[Impureclient]

Is this anything new or is this just nonsense? --> http://news.yahoo.com/obama-win-u-backs-u-n-arms-treaty-193445288.html

[Hardtarget]

I've been hearing that for a while now. Win or lose he would back it. Trying to start gutting our constitution. Write your congressmen! NOW...and often.!

Mark

[hso]

Let's provide some material from the article.
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.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

[Ehtereon11B]

Saw that story on the NRA Facebook feed this morning. Thought it was just fear mongering like they sometimes like to do or take something said out of context. Looks like Obama is going to start being flexible with shredding the Constitution since he doesn't worry about another re-election.

[Cal-gun Fan]

Saw that story on the NRA Facebook feed this morning. Thought it was just fear mongering like they sometimes like to do or take something said out of context. Looks like Obama is going to start being flexible with shredding the Constitution since he doesn't worry about another re-election.
Please explain just how he is "shredding the constitution" :)

[HOOfan_1]

Let's provide some material from the article.

The fact that the U.N. is involved is the only thing I need to know to oppose it.

[Texan Scott]

I think it is important that we follow this issue. Blind opposition is understandable but unhelpful. We need to know what the new draft says, and what new regulatory authorities it would grant our chief executive if ratified. An intelligent, articulate objection is our best hope for holding our votes in the Senate against ratification. We need to read, not rant. Please, let's keep the information coming.

[xwingband]

Only applies to exports? So if other countries sign it... their exports to us would stop as part of the agreement?

That sure as ever is going to effect the domestic gun trade! I don't want to be limited to whatever is domestically made after imports stop (exports for other treaty countries).

[Texan Scott]

Several iterations of this treaty have been debated. Not all have been bad or dangerous to our freedoms. Banning exports to countries under UN human rights sanctions, or to non-state actors in warzones, for instance, affects us not at all and might be good, if the various UN member states could agree on basic things like human rights or terrorism (they can't). The concern is what powers a US president might gain IN THE US by ratification of a given version... which is why we need to stay abreast of each version and know what it actually says.

[Warp]

I'm not at all worried about it.

[Ehtereon11B]

Please explain just how he is "shredding the constitution"


Bandwagon term. Based on statements made during the debates, I am not looking forward to his next 4 years in office. I am not saying I am going to flee the country or anything drastic. I have lived overseas and I can say I vastly prefer it here. But "Paratus Preliator."

[Shadow 7D]

It's bad period
it add many layers of tape to the lawful export, or at least the last one did
AND
(this is the kicker)
the UN wanted to know where the 'legal' guns were, and track them to make sure they weren't being sold illegally

that's registration



any of these are bad for the US economy, the Arms trade is the last great industry that we lead as a nation, we sell more guns in a year than the next two most years, one of our last major manufacturing industries.

[Halal Pork]

Only applies to exports? So if other countries sign it... their exports to us would stop as part of the agreement?

That sure as ever is going to effect the domestic gun trade! I don't want to be limited to whatever is domestically made after imports stop (exports for other treaty countries).
I don't think that is the intent; but we all know that laws and treaties can be expanded far, far beyond their original intent. Some form of UN "arms treaty" is going to crop back up without doubt. However, it is difficult to predict how this may or may not impact US citizens. "Solutions" to perceived problems almost always create new, unanticipated problems.

For anyone who wants to read the blathering of international career students at the UN, please have a look over this link:

Report of the Preparatory Committee for the
United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ATTPrepCom/Documents/PrepCom4%20Documents/PrepCom%20Report_E_20120307.pdf)


"First to the year 1939 when Charlie Chaplin and his evil Nazi regime enslaved Europe and tried to take over the world! ... But then an even greater force emerged: The un! And the un un-nazi'd the world! Forever!" --Idiocracy

[Shadow 7D]

3. Each State Party shall have a national control list of those items subject to this
Treaty, consistent with the terms of the Treaty under Article [ ].

6. Each State Party shall take all appropriate measures necessary to prevent the
diversion of exported arms into the illicit market or to unintended end-users.

these are not good things, how can it be accomplished except by intrusion on our liberty

[fxstchewy]

I really don't worry about the UN, the rest of the world does not listen to them so i don't think i will either.........:D

[guyfromohio]

NM.....low road edit.

[PRM]

OK - apparently I posted this earlier in the wrong sub-forum without reading the sticky and it was deleted instead of moved by a mod.

Interesting article. Less than 24 hours and guns are on the front burner.

Exports and imports do affect sales and what we do here. How many firearms owners, own and shoot a gun made by a company outside the US.

I personally like my FN Brownings, German Walther(s) and Uberti SAs.

Bottom line: Should we as law abiding free Americans be allowed to live our lives, pursue our legal hobbies and interests unfettered by our own government, let alone someone living in a hut on the other side of the globe. Or should we be happy with the UN telling us what we can do. Gun owners need to be aware of what is taking place.

I really don't worry about the UN, the rest of the world does not listen to them so i don't think i will either.........

I do worry about our government signing agreements with them and then by executive order making it binding on us.

I personally don't think the POTUS or Hillary can apologize enough for the UN and others around the world to respect us.

[hammerklavier]

I suspect this treaty will also cut off the civilian trade of military and military style small arms - in other words no more mosin nagant or AK imports.

Remember, this is still in the discussion phase, the special interests haven't had a crack at it.

[22-rimfire]

I am most interested in this. At some point, I would like to have a copy of the actual treaty to read and make a decision. There have been various incarnations of it and knowing what the most recent version is difficult for a layman.

I suspect and worry that it will be one of those things like Obama Care... approve it and find out what's in it unfortunately. Once the President agrees to it, we should have the actual document. Unfortunately, I believe the Senate will rubber stamp the document.

[Onmilo]

Does this arms treaty apply to tanks? Because the Lima Ohio M1 Abrams tank plant is gearing up to refurbish tanks that will be supplied to US Supporting countries in Middle East and Eastern Europe,,,

[fanchisimo]

I am not worrying too much about what the actual treaty says. I am worrying about, if ratified, what the President would do with it in the vein of Executive Orders, especially if he has an anti-2A Supreme Court to back him up.

[leadcounsel]

Any gun control is bad.

Exports mean that OUR companies are restricted on selling overseas, which shrinks OUR companies. Less market, less R&D, etc. is BAD for us.

Besides, it's a slippery slope. Stop being shortsighted and pay attention. It's like a chess game, and we will lose if we don't look 3 moves ahead.

When are we going to stop thinking that it's OK to ban guns, as long as it's not OUR guns?

Gun owners must fight for gun rights of EVERONE, not just you personal rights.

[303tom]

Same old song & dance....................

[PRM]

Exports is inclusive of every party that signs on, which in turn affects imports and what is available to the US market/shooters in the future.

[Zoogster]

The ultimate goal of such legislation is always to reduce ownership of arms outside of police and military.

It is a game, and it is done in steps. Adding tape and restrictions that reduce trade outside of police and military.


The purpose is to centralize power to government forces, and away from less controllable civilians. That way the armed people are the people subject to international pressures, sanctions, decrees, treaties, etc Who can then always impose those things on the rest of the population which is unarmed. When populations around the world are armed you have dispersed power.


The initial goal is to essentially require a signing off that firearms going across international borders are for police or military. As well as registration to keep track of arms manufactured and in existence, so they can be followed and accurate counts kept as long as they exist.
There is also policies to encourage destruction of arms once replaced, so they are destroyed rather than going to civilians afterwards. Registration and keeping track of them helps keep any from being diverted away from the scrap yards when police and military forces upgrade.

[Hacker15E]

I think a lot of you need to go grab a dictionary and look up what "illicit" means.

[pockets]

I think a lot of you need to go grab a dictionary and look up what "illicit" means.
That was my thought as well.

Now where did I put that roll of tinfoil?
.

[Shadow 7D]

I think a lot of you need to go grab a dictionary and look up what "illicit" means.
No, you need to go back and put your thinking cap on

HOW are you going to prevent illicit trade?
HOW are you to control and identify 'at risk guns'

etc. etc. etc.
the point is there is MUCH MORE control and invasive regulations, and the LEAST this treaty would mandate a national registration, how else can you 'identify' the guns?

[AlaskaMan]

Not to get too far off topic...

Any treaty, including this one can only be ratified by the President after advice from and with the consent of 2/3 of the members of the senate.

Given the stalemate that has locked up DC the last four years, getting 2/3 of the senate (which is greater than the 60% supermajority required to prevent a filibuster) to agree to anything is unlikely.

If you think this a possibility and you don't want your senators to consent to it, then write your senators.

[Zoogster]

It is a chess game. The methods of control are put in place before what is 'illicit' is expanded.



Now granted the focus is not really US civilians at this point. Rather civilians in former third world nations they want to insure cannot use weapons for 2nd Amendment purposes.
For example:
If they install or help to power or want to keep in power say a pro-western/business mineral/oil exploitation government in Yemen they don't want civilians able to rise up or pose any form of instability even if it is the will of the majority. Widespread ownership of arms means power is not centralized and stable. That requires more resources to deal with than when the population is disarmed.
Or likewise say the population of Saudi Arabia gets tired of having a monarch. Well that would very likely hurt UN interests with a west friendly absolute ruler with a lot of control over oil being replaced by an unknown, like say the Muslim brotherhood.
Or similarly the Shah of Iran, a western ally and brutal dictator, very friendly to western business and oil. Eventually overthrown by the people, and replaced with a less friendly government.
Or even nations invaded by say coalition forces. They don't want to face vicious insurgents able to cause trouble to foreign invaders, they want a disarmed people who are much more easily controlled and managed by formal forces subject to UN authority or influence. Part of that is insuring populations are disarmed.


Most leaders in the world desire this, centralizing power that better insures thier authority is a no brainer. A well armed people creates more of an unknown variable.
The methods of control also have to first be established. Redefining what is and is not 'illicit' can be done later, getting everything tracked and registered is step one to being able to effectively insure compliance with anything.
Power comes from arms and those willing to fight. If you can't control who is armed you cannot control who has power.
You can manipulate with financial and cultural forces, but ultimately who you have to deal with is who is armed, and everyone armed complicates that.

[JN01]

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.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

Of course, lots of government officials think that bans on various types of weapons, prohibiting concealed carry, etc, don't infringe on the RKBA. Lots of room for "non-infringing" restrictions.

I think a lot of you need to go grab a dictionary and look up what "illicit" means.

If you believe Mayor Bloomberg and MAIG, he is only after "illegal" guns. UN might use a different dictionary than you.

[alsaqr]

In Reid vs Covert SCOTUS ruled an international treaty does not override the US Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

[Quoheleth]

Since when has Prez worried about the rules or legislative procedure? He just circumvents them with Executive Orders.

You think a pesky, 200+ year old document is going to slow this train down?

Q

[HDCamel]

The US won't sign on.

Firearms acceptance in America is the highest it's been in decades and crime is the lowest it's been in decades. Also, the worst recent case of illegal arms trafficking was perpetrated by the federal government itself. Add in the growing strength of the World Trade Organization which seeks to lower international trade barriers and it just doesn't make sense.

[MachIVshooter]

I think a lot of you need to go grab a dictionary and look up what "illicit" means.

See:

It is a chess game. The methods of control are put in place before what is 'illicit' is expanded.

It's all about incrementalism. Get people to sign on by making them think "oh, that's not so bad."

We're the frogs in the pot, and they're turning up the heat.

[Neverwinter]

Let's provide some material from the article.
Another article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107
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.

[msb45]

Several iterations of this treaty have been debated. Not all have been bad or dangerous to our freedoms. Banning exports to countries under UN human rights sanctions, or to non-state actors in warzones, for instance, affects us not at all and might be good, if the various UN member states could agree on basic things like human rights or terrorism (they can't). The concern is what powers a US president might gain IN THE US by ratification of a given version... which is why we need to stay abreast of each version and know what it actually says.
Cool lets stop arms shipments to people who violate human rights. Yea like those Israelis. If you rely on human rights violators being named by China and North Korea what keeps the US from being named? I understand on what you're saying BUT your opponent plays the Orwellian game of redefining the language to make good bad and bad good.

[jim243]

It might be worth re-reading this again. The original sits in a place of honor at the National Archives in Washington, DC. We even have a holiday to celebrate it, it's called the 4th of July.

Jim

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security

[hang fire]

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.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

In OW, nothing to see behind the curtain, sleep, be happy, the government will never lie to you.

[Warp]

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.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

In OW, nothing to see behind the curtain, sleep, be happy, the government will never lie to you.

Bold

[nwilliams]

Only applies to exports? So if other countries sign it... their exports to us would stop as part of the agreement?

That sure as ever is going to effect the domestic gun trade! I don't want to be limited to whatever is domestically made after imports stop (exports for other treaty countries).

Most foreign gun manufacturers have now set up facilities here in the US to produce firearms, HK, FN, Sig, Steyr to name a few.

[Ignition Override]

nwilliams: Thanks for that. Your news is encouraging.

Walther PPKs have been manufactured somewhere in the US, but I don't know whether any are still built in Germany.

[Ala Dan]

I've heard [but its not confirmed yet], that the UN is
training troops in El Salvador to invade American homes
too take our weapons~? Like I said,it has not been
confirmed; but I would not doubt it~! :uhoh: :eek: :(

[leadcounsel]

And just who defines "Illicit?" Folks like Nancy Pelosi mindset? This is a power grab by governments over people. Governments routinely side with supporting the wrong groups.

Think of the UN. Do you trust its judgement. Think of the mountains of guns that have been dumped in the oceans or destroyed by fire/steamrollers, etc.

We've supported the wrong groups so many times it's absurd.

We gave arms, military grade arms, to the Taliban and to Hamas in the past. Arms being sent to Syria NOW are being used to slaugther thousands of civilians.

When only governments have arms, civilains suffer...

[LAK]

I said a long time ago on here that the U.N. is the single greatest threat to all our rights, starting with the 2nd. Regardless of the wording, extent and interpretation of any particular treaty proposal, the fact is that the complete ban on the civilian ownership of firearms worldwide is a fundemental U.N. objective. A cursory examination of their own documents on their own website reflect this. It follows that any proposed treaty should be opposed. Any that is is accepted will ineveitably be subject to later changes, and the changes will always be for more.

[bikerdoc]

This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.

There is comfort and danger in that statement.
Change the composition of the court and things could get different real quick.

[Hacker15E]

There is comfort and danger in that statement.
Change the composition of the court and things could get different real quick.

Eh? The SCOTUS does not just randomly go back and start re-judging cases that are all ready case law.

[Walkalong]

But if the court changes in their favor you can bet they will push hard to get anti gun cases to SCOTUS.

No need to run around wringing our hands yet. SCOTUS hasn't changed.

[MachIVshooter]

I've heard [but its not confirmed yet], that the UN is
training troops in El Salvador to invade American homes
too take our weapons~? Like I said,it has not been
confirmed; but I would not doubt it~!

Total El Salvador male population between age 15-64: 2,033,423

Number of US gun owners: Approximately 80 million



They could send every able bodied man in that country up here, and they'd still be outnumbered more than 40:1 by gun owners alone. I'm just not concerned about this one.

[Jeff H]

The US won't sign on.

Neither will China and Russia. All that is needed to kill the treaty is for one permanent member of the security council to refuse to sign. Put away your tin foil hats.

[Salmoneye]

Quote:
The US won't sign on.

Neither will China and Russia.

Add Iran and North Korea to the "no way in hades will this come up for a vote" crew...

[RobNDenver]

Oh Humbug.

In my opinion, naturally, Carolyn McCarthy will renew her tired calls for regulation, and Frank Lautenberg will follow with his version and both initiatives will die a slow, and frankly quiet death. I suspect there may be others introduced, with similar result. Frankly, Rep. McCarthy has a deep, abiding reason to hate guns as the instrument of her husband's death and while I think she is completely out of touch, she has a right to her opinion.

Now, the facts. Regardless of what the President said years ago, he has proven to be less misguided than his predecessors. Under President Obama, HR 218 the Retired Law Officers Concealed Carry Act has been expanded. Carry by CHL in US National Parks was approved by Congress and signed into law by this President. There is absolutely no truth to this ridiculous claim that the UN Small Arms Treaty will affect American gun ownership.

The Senate Majority Leader from Nevada, and my Democratic Senators have both worked to obtain federal funds to build more, not fewer, ranges open to the public to promote the shooting sports. Google Harry Reid and Clark County Range and Mark Udall and Shooting Sports for more.


Until I see a shred of current evidence to the contrary, I don't believe this Congress or this President is likely to do a thing that would threaten our rights as gun owners.

OTOH, I would welcome a federally funded expansion to the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) that incentivized states to report all those adjudicated or committed as mentally ill. And encouraged states to penalize doctors who failed to report mental illness that could cause a person to be adjudicated or committed, in the same way that they are obliged to report child abuse to the authorities.

Nonetheless, even a common sense restriction is unlikely to get past today's elected officials.

[jim243]

And encouraged states to penalize doctors who failed to report mental illness that could cause a person to be adjudicated or committed

While the concept seems good, does that mean if you are under a lot of stress, you should NOT seek medical help because you could loose your 2A rights?

What ever happend to medical confidentality between a doctor and his/her patient? Can your employer fire you because you are trying to get medical help. What about between a lawyer and his client, can the lawyer be forced to testify against his client?

This would open a door that no one wants.
Jim

[22-rimfire]

While the concept seems good, does that mean if you are under a lot of stress, you should NOT seek medical help because you could loose your 2A rights?

What ever happend to medical confidentality between a doctor and his/her patient? Can your employer fire you because you are trying to get medical help. What about between a lawyer and his client, can the lawyer be forced to testify against his client?

This would open a door that no one wants.

I already hesitate to tell my doctor much of anything that he does not need to know. Knowledge can affect insurance rates.

In my state, you can be fired for just about anything including who you voted for. It is a right to work state as it should be. It's a double edged sword.

[barnbwt]

And encouraged states to penalize doctors who failed to report mental illness that could cause a person to be adjudicated or committed, in the same way that they are obliged to report child abuse to the authorities.


While your "heart's in the right place," these are constitutional freedoms we're talking about, which are not to be denied without due process. A doctor's reasonable suspicions don't meet that threshold. And before anyone says rights are not impacted until a court rules on those suspicions; the suspicion of mental illness (or any repugnant action) alone will convince many that the "risk is too great." It would make far more sense for people to simply be aware of their surroundings (which includes checking on your neighbors) and posses the means to mitigate the impact of criminals when they act.

There used to be a time when the ideal of protecting every single innocent man's freedoms from unjust prosecution trumped the desire of stopping all criminals. That a only a citizen's actions would be subject to judgement. That famous Franklin proverb on security and freedom comes to mind...

I already hesitate to tell my doctor much of anything that he does not need to know. Knowledge can affect insurance rates.
A wise decision, considering the Feds are now wrapped up in the insurance racket. You really think HHS would take the heat for not forwarding "suspicious reports" to the BATFE? It's like getting defense counsel in an FBI case from the Attorney General's office :eek:

TCB

[JohnBT]

Having researched this treaty topic several times over the years, I honestly believe the world needs a law that allows the prosecution of people involved in smuggling illicit arms by the plane and cargo ship load.

I don't think this treaty is it.

I don't this treaty will pass.

John

P.S. - They convicted Viktor Bout the "Merchant of Death" (played by Nicholas Cage in Lord of War) and gave him 25 years, but they had a hard time doing it. And Russia is po'd about it for some reason.

I'm read he had as many as 60 planes in his smuggling fleet, but this article says 23 aircraft and 4 helicopters.

www.victorbout.com/Aircess.htm

I see he was indicted in 2010 for trying to buy a Boeing 727 and a Boeing 737 from two Florida aviation companies.

[481]

Total El Salvador male population between age 15-64: 2,033,423

Number of US gun owners: Approximately 80 million



They could send every able bodied man in that country up here, and they'd still be outnumbered more than 40:1 by gun owners alone. I'm just not concerned about this one.

Neither am I. Last estimate I'd heard courtesy of the NRA wasd more on the order of 90 million gun owners and over 300 million guns. I like those odds.

Who was that said that it was a bad idea to invade America because there'd be a gun behind every blade of grass? :evil:

[Warp]

Neither am I. Last estimate I'd heard courtesy of the NRA wasd more on the order of 90 million gun owners and over 300 million guns. I like those odds.

Who was that said that it was a bad idea to invade America because there'd be a gun behind every blade of grass? :evil:

I don't put much faith in what the NRA says unless it is verified by outside sources.

They are alarmists. And that's an understatement.

[481]

Nonetheless, even a common sense restriction is unlikely to get past today's elected officials.

Good.

We've had enough "common sense" restrictions of our 2A freedoms.

It's about time we started enforcing the ones that we already have on the books.

[Sam Cade]

Who was that said that it was a bad idea to invade America because there'd be a gun behind every blade of grass? :evil:

It is a mystery. Not Yamamoto


http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

[Warp]

Neither am I. Last estimate I'd heard courtesy of the NRA wasd more on the order of 90 million gun owners and over 300 million guns. I like those odds.

Who was that said that it was a bad idea to invade America because there'd be a gun behind every blade of grass?

Nobody said that.

It's just a myth people like to repeat because it sounds good to them, and is IMO the kind of thing we as gun owners and shooting enthusiasts should stop repeating. I believe that getting caught spreading misinformation seriously hurts our cause by causing the fence sitters to disregard what we say as inaccurate myths.

[Rail Driver]

Neither am I. Last estimate I'd heard courtesy of the NRA wasd more on the order of 90 million gun owners and over 300 million guns. I like those odds.

Who was that said that it was a bad idea to invade America because there'd be a gun behind every blade of grass? :evil:

If those gun owners had any intention of protecting their rights to own those guns, they wouldn't have chosen EITHER of the two candidates spoon fed to them by the mainstream media considering both of them were and are vehemently anti-gun.

Further, that quote was supposedly made several decades ago, during a time when Americans as a people were SIGNIFICANTLY more patriotic, and SIGNIFICANTLY more vocal in defending their rights. In this day and age, American voters seem to prefer big government, socialist handouts, and "feel good" legislation instead of working for a living, being left alone by the government to enjoy the fruits of that labor, and freedom in general.

It truly saddens me when I hear how often that old, false quote is repeated in a day and age when it simply doesn't apply.

[r1derbike]

Most foreign gun manufacturers have now set up facilities here in the US to produce firearms, HK, FN, Sig, Steyr to name a few.Just had an interesting thought; what if most of our allies' firearms manufacturers setup shop here in the U.S., because of export restrictions or other unforseen new world order fallacy? My, what a tangled web to be weaved! ;)

[barnbwt]

Or, as time goes on and Europe continues to clamp down on guns to quell austerity riots, they notice that all their civilian sales are in the US, and their own governments are too broke to upgrade their kit anymore :D

TCB

[Tommygunn]

Until I see a shred of current evidence to the contrary, I don't believe this Congress or this President is likely to do a thing that would threaten our rights as gun owners.

The UN treaty aside, as I really don't give a *** about it at this point, President Obama himself has said he is interested in reinstating an assault weapon ban. This IS a threat to our rights as gun owners.

What ever the tinpot jackwagons in the UN plan or dream about the true danger does not come from a delapitated building along New York's East River, it comes from the halls of Congress and White House in D. C.

[gym]

They will do the same thing with guns as they did with schedual 2 narcotics in FL. It just became almost overnight impossible to get a pain medication even for my dog who had cancer.
If the state and Govt. agencys decide to cut off any item that they feel is a danger, they can do it before anyone realizes what happened. Unfortunatelly that's the way it is. I fear that we will just hear that some presedential mandate has been put into place sometime in the near future. Then it will become a legal issue ruled on down the line by the courts, but I believe that the Govt can and will put some restrictive laws into effect, perhaps they just can't figure out how to enforce them yet.

[Warp]

They will do the same thing with guns as they did with schedual 2 narcotics in FL. It just became almost overnight impossible to get a pain medication even for my dog who had cancer.
If the state and Govt. agencys decide to cut off any item that they feel is a danger, they can do it before anyone realizes what happened. Unfortunatelly that's the way it is. I fear that we will just hear that some presedential mandate has been put into place sometime in the near future. Then it will become a legal issue ruled on down the line by the courts, but I believe that the Govt can and will put some restrictive laws into effect, perhaps they just can't figure out how to enforce them yet.

Which schedule 2 narcotic was a Constitutionally protected right?

[481]

Nobody said that.

It's just a myth people like to repeat because it sounds good to them, and is IMO the kind of thing we as gun owners and shooting enthusiasts should stop repeating. I believe that getting caught spreading misinformation seriously hurts our cause by causing the fence sitters to disregard what we say as inaccurate myths.

Lighten up, Francis. No damage done. Save the over-reaction for something real.

[Warp]

Lighten up, Francis. No damage done. Save the over-reaction for something real.

I'm wish you didn't feel that spreading myths and losing any potential credibility to our cause is not real.

[481]

If those gun owners had any intention of protecting their rights to own those guns, they wouldn't have chosen EITHER of the two candidates spoon fed to them by the mainstream media considering both of them were and are vehemently anti-gun.

Further, that quote was supposedly made several decades ago, during a time when Americans as a people were SIGNIFICANTLY more patriotic, and SIGNIFICANTLY more vocal in defending their rights. In this day and age, American voters seem to prefer big government, socialist handouts, and "feel good" legislation instead of working for a living, being left alone by the government to enjoy the fruits of that labor, and freedom in general.

It truly saddens me when I hear how often that old, false quote is repeated in a day and age when it simply doesn't apply.

I wasn't speaking about why gun owners voted for a particular candidate.

Politics is OT here and I'd just as soon leave it alone.

[481]

I'm wish you didn't feel that spreading myths and losing any potential credibility to our cause is not real.

Then report me to the Mods. I'm tired of your whining accusations.

[Warp]

Then report me to the Mods. I'm tired of your whining accusations.

Not sure why you are so up in arms. You are allowed to have a different opinion on the topic than myself, and us having different opinions doesn't necessitate turning it into some kind of personal vendetta.


My statement, and I stick to it:

It's just a myth people like to repeat because it sounds good to them, and is IMO the kind of thing we as gun owners and shooting enthusiasts should stop repeating. I believe that getting caught spreading misinformation seriously hurts our cause by causing the fence sitters to disregard what we say as inaccurate myths.

[481]

Not sure why you are so up in arms. You are allowed to have a different opinion on the topic than myself, and us having different opinions doesn't necessitate turning it into some kind of personal vendetta.


Great, then respect my right to my opinion and lay off with the self-righteous diatribe.

Go nag someone else.

[Warp]

Oh, the irony

[481]

Oh, the irony

If ever I need to someone to whine at me, I now know where to look. :rolleyes:

[buster94]

Found this link and it seems to provide reasoning why a treaty should not over ride the Constitution.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

[Robert]

That's enough childish whining for one thread.