UN Gun Control Body Supported By Obama Sets Up Veto-Proof Framework

breitbart.com ^ | 8/27/2015 | AWR Hawkins

[rktman]

Representatives attending the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in Mexico this week have set up a structure for future conferences on gun control that include a veto-proof decision making process.

According to Reuters, representatives from 130 countries gathered in Mexico, although only 72 countries have fully ratified the treaty. They determined that Geneva will be “the seat of the permanent secretariat for the ATT” and they unanimously decided that unanimous agreements would not have to be reached on gun control decisions going forward.

This gives the body a veto-proof process for making gun control decisions going forward.

[rktman]

Bodies can't veto anything. Call or write but somehow contact your CON-gress critters and let 'em know where you stand on this. Of course they won't care, but..............

[Don Corleone]

The UN can have my gun...when the barrel is hot, smoking and the chambers are empty. Not a shot before.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Like “The Turtle” gives a damn about the Constitution or what I believe.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

So what happens with this “gun control treaty”??

If govt somehow comes up with a (bulls**t) reason to disarm americans, and Americans resist and results in civil unrest, is the government going to call they pals in the UN to swoop in with their military forces?

I think this is their end game. And once everyone is locked in their respective internment camps, Iran shoots over their nuke to finish the job.

Result: Islamic Caliphate of America

[NormsRevenge]

Veto-Proof.. the UN ?? Obama?? .. lolol

What? Does the UN have new more heavily armored helmets?

[stephenjohnbanker]

The UN should stick to child molestation, and the rape of young teen girls. It’s the only thing they are any good at . We should disband the UN, and turn the building into condos.

[TBP]

It’s not binding on us unless it’s approved on the Hill.

[BigCinBigD]

If the UN takes my gun. I’ll pry it from their cold dead hands.

[TexasCajun]

[jonrick46]

Hey UN! You can have my gun, but you don’t know what will come instead of the gun.

[CrazyIvan]

I was just about to do a “In be of the bullet riddled blue helmet” I like that better!

[rktman]

That won’t take the lyin’ king long. CON-gress is a non-starter anymore as he has shown.

[BigCinBigD]

“It’s not binding on us unless it’s approved on the Hill.”

A treaty can not over ride the Constitution. Any attempt to enforce such a treaty would be met with... An unfriendly response.

[Leaning Right]

So what happens with this “gun control treaty”??

Well, there's one thing you can be sure of.

It won't be called a treaty. Because a treaty requires ratification by 2/3 of the Senate. So it will be called an agreement, or an understanding, or some such thing.

The GOPe leadership will shrug their shoulders, then go out for drinks at some private club somewhere.

[NorthMountain]

Blue Helmets == Targets.

[TexasRepublic]

F them!

[Ingtar]

Unless Corker fixes it for us again...

[TxAg1981]

Ponder this...
The goal is not to disarm the people (not possible in the US). The goal is to cause so much discord internally that the armed forces are unable to dedicate any resources to external problems. For example, if the military, police, and government are so busy putting down internal riots, raids, etc. that they are unable to deal with Iran, ISIS, China, etc.
I'm not saying that's the goal but just wondering

[luv2ndamend]

Nope, all set now
Just 1/3 needed to pass it
Thank The Traitors.

[rjsimmon]

It’s not binding on us unless it’s approved on the Hill.

Not even then. The Congress cannot ratify a treaty that is a violation of the Constitution.