Obama ready to allow UN to restrict guns in US

Loading

(Reuters)

Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee’s call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States – along with Russia and other major arms producers – said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly’s disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama’s win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday’s U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington’s objectives have not changed.

“We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,” the official said.

And there was this, er caveat:

“We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” he said.

If you believe that I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’d just LOVE to see someone bulldoze the U.N. building into the East River!!

But the U.N. General Assembly’s disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama’s win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

Where was the US Ambassador? Was she in on this meeting? If not who was there representing the US, considering that they “claim” that the US supports the decision. Who is it that said they support this decision?

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington’s objectives have not changed.

Really? What was this official’s name? Are you sure he was a US official?

“We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” he said.

Who said this?! The News agencies wrote down their words but they don’t know the official’s name?!!!
WHO IS REPRESENTING THE U.S. IN THIS?!!! WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW!!!!

Let’s move the UN to Port-Au-Prince.
Get out of it ourselves.
And stop giving them money.
At least then the diplomats and their offspring wouldn’t be able to get away with abusing U.S. girls under the blanket of diplomatic immunity. STDs don’t recognize it.
And they’d have to import their designer soaps.
Heck, most of them come from third-world nations, anyway.
Let them work in one.

Here’s something that I don’t understand:
Since the Constitution gives the government the authority to enter into a treaty, how can a treaty have more authority than the Constitution?

@Petercat:

Since the Constitution gives the government the authority to enter into a treaty, how can a treaty have more authority than the Constitution?

It’s Obama, dontcha know?

Obama has been less gun restrictions than any other Democratic president, and what does he get from the 2nd Amendment crazies. (Please note: I am a liberal who believes in the right to bear arms—but I’m not a crazy—there is a difference.)

@Liberal1 (Objectivity): You’re missing the point. Obama can say that it’s not his doing, it’s the UN

Not to mention he has a history of hostility to firearms ownership.

He didn’t do a damn thing to restrict private firearm ownership during his first term, did he? Not even when he had democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.

I suppose the idea of imminent restrictions is a good thing to encourage if you’re in the gun business. It certainly boosts sales.

we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights

Israel is the mark.

What’s up with the UN’s petition to create a World Capital in Istanbul?

@drjohn: #5
No, this argument has been used by lawyers on several issues long before Obama. I think I first heard it used some time before Bill Clinton was elected…

@Greg: #9
You’re right, Greg, he hasn’t. But I cannot trust the constitution to this man. Liberal politicians have a long history of tightening restrictions on firearm ownership, and to expect Obama to remain out of step with one of liberalism’s core beliefs would be risky and foolish.
I will believe that liberals are serious about dealing with firearm-related violence when they get serious about dealing with violence ahead of firearms.

Curt, will you please change the “Notify me when new comments are added” box to opt-in instead of opt-out? Or at least put it above the “post comment” button, where it will be more obvious?
Every time I forget to check it, my inbox gets flooded.
Thank you.

greg, he wanted to get re-elected. Now, he doesn’t have to worry about that. We all know you’re just trying to cover for him.