Buy LOTS of ammo!!

a pass along. read below.

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT
Related News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

Politics | China | Russia

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

Do these people own stock in the arms and ammo business? Just what we need- another scare...

The date on that is Oct 14,2009. It's old news. There are going to be several important elections in the US, before that stuff will even be negotiated.

Obama is proving to be less popular than first thought and may just be a one trick pony. Clinton, well, not even the women in the US trust her.

Only time will tell. The NRA is a great and powerful entity as well. They can swing an election big time. Clinton knows this first hand. Obama will certainly be kept informed.

I only hope that your optimism is correct.
I'll gladly "eat crow"
Bob

Not flaming you at all Bob. It's just my opinion. You folks in the US have a lot more power than we in Canada have but as they say, "things are a changing".

IF the RHN signs this treaty, and I think he will, it must then go to the US Senate for ratification. That vote is Not going to happen before the Nov elections and I doubt it would be brought up between the Nov elections and Jan 2011. Thus even when he signs it it is a dead issue!
Sarge

Strange things are going to happen Nov 10th!-SDH

Right now in the gulf we have an oil spill that at its present rate could easily contaminate the entire gulf coast region. when you ask who's in charge every finger points to BP. The U.S. Coast guard has the authority to tell BP to stop the use of dispersants. Disperse where, right down to the ocean floor where it and the dispersant will to continue to wreak havoc with untold species of fish, mammals and other animals. If our so-called president doesn't get off his posterior soon and get crackin the gulf coast marshes will be a non viable area for fishing, shrimping, crabbing and other water activities.The president is supposed to make another tour to inspect the polluted areas. Folks here in Louisiana have long memories. And we have some of the best engineers in the world. When all this started I had mentioned to my wife that this spill was going to get out of control And it has. BP has its work cutout for them. There are not enough bodies on the ground cleaning up this oil. And if their top kill does not work how much more oil will be destroying the gulf coast?. Another political fiasco brought to you by BP. We had dispersants on hand at our facility. Only the coast guard had the authority to allow us to use them. Its been estimated that close to 1 million gallons have already been used, with no long term studies on the effects of this much dispersant being deployed. I seriously think our president will be a one hit wonder. Sorry for the rant. And if the moderators wish to delete this post you may do so. Frank

Frank46,
Only a few days ago I heard Obama say on TV that "HE and the Gubmit" were firmly in charge and giving every move and order to BP and they BP were following them to the letter. He also stated that he and the gubmit have been in charge for the entire spill. Kind of make you wonder who's telling you the truth huh.
You cant have to much ammo or components or? Time for a hit on the DeKuyper peachtree.
Regards
BudT

I remember MANY years ago reading a article in a Gun Magazine that ammo in times of a crises was far more valuable than gold. Makes sense, you can't eat gold but you can trade ammo for anything you want if someone else needs it. Did anyone go to the Las Vegas show, the rumour here was someone sold two semi loads of ammo is less than 9 hours, is this true??

When you're trading ammo in times of crisis, you have to be very certain, whom you're trading with. In times of crisis, ammunition needs to be kept within a trusted circle. There are other things of value to trade, that don't come back to haunt you.

Words of wisdom.....Loose lips sink ships

Another reason to take up reloading!

I reuse to listen to these scare warnings. That and the fact my 3rd bedroom is a friggin' arsenal!:thup: