Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd...

This is a discussion on Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So, 2 pages and 30 posts in, how about someone linking to the text of the treaty or posting the text portion which they find ...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 99
Like Tree89Likes

Thread: Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd...

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,576
    So, 2 pages and 30 posts in, how about someone linking to the text of the treaty or posting the text portion which they find
    concerning.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    2,119
    The treaty is meaningless anyway because the nations that plan to violate it will do so. Like gun control. The BG's will ignore it and the good guys will follow it.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

    http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown...eaves%20office

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So, 2 pages and 30 posts in, how about someone linking to the text of the treaty or posting the text portion which they find
    concerning.
    Do your own homework.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  5. #34
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    Do your own homework.
    I'm not sufficiently interested in this topic to bother. Somehow I think it doesn't say what people here think it says.

    What's interesting is it gets bashed but no one wants to post either a link or a text to back their bashing.

    Maybe its horrid, maybe its just not too bad, maybe its great and wonderful. I have no idea. What I find amusing
    is that all the bashing takes place by folks who parrot something from blogs but can't give me or won't-- a link to a .pdf of the treaty.

    Do your homework Patti. You and others here are the ones making accusations, or parroting accusations. Show the evidence.

    Here--- I'll help you. UNODA - The Arms Trade Treaty
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #35
    Senior Member Array cn262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    699
    Here's a good related article:

    NRA-ILA | Obama Administration to Sign U.N. Arms Trade Treaty "In the Very Near Future"

    Despite what the Liberal Media states about the NRA making baseless claims about this Treaty, is should be a huge red flag to all that the current administration pushed to change the vote from consensus to a simple majority, allowing it to pass. This is one major end-around to achieve eventual full-on gun control in the United States.

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array Cokeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    962
    Glock 23 - CZ 452 ZKM Special
    Walther P22 - LMT STD 16
    Mossberg 500A - Kahr P380
    Henry H001Y - Winchester 12
    Smith & Wesson M&P Shield
    Mossberg 500B - Marlin 336Y

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I'm not sufficiently interested in this topic to bother. Somehow I think it doesn't say what people here think it says.

    What's interesting is it gets bashed but no one wants to post either a link or a text to back their bashing.

    Maybe its horrid, maybe its just not too bad, maybe its great and wonderful. I have no idea. What I find amusing
    is that all the bashing takes place by folks who parrot something from blogs but can't give me or won't-- a link to a .pdf of the treaty.

    Do your homework Patti. You and others here are the ones making accusations, or parroting accusations. Show the evidence.

    Here--- I'll help you. UNODA - The Arms Trade Treaty
    That's lame, Hopy.

    We've already done our homework. We've been reading about the United Nitwit ATT for many, many months now.

    Now, we're just waiting to see how you're going to try to spin this in favor of your "chosen one".

    Let me guess. You're going to say "nothing to see here....move along".

    That's why Congress made a pre-emptive strike and voted against ratification of this document.

    For somebody who is supposedly pro-2A, you don't fool me for a second.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by cn262 View Post
    Here's a good related article:

    NRA-ILA | Obama Administration to Sign U.N. Arms Trade Treaty "In the Very Near Future"

    Despite what the Liberal Media states about the NRA making baseless claims about this Treaty, is should be a huge red flag to all that the current administration pushed to change the vote from consensus to a simple majority, allowing it to pass. This is one major end-around to achieve eventual full-on gun control in the United States.
    Sorry but that is just not true. They are pushing to change the rules on filibusters, not on ratifying treaties. The requirements for ratifying a treaty are set in the Constitution and could not be changed without an Amendment.
    Hopyard likes this.

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    That's lame, Hopy.

    We've already done our homework. We've been reading about the United Nitwit ATT for many, many months now.

    Now, we're just waiting to see how you're going to try to spin this in favor of your "chosen one".

    Let me guess. You're going to say "nothing to see here....move along".

    That's why Congress made a pre-emptive strike and voted against ratification of this document.

    For somebody who is supposedly pro-2A, you don't fool me for a second.
    There is really no reason to attack someone. If you disagree with his statements, show where you think they are wrong.
    technomonster likes this.

  11. #40
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    That's lame, Hopy.

    We've already done our homework. We've been reading about the United Nitwit ATT for many, many months now.

    Now, we're just waiting to see how you're going to try to spin this in favor of your "chosen one".

    Let me guess. You're going to say "nothing to see here....move along".

    That's why Congress made a pre-emptive strike and voted against ratification of this document.

    For somebody who is supposedly pro-2A, you don't fool me for a second.
    Patti-- How about you and others go to the link I provided, read around there some, download the .pdf of the treaty (it is long
    122 pages I think) and show us what you are concerned about. You say you have done your homework. Good. Then
    you should be able to quickly find the portions that you object to and either post the text here or list/state them in a post.

    I'm waiting to be convinced that you are correct. You have made allegations about the goals; maybe you are 100% correct.
    You might be. I wouldn't know as I have not (yet) read the treaty and I don't visit the blogs you visit.

    So all I'm saying is show me--- is that not reasonable?
    technomonster likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,814
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    Sorry but that is just not true. They are pushing to change the rules on filibusters, not on ratifying treaties. The requirements for ratifying a treaty are set in the Constitution and could not be changed without an Amendment.
    I bleive he is referring to the UN vote. The first time the the US pushed for consensus...which means everyone has to agree to the treaty.
    cn262 likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Patti-- How about you and others go to the link I provided, read around there some, download the .pdf of the treaty (it is long
    122 pages I think) and show us what you are concerned about. You say you have done your homework. Good. Then
    you should be able to quickly find the portions that you object to and either post the text here or list/state them in a post.

    I'm waiting to be convinced that you are correct. You have made allegations about the goals; maybe you are 100% correct.
    You might be. I wouldn't know as I have not (yet) read the treaty and I don't visit the blogs you visit.

    So all I'm saying is show me--- is that not reasonable?
    Good God. Are you serious?

    There is nothing good to come from signing this treaty. The treaty itself threatens civilian firearm ownership! Any Arms Trade Treaty must respect the Second Amendment right of individual self-defense. This can only be accomplished by expressly excluding civilian firearms ownership from its scope, which this treaty fails to do.

    Now let's hear why you support Obama signing this piece-of-crap treaty.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    Good God. Are you serious?

    There is nothing good to come from signing this treaty. The treaty itself threatens civilian firearm ownership! Any Arms Trade Treaty must respect the Second Amendment right of individual self-defense. This can only be accomplished by expressly excluding civilian firearms ownership from its scope, which this treaty fails to do.

    Now let's hear why you support Obama signing this piece-of-crap treaty.
    \

    How does it threaten civilian firearm ownership? What part of the treaty does that? I have read the treaty and it has NOTHING to do with civilian firearms ownership at all. It has no effect on us purchasing firearms at all.
    Hopyard and technomonster like this.

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,814
    I am curious to those that say this is doom (hypotheticaly if ratified) to hear from them. Can folks that think this is doom articulate without adding hyperbole, slippery slope, and red herring arguments as to exactly what parts specifically they are concerned about.

    BTW: This is more of an exercise in finding out who has actually read the document and understands it. I guess it is only fitting since many of us are upset at Congress voting on things without understanding or reading bills. Thought to be intellectually honest, those on this forum should be able to intelligently explain the treaty.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  16. #45
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    Good God. Are you serious?

    There is nothing good to come from signing this treaty. The treaty itself threatens civilian firearm ownership! Any Arms Trade Treaty must respect the Second Amendment right of individual self-defense. This can only be accomplished by expressly excluding civilian firearms ownership from its scope, which this treaty fails to do.

    Now let's hear why you support Obama signing this piece-of-crap treaty.
    Come on Patti, you are smart. Show me the text that causes you (and others) to call the treaty "this -piece -of- crap."

    Unlike Mr. OutWestSystems I have not read it and make no claim to having read it. So educate me.

    We might actually get somewhere if you (or anyone else) posted the text portions they find objectionable. Maybe you could show Mr. OutWestSystems that he is mistaken with his assertion, "it has NOTHING to do with civilian firearms ownership at all."
    OTOH, if you can't show how the treaty affects civilian firearms ownership, maybe the complaints about it affecting 2A are not valid.

    There is plenty to discuss, and it won't get discussed if someone doesn't specify a complain more specifically than that
    something is vague.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

az republic - the illogical need to believe obama

,
discuss three reasons for either supporting or opposing the gun amnesty programs in the usvi
,
gun control
,

obama signing peace treaty

,
obama to sign gun bill today
,
un att june 3rd
Click on a term to search for related topics.