Obama Is Going After Your Guns

[Occupant Occupant]

Obama is Going After Your Guns 

Immigration, check! Healthcare, check! Muslim Brotherhood, check! And now our most precious freedom, (next to the first amendment protections of free speech), guns, our second amendment.

You knew this was coming. The infiltrator-in-chief is on a roll. Dick Morris has this:

On  July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York  to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).  Disguised as a way to prevent  the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a  backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and  effectively repeal our Second Amendment.

The ATT  will set up a global body, which will require all nations to regulate  firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries.   Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in  private hands and to register them.  A gun ban is not far away.

The  ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the  power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the  Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms.  We must fight  to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block  Senate ratification. '

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade Reuters

WASHINGTON |          Wed Oct 14, 2009

(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.