UN Arms Treaty (MERGED)

Its the first time a President has promised the UN that he will sign any anti-gun treaty.

Up until now, every single one has told the UN to take a hike.

It will be the first step to allowing any foreign "government" to dictate what we as Americans can and can not do.

But...we shall see.

Quote:

---

We can say it is black and white and there is no ambiguity but unfortuantely folks on this forum do no sit on SCOTUS.

---

Thats because they are lawyers and politicians. No such thing as a straight answer there. Their job is to complicate matters, not make them easier or understandable.

I am curious, for those that call this treaty "anti gun" can you please explain how you define that?
If the treaty does not prohibit the manufacture, sale, or ownership of any particular weapon how is it against that particular weapon?

I see this as more of a free trade issue.

The issue they are seeking to address with this treaty (from everything I have read) is to regulate cross border sales. Under existing federal laws I am already prohibited from boxing up my firearms and shipping them to Mexico, Canada, Gaza, where ever. The purpose of this treaty (from what I have read) is to prohibit John Q Citizen in Bananistan from being able to go to his Republicex store and shipping his firearms to the freedom fighters in where ever. This would require dealers in other countries to play by the same rules that U.S. dealers already play by. What it would do would be give me a level playing field if I decided to get into international arms dealing.

OK - Here you go folks. Agree or disagree. Dick Morris states that it's a backdoor means to gun control or gun registration and he lays out the exact scenario in this video.

Toss it all up against the wall and see what sticks. Have at it people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmPG9oHh1aI

Here's a companion article to the Dick Morris video, it is at dickmorris.com, titled D-Day for gun control

My cat can come up with a scenario......Why don't we all wait until 27 July or whatever and actually know what the facts are

Ya know, folks back in the 50's and 60's thought that a nuclear war was bound to happen with the Soviet Union. Score of prominent talking heads convinced a whole generation that the sky was falling and they needed to stock up on supplies and build bomb shelters. Did that happen......nope. And they probably ridiculed those that had an opposing view calling them naive or naysayers. Sound familiar anyone.

Point being is this whole thread is being fueled by fear, what ifs, I heard this will happen. But not one solid fact yet on how it will define how are rights will be affected. There is none becasue it ain't happened yet.

Maybe the 50's and 60's nuclear war didn't happen because good men stood by and actually did something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ppkheat

Maybe the 50's and 60's nuclear war didn't happen because good men stood by and actually did something.

---

Just the facts Ma'am. Maybe this, maybe that. A nuclear holocaust did not happen because sane men were in control of the weapons. And that being true, folks still said the sky was falling.

Quote:

---

Ya know, folks back in the 50's and 60's thought that a nuclear war was bound to happen with the Soviet Union.

---

War didn't happen because we negotiated from a position of strength. We had the will and the ability to kill everyone in the Soviet Union if we needed to and they knew it.

This is completely different. Our President and his Secretary of State,(lets not forget that Hillary was an avowed Marxist) have welcomed some tin horned dictators into our business.
In a different era, that alone would have qualified them for charges of treason.

If you want to trust them to do the right thing...go for it.

I know better. Actions speak louder than words. Proof of past practices is a pretty good indicator of future actions...except in the stock market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HotGuns

War didn't happen because we negotiated from a position of strength. We had the will and the ability to kill everyone in the Soviet Union if we needed to and they knew it.

This is completely different. Our President and his Secretary of State,(lets not forget that Hillary was an avowed Marxist) have welcomed some tin horned dictators into our business.
In a different era, that alone would have qualified them for charges of treason.

If you want to trust them to do the right thing...go for it.

I know better. Actions speak louder than words. Proof of past practices is a pretty good indicator of future actions...except in the stock market.

---

Where did I say to trust them? Respectfully I do not put words into others mouths or try to guess what they 'really' mean. Anyway, the point I was making was that what ever reason there was not a nuclear war it did not matter to folks at the time. While we gained superiority over the soviets talking heads still spoke of doom. That is the point I am making. If and when this treaty has no bearing over US citizens I am sure that 1:the NRA will claim victory and 2: Folks will find some other way for the sky to fall.

Just like during the cold war..no matter what treaty was signed or what position we had..the sky was always falling.

Doesn't matter what it on the treaty. It is one step closer to confiscation. Allowing the thugs in the UN to even think they have a say in how we operate is wrong, UnAmerican and downright treasonous.

All those two zipperheads care about is advancing a one world government. They dont give a rats ass about their homeland. They see themselves as citizens of the world and America be damned.

Call it whatever you want but it doesnt take a rocket surgeon to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HotGuns

Doesn't matter what it on the treaty. It is one step closer to confiscation. Allowing the thugs in the UN to even think they have a say in how we operate is wrong, UnAmerican and downright treasonous.

All those two zipperheads care about is advancing a one world government. They dont give a rats ass about their homeland. They see themselves as citizens of the world and America be damned.

Call it whatever you want but it doesnt take a rocket surgeon to see it.

---

I thought the topic of this thread was the treaty...I am not disagreeing with you about the UN. Worthless turds. Hard to debate how the treaty will affect us when your position is it does not matter what is on the treaty. That is making it very easy for you or anyone to to say they were right..regardless of the outcome, the voting or the wording. Hard to debate when someone stacks the deck. Good night sir.

Quote:

---

Hard to debate how the treaty will affect us when your position is it does not matter what is on the treaty

---

Its gonna have Obamas signature on it. Tell me now, what good will come from that?

I simply do not understand the mindset of those who do not feel threatened by the ATT preparatory work being conducted by the UN. I'm in condition red on this one...consider the following:
1. Is the threat in close proximity? Yes, they reside in NY and have the unabashed support of the president and secretary of state.
2. Is the threat immediate? Yes - July 27.
3. Has the threat expressed intent to commit harm? Absolutely...just listen to the anti-2A types talking this up.
4. Does the threat have the ability to commit harm? Yes - the UN approves a treaty and the president implements it through the back door via executive order.

Contact your senators, representatives and the president to express your alarm. And if you didn't vote in 2008 please, please do so in 2012! Our futures depend on it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ppkheat

Maybe the 50's and 60's nuclear war didn't happen because good men stood by and actually did something.

---

They signed treaties!

Just a couple of thoughts here..... As far as a treaty trumping the Constitution, Reid v Covert and the Head money cases. It don't work that way.
As far as a treaty being over and done with and nothing we can do once it is ratified. Again Head money cases.
Anyone remember the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty? Signed and ratified back in the 1970's. We unilaterally withdrew from it in 2002.