Did the U.N. Arms Treaty get signed?
 

You know, that treaty that JohnnyClips and ninavain said would be signed today, and erase our 2nd amendment? The one that the Batman shooter was mind-controlled to do for the illuminati. Was it signed?

I have all my guns in a pile by the back door waiting for the UN collection van.

.

mine are ready :winkwink: to protect me

Me too. But my yard is littered with land mines.

This is from 20 minutes ago

Revised UN arms treaty raises hopes of deal
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b26957de-d...#axzz21qowPx1V

A revised draft of a new UN treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade raised hopes from supporters and the British government, which has been the leading proponent, that a historic agreement could be reached by Friday’s deadline for action.

The draft circulated late Thursday closed several loopholes in the original text, though the Washington-based Arms Control Association said further improvements were still needed to strengthen measures against illicit arms transfers.

A spokesman for Britain’s UN mission, speaking anonymously because he was not authorised to speak publicly, said the new text was “a substantial improvement” and “a historic agreement that effectively regulates the international trade in conventional arms is now very close”.

The estimated $60bn international arms trade is unregulated, though countries including the US have their own rules on exports.

Opponents in the US, especially the powerful National Rifle Association, have portrayed the treaty as a surrender of gun ownership rights enshrined in the US constitution. The issue of gun control, always a politically explosive one for American politicians, has re-emerged since last week’s shooting at a Colorado cinema killed 12 people.

In Washington, a bipartisan group of 51 senators on Thursday threatened to oppose the treaty if it fell short in protecting Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms. In a letter to President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, the senators expressed serious concerns with the draft treaty that has circulated at the UN, saying that it signals an expansion of gun control that would be unacceptable.

Supporters of a treaty say it will not affect law-abiding individual gun owners, but would close loopholes that allow arms dealers to evade the strict laws that already exist in countries and transfer guns through weaker states.

The UN general assembly voted in December 2006 to work towards a treaty regulating the growing arms trade, with the US casting a No vote. In October 2009, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration’s position and supported an assembly resolution to hold four preparatory meetings and a four-week UN conference in 2012 to draft an arms trade treaty.

Widney Brown, senior director for law and policy at Amnesty International, said of the latest draft that “some of the significant loopholes that we were concerned about have, if not been closed, definitely been narrowed”.

It would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers, and would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons that violate arms embargoes or facilitate acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

In considering whether to authorise the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organised crime – and if there is “a substantial risk” the treaty would prohibit the transfer.

The new draft makes clear that does not pertain only to arms exports but to all types of arms transfers, closing a loophole raised by campaigners.

The US objected to any requirement to report on exports of ammunition and that remains out of the latest draft.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said that the new text would potentially allow states to exclude arms transfers that were not commercial sales, such as gifts, from review under the terms of the treaty and did not include a broad enough list of weapons to be covered.

He said it would also potentially allow states to exempt arms sales under previous defence co-operation agreements under the terms of the treaty. That could undermine another line of attack from opponents in the US – that the treaty would prevent arms sales to allies such as Israel and Taiwan.

“We urge the United States and other arms exporters and importers, including China, Russia, the UK and India, to work with other states, especially those most affected by violence fuelled by illicit arms dealing, to provide the leadership and flexibility needed to reach a sound agreement by Friday’s deadline,” Mr Kimball said.

With the conference scheduled to end on Friday, negotiators have been trying to come up with a text that satisfies advocates of a strong treaty with tough regulations and countries that appear to have little interest in a treaty including Syria, North Korea, Iran, Egypt and Algeria.

The votes just aren't there. It won't be signed. What will the new conspiracy about it be, when the treaty isn't signed by the U.S.? Did the Illuminati fail to control the U.S. Senate? Was their mind control all for nothing?

Just saw a news clip of Obama saying he supported the 2nd ammendment, but that ak47's have no place "on the streets" and only belong on the "battlefield". There's also recent talk in DC about proposing another asault weapons ban. Here we go

big brother slapping your hand when you reach for an assault rifle at a gun show. :2 cents: :helpme :1orglaugh

they gave it that good old college try:thumbsup

Rob Dew Reports :

Romney was asked about his tenure as Massachusetts governor, when he signed a bill that banned some assault-style weapons like the type the Colorado shooter is alleged to have used. At the time, Romney described such guns as “instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

"The White House and the Senate's top Democrat made it clear Thursday that new gun legislation will not be on the political agenda this year. Instead, President Barack Obama intends to focus on other ways to combat gun violence."

The National Defense Authorization Act, that Obama signed, declares the entire USA a "battleground" now.

Battleground / Battlefield... what's the difference?

Of course there should be a national assault weapons ban.

There already is in 5 states including NY and California and I think 3 other north eastern states.

Where in the Act does it declare the entire USA is a ""battleground"?

George W. Bush on gun control issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/geo...un_control.htm

"Bush expressed support for some gun control measures, including the ban on assault weapons and laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. But he said he did not believe the waiting period for the purchase of handguns that is part of the Brady Act does much good, saying he prefers instant background checks."

"Bush said he supported efforts in the Republican-led Congress to raise the legal age for purchase of a handgun to 21 from 18 and to ban large ammunition clips. "

Something must have happened since he said all this stuff though. Such as possibly winning the election and not needing to promise things like these.

Or something.

There was a Federal 10 year ban passed by Congress and signed into law in 1994 by President Clinton and the 2004 Congress did not renew the law.

Oh so the treaty has nothing to do with individual Americans and guns. Imagine that..

Yep I know, Bush let it expire which it did on the same day the Senate held debates on whether or not there should be a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I remember it specifically because my senators Clinton and Shumer stood up and bitched about Bush silently letting it expire after having supported the ban earlier in his political career.. and thats the full circle.

The Illuminati sabotaged this treaty. They want the killing in Africa to continue a little longer.

I was quoting two U.S. Senators. But I was wrong, it is "battlefield."

Here is the bill, it's only 682 pages long. And that is exactly what it says without actually saying it in those words, hence the comments from the Senators. I'd tell you to enjoy it, but we both know you won't read it.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf

Because God hates brown people.

KONY 2012!

I have been aware of the Act since it was enacted in 2006 and have read the relevant parts of it and do every time it has been updated since 2006 and this is why I knew you were lying again...as it did not and does not use the word "battleground" or "battlefield". In addition it does not say so "without actually using those words."...that is their words.

These people are patient, they'll keep on slowly chipping away, and then when there's an engineered crisis they'll make big changes fast

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Rahm Emanuel

Ice-T Defends Gun Rights: "The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny"


Speaking with Channel 4 London's Krishnan Guru-Murthy in the hours after the Colorado news broke, the self-described "Godfather of Gangsta Rap" vehemently denied a connection between gun rights and the Aurora murders.

"It's legal in the United States," the rapper said. "The right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police."

"And do you see any link between that and this sort of instance?" Guru-Murthy challenged.

"No. Not really," Ice-T responded. "If somebody wants to kill people, they don't need a gun to do it."

"Makes it easier though, doesn't it?" the host pushed back.

"Not really. You can strap explosives on your body. They do that all the time."

The conspiracy theorists are resilient. They'll work all angles so that if a few keep getting shut down they can work the opposite angle. He's mind-controlled to effect this result. Oh wait, he's mind-controlled to effect the opposite result.

Riiiight. You and Pathfinder read it to each other?


My God, you're the biggest dolt on this entire board. And I mean that.

1) It was also called the "Homeland Battlefield Bill" by many people in the government.

2) Perhaps that's also why I said:


All jokes aside, over 100,000 people die per day. Why can't you be one of them?

I mean, in theory you already did die as Pathfinder, but that doesn't count.

JohnnyClips will always win :winkwink:

I am fully aware of what the nut cases (of which you are one on top of being a criminal) and some of the Republicans called/call the updated Act.

FYI...PF passed away about a year prior to your joining this board and next month that will have been ten years ago...thank you very much...but I think you are aware of this and for whatever your reasons you...like a handful of others...want to think that he is still alive.

NRA Stops U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
 

:thumbsup:thumbsup:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...de-treaty.aspx

What's that? Another mind-control failure for the Illuminati? You guys insisted that the Colorado shooting was all about passing this treaty.

It was an attempt, remember these guys had a lot of trouble getting the Federal Reserve in place, but they keep coming back until they get what they want.

The 2nd amendment has been challenged almost as long as it has existed. Going back hundreds of years now. Further, a treaty still can't override the Constitution.

But wait, now the shooting was really about the bankers and the Libor scandal. :1orglaugh

Just more evidence the NRA, far from being on the side of the people against tyranny, is just a shill for arms manufacturers/MIC, fighting to protect their profits.

To be be mind controlled you need to have a mind. That's why the lunatic fringe of the conspiracy world is immune.

They've got a fight on their hands, but they'll just up the stakes, they will have a Plan B and a Plan C. Something will happen which everyone will believe is a random event, it will seem like everyone has to be disarmed because of it, they will be, few people will realize it was planned.

They've got all of these UN vehicles hidden in the US for a reason

So basically what you're (conspiracy minded) all saying is you know they (whoever they are) are up to something, you just don't know what it is.

Almost every single time you guys have made a prediction about something here on GFY, it has been wrong. You change the reasons for an incident to fit this theory, and then another theory, and then another, but pretend you knew all along.

They have a number of scenarios they could use, but I can't read their minds as to which one it will be.

If you're still alive 20 years from now, you'll think back to these discussions and you'll have to decide whether we knew what was coming or whether it was all just a big coincidence.

In 20 years, you'll just say it hasn't happened yet, but to trust you that they're working really hard to make it happen.

It will have happened well within 20 years, it was all just a matter of waiting until the UN was properly in place, now that it is they're moving fast.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller

The is the smartest thing you've posted..but you're too dumb to ask yourself WHY you posted it.


the question is Why has it been challenged since the beginning? I rest my case..thanks

Will this also happen? Now that the 2012 Olympics are under way, will 13,000 people die in a bombing?

"The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the “doom decade” for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change. Not surprisingly, this opening series of deadly asynchronous catastrophes (there were more) put enormous pressure on an already overstressed global economy that had entered the decade still in recession."

Maybe you should know the answers first, before you presume you know what you're talking about. One of the earliest reasons was the KKK not wanting blacks to have the freedom to assemble or bear arms.

That's what's called a scenario, certain scenario's are selected to go live, but only insider's know which ones will

Why do you select the doomsday scenario when it's less than half of the possible scenarios presented in the original document. It actually has a lot of great scenarios that improve life on a global scale for everyone, without any central bankers or super elite being part of it. Is it because you want to censor those for the reader, because it doesn't support your pro-doomsday stance?

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org...eb007cc719.pdf

Do keep in mind that the Rockefeller's are the Central Bankers. They can select whichever one they want, possibly a combination of scenarios. It's about shaping the world into one which benefits them, unfortunately what benefits them normally has the opposite effect on us. Remember these are the same people who funded both World Wars, they are the shapers, they stop at nothing to get what they want.

13,000? That's about four times higher than 9/11. Oklahoma killed 168. Madrid killed 191. London killed 52. Bombs kill people in their hundreds, not thousands.

Do you notice that you don't answer questions directly, rather you shift the focus to say something else instead.

You purposefully chose the worst-case scenario when there are at least four of them and half of them present positive scenarios for the global populace. Your lack of a direct answer to why you only shared that one with us, is very telling. You're no better than the biased sources you use that lift excerpts out of context or fail to give us all the information. You tailor it to specifically to invoke fear and say something it really doesn't say.

what about that english reporter, reporting about building 7 being destroyed that didn't even go down yet in the background of the shot? when you see things like that, you start to question a lot of things ...... or was that bullshit

Building 7 was on fire, and it was already known that it was going to collapse. See details here: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The irony of it all, eh?