8 Nov

Obama ready to allow UN to restrict guns in US

(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.

       

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

14 Responses to Obama ready to allow UN to restrict guns in US

  1. David Brickner says: 1

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

    ReplyReply
  2. Ditto says: 2

    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!!!!

    ReplyReply
  3. Petercat says: 3

    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.

    ReplyReply
  4. Petercat says: 4

    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?

    ReplyReply
  5. drjohn says: 5

    @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?

    ReplyReply
  6. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 6

    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.)

    ReplyReply
  7. drjohn says: 7

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

    ReplyReply
  8. Hard Right says: 8

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

    ReplyReply
  9. Greg says: 9

    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.

    ReplyReply
  10. mossomo says: 10

    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?

    ReplyReply
  11. Petercat says: 11

    @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…

    ReplyReply
  12. Petercat says: 12

    @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.

    ReplyReply
  13. Petercat says: 13

    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.

    ReplyReply
  14. Hard Right says: 14

    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.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site