Kerry: US Will Sign UN Arms Treaty

[TemplarKormac]

That's right folks, in spite of strong opposition from lawmakers, John Kerry indicated today that the U.S. will sign the UN Small Arms Treaty; citing that this could be the basis for more gun regulations. Yes, indeed, thus begins the systematic destruction of the 2nd Amendment. Kiss your rights goodbye.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. "welcomes" the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.

"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily," he said. Kerry called the treaty "an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights."

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.

Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.

Kerry says US will sign UN treaty on arms regulation despite lawmaker opposition | Fox News

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Will they get the 60 Senate votes? Somehow I doubt it. I don't think they an even get 51.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I don't think it will get through the Senate. This is simply Obama trying to put out there that he "did" something.

 

[MondoBongo]

A. (from your own link, btw): 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.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

 

[RoadVirus]

"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily," he said. Kerry called the treaty "an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights."

Which makes this ironic, considering that the current administration sold AK-47s to the Mexican drug cartels.

 

[g5000]

The piss drinking idiots have swallowed what has been poured for them by the big defense contractors who stand to lose a lot of money over this treaty. Few, if any, have actually read the treaty. We know this because they have been making claims about it long before it was available. And during that time they convinced themselves what they "know" is true!

This is actual self-delusion. Willful delusion. Amazing to watch in action.

And the idiot lawmakers who drafted bills to block the treaty...guess who their biggest donors are to their campaigns?

That's right. Defense contractors in the line of fire.

What? I can't sell fighter jets or helicopters to terrorists or terror regimes? Tell the rubes it's the end of the Second Amendment! Waaaaaah!


Rubes who believe themselves to be right wingers are for the War on Terra, before they are against it.

 

[OKTexas]

Reid will try to prevent a ratification vote as long as possible, we will be bound by the treaty form the the date it is signed until the senate rejects it. They could do allot of damage in a few years if the vote is delayed. The only positive is it could be a campaign issue in 2014 that could hurt the dems in the senate races.

 

[OriginalShroom]

A. (from your own link, btw): 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.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

Here ya go..

Read it for yourself and learn something.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[g5000]

A. (from your own link, btw): 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.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

Here ya go..

Read it for yourself and learn something.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Your post has nothing to do with the facts stated about not explicitly controlling the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Read the actual treaty and learn something.

It is amazing the lengths you rubes will go to to avoid learning the facts for yourselves. This is not a gun-grabbing treaty.

 

[MondoBongo]

A. (from your own link, btw): 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.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

Here ya go..

Read it for yourself and learn something.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I suggest you take your own advice: Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dem Senators running for reelection will come out against this

 

[g5000]

Allow me to lead you willfully blind horses to the water.

Read the treaty. Then quote those parts of the treaty which support any claims you parrot about it.

We shall now observe the goons studying the treaty like the Cro-Magnons in 2001:A Space Odyssey puzzling over the black Monolith.

 

[bucs90]

So it would prevent the transfer of foreign guns into citizen's hands?
And America is the biggest customer for gun makers?

Sounds like a lot of gun makers would move their ops to America.

Which would create jobs.

Um..........whats the problem?

 

[BlindBoo]

As if it has a chance of being ratified.

Jesus could announce that it will not effect domestic gun law and the Conz would quickly call him the devil.

 

[g5000]

I can't wait for one of the rubes to bring up the "national control system" in the treaty and make a complete ass of themselves.

 

[g5000]

So it would prevent the transfer of foreign guns into citizen's hands?
And America is the biggest customer for gun makers?

Sounds like a lot of gun makers would move their ops to America.

Which would create jobs.

Um..........whats the problem?

Because of treaties signed decades ago, some manufacturers, like Beretta, have already opened domestic arms factories.

This treaty is about keeping arms out of the hands of terrorists and terror regimes. It is about the international trade in arms which is putting weapons into the hands of Al Qaeda and Syria and such. All anyone has to do is read it to see that.

But the rubes avoid reading it at all costs.

 

[OriginalShroom]

A. (from your own link, btw): 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.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

Here ya go..

Read it for yourself and learn something.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I suggest you take your own advice: Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

Considering how the Left treats the 2nd Amendment already, do you honestly think they won't use this to further erode the right?

Perhaps you ought to read this The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal? - Forbes

or this

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

Or this..

Confirmed: Obama's small arms treaty would take away 2nd amendment - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com

Or this

Arms Trade Treaty and Second Amendment: Answering the ABA

Or this

Can the U.N. Grab Americans' Guns? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I can't wait for someone to bring up the "national control system" and make a complete ass of themselves.

I bet you have a lot of friends.... what with that rosy demeanor and all.

 

[OriginalShroom]

So it would prevent the transfer of foreign guns into citizen's hands?
And America is the biggest customer for gun makers?

Sounds like a lot of gun makers would move their ops to America.

Which would create jobs.

Um..........whats the problem?

Because of treaties signed decades ago, some manufacturers, like Beretta, have already opened domestic arms factories.

This treaty is about keeping arms out of the hands of terrorists and terror regimes. It is about the international trade in arms which is putting weapons into the hands of Al Qaeda and Syria and such. All anyone has to do is read it to see that.

But the rubes avoid reading it at all costs.

Oh.. I've read it.. and I have read what Lawyers and those trained in legalize who have read it have said about it.

Remember, It takes a Lawyer to say that the phrase "Shall not be infringed" doesn't actually mean that.

 

[Pete7469]

A. (from your own link, btw): 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.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

Here ya go..

Read it for yourself and learn something.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Your post has nothing to do with the facts stated about not explicitly controlling the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Read the actual treaty and learn something.

It is amazing the lengths you rubes will go to to avoid learning the facts for yourselves. This is not a gun-grabbing treaty.

I don't think I've ever read a post of yours that was worth the effort.

/ignore.

I should have ignored your dumbass when I saw you insisting that hitler was "rightwing".

Moron.