- Jul 27, 2006
- 48,480
- 54,947
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Excerpt from Reuters news article:
“Newtown has opened the debate within the United States on weapons controls in ways that it has not been opened in the past,” Abramson said, adding that “the conversation within the U.S. will give the (Obama) administration more leeway.”
Keene [from NRA] rejected the idea of bringing the Newtown tragedy into the discussion of an arms trade treaty.
“I find it interesting that some of the folks that advocate the treaty say it would have no impact whatever within the United States but that it needs to be passed to prevent another occurrence of a school shooting such as took place in Newtown,” he said. “Both of those positions can’t be correct.”
Obama administration officials have tried to explain to U.S. opponents of the arms trade pact that the treaty under discussion would not affect domestic gun sales and ownership.
“Our objectives for the ATT (arms trade treaty) have not changed,” a U.S. official told Reuters. “We seek a treaty that fights illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have articulated throughout.”
“In particular, we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms,” the official added.
The NRA opposes the small arms treaty specifically because it does affect civilian arms, not just arms in the hands of government armed forces. Proponents of the treaty, including anti-gun NGOs, have consistently insisted that it would not affect gun ownership in the US, but as NRA President Keen notes, it is peculiar that those very same people are now saying that the Newtown shooting will help them get the treaty passed.
But the most important bit of slight of hand to pay attention to is the statement by the “U.S. official:
“In particular, we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms,” the official added.
Now, the first reaction of most gun owners who read that is to get all warm and fuzzy, and reassured, since he says they will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms. But let’s recall what the current crop of oath breaking traitors in power think you have a “right” to. According to Senator Diane Feinstein, you don’t have a constitutional right to own any gun among a long list of firearms she finds offensive, according to her own pet criteria. That list specifically bans the further manufacture, sale, and transfer of many military style semi-automatic rifles, as well as any firearm (except .22s) that take a detachable magazine and have one or more of a list of features SHE determines are of military use. She then goes on to “except” certain firearms – for now – from her ban. Basically, you have a right to whatever firearms she decides to exempt from her ban, and you don’t have a right to any she decides to include.
She tells us that she is respecting constitutional rights because her ban:
And one more thing her bill will do is:
So, when a U.S. official says they won’t accept a UN small arms treaty that infringes on your right to bear arms, you should know that such a promise is meaningless, since they don’t think you have a right to keep any firearms unless they say you can, and according to their own magic criteria of what is acceptable or not. And certainly, they don’t see military pattern semi-automatic rifles as being covered by the Second Amendment at all. Nor do they see magazines over 10 rounds as being covered.
Stewart Rhodes
Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » UN Delegates Hope that Newtown Shooting Will Help them Pass Small Arms Treaty
EXPLOSIVE ISSUE
European and other U.N. delegates who support the arms trade treaty told Reuters on condition of anonymity they hoped Newtown would boost support for the convention in the United States where gun control is an explosive political is
European and other U.N. delegates who support the arms trade treaty told Reuters on condition of anonymity they hoped Newtown would boost support for the convention in the United States where gun control is an explosive political is
Keene [from NRA] rejected the idea of bringing the Newtown tragedy into the discussion of an arms trade treaty.
“I find it interesting that some of the folks that advocate the treaty say it would have no impact whatever within the United States but that it needs to be passed to prevent another occurrence of a school shooting such as took place in Newtown,” he said. “Both of those positions can’t be correct.”
Obama administration officials have tried to explain to U.S. opponents of the arms trade pact that the treaty under discussion would not affect domestic gun sales and ownership.
“Our objectives for the ATT (arms trade treaty) have not changed,” a U.S. official told Reuters. “We seek a treaty that fights illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have articulated throughout.”
“In particular, we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms,” the official added.
The NRA opposes the small arms treaty specifically because it does affect civilian arms, not just arms in the hands of government armed forces. Proponents of the treaty, including anti-gun NGOs, have consistently insisted that it would not affect gun ownership in the US, but as NRA President Keen notes, it is peculiar that those very same people are now saying that the Newtown shooting will help them get the treaty passed.
But the most important bit of slight of hand to pay attention to is the statement by the “U.S. official:
“In particular, we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms,” the official added.
Now, the first reaction of most gun owners who read that is to get all warm and fuzzy, and reassured, since he says they will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms. But let’s recall what the current crop of oath breaking traitors in power think you have a “right” to. According to Senator Diane Feinstein, you don’t have a constitutional right to own any gun among a long list of firearms she finds offensive, according to her own pet criteria. That list specifically bans the further manufacture, sale, and transfer of many military style semi-automatic rifles, as well as any firearm (except .22s) that take a detachable magazine and have one or more of a list of features SHE determines are of military use. She then goes on to “except” certain firearms – for now – from her ban. Basically, you have a right to whatever firearms she decides to exempt from her ban, and you don’t have a right to any she decides to include.
She tells us that she is respecting constitutional rights because her ban:
- Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
- Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
- Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
- Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
And one more thing her bill will do is:
- Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
- Background check of owner and any transferee;
- Type and serial number of the firearm;
- Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
- Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
- Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
So, when a U.S. official says they won’t accept a UN small arms treaty that infringes on your right to bear arms, you should know that such a promise is meaningless, since they don’t think you have a right to keep any firearms unless they say you can, and according to their own magic criteria of what is acceptable or not. And certainly, they don’t see military pattern semi-automatic rifles as being covered by the Second Amendment at all. Nor do they see magazines over 10 rounds as being covered.
Stewart Rhodes
Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » UN Delegates Hope that Newtown Shooting Will Help them Pass Small Arms Treaty
