Right Wing E-Mail on Obama and guns

[B Calm]

Fw: VERY, VERY SERIOUS WARNING !

VERY, VERY SERIOUS WARNING





While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.



OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT

AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR


On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a

Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States


On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.


Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!

THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.

As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Here


Click on the link below for further acknowledgement…..

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015




Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed. This is a very serious matter! Silence will lead us to Socialism!!!

[rurallib]

1. Was it during the Clinton or Carter admin I first saw this

I do remember a variation of it during the Kennedy years. I was still a kid. It was the work of the John Birch Society back then.
Always it's the Dems handing the keys to the UN that then takes the guns.
And it is always that damned communist Sec'y of State doing the dirty work. Oh, Dean Rusk, how could you do this???

[DonP]

2. The NRA debunked that story

From the NRA web site ...

<snip>
Friday, May 28, 2010

We continue to receive numerous inquiries regarding UN international treaties, and their impact on our Second Amendment rights. The latest rumor making its way around the Internet claims that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually signed a UN small arms treaty.

Contrary to this widely circulated e-mail, Hillary Clinton has not signed any small arms treaty. She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.

As we noted in an update from last November, the UN Arms Trade Treaty will be drafted between now and 2012, and even if signed, would not take effect in the U.S. until it was ratified by the Senate.
<snip>

So, if even the NRA says it's BS, you gotta wonder what kind of idiot is passing it around as if it's true? Besides the Secretary of State and the President can not enter into a binding treaty with out the consent of the Congress to ratify it. Civics 101 should have taught you that. What do you think the odds are of the congress, that has loosened gun restrictions in the US with 48 states allowing concealed carry, ratifying a treaty that China and Russia, two of the biggest exporters of small arms on the planet refuse to sign, are?

Even the link you posted refers to "ongoing negotiations in 2010 and 2011".

Fer cryan out loud, at least check your own references before posting this kind of tinfoil hat crap.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Is there no end to the paranoia?

Ooooh, the boogeyman is gonna getcha.

[east texas lib]

4. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:
:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[jazzhound]

5. Ironic that this hysteria was posted by a member with the moniker

B Calm!

[Euromutt]

6. Whoever wrote this bilge needs a remedial civics class or three

First, the signature of a member of the executive branch of government on an international treaty is not legally binding unless and until it is ratified by Congress.

Second, a treaty cannot override the Constitution; with the SCOTUS already being on record as stating that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and with another ruling in the pipeline that will probably also make it binding on state and local government, this is not something that can be overturned by an international treaty.

Third, the UN Programme pertains to the illicit trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons; essentially, the running of guns to organized criminals, terrorists, and the like. Yes, unfortunately, that header can also cover legitimate resistance movements, but bluntly, those are few and far between. Most rebel armies in Africa or Latin America have, for all practical purposes, hands that no cleaner (or not much, anyway) than those of the governments they're fighting. It has been explicitly stated that the purpose of the Programme of Action is not, repeat not to hamper private citizens from possessing firearms in accordance with the laws of their countries of residence.

This is complete bilge, filled with falsehoods that are at best the result of willful ignorance, and at worst the result of outright mendacity. The PoA will affect Chinese arms manufacturers more than it will American citizens.

[one-eyed fat man]

7. The illicit trade in military armaments

Much of the trade in illicit arms is done by governments and government run factories in countries looking for hard currency. In the past that included a lot of the old Warsaw Pact countries, China and North Korea. Most arms shipments require an 'end user statement' which is supposed to let the seller know that the buyer is a 'legitimate buyer' e.g. another government, international agency, corporation etc. In reality, many places it only has to look official.

In most countries, end user statements are required for licenses to make certain exports, not only of weapons, but of dual use technologies. A suit, a letterhead, a suitcase full of cash and the North Koreans will sell you all the shipping containers full of rocket propelled grenades you want.

There are plenty of tin-horn dictators and rebel factions in Africa who have diamonds, ivory, or oil and a willingness to plunder the local populations while not fighting each other to keep arsenals in Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc, churning out AK's and Dubai, the Philippines, or Singapore the ammo for them.

[Euromutt]

12. You are entirely correct

The only quibble I had reading your post was that I went "what do you mean, 'in the past'?"

There are, as you say, quite a number of countries with arms manufacturing industries who aren't overly concerned about who they sell weapons to; China, North Korea, various Balkan countries, France...

By way of example: until it was spun off, the only part of the formerly-Yugoslav-now-Serbian Zastava conglomerate that wasn't losing money (indeed, was making a profit) was the euphemistically named "Special Products" division (read: weapons and ammunition). There are no industrialized nations buying Yugoslav military-grade weaponry (as opposed to semi-auto-only M70 AK-knockoffs and bolt-action .22s, which of course sell pretty well over here), so their output has got to be going to the developing world. Ditto for Chinese-made small arms.

One thing that did honk me off on the UN's page about the 2006 conference (http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/) is Michael Douglas saying "Wherever arms flow, violence follows." It's the old magical thinking that merely picking up a gun turns an otherwise friendly and compassionate human being into a ruthless killer. The illicit arms trade, both domestically and internationally, is demand-driven; people who do bad things with guns (or any other kind of arms) got the weapons because they wanted to do bad things, not vice-versa.

[Walk away]

8. I like the part where the horror of being forced to receive health care is the first step to...

WAR!!!!

I think we should load as many guns into the red states as possible (they would love it), let out the sane people, close the borders and wait. No wars necessary.

[DonP]

9. Already happened

Gun sales in all the states have been at record levels for over 2 years. The result, according to the FBI two weeks ago, is the lowest crime rate in over 25 years, for 2 or 3 years in a row.

I guess the 22,000 current laws, combined with the law abiding and "sane" being allowed to own and even carry in 48 states, actually results in lower crime, not violence.

But some folks can always hope for a bloodbath.

[safeinOhio]

10. See law of deminishing returns.

Very important rule in economics. So, the sale of more guns does not mean even less crime. It could, in fact, lead to higher crime rates. I still don't like people using the logic that there is a definite correlation to the number of guns and crime. If at any time in the future, crime goes up, their argument is toast and will be turned against them.

I would think a better argument would be that the fewer people that are criminals, hot heads, terrorist and insane that have guns, the lower crime will be. That in no way interferes with the right to own guns by those that meet the current laws on who may and may not own or posses guns.

[jazzhound]

11. I believe that you may have misinterpreted Don P's post.

His statement in no way asserts a correlation between the increase in the firearm supply and the decrease in violent crime.

Rather, I believe he was pointing out to the previous poster that the increase in the gun supply did not result in an increase in (violent) crime --- which is what that poster was suggesting was axiomatic.

Perhaps he does prescribe to John Lott's thesis, perhaps not.