Post by danceswithdogs on Jan 23, 2013 18:13:46 GMT -5
Since it appears Obama may be caving to the UN on the gun agenda, why is the UN not demanding that the fools who allowed guns to "walk" into Mexico and be used to kill so many people be charged with supplying guns to terrorists?
Does UN arms trade treaty figure in Obama administration’s gun control plans?
Read more: www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/23/does-un-arms-trade-treaty-figure-in-obama-administrations-gun-control-plans/#ixzz2IqIvvLfN
The article is rather long, so I won't copy and paste it here, but a couple of paragraphs really stand out to me.
"The Administration first agreed to take part in the U.N. arms treaty negotiations in 2009—the same year in which it launched the now-notorious Fast and Furious operation, which provided weapons to illicit gun traders, ostensibly to track gun-running operations to Mexican drug cartels. Those negotiations proceeded irregularly, but seemed to founder last July."
(Gee, ya think Obama got a bit worried about the light of day being pointed at what his dim-wit DOJ was doing?)
"But then, the U.S. joined a 157-0 vote, with 18 abstentions, of a U.N. General Assembly disarmament committee, on November 7, 2012, —the day after President Barack Obama won his second-term victory--to create the March round of talks. (A State Department official insisted to Fox News that the vote only came after the U.S. elections due to the disruption caused by Hurricane Sandy; otherwise, it would have taken place earlier.)"
(So, they figure they have Obama on their side for another 4 years and they can keep pushing their anti-fun agenda with his full cooperation?)
For many critics, however, the draft version of the treaty is also a mine field of clauses and propositions that mandate a much greater federal role in U.S. gun sales, and potentially tie the U.S. to the gun control agenda of other governments or regimes.
“The treaty is drafted as if every nation in the world has centralized control of the arms industry and arms sales, which is not the case here,” said Ted Bromund, a security policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has followed the arms trade treaty process closely, and who believes the U.S. should bail out of the March treaty talks.
“We’ve already got an enormous body of statutes and practice on the import, manufacture and export of firearms, the most elaborate in the world,” Bromund told Fox News. “How would we use a treaty that gives enormous discretion to the Administration on the import and export of arms? Essentially, it would give the Administration much more control than it already has.”
Moreover, the treaty is unlikely to change any behavior on the part of lawbreaking regimes and dictatorships around the world whose handing on of weapons to terrorists or criminal enterprises is supposedly one of the activities the treaty will curb." (DUH!)
"Critics of the treaty effort, however, see something equally bad: a nebulous international agreement that does nothing to improve U.S. security but opens the way to “damage by a thousand cuts,” as one critic put it, to the U.S. civilian right to bear arms and also to American foreign policy interests, no matter what the State Department may currently say about defending both.
For one thing, notes Bromund, most nations negotiating the treaty—which include Russia, China and Iran—“do not recognize the human right of self-defense” against tyrannical or murderous regimes—the essential basis of the Second Amendment.
EXACTLY! It's not all about personal security/protection.....it's our ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. And we can sure see how easily such a situation could arise, thanks to King Obama.
Does UN arms trade treaty figure in Obama administration’s gun control plans?
Read more: www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/23/does-un-arms-trade-treaty-figure-in-obama-administrations-gun-control-plans/#ixzz2IqIvvLfN
The article is rather long, so I won't copy and paste it here, but a couple of paragraphs really stand out to me.
"The Administration first agreed to take part in the U.N. arms treaty negotiations in 2009—the same year in which it launched the now-notorious Fast and Furious operation, which provided weapons to illicit gun traders, ostensibly to track gun-running operations to Mexican drug cartels. Those negotiations proceeded irregularly, but seemed to founder last July."
(Gee, ya think Obama got a bit worried about the light of day being pointed at what his dim-wit DOJ was doing?)
"But then, the U.S. joined a 157-0 vote, with 18 abstentions, of a U.N. General Assembly disarmament committee, on November 7, 2012, —the day after President Barack Obama won his second-term victory--to create the March round of talks. (A State Department official insisted to Fox News that the vote only came after the U.S. elections due to the disruption caused by Hurricane Sandy; otherwise, it would have taken place earlier.)"
(So, they figure they have Obama on their side for another 4 years and they can keep pushing their anti-fun agenda with his full cooperation?)
For many critics, however, the draft version of the treaty is also a mine field of clauses and propositions that mandate a much greater federal role in U.S. gun sales, and potentially tie the U.S. to the gun control agenda of other governments or regimes.
“The treaty is drafted as if every nation in the world has centralized control of the arms industry and arms sales, which is not the case here,” said Ted Bromund, a security policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has followed the arms trade treaty process closely, and who believes the U.S. should bail out of the March treaty talks.
“We’ve already got an enormous body of statutes and practice on the import, manufacture and export of firearms, the most elaborate in the world,” Bromund told Fox News. “How would we use a treaty that gives enormous discretion to the Administration on the import and export of arms? Essentially, it would give the Administration much more control than it already has.”
Moreover, the treaty is unlikely to change any behavior on the part of lawbreaking regimes and dictatorships around the world whose handing on of weapons to terrorists or criminal enterprises is supposedly one of the activities the treaty will curb." (DUH!)
"Critics of the treaty effort, however, see something equally bad: a nebulous international agreement that does nothing to improve U.S. security but opens the way to “damage by a thousand cuts,” as one critic put it, to the U.S. civilian right to bear arms and also to American foreign policy interests, no matter what the State Department may currently say about defending both.
For one thing, notes Bromund, most nations negotiating the treaty—which include Russia, China and Iran—“do not recognize the human right of self-defense” against tyrannical or murderous regimes—the essential basis of the Second Amendment.
EXACTLY! It's not all about personal security/protection.....it's our ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. And we can sure see how easily such a situation could arise, thanks to King Obama.