Are we going to submit to global gun laws?

[dustinfox]

It is coming people... They want to take away our gun rights.

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new Small Arms Treaty.”

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[tangoseal]

Stand fast!! ALWAYS!!

However this probably will never pass at least for now...

[Sheldon J]

Μολὼν λαβέ!!!

Just in case you are not familar with the term

[hengst]

We currently have states that have grown the cojones to tell the fed were to stick it in regards to gun laws, intrastate commerce and the 10 A. This would stir up a hornets nest for sure. People already feel the fed has overstepped its boundries with health care and firearms laws. Does the fed. think these same states/people will tolerate adding the UN into the equation...I think not

[shooterX]

In a word...NO!

[WHEC724]

Submit to global gun law? LOL. I'll have to respectfully decline...

Not in my country. Never.

[pgrass101]

It takes 2/3's of the Senate to ratifiy a treaty.

[BikerRN]

It's coming.

If not this presidential term then within the next five terms for sure. Just look at Hillary and Health Care Reform. They are still ramming that down our throats, and will pass something.

I'm disgusted with our elected represenatives. They no longer represent us! It's time to start over.

Biker

[Bandolero]

Much ado about nothing.

It has already been settled by the Supreme Court that a treaty does not override the U.S. Constitution.

[Hiram25]

Well, when we get together and elect President Ted Nugent, we will get all of this stuff corrected!

[torgo1968]

Did you look at the date on the story? It's from October of last year. It wasn't "just announced". This non-story has been posted probably dozens of times and it's been debunked that many.

The story is nothing. Consider:

1) We would have to sign on to the treaty, which would require 67 votes in the Senate. You couldn't get 67 votes to agree that the sky is blue, there is no way that a treaty with draconian gun control could get that many votes. They wouldn't even be able to get 51 because of the pro-gun Democrats.

2) Even if you could miraculously get 67 votes, the treaty itself gives discretion to each country regarding their internal gun laws.

If not this presidential term then within the next five terms for sure. Just look at Hillary and Health Care Reform. They are still ramming that down our throats, and will pass something

God I would love to see this talking point destroyed. Whether you love or hate the health reform legislation (and I don't like it), it's not being "rammed down our throats" any more than any other legislation. The people who will vote on it were elected by popular vote. If their constituents are that opposed to it, they will hear about it and it will affect their decision (not to mention lobbyists and corporate interests).

Legislation you don't like but that might pass is not the same as "legislation rammed down your throat".

[dustinfox]

Μολὼν λαβέ!!!

Just in case you are not familar with the term

I like that...

[dustinfox]

Did you look at the date on the story? It's from October of last year. It wasn't "just announced". This non-story has been posted probably dozens of times and it's been debunked that many.

The story is nothing. Consider:

1) We would have to sign on to the treaty, which would require 67 votes in the Senate. You couldn't get 67 votes to agree that the sky is blue, there is no way that a treaty with draconian gun control could get that many votes. They wouldn't even be able to get 51 because of the pro-gun Democrats.

2) Even if you could miraculously get 67 votes, the treaty itself gives discretion to each country regarding their internal gun laws.



God I would love to see this talking point destroyed. Whether you love or hate the health reform legislation (and I don't like it), it's not being "rammed down our throats" any more than any other legislation. The people who will vote on it were elected by popular vote. If their constituents are that opposed to it, they will hear about it and it will affect their decision (not to mention lobbyists and corporate interests).

Legislation you don't like but that might pass is not the same as "legislation rammed down your throat".

That's just it... they ARE hearing about it from their constituents but are pushing it through anyway, using underhanded tricks and tactics. They think we are all stupid and they know better than we do what is good for us. It is being "rammed down our throats."

[dustinfox]

Much ado about nothing.

It has already been settled by the Supreme Court that a treaty does not override the U.S. Constitution.

These dirt bags in Washington have already thrown out the constitution. I wouldn't put anything past them.

[bsnow]

We have to stay aware! Our rights are being attacked from many directions not just here at home. It's going to be a fight every step of the way or 1/4 of an inch at a time, that is how the progressives work. They won't stop and neither do we..to defend our rights.