UN Small Arms Treaty date 7/27

I lived in Italy and they sanitized what they told you. We called the local Hospital(the meat market). Wounds from accidents closed with out cleaning, leaving rocks and glass inside,unsanitary conditions,lack of sterilization,etc. This was in Napoli(Naples). Sure you can get everything done if you can survive the wait, most do not hence, less demand. The rich have private doctors and hospitals which are illegal but everyone looks the other way.
 
Threegun, I have a couple of cousins who lived in Italy for 5 years. Their experience pretty much mirrors yours.

Poop, I know you are younger than me, but trust me on this. Our government is turned itself completely "inside-out" from what it was 30 years ago and before. IOW, it's basically done a 180 turn. When I was i school everyone just automatically knew they had to take care of themselves. Now people look to the .gov for the most basic things. Healthcare is about as basic as it gets. It's not our government's role to provide it or pay for it, yet almost nobody wants to pay for even a visit to the doctor for a simple cold these days. They expect someone else to pay for it whether it's an insurance company or the taxpayers. Insurance once upon a time was just that. INSURANCE. As in insurance against a catastrophic financial loss. It was not a "free" checkbook like it is now.

As to the U.N. treaty? Your damn right it's a mechanism for registration, rationing and ultimately confiscation. The are just gift wrapping it in good intentions to get the sheep to eat it. I'll not be convinced otherwise because I've seen way too much over the years on issues of all types to believe otherwise. The .gov has transformed itself into something it was never intended to be. No Obama didn't do this, but he sure has "mashed the gas" on it.
 
Poop you honestly amaze me, you tell me Im being rediculous for believing that the people in power want to do anything but tax, monitor, control and oppress me (the current administration), all the while you blindy turn and point at some website whos retoric drips with political bias.

Attorney General Holder admitted to congress that Obama wants to resurrect the Clinton era assault weapons ban.....while you can tell me thats not true, I find that when a man is pressed, and has no integrity, he scrambles to shift the blame...the quote

"This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico.”

Just one step closer...so poop, next time you step outside, just take a deep breath and say.... BAAAAAA!!!!
 
I get that there are people in the administration who want to re-institute the AWB but what I DON'T get is how you think that this particular action is meant to be a gun grab because there's no way it can work.

But of course, any website that disagrees with the "UN DEMONRAT NEW WORLD ORDER" reality tunnel you've created is one "whos [sic] retoric [sic] drips with political bias."

And, of course, blindly believing Supreme Court precedent and the actual words of the actual Constitution makes me a sheep, but blindly believing the people on the Tea Party and Tinfoil Hat Blogring makes you an Independent Thinker Whose Eyes Are Open. Taking everything from the NRA as gospel, even given their obvious financial interest in making sure their donor base is worked up and scared, and their history of distorting the truth to achieve that, means you're even more on the ball.

I'm not saying that I'm immune from confirmation bias but at some point you should consider that you might be giving some sketchy arguments a pass because they jive with your negative opinion of Obama/Democrats/the UN.
 
I get that there are people in the administration who want to re-institute the AWB but what I DON'T get is how you think that this particular action is meant to be a gun grab because there's no way it can work.

But of course, any website that disagrees with the "UN DEMONRAT NEW WORLD ORDER" reality tunnel you've created is one "whos [sic] retoric [sic] drips with political bias."

And, of course, blindly believing Supreme Court precedent and the actual words of the actual Constitution makes me a sheep, but blindly believing the people on the Tea Party and Tinfoil Hat Blogring makes you an Independent Thinker Whose Eyes Are Open. Taking everything from the NRA as gospel, even given their obvious financial interest in making sure their donor base is worked up and scared, and their history of distorting the truth to achieve that, means you're even more on the ball.

I'm not saying that I'm immune from confirmation bias but at some point you should consider that you might be giving some sketchy arguments a pass because they jive with your negative opinion of Obama/Democrats/the UN.

http://dosfan.lib.ui...reedom_war.html

This is State Deptartment Memordanum 7277, a description of the UN outlined disarmament....this was the beginning of arms treaty and basis. If you question their intentions, read it. Dont take my word for it. Just becasue you dont believe it is possible, and want to deny it, and dont think our slick talking Fuerher has the capability of pushing this, he has already said he intends to ENFORCE the treaty whether or not the senate ratifies it... This IS a take over of our freedoms...They dont take it all at once, the slice off a piece here and there, and sooner or later, we are left with scraps...
 
Whoever wrote this in 1961 was sure drinking the cool aid, or huffing a bong.

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
 
One of my favorites off of Magpuls site.

pre_1343339587__4537470603_46e346c4d4_z.jpg
 
  • The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
  • The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

Sounds like the main objective is to take ALL weapons, EXCEPT those used by the UN...complete disarmament...

No thanks, I think Ill keep mine...
 
  • The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
  • The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

Sounds like the main objective is to take ALL weapons, EXCEPT those used by the UN...complete disarmament...

No thanks, I think Ill keep mine...

I agree 100%. But This memorandum was written in 1961.

Its been re-written I'm sure, and several national organizations that have legal folks on staff have seen the latest.

Freedom From War


The United States Program
for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful
World



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE​

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961​

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS​

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents​
 
I get that there are people in the administration who want to re-institute the AWB but what I DON'T get is how you think that this particular action is meant to be a gun grab because there's no way it can work.

Say whut? What if they use ATF regulations to burden the gun/ammo makers to the point of bankruptcy with microstamping, traceability and other such nonsense? This is a very believable scenario. They'll do it under the guise of "the guns/ammo you make may possibly be transferred over our border, so we have to enforce this". There is no doubt in my mind that Obummer and Hillary would do this even without Senate approval.
 
NRA Stops U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

Posted on July 27, 2012



U.N. ATT Conference Comes to an Impasse

The Conference on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (U.N. ATT) has broken down and will not report a draft treaty to the member nations.

This is a big victory for American gun owners, and the NRA is being widely credited for killing the U.N. ATT.

For nearly 20 years, the NRA has worked tirelessly to warn American gun owners about the United Nations’ efforts to undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners by putting in place international controls on small arms.

NRA became a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) and has monitored all U.N. activities that could impact on our Second Amendment rights. As a result, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testified before the U.N. (2012 remarks, 2011 remarks) making it clear that the NRA would fight any international treaty that included civilian arms.

NRA worked with our allies in the U.S. Congress and successfully assembled strong bipartisan opposition to any treaty that adversely impacts the Second Amendment. On two occasions NRA was successful in convincing a majority of the U.S. Senate to sign letters to President Obama that made it clear that any treaty that included civilian arms was not going to be ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Yesterday (July 26), Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) gathered the signatures of 51 Senators on a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton opposing any treaty that infringes on our rights. The letter stated "As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure--if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference--that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard."

NRA members made their voices heard on this issue as well, calling their elected representatives and urging their opposition to the treaty. As a result, 130 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have voiced strong opposition to the treaty.

During the past week, it became increasingly possible that the Conference would fail to come to an agreement on draft language. On Thursday, the Conference President produced yet another draft of the ATT in an effort to salvage the process. The new draft, like previous ones, was wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment rights protected by our Constitution.

The proponents of the treaty have goals that are clearly at odds with the American Constitution. Their refusal to remove civilian arms from the treaty was one major issue that led to the breakdown in negotiations. The U.S. delegation made it clear that they could not move forward with the language as it had been drafted.

While this conference has failed to complete a treaty, the proponents will not give up. It is likely that a new conference will be held in the future and NRA will continue to fight to protect the rights of American gun owners.

NRA maintains its steadfast opposition to any treaty that includes civilian arms in any way. NRA will continue to work with our allies, particularly in the U.S. Senate, to insure that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not threatened by this or any future international treaty.
 
Back
Top