>
Board Index Miscellany Legal & Political

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms tr

Get informed and debate about civil rights and legal issues such as concealed carry, self-defense, and gun control.

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms tr

Postby tigwelder56 » Tue May 18, 2010 9:18 pm

This was brought to my attention by one of our Moderators, Lotsip81. This was released in October but like everything else this marxist administration has done, this conveniently missed the airwaves. Another example of the liberal media failing to do their job. They are doing their damnedest to dumb down America, so the idiots in Washington DC can sucker punch us one more time. Phuque them! Here's the article:



(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.



U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."



"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.



While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.



"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.



However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."



"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.



The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.



Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.



Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.



The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.



Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.



The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.



The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.



A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
NRA Life Member GOA Member
NAGR Member DAV Life Member Oathkeepers Member
Help Save America, have your liberal spayed or neutered!

Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is one well armed sheep contesting the vote! --The Sheep
User avatar
tigwelder56
 
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:24 pm
Location: Southwest Florida

Postby GOANRA » Wed May 19, 2010 11:57 am

We seriously need to get OUT of the U.N & the IMF and run our own country after putting good Americans in office.



Just saw this:



The Charlotte Observer (N.C.)

Posted: 5/17/2010 9:27:50 AM



"A spirited and self deprecating Sarah Palin fired up members of the National Rifle Association in Charlotte on Friday, bashing Hollywood, the media and animal rights groups while warning that President Barack Obama would "gut" the Second Amendment..."



I like her & Jan, the Gov of Arizona. Good Americans and they both have more grapes than Barak Hussein the Kenyan.
NRA Lifer
GOA member
Retired LEO
Μολὼν λαβέ
If gun laws worked; criminals would obey them.
Join the NRA here: http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg
User avatar
GOANRA
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:14 pm
Location: The Heartland

Postby tigwelder56 » Wed May 19, 2010 1:28 pm

The time has come for everyone to decide which side of the fence they'll be on after the marxist regime decides to enforce their draconian set of laws on the democratic citizens of the USA. When will the people that swore to defend our Constituion, do so? Here is the oath that has been administered to the military since the Civil War era:



"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God"



Whenever we see the type of discord and disagreement between any other government and their citizens or an opposing group, they call it a "Coup" or attempt at it. Whenever the USA is asked to assist in controlling a coup, we always support the group that defends democracy and the democratic will of the people. What the hell are we supposed to do when our own government becomes the marxist aggressor? When do the people that took that oath, realize that the time has come to fight back? I say that time has come...
NRA Life Member GOA Member
NAGR Member DAV Life Member Oathkeepers Member
Help Save America, have your liberal spayed or neutered!

Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is one well armed sheep contesting the vote! --The Sheep
User avatar
tigwelder56
 
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:24 pm
Location: Southwest Florida

Postby GOANRA » Thu May 20, 2010 1:57 pm

In 2008, the USSC overturned DC's gun ban as it was unconstitutional. The 2nd Amend became an "Individual Right". That decision was passed by a 5-4 margin.



D.C. is still ignoring it, unlawfully, and depriving the Washington D.C citizens of a right 'endowed by their Creator' and 'inalienable' 'individual right'.



Today, we have Barak Hussein's USSC nominee, Kagan, who displays Strong Internationalist Sympathies and is definately Anti-Second Amendment needs to be stopped.

I have contacted my House & Senate Reps to Fillibuster her confirmation. [I hope everyone else has done the same]

Donations can also be made towards this effort.
NRA Lifer
GOA member
Retired LEO
Μολὼν λαβέ
If gun laws worked; criminals would obey them.
Join the NRA here: http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg
User avatar
GOANRA
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:14 pm
Location: The Heartland


Return to Legal & Political

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

cron