Obama green lights UN gun grab!!

[Guest cruisemissile]

[color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
A [url="http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/gun-sales-soar-after-president-obamas-re-election-similar-spike-seen-in-2008"]story ran on the Oklahoma City NBC news affiliate[/url] on Wednesday reporting that “sporting goods stores in the Sooner state are seeing a spike in gun sales following President Barack Obama's re-election.”[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[url="http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-11/justice/obama.gun.sales_1_gun-shop-brady-campaign-gun-owner?_s=PM:CRIME"]Similar reports[/url] ran nationwide after the president was elected the first time in 2008. [/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
While many accused those making a run on gun stores of reacting rashly, there may be some wisdom in this latest sales spike.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[url="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107?irpc=932"]Reuters reports[/url] that within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama ordered the U.S. United Nations delegation to vote in favor of a UN proposal to fast track an international gun control treaty.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Immediately the word went out that the United States was going to play ball (after having scuttled the last round of talks on the Arms Trade Treaty in July), and a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[url="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/gadis3471.doc.htm"]A press release was sent out[/url] early Wednesday morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference:[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the Conference’s president on 26 July would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text. The Committee approved the resolution as a whole by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to none against, with 18 abstentions.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
No member, not even the United States, opposed the convening of a “Final United Nations Conference” for the establishment of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
In July, [url="http://moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ContentRecord_id=2b02a67f-2179-41fc-be55-3502163c8510"]51 senators sent a letter to President Obama[/url] and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an [url="http://www.un.org/disarmament/"]Office for Disarmament Affairs[/url]. An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, [url="http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/196961.htm"]proudly announced[/url] would be moving from Geneva to New York City.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
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.”[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Particulars of the proposed treaty are set out on the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs website. Information presented there reveals that the international government-in-waiting wants to start by taking away weapons from “insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, and terrorists.” [/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Again, key definitions are left out of the document and others inexplicably and inexcusably ill-defined. Within the penumbras of these cleverly crafted provisions are found lurking the tools of tyranny. Wrenches that one day could force anyone branded as an enemy into a predetermined “terrorist” slot.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
The effort at eradication of private gun ownership is more insidious than it appears, however. On page 25 of the [url="http://www.wfsa.net/pdf/UnReport.pdf"]1997 UN Secretary General’s Report[/url] on Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening Legal Institutions Measure to Regulate Firearms (of which the United States was a signatory) a part of the regulations that we agreed to impose is a psychological test before one is allowed to purchase ammunition.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Apparently, the UN recognizes that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
How does the ATT (and [url="http://www.poa-iss.org/poa/poahtml.aspx"]the Programme of Action[/url] that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
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.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
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.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
This brings to mind the imminent deployment by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of [url="http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/12090-dhs-to-deploy-new-scanners-that-secretly-search-from-50-yards-away"]portable invisible lasers developed by Genia Laboratories[/url] (a company created by CIA offshoot In-Q-Tel) that can detect even trace amounts of gun powder from over 50 yards away. The laser reportedly can penetrate walls, glass, and metal. DHS is scheduled to take possession of the devices later this month, according to [url="http://www.dhs.gov/news/2011/11/16/testimony-honorable-tara-otoole-md-mph-under-secretary-science-and-technology-us"]testimony presented on Capitol Hill late last year[/url].[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
History is instructive on this point as one recalls that the “shot heard ‘round the world” on Lexington Green was fired because King George sent British troops to seize the ammunition stockpile stored outside of Lexington.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
A late night call from newly reelected President Obama to the UN has awakened Americans’ opposition to this latest attempt to abrogate the rights protected by the Second Amendment. It was a different 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 representatives of our own federal government.[/size][/font][/color]

[Guest MilitiaMan]

Great post. Thank you.

[Guest cruisemissile]

[quote name='MilitiaMan' timestamp='1352584226' post='843289']
Great post. Thank you.
[/quote]

No problem! Everybody who has doubts about what's coming needs to read this!

[Seabeejason]

Awesome. This just went straight to my Facebook.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess it's getting close to even, strickj.

[Ebow1]

I knew I should've bought that belt fed .308 instead of planned for the future.

[Hershmeister]

Wouldn't it be easier to ban eye patches and hooks if they really want to go after all those pirates?

[personDJ]

The UN will never try to take guns from americans. Never.

[SonnyCrockett]

Let me know when they are coming for our guns
right now I think its NRA horse#### and propaganda

[Dolomite_supafly]

I wonder if they are going to wear the blue helmets? They are really easy to see from a distance.

What ever organization is tasked with the actual search and seizure will likely sustain substantial losses. But the majority of gun owners will turn their guns in without question and of those who do the majority will do it without receiving any money because of the fear of jail time.

The biggest threat to those who decide to keep their guns is not going to be those who are coming to grab them. It will be the fellow gun owner who already turned in his guns.

But before all this happens they are going to make shooting guns so expensive or bothersome that most will see guns as a useless tool. This will soften the resolve of a lot of gun owners. We have already seen it with the new regulations regarding surplus powders, bullets and cases that are no longer being sold to the public. Add the additional costs for dealers that must be passed on to the consumer makes it more expensive to reload.

We have already seen a doubling of ammo prices in 5 years. Imagine what is going to happen in the next 5. A ban on lead ammo is going to be tried and might actually win this time around following California's recent success with this. And this will make ammunition too expensive for the comapnies to produce for civillian sales so companies will just stop making ammunition intended for civillians. Those companies will still supply ammo to the government to sustain themselves though. Maybe this is why the recent ban on selling components to civillians, to soften up the manufacturers and to force companies to abide by the the government's wishes if they want to remain in business.

Dolomite

[TripleDigitRide]

In related news, tin foil is flying off the shelves.

[Wingshooter]

As I read these kinds of reports, all I can think of is how quick obama was during the second debate to say he would sign a ban if it was brought to him. He almost seemed proud to say it, and there is no question that he will explore all avenues to restrict our freedoms. He will not stand in the UN's way if they want to do his dirty work.

[Dolomite_supafly]

[quote name='TripleDigitRide' timestamp='1352641981' post='843669']
In related news, tin foil is flying off the shelves.
[/quote]

I bet everyone in the US said the same thing in 1994 right before the AWB then. And that AWB took away gun rights. Or what about California where the laws are strict and they are likely going to be the example they use because it is Feinstein who is pushing for the nationwide ban.

Not long after the DC shooting there was a bill introduced that sought to outlaw "sniper rifles". That law stated that any make of gun capable of shooting a group under 3" at 100 yards would be outlawed as it was considered a sniper rifle.

Also, there have been quite a few bills introduced seeking to tax ammunition to a point that no one could afford it. In parts of Illinois, where Obama hails from, there is a .05 per bullet tax.

All it takes is one time for a bill to pass and it is done. How often do we hear of a bill or law being repealed? Never. All they need to do is fight for a bill or law to be passed once yet we have to fight every single time. Eventually they will sneak one by and that will be the end just like th 1986 ban on the sale of new MG's to civillians. By all accounts it did not pass the voice vote but Charlie Rangel, yes the same one investigated for ethics violations, declared it passed because he was the speaker of the house at the time.

I am not wearing tinfoil to think the Democrats are going to use any tool or excuse they can to outlaw our guns. Be it through UN resolution, passing laws, regulations or executive order I can see him trying something big before he leaves office that will affect gun ownership. To think anything different is a bit naive. Gun owners are under attack, or at a minimum not being supported, by all those who voted for Obama. And that is very close to being the majority of the nation now.

I do not believe we will loose our guns because of a UN resolution we, as a nation, sign but signing it will be the impetus for our governemnt to pass laws to fall in line with what is in the UN resolution. The "blue helmets" are not going to come here to take our guns.

Dolomite

[TripleDigitRide]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1352644435' post='843687']

I bet everyone in the US said the same thing in 1994 right before the AWB then. And that AWB took away gun rights. Or what about California where the laws are strict and they are likely going to be the example they use because it is Feinstein who is pushing for the nationwide ban.

Not long after the DC shooting there was a bill introduced that sought to outlaw "sniper rifles". That law stated that any make of gun capable of shooting a group under 3" at 100 yards would be outlawed as it was considered a sniper rifle.

Also, there have been quite a few bills introduced seeking to tax ammunition to a point that no one could afford it. In parts of Illinois, where Obama hails from, there is a .05 per bullet tax.

All it takes is one time for a bill to pass and it is done. How often do we hear of a bill or law being repealed? Never. All they need to do is fight for a bill or law to be passed once yet we have to fight every single time. Eventually they will sneak one by and that will be the end just like th 1986 ban on the sale of new MG's to civillians. By all accounts it did not pass the voice vote but Charlie Rangel, yes the same one investigated for ethics violations, declared it passed because he was the speaker of the house at the time.

I am not wearing tinfoil to think the Democrats are going to use any tool or excuse they can to outlaw our guns. Be it through UN resolution, passing laws, regulations or executive order I can see him trying something big before he leaves office that will affect gun ownership. To think anything different is a bit naive. Gun owners are under attack, or at a minimum not being supported, by all those who voted for Obama. And that is very close to being the majority of the nation now.

I do not believe we will loose our guns because of a UN resolution we, as a nation, sign but signing it will be the impetus for our governemnt to pass laws to fall in line with what is in the UN resolution. The "blue helmets" are not going to come here to take our guns.

Dolomite[/quote]

I'm not doubting the very real possibility that we see another AWB and/or ban of high-capacity magazines, but all this talk as if someone is going to come and take all of our guns away is ludacris. Even if we do see an AWB, I doubt it will have anything to do with the UN. Clinton didn't need the assistance of the UN, and neither will Obama.

The last AWB didn't force American citizens to hand over their guns, and I highly doubt a possible future AWB will be any different.

[SonnyCrockett]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1352644435' post='843687']
I bet everyone in the US said the same thing in 1994 right before the AWB then. And that AWB took away gun rights. Or what about California where the laws are strict and they are likely going to be the example they use because it is Feinstein who is pushing for the nationwide ban.

Not long after the DC shooting there was a bill introduced that sought to outlaw "sniper rifles". That law stated that any make of gun capable of shooting a group under 3" at 100 yards would be outlawed as it was considered a sniper rifle.

Also, there have been quite a few bills introduced seeking to tax ammunition to a point that no one could afford it. In parts of Illinois, where Obama hails from, there is a .05 per bullet tax.

All it takes is one time for a bill to pass and it is done. How often do we hear of a bill or law being repealed? Never. All they need to do is fight for a bill or law to be passed once yet we have to fight every single time. Eventually they will sneak one by and that will be the end just like th 1986 ban on the sale of new MG's to civillians. By all accounts it did not pass the voice vote but Charlie Rangel, yes the same one investigated for ethics violations, declared it passed because he was the speaker of the house at the time.

I am not wearing tinfoil to think the Democrats are going to use any tool or excuse they can to outlaw our guns. Be it through UN resolution, passing laws, regulations or executive order I can see him trying something big before he leaves office that will affect gun ownership. To think anything different is a bit naive. Gun owners are under attack, or at a minimum not being supported, by all those who voted for Obama. And that is very close to being the majority of the nation now.

I do not believe we will loose our guns because of a UN resolution we, as a nation, sign but signing it will be the impetus for our governemnt to pass laws to fall in line with what is in the UN resolution. The "blue helmets" are not going to come here to take our guns.

Dolomite
[/quote]

Everytime I hear Obama speak about guns he says nothing about taking guns but on the contrary
just the opposite , he is in favor of second amendment rights and has said repeatedly he is OK with guns
That does not mean he is not doing any crazy stuff behind the scenes and is a total liar but thats what I have seen
the man say . California is trying to make America be like itself,broke,liberal veggie burger eating potheads ,makes no scense

[JohnC]

[quote name='SonnyCrockett' timestamp='1352655314' post='843798']


Everytime I hear Obama speak about guns he says nothing about taking guns but on the contrary
just the opposite , he is in favor of second amendment rights and has said repeatedly he is OK with guns
That does not mean he is not doing any crazy stuff behind the scenes and is a total liar but thats what I have seen
the man say . California is trying to make America be like itself,broke,liberal veggie burger eating potheads ,makes no scense
[/quote]

http://youtu.be/cBB1O1uLw1M

[Dolomite_supafly]

He is also blaming "cheap" handguns. So I expect it to be more than just a AWB but a sweeping ban that includes all kinds of guns.

Here he blames cheap guns:
[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133288n"]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133288n[/url]
At approximately 2:10.

Dolomite

[daddyo]

They didn't believe it could happen in UK, Australia, or Canada either.

[Steelharp]

[quote name='DaddyO' timestamp='1352658377' post='843826']
They didn't believe it could happen in UK, Australia, or Canada either.
[/quote]

Do they have tin foil in those places?

[Erik88]

The fact that they might actually attempt this scares me a little but what really scares me is that the fact that the majority of gun owners would just roll over in take it.

[JohnC]

[quote name='Steelharp' timestamp='1352664787' post='843860']


Do they have tin foil in those places?
[/quote]

I hope this is sarcasm because if it isn't.....

[Glenn]

[quote name='Erik88' timestamp='1352665319' post='843866']
The fact that they might actually attempt this scares me a little but what really scares me is that the fact that the majority of gun owners would just roll over in take it.
[/quote]
Not only will they roll over and take it, they will roll over while insisting Obama is our friend

[Chief07]

Elections have consequences.
Welcome to Obama's Marxist America.
God help us.

[Dolomite_supafly]

[quote name='Erik88' timestamp='1352665319' post='843866']
The fact that they might actually attempt this scares me a little but what really scares me is that the fact that the majority of gun owners would just roll over in take it.
[/quote]

And will demand every gun owner do the same or turn in those who don't roll over.

Dolomite

[Raoul]

It may come down to secession.