ByeByeGuns

Status
Not open for further replies.

tutti

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
36
Location
NC
just received this.. true or not ?

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.

We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictator ship).
http://www.reuters. com/article/ politicsNews/ idUSTRE59E0Q9200 910
 
Treaties have to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate to be valid. Signing does not make them valid; it's just a ceremony that sells tuxedos and keeps reporters busy. It really means nothing, since the President has no power - ZERO - to make treaties with foreign nations on his own.

The Senate -- in essentially its current form with a large majority of Democrats, but with Kennedy still alive and not replaced by a Republican -- voted 58-39 in favor of national concealed carry reciprocity.

We must be forever vigilant. Treaties could be used to make gun control more politically feasible. However, this message is BS. It's based on a lie.
 
Attach the treaty to the budget or some other essential bill to get it passed, and Obama's supreme court choices will vote to enforce the gun control provisions.
 
As you evaluate this article for authenticity, you should ask yourself the following questions:


1) Is the article sourced? (No. The reuters link is broken)
2) Is the language used in the article consistent with the "voice" used for legacy media? (No. Just Look At The Capitalized Plan To Ban All Firearms.... for starters)
3) Is the editorial point of view neutral OR consistent with legacy media's leftist tilt? (No. "our second amendment rights" is a dead giveaway.)

Now, as to the substance:

For the zillionth time, Treaties Can Not Over Ride The Fricken' Constitution. That's been covered ad nauseam.

Yes, great mayhem can be committed in the name of "treaties" before it's all sorted out, but at the end of the the day, the Constitution wins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top