Where did you get this information from?

If this happens there will be a 2nd Civil War. I'll take my chances against a group of unarmed liberals any day of the week.

Look here SPORTSMAN. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZeJpXLsVCI&feature=related

The Obama administration IS going to sign the treaty. I doubt it will ever be ratified by the Senate. But it will be in effect as U.S. Federal Law until the Senate acts. Since this is a Lame Duck session, who knows how long that may take.

Now's the time to e-mail our Senators, Mary Landrieu and David Vitter, and tell them we want quick action by the Senate to kill this thing. Vitter is our friend. I'm not so sure about Landrieu. She tends to bow to Obama and the Democrat party line.

Go to the quick link below to e-mail each of them with something like this.

*** Please do everything you can to get quick Senate action to REFUSE RATIFICATION of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that the Secretary of State will be signing on July 27th. Louisiana citizens are counting on you. ***

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=LA

DO IT TODAY!

Sorry DRUE, but you're wrong on this one.

Clinton will be signing the treaty on the 27th. It will supplement U.S. law until such time as the Senate either ratifies it or refuses it. It may not 'change the Second Amendment' as you say, but it has every possibility of controlling what types of guns can be sold and impose registration and tracking requirements.

Silence is taken for complacency by our 'overlords' in Washington. We must shout loudly every time anything comes up that threatens our Second Amendment rights and other freedoms. Make sure they know we are here, and we are watching.

Do nothing if you wish, and be part of the problem. I for one shall be among those who shout.

Just propaganda & po0litics. It will never happen.

To all, I do appreciate the comments. I never thought that I would be told that I have to buy health insurance even though I chose to. Now it appears there is some discussion on whether this is a tax or a penalty. Given the lack of qualifications that we have in Washington that seems to pass bill to find out what is in them, I have lost the confidence that they will make an attempt on controlling our weapons. I just wanted to raise the awareness that today there are so many amendments attached to bills, that most congress personnel do not know or understand what is in them. I agree on them not being able to nullify the 2nd amendment, but what if an attachment is made to a bill that would allow the sale of certain items only to the military. This treaty is a step in the process to disarming the public. Be aware, stay informed, and contact your congress person. I hope that I never see what I am seeing in the health field at this moment. Decision may be based on QRY(quality remaining years) as they do with everything.
Thank you for the responses and God Bless Us All,
The Swamp Lizard

Those of you who say this will never happen have greater trust in elected officials than do I.

Would you ever have believed there would be a law that required you to buy health insurance or suffer penalties and the possibility of seizure of your money or property by a new army of IRS agents expressly hired and trained for that function?

I have no faith that someone like Obama and his cohorts would not use the treaty to accomplish controls they can't arrive at any other way.

Remember, a ratified treaty essentially becomes law in the U.S., requiring/allowing administrative systems to enforce it. So consider some of the proposed treaty language that would require signers to prohibit/control sale of 'small arms' that might....

' - Be diverted to unauthorized end-users for use in a manner inconsistent withthe principles, goals and objectives of the Treaty, taking into account the risk of corruption.

- Be used in the commission of transnational organized crime as defined in the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

- Be used to support, encourage or perpetrate terrorist acts.'

Now, do you think it at least possible that someone of Eric Holder's ilk might interpret that the sale of a .45 ACP in your local gun shop 'might' lead to any one or all of the acts described above - and therefore MUST be controlled by the Federal government so as to be in compliance with the treaty?

When a camel sticks its nose under the tent the best thing to do is kick the nose as hard as you can. E-mail your Senator!

By the way, 'transnational organized crime' = Mexican/American drug cartels.

I understand your thinking DREW, especially because this topic has been bouncing around for so long. But it's real and it's here now.

If you don't like or believe the link to Dick Morris report on YouTube that I posted in my first comment in this thread, try this one to FOX News. http://video.foxnews.com/v/1719546416001/could-un-arms-treaty-infringe-on-us-constitution/

Thanks for the update Huck . I'm not anti gun in any way but I saw this show about guns on tv over the weekend . They were up north somewhere like around Illinois I think . But it was an annual thing where everyone brings their weapons to shoot . Most had fully auto machine guns . Some had grenade launchers ! It was crazy . There was a lil booth where you could rent flame throwers ! WTH ? There was even a lil kid shooting a fully automatic 50 caliber machine gun . Beleive me I have nothing against guns because I hunt a lot , but why would anyone need any of that ?

Dick Morris a well informed political analyst who put Bill Clinton in the White House announced this morning on Fox News that Clinton would be signing the treaty on july 27 and it would virtually do away with the 2nd amendment. Those that boast of a revolution, it has long been started. Most all local governments,large and small,school systems are any body thats funded by tax dollars is run by liberal Democrats. The revolution is at the voting booth.

Well CHOUPIC-MAN, 'need' has nothing to do with it.

No one needs a Lamborghini or a Ferrari. And no one needs a 3,000 square foot house. But there's nothing wrong with having those if that's what you want and can afford. It's a matter of freedom and the government not controlling our lives.

I have no desire to own a fully automatic weapon. (But I suspect it would be fun to shoot one just once.) Those pleople you saw in a video of the Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot (link below) are not terrorists or evil doers. They're just citizens doing something they like.

Anyway, two-thirds of the country and nearly 100% of news commentators you see on TV don't know the difference between a fully automatic weapon and your semi-auto.

Oklahome Full Auto Shoot - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151

I have to agree with you there Huck . It probably would be cool to shoot a gun like that once . But wouldn't spend the kind of money they do for a gun like those . Not to mention the ammo .
Like you said too about the fancy cars and humongous houses people don't really need . I couldn't agree more . My wife purchased a jet ski last year ! Lol talk about uneccessary . One of those flame throwers would do that thing some good !

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/