U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

[buster2209]

I have never heard of the NAGR but found the article below on there website;

http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=359#more-359

U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.

The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.

Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Former United Nation’s ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Establishing the dates for the Arms Trade Treaty Conference is just the first step toward their plans for total gun confiscation.

The worldwide gun control mob will ensure the passage of an egregious, anti-gun treaty…

. . .and that’s where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton steps in.

Once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States.

As an arch enemy of gun owners, Clinton has pledged to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

That’s why it’s vital you sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty.”

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

Don’t let any of the “experts” lull you to sleep by saying “Oh, we have it handled” or “Until you know exactly what’s in the treaty you can’t fight against it.”

Judging by Ambassador Bolton’s comments — who certainly knows what to expect from the American-freedom-hating international crowd that infests the U.N. — we are certain the treaty’s going to address the private ownership of firearms.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate (which is where we must ultimately make our stand), the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION. So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before it’s too late!

You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Here’s what you can do to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight Hillary Clinton and her United Nations cronies:

• Click here and sign our petition to DEMAND that your United States Senators vote AGAINST the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

• Forward this petition to your friends and relatives who share your concern for American sovereignty and protecting our right to keep and bear arms.

• Please consider making a generous contribution to the National Association for Gun Rights to help us fight Hillary Clinton and the United Nations “Small Arms Treaty.”

I apologise if this is a re-post. I searched the forum with the title given in the main article and the only hit was this thread.

[LittleRedToyota]

it was posted in the thread you linked to (the search sucks, though, so it is no surprise you did not find it)...

here is a direct link to the posts:

http://forum.pafoa.org/news-123/8587...ml#post1062126

and

http://forum.pafoa.org/news-123/8587...ml#post1062160

this is seriously absolutely no threat at all unless the political climate in this country changes radically. there is no way the senate would ratify it if it did anywhere close to what this article claims it might do.

remember, it takes 67 senators to ratify a treaty. there are nowhere near 67 senators who would vote to ratify it (not that it will even get to that point).

[Yellowfin]

this is seriously absolutely no threat at all unless the political climate in this country changes radically.

You mean like going from ready to nuke the entire Middle East flat after being attacked then 7 years later electing a guy to the White House with a middle name of Hussein? Or a city that when attacked by a foreign power everyone said was an attack on freedom in America, when that very same city since 1911 has been the very antithesis of American freedom and houses and elects as its leaders some of the most despicable enemies thereof?

There is no way the senate would ratify it if it did anywhere close to what this article claims it might do.

If they are correctly informed as to what it says and does. If you recall, they usually don't even read the bills they vote on. You think they might be lied to in order to further an agenda?

remember, it takes 67 senators to ratify a treaty. there are nowhere near 67 senators who would vote to ratify it (not that it will even get to that point)

Unless they were bought like they were with the individual state concessions they were offered in exchange for voting for the health care sabotage bill. You don't think the left will bribe people to accomplish one of their highest goals?

[LittleRedToyota]

You mean like going from ready to nuke the entire Middle East flat after being attacked then 7 years later electing a guy to the White House with a middle name of Hussein?

good grief man. O's middle name is of no consequence whatsoever.

and the country was never ready to nuke the middle east flat.

is it possible that the country could swing from more pro-gun than it has been in a looooooooong time to anti-gun enough to actually ban handguns in 7 years? possibly...but not likely.

Unless they were bought like they were with the individual state concessions they were offered in exchange for voting for the health care sabotage bill. You don't think the left will bribe people to accomplish one of their highest goals?

they cannot pay 30 or so senators enough to compensate them for losing their jobs...which is what would happen if 67 senators voted for anything that banned guns.

i'm not saying we should not remain vigilant and continue fighting the good fight. but we need to understand what represents a real threat and what doesn't--so we can effectively prioritize our efforts (and, particularly, prioritize our monetary donations--note how the piece ends with a request for a "generous donation" ). and, of course, we do need to be mindful of the lesson of chicken little...and also of not allowing ourselves to be taken by fearmongers asking for "generous donations".

[buster2209]

is it possible that the country could swing from more pro-gun than it has been in a looooooooong time to anti-gun enough to actually ban handguns in 7 years? possibly...but not likely.

Have to agree with this one. IMO, this legislation was all prepared to be rammed through before the anointed one got into power on the premise America was buying the Liberals wet dream of how this nation should be for many more years to come. I don't think the powers that be believed the 'mystical power' Obama holds over the sheeple would be broken so quickly.

they cannot pay 30 or so senators enough to compensate them for losing their jobs...which is what would happen if 67 senators voted for anything that banned guns.

I think losing there jobs would be the least of there worries! Some gun owners might take what the Senators did personally......

Personally, I think it would be treasonous and I think the Judicial branch may side with the people on that one.

[LittleRedToyota]

and I think the Judicial branch may side with the people on that one.

also a good point.

SCOTUS has already ruled that treaties cannot infringe constitutional rights. and they have already ruled the 2nd protects an individual right to keep arms. they would have to overturn one of those to not overturn such a treaty.

many not-very-likely-to-say-the-least things would have to happen for such a treaty to take effect in america...not the least of which is that the UN would have to overcome the fact that it is a bumbling ineffectual pathetic excuse of an organization that really can never get anything of substance done (thankfully much of the time ) to even get the thing signed and put before the senate.

[Wiley-X]

good grief man. O's middle name is of no consequence whatsoever.

Yes, it is.

[nfafan]

Yes, it is.

I'm with the Toyota on this one; I don't care if the "O"'s middle name is Bin Laden - if he keeps pissing off the fuzzy-headed liberal leftists in his own party as he has been - I'm liking him more each day.

[Neo31rex31]

Still an interesting read....hmmm....me needs a few more goodies to stash away.

[autotech6506]

Hello UN. Let me introduce you to the constitution of the United states....now shut up! unbelievable