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

  • Joined: 27-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,982
  • Reputation: 192
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,711
  • Reputation: 2,351
Moderators

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

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 27-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,982
  • Reputation: 192
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 27-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,982
  • Reputation: 192
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 27-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,982
  • Reputation: 192
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,012
  • Reputation: 440
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 22-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,867
  • Reputation: 370
  • Locationnorth carolina
HUDDLER

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users