UN gun ban

[VN Vet]

Standard format of a pro 2A letter that his office sends anyone and everyone.... and still full of lies.

That is what I think also. Political BS from a guy that has been tell us falsehood since 1977. I am happy he is gone come next year.

 

[flagtag]

That is what I think also. Political BS from a guy that has been tell us falsehood since 1977. I am happy he is gone come next year.

I doubt if any of our representatives ever see any of our correspondence. Their secretaries take care of that. Only something extreme would get to them I think.

BUT - we still need to contact them (various methods) FOR THE RECORD.

 

[Ted]

I doubt if any of our representatives ever see any of our correspondence. Their secretaries take care of that. Only something extreme would get to them I think.

BUT - we still need to contact them (various methods) FOR THE RECORD.

Probably, but only if it works for the benefit of their political agenda.

 

[flagtag]

Probably, but only if it works for the benefit of their political agenda.

Yeah that is what I was thinking.

 

[PINski1015]

Arms may fairly easily purchased for export through companies operated out of China, France, Russia, UK, and the U.S.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]Coincidentally, these countries that manufacture the largest number of both small and large arms, are also the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council.

I've heard that last part in a movie.

 

[Ted]

I've heard that last part in a movie.

I saw something about it in Nicholas Cage's film, "Lord of War"; though I knew about it already.

 

[wetidlerjr]

This treaty has not been signed. It does not have the support needed in the Senate if it was signed. If it does get signed but does not get approved by the Senate (needs 2/3 majority) then it does not have the force of law. This is all from high school civics/government class. Apparently, we have very few members here that did not sleep through those classes.
This thread has so much fail and ignorance in it that it made my head hurt.
I am going to go lie down now.

 

[flagtag]

This treaty has not been signed. It does not have the support needed in the Senate if it was signed. If it does get signed but does not get approved by the Senate (needs 2/3 majority) then it does not have the force of law. This is all from high school civics/government class. Apparently, we have very few members here that did not sleep through those classes.
This thread has so much fail and ignorance in it that it made my head hurt.
I am going to go lie down now.

Did you forget the great number of times Dictator Obama has ignored Congress (yeah, that included the Senate) and did just what HE wanted? What makes you think that he would even bother with them - especially if he thinks they would vote it down? Obama doesn't do Constitution!

 

[rugertoter]

That's change I can believe in.

Me three.

 

[wetidlerjr]

Did you forget the great number of times Dictator Obama has ignored Congress (yeah, that included the Senate) and did just what HE wanted? What makes you think that he would even bother with them - especially if he thinks they would vote it down? Obama doesn't do Constitution!

You need to be a little more specific because all I see is a ****-poor rant on your part. He doesn't have a majority in the House and lacks the 2/3 majority in the Senate to do much of anything except use the veto. You need to go somewhere, get educated and try dealing in reality not Tea Party propaganda.
As I said, the fail is huge in this thread. Thanks for confirming that.

 

[Justin Case]

In my research of this matter I found these articles to be very interesting, so I thought I would share them.

» UN Gun Grab Follows State Department Plan Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Prison Planet.com » Obama on Libya:

 

[.45 Dave]

Here's some info from the NRA on the treaty.



Disinformation Continues as U.N. Arms Treaty Takes Shape

Posted on July 20, 2012


In New York this week, the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty continued trying to draft a treaty to impose worldwide controls on small arms, including civilian-owned firearms.

The NRA has made clear its opposition to any treaty that includes civilian firearms, and continues to note that a majority of the United States Senate stands with American gun owners in opposition to such a treaty. We have led the effort to mobilize opposition to the treaty in Congress, and not only a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate, but also 130 House members, have voiced strong opposition to the treaty. Ignoring that reality, U.N. conferees are working to regulate not only civilian small arms, but also ammunition and firearm parts.

Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie.

For example, the most recent draft treaty includes import/export controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the "end user" of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

And even if the U.S. never ratifies--or even signs--the treaty, many other nations will. The cost of complying with the treaty would drive up the price of imported firearms and probably force some companies to take their products off the U.S. market.

That's not all. This week, the delegates focused on an endless series of drafts that would either ban exportation or require states to consider the risk of exporting, if the arms could be used to commit crime, or could "be diverted to unauthorized end users" or "the illicit market." Exports could also be blocked if they would "support" or "encourage" terrorist acts or "provoke, prolong or aggravate acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace," or could be used in "gender-based violence" or to inflict "human suffering." Anti-gun activists here and abroad have long claimed that gun ownership in general does all of these things, so any of these provisions could be abused by foreign governments to shut off exports to law-abiding Americans.

The NRA has spent nearly 20 years lobbying against U.N. attacks on civilian firearms ownership. As a U.N.-recognized NGO (non-governmental organization) we have attended meetings and conferences and we have spoken out directly at the U.N. about our unfailing opposition to any treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.

As the conference completes drafting the treaty, the NRA will continue to gather information on what provisions are included, and will work with our allies in the international community as well as Congress to oppose adoption of any anti-gun treaty or any other international restriction on our constitutional freedoms.

 

[Caleb]

This treaty has not been signed. It does not have the support needed in the Senate if it was signed. If it does get signed but does not get approved by the Senate (needs 2/3 majority) then it does not have the force of law. This is all from high school civics/government class. Apparently, we have very few members here that did not sleep through those classes.
This thread has so much fail and ignorance in it that it made my head hurt.
I am going to go lie down now.

Once Hilary signs it, we are just that much closer...then all it it would take is a liberal majority and we're done...irreversal damage. Can anybody say "New World Order"?

 

[wetidlerjr]

Once Hilary signs it, we are just that much closer...then all it it would take is a liberal majority and we're done...irreversal damage. Can anybody say "New World Order"?

As posted above:

Here's some info from the NRA on the treaty....The NRA has made clear its opposition to any treaty that includes civilian firearms, and continues to note that a majority of the United States Senate stands with American gun owners in opposition to such a treaty. We have led the effort to mobilize opposition to the treaty in Congress, and not only a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate, but also 130 House members, have voiced strong opposition to the treaty. Ignoring that reality, U.N. conferees are working to regulate not only civilian small arms, but also ammunition and firearm parts...

While it would be utter folly to ignore this threat, it is also VERY foolish to run around with Chicken Little screaming "The sky is falling!!". In this thread, on Facebook, on other gun boards and across the internet, there are many ranting that this is a done deal, that it will be signed next week and local police will be shooting gun owners in their homes for failing to give up their weapons, etc. Calm, steady, forceful and rational opposition to this treaty (as of yet, not finalized) like the NRA is doing is the proper way to defeat this. Weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and ill-informed rants is NOT the proper way. The spreading of disinformation by gun owners can do as much or more damage to our cause as the disinformation being put out by proponents of this treaty.
Sometimes it seems that we are our own worst enemies.

 

[flagtag]

You need to be a little more specific because all I see is a ****-poor rant on your part. He doesn't have a majority in the House and lacks the 2/3 majority in the Senate to do much of anything except use the veto. You need to go somewhere, get educated and try dealing in reality not Tea Party propaganda.
As I said, the fail is huge in this thread. Thanks for confirming that.

Ok, how about:
CISPA
NDRP
NDAA
EEA
SOPA
ACTA
for starters.

 

[flagtag]

Yeah, he is preparing for something. (Even if he has to push a "conflict") Will Martial Law be declared just before the election - if he believes he is going to lose? Or just after when he does lose? What is on his twisted/demented mind? Dictatorship?

I fear we will find out soon enough.

 

[flagtag]

They know that if they informed the public as a whole, there would LOTS more of us crawling all over them. They don't want to give us the chance to veto their treasonous acts. (I think they feel that once the evil deed is done, we will just accept it - quietly)

 

[DrLongBear]

The U.N.has attempted these changes since 1961. This new push came about in December 2011 - I, for one, will not tolerate a foreign body, which includes communists, and other forms of government opposed to our Constitution, to dictate what those rights are. Our founding fathers said, NO citizen's right to bare arms shall be abridged. PERIOD...I suspect our great country may be headed to a point where the government must be returned to the people as the politicos who are supposed to be serving us, are instead serving their own purposes.

I said the same thing about Obummer Care...so did a lot of Republicans...now is not the time to sit back. I believe we must actively contact our senators and all of congress, for that matter, and remind them what their original job is meant to be - Serve the People.

I agree with you. No sense losing our heads...we need to assess these matters and respond with deliberate constitutional mandate - which I, for one, have already fought for...as did my father and our fore fathers.

I agree. Every day since he came to office it appears to have the purpose of tearing down this great nation. He swore to uphold the constitution, and he routinely violates the rights of the people...it will be his agenda or he will force it with an executive order, which also violates the constitution. There has been speculation that he may declare martial law, a national or international emergency. He has already "executive ordered" his complete power of media, food, transportation, personal properties, conscripting, relocating, etc. - while I am thinking someone will stand up and prevent any such thing from occurring, my mind is asking me, "Why would he issue executive orders for the absolute control of the United States and its people? What is his mind thinking? Is this a contingency in case he is not re-elected, or in case his wolves in the justice department & Clinton cannot pull the gun treaty off? There is a lot to ponder and much to be aware of.

That's the best suggestion I've heard in a bit...kick all of them out of New York

That's change I can believe in.

Your quote tag in English is: "It is best to endure what you cannot change." I prefer: Improvise, Adapt, Overcome or, "Compone Accomoda Supera"

Obviously enough of them changed their minds for our own good

Exactly "how" good are they planning?

I haven't had time to research this but Dick Morris said it doesn't matter if it's ratified, which it would be at the current count of senators that support it. However, if it's signed, it doesn't have to be ratified if Harry Reid doesn't bring it up for a vote. The U.S. would be bound by it if it's signed and waiting for a vote. So, if it's signed at the end of the month like its expected to be and Obama gets re-elected then we would be bound by it for the next 4 years and 4 months.

Was not aware of this...looking a bit dismal...voting booths need to be the avenue to extract the mess in D.C.

I can respect being mindful of what slides across the desks in Washington but after spectating much of the mindless babble regarding this UN Small Arms Treaty it's nearly become a laughing matter. From what I've seen, people are behaving as if all is lost and the end is near. Many media outlets have been exaggerating it, it's become a business edge for many weapons dealers (I don't blame them for it), and the usual response is the typical "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands" or "I'll be cocked and locked when they come knockin' for my guns". It's humiliating personally because that kind of behavior sums up the crazed gun owner stereotype. It all boils down to fear mongering which doesn't help anything. I never sat through the entire Nutnfancy video but I'm sure its up to par with what I'm mentioning. I love my firearms, I love my rights, I love having access to exercise both, but I also do my best to understand what the government can and can't do and this is something that is far beyond reality. Could it effect us? Perhaps to a certain level but this isn't the death of guns. Maybe I'm a naive college student who doesn't see the fear but we have checks and balances for a purpose, they haven't always held up the best in past history but they do their part.

If I could applaud you, I would...very sensible...I want to remind you of Nazi Germany...Hitler picked off his opponents one at a time...and everyone watched cause hitler wasn't coming for them...and when it finally got to the last one, when he looked around for help, he had none because Hitler had gotten them all. I do agree with what you said, but I suspect we need to keep alert and vigilant, and not assume anything...but do be prepared for everything. Best way to do that is to consider all options and avenues...including the "Chicken Little's"

The part of this that I find disturbing is the part about, details not being discussed, or revealed...very secretive...Obama, the Senate...the U.N. representative, need to be informing the people...so much for a "Transparent" Presidency...another Obama lie.

if they ban small arms, where might one purchase large ones instead???

Your nearest local back alley...seriously, I think this might be getting a bit ahead of where we actually are...All the gun people could come up here to Alaska and we could have a great time being a country all our own...actually, while Alaska has great gun laws, most gun owners would not want to deal with the rest of the B.S.

Arms may fairly easily purchased for export through companies operated out of China, France, Russia, UK, and the U.S.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]Coincidentally, these countries that manufacture the largest number of both small and large arms, are also the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council.

And their U.N. representatives are pushing hard for the same goal...

 

[Movealongmovealong]

Extremely unlikely for a treaty of this nature to pass muster in the U.S.

There are much better things to worry about that some talking head on youtube trying to stir up crap in order to get pageviews and up his ad-sense earnings. I call him the "rambling man," for obvious reasons.

 

[flagtag]

Watch what the other hand is doing.