh

in the battleground state of FL...where the elections there have been close since at least 2000, and you waste a vote on a person that would never make it...THOSE MORONS!!!
 
Maybe it's time to stop buying these sub compact guns and go back to full size duty weapons.
I'd rather have my full size pistols
(had they not been lost in the boating accident last June)
than the pocket guns that are all the rage.
 
Obama can not approve a UN treaty on his own because it has to be ratified by congress. It will never pass.
You need to reread the US Constitution. It only takes the President and the Senate to pass a treaty. Both of those are controlled by the Dems.
US Constitution said:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
If the Senate was in session and 45 Senators were present with 30 being Dems voting "AYE" and 15 being Reps voting "NAY", it would pass.
 
^^exactly this. he can say whatever he likes, but one man cannot do it alone and he doesn’t have the backing.
Why is it that nobody ever seems to pay attention? Okay, this is what we discussed earlier this summer. He doesn't need the cooperation of Congress to enact much of the provisions in the so-called draft treaty. They can be put in place and enforced through various agencies that he already controls, such as BATFE and Customs.
.
Article 1, Goals and Objectives: No action required.
.
Article 2, Scope: No action required.
.
Article 3, Prohibited transfers: Compliance with this article can be accomplished via import/export controls and US Customs. No Congressional action required. Goodbye foreign arms and parts.
.
Article 4, National Assessment: Basically they just decide if guns are bad or not, and I think we all know how they think about that. They don't need Congress for that. Nuff said.
.
Article 5, General Implementation Basically it just says you'll do what you need to do and keep the UN informed. Since it's still general in nature, no Congressional involvement.
.
Article 6, Export: Export controls. Now who's in charge of export controls....? Oh! The executive branch! No Congress needed here!
.
Article 7, Import: You saw it coming, didn't you?
.
Article 8, Brokering: Basically says you'll regulate and control arms sales, which we already do.
.
Article 9, Transit and Transshipment: We already regulate transshipments.
.
Article 10, Reporting and Record-Keeping: Recordkeeping of the import/export controls. Still no Congress needed.
.
Article 11, Enforcement: Says you'll pass laws to implement the control of all this stuff. Since we already have laws that place BATFE, Customs and other federal agencies in charge of these things, no new laws would be necessary to implement the provisions of the treaty. Again, no Congress needed, at least not so far.
.
Article 12, Secretariat: An office at the UN to 'assist' us in getting this stuff done.
.
Article 13, International Cooperation: Now, play nice with the other countries.
.
Article 14, International Assistance: We can ask other countries for help, or offer it. You know which one we'll end up doing.
.
If you're starting to see a pattern, that means you're paying attention.
.
There are 25 articles in all. The rest are all administrative, dealing with such things as signing, voicing reservations, submitting amendments. This draft is actually more vague than the one we saw this summer, and that's the beauty of it really. The ambiguity of it allows them to 'interpret' it any way they see fit. The agencies that control the general provisions in this draft treaty are all within the executive branch. They can 'interpret' it to mean just about any restriction they see fit, and just implement it via policy or regulation without ever signing a treaty, all in the interest of international cooperation. Of course there will be challenges, but they'll tout the restrictions as allowable "common sense" controls permissible under Heller, and any court cases would likely be tied up for years. By the time it ever reached the Supreme Court, if it ever did, the new messiah would very likely have appointed one or two new justices who have a markedly different viewpoint on the 2nd amendment than the majority in Heller did.
.
So you can say he couldn't get a treaty passed and you'd be correct, but only in a technical sense. The actual paper may never get signed, but that doesn't mean he can't enact the restrictions contained within it. And the man has already demonstrated that he is more than willing to bypass the law when he feels the law inconvenient. I'd like to think that we're safe on this just as you do, but I think the man is going to be far more dangerous in a second term than he was in his first, and I simply cannot trust in what amounts to little more than simple hope at this point.
 
When all is said and done were F#&$ed. We went from what can we do for our country to what can our country do for us. This has become a nation of entitlement and people will sacrifice any freedom if they think that that will get them ahead. Were rotting from the inside out and I fear for the future of this nation.
 
Of at least equal importance as this treaty is what Fienstein plans to do if rumors attributed to her office are true. I'd like to thank all the MORONS who make sure she stays around term after term!
 
You need to reread the US Constitution. It only takes the President and the Senate to pass a treaty. Both of those are controlled by the Dems. If the Senate was in session and 45 Senators were present with 30 being Dems voting "AYE" and 15 being Reps voting "NAY", it would pass.
Only interesting thing here is Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader from Nevada who is pro-gun. Knowing the complicity of these dem pieces of crap they will pass it "over the strong objections of Reid, who fought really really hard to have it fail"--yah sure and pigs fly.

BTW my luck has really been running bad lately and probably will remain that way for the future. It is getting so bad that I am sure that when this UN treaty crap passes and the US, now under the control of a UN/foreign treaty, asks for all my firearms, I will want to not only obey with the law but be the first person in my community to do so. With my luck, my firearms will end up being stolen before I have a chance to proudly follow the law of the land. Is that bad luck or what?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon
Back
Top