U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

[Kat Kanning]

Clinton-United Nations "Small Arms Treaty" Update

National Gun Rights Blog
Posted February 2, 2010

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.

[Ogre]

On this specific issue, I don't see government winning. I know in England, the people there willingly turned in their weapons when asked to by government. But I really don't think Americans will do it. I think the best thing for rights and freedoms would be for the US government to actually go ahead and make all private guns illegal. Then millions of people would suddenly become criminals and a lot more people would understand, and engage in, civil disobedience.

[Fluff and Stuff]

Then millions of people would suddenly become criminals and a lot more people would understand, and engage in, civil disobedience.

Most people will likely not turn in their guns unless the government goes door to door.

There are 30-50 million folks smoking weed in the US illegally and it isn't that big a deal.  There is an even larger amount of speeders and that doesn't seem to be a big deal.

[Jared]

Then millions of people would suddenly become criminals and a lot more people would understand, and engage in, civil disobedience.

Most people will likely not turn in their guns unless the government goes door to door.

There are 30-50 million folks smoking weed in the US illegally and it isn't that big a deal.  There is an even larger amount of speeders and that doesn't seem to be a big deal.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure about that. I knew a a man who was a gun enthusiast and die hard republican, and always swore he would never let the government take his guns. well it turns out some weed possession thing from about 25 years earlier came back to haunt him when a background check was done. strange, since he had bought plenty of guns before and never had a problem. anyway, long story short, they started calling him a felon and told him he couldn't have his guns anymore. so what did he do? he got rid of them. eventually, he got the whole thing thrown out. in the mean time, however, this supposed "cold dead hands" republican let the government take away his right to keep and bear arms with little to no protest. i now have to wonder how many others will do the same thing, when the time comes. after all, if you don't give them your guns, they will throw you in a cage or they will shoot you.

[Ogre]

Indeed, I can't say I'm sure, and you bring up valid points. I just think an issue like this would actually have a little more of an effect.

When the government came to the door and demanded guns, I'm sure some would just comply. But I think a large number would hide them, retain them, or just refuse to hand them over -- especially those of an older generation. But I could be completely wrong, and it would go over just like in England... Nah, I KNOW there's some who just wouldn't submit.

[Russell Kanning]

the US is going to take away the UN's guns? cool

[Lloyd Danforth]

Next they can go after their little, blue, helmets.

[Jared]

Indeed, I can't say I'm sure, and you bring up valid points. I just think an issue like this would actually have a little more of an effect.

When the government came to the door and demanded guns, I'm sure some would just comply. But I think a large number would hide them, retain them, or just refuse to hand them over -- especially those of an older generation. But I could be completely wrong, and it would go over just like in England... Nah, I KNOW there's some who just wouldn't submit.

Yeah, I was thinking that maybe people might wake up if there was suddenly a mass stealing of everyone's guns.

[Tom Sawyer]

They're not likely go for a big dramatic crack down... just an incremental tightening and marginalizing folks. The powers that be will be happy to own your childrens souls.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I thought that by now they would start with ammunition and loading components like laser marking bullets and gradually make unmarked bullets illegal.
Possibly lay some kind of sin tax on ammunition and components.

[Tunga]

Own a gun?

No insurance, no license, no car registration, no tax return accepted until you surrender your guns.

Subjects or Citizens. The choice is not so simple. Resistance will be painful and uncomfortable. Greed will be the primary motive for submission.

That, and foreign troops invited by Homeland Security to patrol American soil.

[tony]

If gov. makes guns illegal, or taxes guns or ammo, or requires bullet markings (very high cost of ammo), their goal would be met. People would stop practicing shooting. After some time guns legal or illegal locked in gun cabinets or hidden somewhere would loose its place in peoples mind. New generation indoctrinated in public schools will not even consider owning such a bad thing as a gun. With 2-nd amendment faded away UN will have their obedient societies all around the globe including America.

[Ogre]

Oh true -- if they go the long way and try and change the culture, it will work. However, my point is that if they decide to just outright ban them all now and attempt to go around rounding them up, I don't think that will go over so well.

[error]

Oh true -- if they go the long way and try and change the culture, it will work. However, my point is that if they decide to just outright ban them all now and attempt to go around rounding them up, I don't think that will go over so well.

They already changed the culture significantly; it took less than a century. This is where I think the best results will be gained: by pushing back against the anti-gun culture with the pro-gun culture.

[Ogre]

I agree. I'm doing what I can. But I still get LOTS of strange looks when I walk around armed. I try to explain and act normal, but an awful lot of people are just terrified of these little pieces of metal. Sadly, the government isn't.