Obama Green Lights UN Gun Grab Hours after Election

[BucEyedPea]

Reuters

Just hours after he was reelected U.N. arms treaty is backed. Looks like he really is going to govern like Allende still.

"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."

"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."

"Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in support of the resolution."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...21107?irpc=932

[banyon]

Great retort. Brilliant.

How much effort does it take to perpetually hold your hands over your ears when anyone points out anything that threatens the house of cards you've built for yourself?

[DrunkBassGuitar]

Originally Posted by Bowser

So will they go door to door collecting guns, or where there be a neighborhood dropoff point? Will we be expected to give up our firearms on an honor system, or will there be a questionaire sent in the mail?

Hopefully it's a questionaire and not phone calls at all hours. Those are annoying.

They're going to go door to door and take them away so they can be melted down in to Participation Trophies for when Obama turns the NFL into a flag football league.

[La literatura]

Nov. 11, 2012: Veteran's Day.

Twitter is ablaze with stories of Federal Agents seizing guns at people's homes tonight, using an Executive Order warrant signed by Obama, Eric Holder, and Ban Ki-moon. Over 4000 incidents being reported by some bloggers. Around 80% of reported incidents occurring in red states.

[DaFace]

Obama's gonna take everyone's guns. Texas is seceding. Just another day in the DC forum.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Obama's gonna take everyone's guns. Texas is seceding. Just another day in the DC forum.

I am not saying he will wind up doing that—he's gonna put it under the UN though, if he can. Otherwise, why would he back this and wait until after the election. We don't need another UN treaty to erode sovereignty.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I am not saying he will wind up doing that—he's gonna put it under the UN though, if he can. Otherwise, why would he back this and wait until after the election. We don't need another UN treaty to erode sovereignty.

There are countless examples in this thread why Obama can't put the US under UN control. You just are choosing to ignore them. Wish leads to the second part of your statement. He choose to wait until after the election because he didn't wish to risk the potential backlash caused from others like you: people who think this is going to be a UN gun grab.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I am not saying he will wind up doing that—he's gonna put it under the UN though, if he can. Otherwise, why would he back this and wait until after the election. We don't need another UN treaty to erode sovereignty.

You realize you're a bit of a nut job, right?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by DaFace

You realize you're a bit of a nut job, right?

Now explain to me why you don't think this won't erode US sovereignty nor affect gun ownership.
Why are gun enthusiasts and sites protesting this while also stocking up?
I think being suspicious of such moves is healthy. I don't take freedom for granted.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Now explain to me why you don't think this won't erode US sovereignty nor affect gun ownership.
Why are gun enthusiasts and sites protesting this while also stocking up?

You're not the only one.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by DaFace

You're not the only one.

Well, it's just your opinion. I don't think you're informed about what's going on with global governance especially with the kind of people in the UN.

I guess Investors Business Daily are "nuts" too.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...l-gun-grab.htm

[BucEyedPea]

Second Amendment: Within hours of re-election, the administration fast-tracked a treaty in the United Nations that transcends borders and tramples our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It was no coincidence.

Less than 24 hours after President Obama's re-election, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations helped move the U.N.'s Arms Control Treaty a step closer to enactment. America joined 157 other nations in voting Wednesday to finalize the treaty in March. None was opposed and there were 18 abstentions.

U.N. delegates and gun-control activists had complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as openly supporting the pact. But once the election was over, the Obama administration had more flexibility to pull the trigger on supporting the pact.

The Obama administration, which reversed long-standing U.S. opposition to the treaty in 2009, says the treaty does not threaten our Second Amendment rights and applies only to international arms trade. But its record of opposition to private gun ownership and its deference to international bodies and their authority give us pause. [ What you're not looking at daFace.

So does a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms. It notes that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and demands that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would ... minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."

Is an American defending his home against intruders just such a "misuse"?

Even if the treaty applied only to transfers of small arms between nations, would that mean restrictions on our ability to aid allies such as Israel and Taiwan? Would we be forbidden from supporting resistance movements around the world that rise up against the very dictators who support this treaty?

The treaty establishes a bizarre moral equivalence between countries that trade arms to defend freedom and those that do so to suppress and extinguish it.

The U.S. is one of the few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government. They were guns owned by civilians that freed us from British tyranny. The fact that tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human-rights violators want to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz2By3Y2bBh

Wake up! This is a BAD idea! Obama is a liar. He said Obamacare was going to be revenue neutral. How'd that turn out?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by DaFace

You're not the only one.

So can you explain why this is not a bad idea thus making it "nuts" to post?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, it's just your opinion. I don't think you're informed about what's going on with global governance especially with the kind of people in the UN.

I don't think you know any one person who is regularly or even occasionally involved with the UN.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

So can you explain why this is not a bad idea thus making it "nuts" to post?

Na, there's no point. Based on only really hanging around in here for two weeks, it's clear that you (and many others) are more about sensationalism and overreaction than reasonable debate.

[La literatura]

The treaty basics were written in 2001, so by "long-standing U.S. opposition" they essentially mean "opposition under the Bush Administration"