pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157-0
#1
in favor of Resolution L.11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news...n-flimflam

I know this has come up in the past but I wanted to highlight some of the REALLY REALLY troubling parts....not that the whole damn thig is utter caca PLEASE read the whole article at the link...but if you can not, at least read ALL of the info in this post.

PLEASE try to understand what our gov't is signing on to. WILL our elected rep's have the nerve or ability to stop this from happening???

WILL WE???


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Quote:On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157-0 (with 18 abstentions) in favor of Resolution L.11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.

China, the United Kingdom, and Germany all voted to move the historic measure toward passage.

As we have reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.

Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.

Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.


.....The U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations..


Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,”

consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”

Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.

.......This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”

Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.


In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of this ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms.....

The UN’s effort to collect ammo from those they wish to oppress (a disarmed society is a slave society) is nothing new. The “shot heard 'round the world” on Lexington Green in 1775 was fired because British troops planned to seize the ammunition stockpile stored outside of Lexington.

Perhaps our reporting on the president’s late-night call putting the wheels of global gun control in motion will awaken modern Americans to the threat to our sacred Second Amendment rights. After all, it was a late night call that roused sleepy colonists in defense of their right to bear arms, as well. This time, however, it is not the British who are coming for our guns and ammunition, but it is the United Nations and agents of our own federal government.
Ladies of the Second Amendment

"I regard giving as necessary to right the balance" Hu Chung

http://appleseedusa.org/



Reply
#2
"Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11."

Proof?

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#3
ENOUGH WITH THE RUN ON THEAD TITLES ALREADY!!!

It makes it a pain in the ass to respond to the thread.
Reply
#4
JustinHEMI;46254 Wrote:"Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11."

Proof?

Justin


I will start to add links which I hope will add a second source to some of the statements made in this article.


Quote:In a historic vote at the UN General Assembly First Committee on November 7, member states passed Resolution L.11 in favor of finalizing the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/746406.shtml

http://www.iansa.org/news/2012/11/un-dip...r-march-in
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Quote:That didn’t take long. Less than a day after President Obama’s re-election, the administration breathed new life into the United Nations‘ previously comatose treaty regulating guns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012...as-agenda/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[quote]The Final Arms Trade Treaty Diplomatic Conference
On 7 November 2012, the First Committee of the UN General Assembly voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/67/L.11 , which called for the ‘Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty’ to be convened in New York on 18–28 March 2013 to ‘finalize the elaboration of the Arms Trade Treaty’. In separate votes on the decision to hold the conference during those dates, and to negotiate on the basis of the July 2012 draft text, Iran alone voted against. This new conference will negotiate on the basis of the draft treaty text submitted by the President of the July 2012 UN Diplomatic Conference (doc. A/CONF.217/CRP.1 ). The resolution as a whole was adopted by 157 votes to nil with 18 abstentions, and is (almost) certain to be passed by the plenary of the Assembly in December.
http://armstradetreaty.blogspot.com/



It could be that our UN rep voted for this on their own, without the Pres's approvalShrug
Ladies of the Second Amendment

"I regard giving as necessary to right the balance" Hu Chung

http://appleseedusa.org/



Reply
#5
So no, you couldn't prove the statement I quoted.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#6
JustinHEMI;46391 Wrote:So no, you couldn't prove the statement I quoted.

Justin

WHO would have approved this vote? You are CORRECT, I do not have his admission to it. NOW, can you tell me who our UN rep answers to?
Ladies of the Second Amendment

"I regard giving as necessary to right the balance" Hu Chung

http://appleseedusa.org/



Reply
#7
Point is, your sources have no credibility because they make shit up.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#8
JustinHEMI;46403 Wrote:Point is, your sources have no credibility because they make shit up.

Justin

Then I guess Reuters makes shit up too. We talked about this on 11/8. You must have missed it.
[Image: member955.png]
USAF (1976 -1986) NRA, GOA Anim_sniper2
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living." Dan Cofall
Reply
#9
JustinHEMI;46403 Wrote:Point is, your sources have no credibility because they make shit up.

Justin
AND I am waiting for you to tell me who our UN ambassador takes orders from...who has the final say on how they vote?
Ladies of the Second Amendment

"I regard giving as necessary to right the balance" Hu Chung

http://appleseedusa.org/



Reply
#10
billamj;46413 Wrote:
JustinHEMI;46403 Wrote:Point is, your sources have no credibility because they make shit up.

Justin

Then I guess Reuters makes shit up too. We talked about this on 11/8. You must have missed it.


That has nothing to do with what my bitch is. My complaint is that his source made a statement of fact, that was totally made up.

So what? They're going to talk again. I see nothing to get "all up in arms" about.

However, that isn't my point.

Here's what actually happened.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/g...71.doc.htm

Justin

Publican;46414 Wrote:
JustinHEMI;46403 Wrote:Point is, your sources have no credibility because they make shit up.

Justin
AND I am waiting for you to tell me who our UN ambassador takes orders from...who has the final say on how they vote?

Irrelevant. Your sources are making shit up to stir people into a frenzy. What it claims happened, didn't, period.

Did you ever even read this "treaty," or the Constitution for that matter?

Just curious, because without really understand what's in either, there is nothing to debate here, since your source totally made something up and stated it as fact.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  NJ Gun Owner Told The Senate Committee To Arrest Him middlefinger 1 610 05-10-2014, 01:03 PM
Last Post: das
  Gun Control Groups Faulted as Surgeon General Nomination Falters middlefinger 4 946 03-23-2014, 09:03 AM
Last Post: halftrack
  Obama Nominee For Surgeon General Says Banning Guns Is Part of Medicine… middlefinger 22 2,678 03-12-2014, 06:08 PM
Last Post: Ten*K
  LaPierre: The United Nation’s treacherous assault on our freedom das 0 556 10-10-2013, 01:56 AM
Last Post: das
  Citizens Committee for the Right to Bear Arms Backs New Gun Law dc dalton 7 975 04-15-2013, 12:31 PM
Last Post: D10



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.