Love it or Leave it!!

IF THERE BE TROUBLE, LET IT BE IN MY DAY, THAT MY CHILD MAY HAVE PEACE..Thomas Paine, "The Crisis" 1776, ("The Undefeated").

«
»

UN’s Small Arms Treaty – There Goes Our Second Amendment Rights

Posted by devildog6771 on January 27, 2011


Rand Paul by Gage Skidmore

Image via Wikipedia

Do you know what the  “UN’s Small Arms Treaty” will do to your Second Amendment Rights? Neither did I before i read an email I received from Senator Rand Paul.

According to Senator Rand Paul:

Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

Senator Paul has a survey he is asking citizens to complete as soon as possible to tell Congress we will not sign anything that effectively takes away our Second Amendment Rights!! Please tell others about this survey.

As Paul states:

Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN Small Arms Treaty, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

Please help him fight this move by Hillary Clinton and the U.N..

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE the U.S. to:*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

Our help is needed now to pressure Congress to refuse to sign on to this latest U.N. effort:

To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the UN, the United States of America isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.

Complete Senator Paul’s survey as soon as possible.

The truth is there’s no time to waste.

You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.

They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” into law since the mid-1990s.

But now time may not be on our side.

In fact, we’re likely to only have a few weeks to defeat the treaty when they make their move.

And we definitely don’t have a President in the White House who will oppose this treaty.

So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to stop the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.

As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.

With new pro-gun champions joining me in the Senate, rounding up enough votes to kill this thing should be easy, right?

Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Even with the Republican tidal wave in November, there still isn’t a pro-gun majority in the Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.

Here is the information you need to support this effort by Senator Paul:

Please join me by taking a public stand against this outright assault on our national sovereignty by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

H/T:  TownHall.com

Related Articles

This entry was posted on January 27, 2011 at 18:06 and is filed under Congress, Government, Politics, Republicans, UN Small Arms Treaty. Tagged: , , , , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “UN’s Small Arms Treaty – There Goes Our Second Amendment Rights”

  1. Toronto Apartments said

    February 4, 2012 at 00:19

    Toronto Apartments…

    […]UN???s Small Arms Treaty – There Goes Our Second Amendment Rights « Love it or Leave it!![…]…

    Reply

  2. everify background checks said

    December 8, 2011 at 10:21

    everify background checks…

    […]UN’s Small Arms Treaty – There Goes Our Second Amendment Rights « Love it or Leave it!![…]…

    Reply

  3. devildog6771 said

    January 28, 2011 at 02:18

    The UN is being very close to the chest on all the particulars.I went to some of the links mentioned in Paul’s email. Here’s what I did manage to find:

    Disarment Registration

    What would an Arms Trade Treaty Do?

    International non-government and human rights organisations including Amnesty, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (who lead the Control Arms Campaign) have developed analysis on what an effective Arms Trade Treaty would look like.[10]

    It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:

    • Be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity;

    • Facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime;

    • Violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes;

    • Be diverted from its stated recipient;

    • Adversely affect regional security; or

    • Seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development.

    Loopholes would be minimized. It would include:

    • All weapons – including all military, security and police arms, related equipment and ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment;

    • All types of transfer – including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer and transhipment, in the state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts and aid; and

    • All transactions – including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security.

    It must be workable and enforceable. It must:

    • Provide guidelines for the treaty’s full, clear implementation;

    • Ensure transparency – including full annual reports of national arms transfers;

    • Have an effective mechanism to monitor compliance;

    • Ensure accountability – with provisions for adjudication, dispute settlement and sanctions;

    It must include a comprehensive framework for international cooperation and assistance.

    NGOs are also advocating that the Arms Trade Treaty must reinforce existing responsibilities to assist survivors of armed violence, as well as identify new avenues to address suffering and trauma. Other NGOs have concerns about the treaty violating the human right of self-defense, infringing on the sovereign rights of citizens of countries like the U.S. and otherwise limiting rights.[11]

    Scope and history
    As a punishment, it differs from a fine in that it is not primarily meant to match the crime but rather reattributes the criminal’s ill-gotten spoils (often as a complement to the actual punishment for the crime itself; still common with various kinds of contraband, such as protected living organisms) to the community or even aims to rob them of their socio-economic status, in the extreme case reducing them to utter poverty, or if he is condemned to death even denies them inheritance to the legal heirs, thus punishing the entire bloodline (in the logic of the blood feud). Meanwhile limited confiscation is often in function of the crime, the rationale being that the criminal must be denied the fruits of their fault, while the crime itself is rather punished in some other, independent way, such as physical punishments or even a concurring fine.

    Such rich prizes often proved too much temptation for the authorities to refrain from abuse out of greed, especially when taxation was relatively low-yielding, not permanent (often requiring assent from estates etc. at a political cost) and aroused far more resistance than ‘making criminals pay’.

    Often, police will auction confiscated items, and the profits will often go to charities. Theoretically, it is possible for owners to buy back confiscated items.

    In airports, potentially dangerous items (such as hazardous chemicals, weapons, and sharp objects) are usually confiscated at inspections. Other items, such as certain food, may also be confiscated, depending on importation laws. Depending on the nature of the items, some may be returned at the end of the flight, while most are discarded or auctioned off. However, customs officers have a disreputable reputation, exercising arbitrary power. The musical comedian Anna Russell had an Irish harp confiscated by the U.S. Customs Service.

    Originally, in Roman law, it was the seizure and transfer of private property to the fiscus by the emperor; hence the appropriation, under legal authority, of private property to the state.

    In modern, e.g. English law, the term embraces forfeiture in the case of goods, and escheat in the case of lands, for crime or in default of heirs (see also Eminent Domain). Goods may also be confiscated by the state for breaches of statutes relating to customs, excise or explosives.

    In the United States among the “war measures” during the American Civil War, acts were passed in 1861 and 1862 confiscating, respectively, property used for “insurrectionary purposes” and the property generally of those engaged in rebellion.

    For legal confiscation in the United States, see search and seizure.

    National sovereignty
    Most nations hold the power to protect themselves and police their own territory as a fundamental power vested by sovereignty. However, this power can be lost under certain circumstances: some Countries have been forced to disarm by other Countries, upon losing a war, or by having arms embargos or sanctions placed on them. Likewise, nations that violate international arms control agreements, even if claiming to be acting within the scope of their national sovereignty, may find themselves with a range of penalties or sanctions regarding firearms placed on them by other nations.
    [edit]

    Enforcement

    National and regional police and security services enforce their own gun regulations. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) supports the United States’ International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) program “to aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to commit acts of international terrorism, to subvert restrictions imposed by other nations on their residents, and to further organized crime and narcotics-related activities.[2]

    United States
    Main article: Gun politics in the United States

    The issue of firearms has, at times, taken a high-profile position in United States culture and politics.[45] Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director/Field Operations of ATF, estimates that 5,000 gun shows take place each year in the United States.[46] Incidents of gun violence in ‘gun-free’ school zones have ignited debate[47] involving gun politics in the United States.

    Support for gun control in America has been steadily dropping. Currently, the American public strongly opposes attempts to ban gun ownership, and is divided on attempts to limit gun ownership. A 2008 Gallup poll revealed that 28% of the population supported a total ban on handguns — the lowest level since the poll was first taken in 1959 (when support for a total ban was 60% of the population). This same poll revealed that 49% of Americans in 2008 preferred more restrictive gun laws, compared to 78% when the question was first asked in the 1990 version of the poll.[48] A 2009 CNN poll found even lower levels of support for gun laws: in this poll, only 39% favored more restrictive laws. The poll indicates that the drop in support (compared to 2001 polls) came from self-identified Independents, with levels of opposition among Democrats and Republicans remaining consistent.[49]

    There is a sharp divide between gun-rights proponents[50] and gun-control proponents.[51] This leads to intense political debate over the effectiveness of firearm regulation.[52]

    On the whole, Democrats are far more likely to support “stricter” gun control than are Republicans. According to a 2010 Harris Interactive survey, a 70% to 7% majority of Democrats favors “stricter” rather than “less strict” gun control, whereas Republicans are split 22% “stricter” to 42% “less strict” with 27% of Republicans and 14% of Democrats opting for “neither”.[53]

    The division of beliefs may be attributable to the fact that Republicans are more likely to own guns, according to General Social Surveys conducted during the last 35 years. The graphs, below, show that gun ownership has generally declined; however, Republicans — especially men — are far more likely to own “guns or revolvers.”[54]

    More recently in a 2008 survey completed by Gallup, there are large differences between Republicans and Democrats on the issues of gun ownership and control:[55] •More than half of Republicans report having a gun in their homes, while only about a third of Democrats report this. •Two in three Republicans say they are satisfied with the nation’s laws or policies on guns. This percentage is much lower among Democrats, at 37%. •The strong majority of Democrats feel that gun laws in the United States should be stricter, while only about 4 in 10 Republicans feel this way. Forty-eight percent of Republicans feel gun laws should remain as they are at the present time.
    Fig 44 – Do you have guns in your home – Men.JPG
    Fig 45 – Do you have guns in your home – Women.JPG

    Incidents of gun violence and self-defense have routinely ignited bitter debate. 12,632 murders were committed using firearms and 613 persons were killed unintentionally in 2007[56]. Surveys have suggested that guns are used in crime deterrence or prevention around 2.5 million times a year in the United States.[57][58][59][60] The American Journal of Public Health conducted a study that concluded “the United States has higher rates of firearm ownership than do other developed nations, and higher rates of homicide. Of the 233,251 people who were homicide victims in the United States between 1988 and 1997, 68% were killed with guns, of which the large majority were handguns.”[61] The ATF estimated in 1995 that the number of firearms available in the US was 223 million.[62]

    Some perceive that firearms registration– by making it easier for Federal agents to target gun owners for harassment and confiscation– constitutes an easily exploited encroachment upon individual personal privacy and property rights.[63][64][65][66]

    In contrast, in a 2008 brief submitted to the United State Supreme Court, the Department of Justice advocated that reasonable regulation of weaponry has always been allowed by the Second Amendment in the interests of public safety.[67] In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to own and possess handguns in a home for self-defense. See below.

    Fully-automatic firearms are legal in most states, but have requirements for registration and restriction under federal law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 required approval of the local police chief, federally registered fingerprints, federal background check and the payment of a $200 tax for initial registration and for each transfer.[68] The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited imports of all nonsporting firearms and created several new categories of restricted firearms. A provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 prohibited further registry of machine guns manufactured after it took effect.[69]

    The result has been a massive rise in the price of machine-guns available for private ownership, as an increased demand chases the fixed, pre-1986 supply. For example, the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine-gun, which may be sold to law enforcement for about $1,000,[70] costs a private citizen about $20,000.[71] This price difference dwarfs the $200 tax stamp.

    Political scientist Earl R. Kruschke states, regarding the fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, that “approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime.”[72]
    [edit]

    District of Columbia v Heller
    Main article: District of Columbia v. Heller

    On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that American citizens have an individual right to own guns, as defined by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. In District of Columbia v. Heller,[73] the Court stated that an absolute firearm ban was unconstitutional.[74] The Court further determined that its decision in Heller does not impinge upon all existing statutes and regulations, such as those that prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning or possessing firearms.[75

    ]

    Hope this answers some of your questions and gives you some good places to read more detailed answers. To date, it appears, llke I said, the U.N. is not actively attempting to publicize all details of the treaty!

    Reply

  4. Josh said

    January 27, 2011 at 18:42

    So what exactly does the Small Arms Treaty say? How will they confiscate private citizens guns?

    Reply

Leave a comment

«
»