14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
If you posted a few more points you would see it excludes what you seem to be concerned about ...
What section of the document are they trying to take our right away? ... Post it ...
Are you serious? They’re calling for gun registries across the board. One only need look to history in the 20th century to see where that leads.
You’re a complete dolt and ignorant to the rights of man if you believe it’s okay for any global entity to require that we account for the weapon in our possession or their purpose.
“Where liberty dwells, there is my country." –Benjamin Franklin
“Where liberty dwells, there is my country." –Benjamin Franklin
I think Obama could interpret various aspects of this treaty in ways that would give him justification to impose various gun control measures on Americans. I believe fast and furious was supposed to provide further justification. If you look at bullet 4: underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime. Obama would have been empowered here with both bogus F&F data as well as this language in the ATT. My bigger issue with this, however, is that we have Iran spearheading a treaty that could potentially restrict our ability to arm Israel and Taiwan. What’s more, it further reinforces the notion that guns primarily belong in the hands of governments and not free men. and while it does contain language that supposedly preserves national sovereignty, by its very nature, it erodes national sovereignty. Many of the UN member nations love the idea eroding our sovereignty with various “well meaning and reasonable” treaties. That is, in fact, the primary mission of many of America’s enemies. This treaty helps them more than it does us IMO.
>What section of the document are they trying to take our right away? ... Post it ...
Here’s your UN mandated gun registration system:
Article 2
4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.
There’s also provision for an international bureaucracy to monitor the guns in civilian hands.
Personally I don’t much cotton to such nonsense.
Registration= confiscation. One inevitably leads to the other.
stuartcr and dartuser, could you please kindly point us all to the line that recognizes my legitimate God-given right to carry a concealed or open carry firearm for self-defense against another person? Against an unlawful entry by a law enforcement officer??
“private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities...”
Well, that right there is the problem. The 2nd Amendment is not for recreational, cultural, historical, or sporting activities. It’s for defense against tyranny. There is nothing in this document protecting that basic individual right.
The preamble means nothing - it’s just feel-good hoo-haw. The guts of the treaty is what matters, and no, I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.
>>What section of the document are they trying to take
our right away? ... Post it ...
We don’t NEED any of it. We don’t NEED the UN. We would be far
better off to act unilaterally in our best interests without the
global hoax called UN.
Dartuser posted:
14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
If you posted a few more points you would see it excludes what you seem to be concerned about ...
marktwain replies:
Notice how they very pointedly excluded self defense or defense against the state? This is the essense of eliminating the right to arms that the british followed in eliminating that right in England.
Once you do away with the right to use arms in self defense, all else follows.
Here is an old but good post that explains it all:
GUN REGISTRATION IS GUN CONFISCATION (old but good)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608785/posts
for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
right there.
the have turned it into a man made right and not a God given right.
defeat it.
teeman8r
The treaty requires gun registrations.
14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
Compare to this(the 2nd Amendment):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.