Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Right to Shoot Tyrants, Not Deer


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#31 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,850 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:05 AM

Is this the same buddy that told you we signed the UN treaty? If so, shouldn't you be wary of what he/she tells you?

Something to think about.



:goodjob: Good for you. I still don't agree with your soft stance. The UN and their ideas are no good for anybody but the NWO. We can see who's side you're on so...

#32 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,511 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:08 AM

Trust me. If I thought all the things you think happened actually did, I would be a lot more frightened.

#33 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,469 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:10 AM

I have seen literally nothing in any reputable media source nor any UN documentation that could come even close to corroborating what you have posted about what the treaty would do, rippadonn. What I have read is that it would cause an international register of arms traded *internationally*.

In fact, the Obama administration has been quoted over and over and over on the treaty as saying it would have literally no impact on the domestic gun industry nor on gun ownership of citizens. At most, it would mean that a registry of international arms sales would be created.

and it hasn't been ratified, it hasnt' been signed, and it isn't even up to be talked about again until March...

#34 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,850 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:21 AM

I have seen literally nothing in any reputable media source nor any UN documentation that could come even close to corroborating what you have posted about what the treaty would do, rippadonn. What I have read is that it would cause an international register of arms traded *internationally*.

In fact, the Obama administration has been quoted over and over and over on the treaty as saying it would have literally no impact on the domestic gun industry nor on gun ownership of citizens. At most, it would mean that a registry of international arms sales would be created.

and it hasn't been ratified, it hasnt' been signed, and it isn't even up to be talked about again until March...



OK, the .38caliber part was from the main stream media (ABC and others). I'm not here to lie to you or mislead you in any way nor is this some sort of paper to be graded. I remember what was said on TV vividly, that is all.

No it wasn't ratified OR signed in July but Hillary and the UN was and are still pushing for ratification. Recent events have probably put more people in the mood for such a thing. Are there people who want to disarm Americans??? The answer is still yes, attacking me doesn't change that.

#35 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,850 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:25 AM

Trust me. If I thought all the things you think happened actually did, I would be a lot more frightened.



Somehow your prior arguments don't support that statement but OK

#36 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,469 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:26 AM

Not trying to say you are lying, I just can't find anything that suggest that there would be confiscation of any weapon or banning of ownership in the US of any weapon related to this treaty at all.

someone in the UN may have proposed that but it was never a serious proposal as far as I can tell.

#37 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,850 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:47 AM

Not trying to say you are lying, I just can't find anything that suggest that there would be confiscation of any weapon or banning of ownership in the US of any weapon related to this treaty at all.

someone in the UN may have proposed that but it was never a serious proposal as far as I can tell.



It is a serious proposal and history would indicate that it would be very much like what happened in Canada. This is very serious and we need to take it very seriously since laws can be changed and treaties are binding and cannot be changed unless the UN agrees.

Their reasoning does nothing to protect the law abiding citizen. Traffickers and terrorists won't be the ones turning in their rifles. I can't help but think there is a hidden agenda here. That being said, I don't think it will pass, but what do I know?

#38 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,469 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:53 AM

Obama would NEVER sign a treaty taking guns from Americans, nor would the senate ever ratify it. I'm not worried about the UN taking American guns.

I really don't think you are correct about the details of this treaty at all - it sounds from everything that I am reading that it is basically making an international register of internationally traded arms, which seems like a very good idea to help cut down on illicit drug trafficking.

#39 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:50 AM

It is a serious proposal and history would indicate that it would be very much like what happened in Canada. This is very serious and we need to take it very seriously since laws can be changed and treaties are binding and cannot be changed unless the UN agrees.

Their reasoning does nothing to protect the law abiding citizen. Traffickers and terrorists won't be the ones turning in their rifles. I can't help but think there is a hidden agenda here. That being said, I don't think it will pass, but what do I know?


you really don't understand how little our government gives a shiat about the UN do you?

#40 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:16 AM

I have seen literally nothing in any reputable media source nor any UN documentation that could come even close to corroborating what you have posted about what the treaty would do, rippadonn. What I have read is that it would cause an international register of arms traded *internationally*.

In fact, the Obama administration has been quoted over and over and over on the treaty as saying it would have literally no impact on the domestic gun industry nor on gun ownership of citizens. At most, it would mean that a registry of international arms sales would be created.

and it hasn't been ratified, it hasnt' been signed, and it isn't even up to be talked about again until March...

That last line is funny because thats when the debt ceiling debate is supposed to be. Is gun control a method for diverting attentiona away from the real issue? Sure seems that way. I believe if they thought it was peacefully theisible they would confiscate every gun tomorrow. But thats not why we are all focused on this issue. it's the media leading the sheep to the watering hole.

#41 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:36 AM

Obama would NEVER sign a treaty taking guns from Americans, nor would the senate ever ratify it. I'm not worried about the UN taking American guns.

I really don't think you are correct about the details of this treaty at all - it sounds from everything that I am reading that it is basically making an international register of internationally traded arms, which seems like a very good idea to help cut down on illicit drug trafficking.

If I'm correct the big fear is the President can sign a treaty and the United States would be bound by the laws of said treaty until it is brought before the Senate for ratification, pass of fail. The only problem is with Harry Reid as leader in the Senate, it would never be brought to the floor for a vote, so we would be bound by the treaty for however long it would take to bring it to a vote. Also, the big deal with the treaty is this. The UN says it's to stop international arms dealing. That's cool and all, except they would require signatory nations to maintain a database of all firearms inside their borders to control the flow of guns outside the country. Lots of bills are seemingly harmless, but can pose a real danger if you look into them ( See Patriot Act). The last thing many of us want is the UN, let alone our own government, have an inventory of addresses and firearms.

#42 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,469 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:44 AM

That last line is funny because thats when the debt ceiling debate is supposed to be. Is gun control a method for diverting attentiona away from the real issue? Sure seems that way. I believe if they thought it was peacefully theisible they would confiscate every gun tomorrow. But thats not why we are all focused on this issue. it's the media leading the sheep to the watering hole.


doubt it has anything to do with the debt ceiling stuff, since the conference on the UN arms treaty is march 18-28, but I'd heard we needed to have debt ceiling stuff resolved by late Feb/early March.

I don't think Obama would confiscate "every gun tomorrow" at all if he could, and I have seen absolutely nothing in his policy to suggest that. I suppose you can have that gut feeling if you want to, but nothing I've seen suggests he would take an action like that. He would undoubtedly enact much more sweeping reform if given the ability to but I'm not convinced that Obama would "take" anyone's guns.

#43 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,469 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:50 AM

If I'm correct the big fear is the President can sign a treaty and the United States would be bound by the laws of said treaty until it is brought before the Senate for ratification, pass of fail. The only problem is with Harry Reid as leader in the Senate, it would never be brought to the floor for a vote, so we would be bound by the treaty for however long it would take to bring it to a vote. Also, the big deal with the treaty is this. The UN says it's to stop international arms dealing. That's cool and all, except they would require signatory nations to maintain a database of all firearms inside their borders to control the flow of guns outside the country. Lots of bills are seemingly harmless, but can pose a real danger if you look into them ( See Patriot Act). The last thing many of us want is the UN, let alone our own government, have an inventory of addresses and firearms.


1st bolding: Perhaps one of our Constitutional scholars here could correct me, but my understand is that the only part of the treaty the United States would be bound to would be that we could not take actions that would invalidate the treaty for other nations, but that the President's actions would be EXTREMELY limited until it was ratified.

2nd bolding: Not what I've read in the least - only read that internationally traded arms are covered by this, so if an American buys a gun made internationally then yes they would be in the database, but if they buy a domestic gun they would not. I see no problem with this at all.

Finally, how was the Patriot Act at all seemingly harmless? It was terrifying from the very start... Do you mean a lot of people didn't realize how scary it was? Those people just didn't look into it at all.

#44 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:08 AM

1st bolding: Perhaps one of our Constitutional scholars here could correct me, but my understand is that the only part of the treaty the United States would be bound to would be that we could not take actions that would invalidate the treaty for other nations, but that the President's actions would be EXTREMELY limited until it was ratified.

2nd bolding: Not what I've read in the least - only read that internationally traded arms are covered by this, so if an American buys a gun made internationally then yes they would be in the database, but if they buy a domestic gun they would not. I see no problem with this at all.

Finally, how was the Patriot Act at all seemingly harmless? It was terrifying from the very start... Do you mean a lot of people didn't realize how scary it was? Those people just didn't look into it at all.

In response to your second bolding. Sure, it only refers to guns crossing borders yada yada. How would a country monitor private transactions, to include international, unless they had a database to reference serial numbers/owners names/ etc. Thats what it all boils down to, is how they would have to act to make sure the treaty was enforced. And I think you misunderstood me on the PA. I meant it as everyone (that voted for it) pushed it through with good intentions and high and mighty language, when the nuts and bolts of the law were scary indeed if you stepped back and gave it a good hard look.

#45 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:15 AM

doubt it has anything to do with the debt ceiling stuff, since the conference on the UN arms treaty is march 18-28, but I'd heard we needed to have debt ceiling stuff resolved by late Feb/early March.

I don't think Obama would confiscate "every gun tomorrow" at all if he could, and I have seen absolutely nothing in his policy to suggest that. I suppose you can have that gut feeling if you want to, but nothing I've seen suggests he would take an action like that. He would undoubtedly enact much more sweeping reform if given the ability to but I'm not convinced that Obama would "take" anyone's guns.

I don't give obummer that much credit. him and all other pols should have to dress like nascar drivers. everytime they pick up a contributor they should have to add a patch so the rest of us can see who thier advertisers and sponsors are. Cause thats what they are and thats who I'm talking about. Its funny that people act like the pols still serve the people and run the gov. i agree with an earlier statement that our gov doesn't care about the UN. But their investors do and thats what matters.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.