PDA

View Full Version : Well well well...Obama wins and now goes into high gear with his TRUE agenda



ColonelSteve
11-08-2012, 10:08 PM
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.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107

CitizenBBN
11-08-2012, 10:24 PM
But...but... he's not really coming after our guns b/c he didn't in his first term. yeah, right.

This treaty doesn't just relate to exports. I can dig up the stuff on it some time, but that's just no true. Amnesty International is also naive as heck. The example cited of Syria is the real story: the authoritarian nations of the world want to ban the arming of rebels who would overthrow their governments. Under the treaty in its last form it would be illegal to arm the Syrian rebels.

One primary part of the treaty is that weapons can only be sold internationally to UN member governments. That is to say the US couldn't sell weapons to Taiwan for example, as they aren't recognized as a UN member.

that's why Iran is on the committee. They dont' want anyone arming a potential rebellion. This has nothing to do with saving lives. You think Iran cares about human rights violations?

Hes' coming after guns.if he gets SCOTUS nominations Heller will be reversed so fast it'll give us whiplash.

Don't be naive. The guy has laid out his philosophy on guns and dozens of other issues. You just have to go back to before his run for national office. Jeez, he supports the ban of all semi-automatic weapons. That's 70%-90% of the guns in the country depending on how you define it.

jazyd
11-08-2012, 11:41 PM
PLus it will not stop countries like russia arming their friends, nor will it stop China, too much money involved and too much power.

But as you said Obama wants everything he can to use against those of us that own guns regardless of what anyone in his administration tries to say. This is one of the reasons I have such a hard time with a state like Iowa voting for this idiot, they are a huge hunting state and are getting millions of dollars for guys coming in to hunt the big whitetails they have. They are a farming state, an outdoor state, and they have voted twice now for a damn liberal who wants to take away what they have always enjoyed and they were too stupid to see it. *&^&(_*&&&%$^




But...but... he's not really coming after our guns b/c he didn't in his first term. yeah, right.

This treaty doesn't just relate to exports. I can dig up the stuff on it some time, but that's just no true. Amnesty International is also naive as heck. The example cited of Syria is the real story: the authoritarian nations of the world want to ban the arming of rebels who would overthrow their governments. Under the treaty in its last form it would be illegal to arm the Syrian rebels.

One primary part of the treaty is that weapons can only be sold internationally to UN member governments. That is to say the US couldn't sell weapons to Taiwan for example, as they aren't recognized as a UN member.

that's why Iran is on the committee. They dont' want anyone arming a potential rebellion. This has nothing to do with saving lives. You think Iran cares about human rights violations?

Hes' coming after guns.if he gets SCOTUS nominations Heller will be reversed so fast it'll give us whiplash.

Don't be naive. The guy has laid out his philosophy on guns and dozens of other issues. You just have to go back to before his run for national office. Jeez, he supports the ban of all semi-automatic weapons. That's 70%-90% of the guns in the country depending on how you define it.

CitizenBBN
11-09-2012, 01:02 AM
Pretty much a given Iowans aren't that smart. By definition they haven't figure out they're allowed to move to another state. ;)

"Legal" arms sales will still be allowed without reduction or restriction, where "legal" is defined as being between UN member states. So China can sell to Iran anything they want, they just can't arm an Iranian resistance or export SKSs to the US any more.

But wait! this is only on exports. Yeah, and when Norinco (Chinese) sells SKSs to the US, that's an "export". So what this really does to the US civilian market is give the US government another way to make it tougher to import guns and thus limit the market. That conveniently includes a huge percentage of the "assault weapons" they hate so much.

So they support a treaty that limits and gives power to governments over non-government sales between countries, such sales just happening to include a large percentage of the assault weapons Obama has publicly called for to be banned. Starting to make sense now those out there who didn't think Obama has a gun agenda?

Of course we can ban them anyway, and in fact recently made it much tougher by extending the State Department into regulation and licensing of firearms importers with high annual license fees, but this is just another way to charge another fee and have another excuse to limit imports.

Bet most folks don't know about the State Department move, which is now a battleground for 2nd amendment issues.

it starts with ITAR. International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Meant to control military sales (and do so with no reason really), they now require domestic manufacturers to be licensed by the State Department. There are a lot of "manufacturers" out there who make custom guns or small numbers of weapons. We aren't talking about Winchester, we're talking about a gunsmith making custom hunting rifles. The starting fee is $2,500/yr in addition to the ATF licensing.

So the Department of State, under the authority of a law on exports, is requiring licensing of all domestic civilian gun makers, whether they export or not. Supposedly so they can monitor any exports they might make.

ITAR, written for military technology exports/imports, is being used as an excuse to further squeeze domestic gun manufacturing. Why would we think a UN law wouldn't be used the same way when it specifically addresses non-military small arms of all kinds? Of course it will be, don't be naive.

Maybe an extra fee for every licensed dealer? I flat guarantee if it passes it will be used as an excuse by anti-gun forces to ban gun shows. They hate gun shows, boy do they hate gun shows. They'll try to get it applied under some kind of "trafficking" language, that it has to be regulated and they'll point to trafficking to Mexico.

The Mexican trafficking will be the trip wire to use this treaty to implement US gun control. The argument will be we have to now comply with the treaty by insuring control over exports and we have to crack down on domestic sales to prevent these illegal sales.

Honestly this doesn't even require intelligence to see coming. Feinstein and Schumer have been nothing if not simplistic and predictable in their arguments for decades.

This is why Fast and Furious. It's not a prediction. Feinstein already had a report ready that cited the Mexican trafficking "problem" as justification for new laws. It was ready, hadn't been released during F&F, and when that story broke they released it. The plan was already in place, the arguments already lined up. Their fictitious "90% of cartel guns are US domestic weapons" nonsense, conveniently created due to particular decisions by Mexican authorities and the ATF as to how they trace guns.

This treaty just lets them go from "we should prevent this illegal traffic" to "we have to prevent this illegal traffic", making their case all the more powerful. I just don't see how this isn't readily apparent.


We already have proof of how "export only" laws are applied to 100% domestic firearms issues. It's real, not theory, not speculation or fear mongering. Yet we're to believe an even more powerful and applicable law, a UN law where Mexico (a nation already demanding US gun law action) would actually have a legel venue for its position re US gun policy, won't do the same?

Oh please. Mexico will file a grievance before the ink is dry and Feinstein and Schumer will blow on it to make sure it doesn't smudge.

BTW - there is one hope beyond the NRA fighting it tooth and nail. Nations like China and Iran very much want it to be a UN member only deal, and the US couldn't accept that b/c of nations like Taiwan and our need to arm non-UN groups. the NRA will have allies in the CIA/NSA world as well as real foreign policy concerns. I don't put it past Obama to ignore those critical issues, he's a naive blame America fool, but he'll have a fight on his hands even within the executive branch.

CitizenBBN
11-09-2012, 01:11 AM
Forgot to mention re ITAR that the State Dept. is blocking the re-importation of 10s of 1,000s of US surplus M1 Garand and M1 carbines sitting in Korea. We left those guns there at the end of the Korean war and they were approved for re-import by civilian companies. They buy them from S. Korea and bring them back to the US.

These are 50+ year old guns, but ATF lobbied the State Dept under ITAR to stop the importation, which Hillary did. ATF argues they could be used in crimes. The M1 Garand is heavier than lead and a low capacity long rifle. Such guns are used in less than 1% of gun crimes. It's laughable. It's one of the most crime safe gun types in the history of guns.

They say the carbines can be converted to full auto if you are able to machine your own parts. Hell, any semi auto anything can be made full auto if you can make your own parts. We have draconian laws against doing such a thing, it's rare as hen's teeth that anyone does it, and there are already 10s of thousands of M1 carbines in the US, not to mention millions of guns even easier to convert if you wanted to go to the trouble and risk 25 years in jail.

So we have a case already of ITAR being used for domestic only imports as well. Specifically imports of non assault weapons (the M1 Garand) that are not a crime risk at all. It's purely just a block on civilian sales of a gun that is used 100% for collecting and hunting and sport shooting. Just in case more evidence were necessary.

dan_bgblue
11-09-2012, 10:57 AM
M1 Garrand. Damn near indestructible, reliable, accurate, simple, powerful, and I have wanted one for a long time.

87,000 of them are sitting in S Korea waiting to come home.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand)

jazyd
11-09-2012, 10:59 AM
If you ever come to my house for a visit to Miss, stay out of my closet in my bedroom, I know he would have stolen my gun. :)


M1 Garrand. Damn near indestructible, reliable, accurate, simple, powerful, and I have wanted one for a long time.

87,000 of them are sitting in S Korea waiting to come home.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand)

millsforthree
11-09-2012, 04:32 PM
Lord help us all. I see these folks every day--and I knew who they would vote for. It is really hard to believe that the minority population of this great country can out number the majority to elect this man. In my new position I have to work with a great number of physicians and none voted for the man. They are all worried about their practices with this new healthcare law coming coming into effect. Our facility already loses a great deal of money that we have to take as a write off. I hope Scalia can hold on, and keep giving Hussein hell.

Doc
11-09-2012, 04:44 PM
It would be funny we're it not sad. Comes out today that Iran shot at our drones two days BEFORE the election, Petrauis resigns today so he won't testify before congress concerning Benghazi cuz he had an extramarital affair (supposidly can't lead an organization because he was unfaithful to his wife--that's important to liberals :confused0053:). Fear not, it will get more absurd

jazyd
11-10-2012, 10:44 PM
This administration sure has a lot of convenience around them.




It would be funny we're it not sad. Comes out today that Iran shot at our drones two days BEFORE the election, Petrauis resigns today so he won't testify before congress concerning Benghazi cuz he had an extramarital affair (supposidly can't lead an organization because he was unfaithful to his wife--that's important to liberals :confused0053:). Fear not, it will get more absurd

cattails
11-18-2012, 07:39 AM
M1 Garrand. Damn near indestructible, reliable, accurate, simple, powerful, and I have wanted one for a long time.

87,000 of them are sitting in S Korea waiting to come home.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand)



Have shot M-1 a number of times in service, will black and blue your shoulder, M-16 you could shoot one handed if you wanted to. The M-16 we had would empty a clip in a short few seconds, today I believe the M-16 does 4 round burst. M-1 long range, M-16 better for close contact (and the bullet tumbles, go in arm comes out back, cut through jungle brush like nothing). M-1 was good for sniper with good scope.