They are gunning for us again!

[RoBoTeq]

Actually, they are gunning for our guns. This time, they are going to try it through that oh so useful organization, the United Nations;
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.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2439535/posts


Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.http://www.therepublicantemple.com/2009/12/23/hillary-clinton-commits-to-un-small-arms-treaty/

If you are interested, here is a petition to stop this from passing; http://www.nagr.org/UNpetition1.aspx?pid=n12

[Hugh B]

The CONSTITUTION is the highest law of the land. Any agreement made by any government official that usurps my constitution is an act of TREASON against the United States.

Any government attempt to take my gun from me will require that they kill me in the process. One of the primary reasons the founding fathers ensured my right to bear arms was to allow me to protect myself against an oppressive government. When they make such an agreement with the UN they have directly violated the constitution and the very rights we hold to protect ourselves from others, including or especially the government itself.

Others before us shed their blood for the freedom we now enjoy. We may have to do the same for our children. When they come for my firearms they will be met with lead first. This could be messy, real messy.

[EarthLoop]

I feel like going out and bagging me a liberal right now !!!:patriot::patriot:

[RoBoTeq]

With the way the U.N. showed how inept it was with Saddam Hussein and how corrupt it was selling supplies that were provided with our money to both sides in the war in Bosnia, I'd of thought we would be out of the U.N. by now.

[EarthLoop]

With the way the U.N. showed how inept it was with Saddam Hussein and how corrupt it was selling supplies that were provided with our money to both sides in the war in Bosnia, I'd of thought we would be out of the U.N. by now.

How much do you want to bet BO works for the UN a year after he's voted out in 2012??

[RoBoTeq]

How much do you want to bet BO works for the UN a year after he's voted out in 2012??
Ya know, I hadn't thought about it, but no, I won't take that bet.

[printer2]

Why do you think your guns would be in jeopardy when the purpose of the act is in stopping the illegal importation and exportation of small arms?

[Pneuma]

This is probably in response to the drug lords in Mexico and all the murdering going on down there and not a secret campaign against gun owner's.

[RoBoTeq]

Why do you think your guns would be in jeopardy when the purpose of the act is in stopping the illegal importation and exportation of small arms?
It's an American thing; you wouldn't understand:patriot:

[RoBoTeq]

This is probably in response to the drug lords in Mexico and all the murdering going on down there and not a secret campaign against gun owner's.
Whatever the liberal U.N. and our liberal politico's claim it to be, it will become a restriction of our rights. That's just the sneaky kind of things that leftists looking to Socialize the U.S. do.

[Joe Harper]

Ooohhh...U.N. troops are going to come to my house. Good thing they use French military tactics. I will expect a notice of surrender within a half hour of thier arrival.

[Tool-Slinger]

It's an American thing; you wouldn't understand:patriot:
They try this from time to time, treaties can trump constitution and so forth. Flies like a rock with golden wings.

[Tool-Slinger]

Ooohhh...U.N. troops are going to come to my house. Good thing they use French military tactics. I will expect a notice of surrender within a half hour of thier arrival.
With any major opposition, our guns cannot be taken. The UN could only make matters worse for the gun grabbers. Will not happen.

[printer2]

It's an American thing; you wouldn't understand:patriot:

Oh come on, you should know better. I know more of your boogie man than most Americans, you forget our gun laws.

[printer2]

This is probably in response to the drug lords in Mexico and all the murdering going on down there and not a secret campaign against gun owner's.

That is a reason for the renewed interest in the US.


The funny thing about all the people saying Clinton wants to ban your guns is that it is damn hard to find the source for their statements.

Do a search, see how much time you can waste (Can I please have that time back?). I was even on liberal sites (Gasp!) and even they are not triumphing their success in taking American guns out of the hands of Americans.


Here is Japan's take on the UN resolution. Why do I include Japan's 2007 analysis of the draft? Because it is well written.


Draft principles for an arms trade treaty (ATT) produced by NGOs have been made through discussions for the last several years, and they make a good starting point for consideration on parameters of the treaty. The following are excerpts from principles, for States to conduct responsible transfers, enumerated in the draft principles.

1. All international transfers of arms and ammunition (hereafter referred to as "arms") shall be authorized by a recognized state (......).

2. States shall not authorize international transfers of arms that violate their expressed obligations under international law. These obligations include: obligations under the Charter of the United Nations - including binding resolutions of the Security Council, etc., any other treaty or decision by which a state is bound, and universally accepted principles of international humanitarian law - including the prohibition on the use of arms that are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, the prohibition on weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians.

3. States shall not authorize international transfers of arms where they will be used or are likely to be used for violations of international law, including breaches of the UN Charter and customary law rules relating to the use of force, gross violations of international human rights law, serious violations of international humanitarian law, acts of genocide, or crimes against humanity.

4. States shall take into account other factors, including the likely use of the arms, before authorizing an arms transfer, including the recipient's record of compliance with commitments and transparency in the field of non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament.
States should not authorize the transfer if it is likely to: be used for or to facilitate terrorist attacks; be used for or to facilitate the commission of violent or organized crime; adversely affect regional security or stability; adversely affect sustainable development; involve corrupt practices; contravene other international, regional, or sub-regional commitments or decisions made, or agreements on non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament to which the exporting, importing, or transit States are party.

5. States shall submit comprehensive national annual reports on all their international arms and ammunition transfers to an international registry, which shall publish a compiled, comprehensive, international annual report.

6. States shall establish common standards for specific mechanisms to control: all import and export of arms; arms brokering activities; transfers of arms production capacity; and the transit and trans-shipment of arms.


http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/UN/disarmament/arms/att/view0704.html

[ga-hvac-tech]

I had a discussion over the weekend with a retired Army officer... we were discussing the potential for Marshall law in the USA...

He said it cannot happen as long as the military is spread too thin overseas... He mentioned that yeah, they could fly back tens of thousands of troops... but they also need the hardware... vehicles, rifles, ammunition, etc...

I think this stuff about gun confiscation is just smoke... takes up bandwidth with the media while congresscritters are sneaking through something we would not like...

Also; down here in the South (as well as in Texas), they would get a royal fight if they tried to collect the guns... Every time Shawn Hennedy or the Fair Tax crowd has a rally, the tickets sell out the first day... It would be just dumb to even try...

[RoBoTeq]

Oh come on, you should know better. I know more of your boogie man than most Americans, you forget our gun laws.
You may think it's a boogie man, but it'ssnot.

[Joe Harper]

Oh come on, you should know better. I know more of your boogie man than most Americans, you forget our gun laws.

In Canada, doctors kill more people than guns. Maybe thier not afraid of getting shot??

[Tool-Slinger]

That is a reason for the renewed interest in the US.


The funny thing about all the people saying Clinton wants to ban your guns is that it is damn hard to find the source for their statements.

Do a search, see how much time you can waste (Can I please have that time back?). I was even on liberal sites (Gasp!) and even they are not triumphing their success in taking American guns out of the hands of Americans.


Here is Japan's take on the UN resolution. Why do I include Japan's 2007 analysis of the draft? Because it is well written.




http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/UN/disarmament/arms/att/view0704.html
4. States shall take into account other factors, including the likely use of the arms, before authorizing an arms transfer,

I don't think that is limited to international sales.

[Tool-Slinger]

I had a discussion over the weekend with a retired Army officer... we were discussing the potential for Marshall law in the USA...

He said it cannot happen as long as the military is spread too thin overseas... He mentioned that yeah, they could fly back tens of thousands of troops... but they also need the hardware... vehicles, rifles, ammunition, etc...

I think this stuff about gun confiscation is just smoke... takes up bandwidth with the media while congresscritters are sneaking through something we would not like...

Also; down here in the South (as well as in Texas), they would get a royal fight if they tried to collect the guns... Every time Shawn Hennedy or the Fair Tax crowd has a rally, the tickets sell out the first day... It would be just dumb to even try...
Bingo.

I think Our total military only numbers about a half million, and most of these guys are kinda pro bill of rights and constitution to begin with,... I figure Our military would defeat any such nonsense via revolt, with popular support of course. Ain't happening.

[Tool-Slinger]

In case you misunderstand the border situation to our south,... I can travel as far as I want south without any search, I only get searched traveling north. Cross the border, no interference at all, nothing.

[REECHMAN]

Or would they follow orders like they did at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

[RoBoTeq]

In case you misunderstand the border situation to our south,... I can travel as far as I want south without any search, I only get searched traveling north. Cross the border, no interference at all, nothing.
What borders are you referring to? I've never been searched going into or leaving Canada. Good thing, too.

[RoBoTeq]

Bingo.

I think Our total military only numbers about a half million, and most of these guys are kinda pro bill of rights and constitution to begin with,... I figure Our military would defeat any such nonsense via revolt, with popular support of course. Ain't happening.
If the government gets too powerful, military personnel will do what they have to do to keep their jobs.

[Tool-Slinger]

Or would they follow orders like they did at Waco and Ruby Ridge?
If you have a local situation, info trickles out. If you get a national event then the poopy hits the fan. And in both examples you got questionables, not saying it was right, but there is the removal of any doubt in a national effort.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Or would they follow orders like they did at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Had that discussion over the weekend with the retired officer... He thinks it is about 50/50... There are a lot of patriots in the military... and there are also a lot of 'little people' that just follow orders.

I suspect it would be region by region... I cannot see a home-grown Alabama boy pointing his M-16 at a fellow Alabaman... Just would not happen...

[Tool-Slinger]

If the government gets too powerful, military personnel will do what they have to do to keep their jobs.
I do not agree. I think they are patriots by majority, but even if I am wrong then we are still looking at 1/2 million vs.300 million. No contest.

[RoBoTeq]

Had that discussion over the weekend with the retired officer... He thinks it is about 50/50... There are a lot of patriots in the military... and there are also a lot of 'little people' that just follow orders.

I suspect it would be region by region... I cannot see a home-grown Alabama boy pointing his M-16 at a fellow Alabaman... Just would not happen...
Hmm, I just never took you for a romantic.

[RoBoTeq]

I do not agree. I think they are patriots by majority, but even if I am wrong then we are still looking at 1/2 million vs.300 million. No contest.
Women, children, oldsters and wussies with maybe a few who would jeopardize family members to go against the government. We would not be the first country to fall to a government coup using the countries military.

Word would spread quickly that families of military personnel will be treated better and with a decline of jobs having more Americans working for the government, it could easily occur.

[printer2]

4. States shall take into account other factors, including the likely use of the arms, before authorizing an arms transfer,

I don't think that is limited to international sales.

And why do you think that? Did you look up the people backing the treaty? The major one's are NGO's that end up mopping up poor war torn countries after they had been armed to the teeth. Amnesty International, Oxfam...

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_11/ArmsTradeTreaty

http://www.peacebuild.ca/documents/Transfers Brief Epps 2008-05-12.pdf

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/pressreleases/worlds-biggest-arms-traders-promise-global-arms-treaty

A Global Arms Trade Treaty: What States Want


Exclusions from the definition of transfer

States agreed that an ATT should not apply to transfers made within the territory of a state. Furthermore, a number of submissions stated that an ATT must not impose restrictions on how arms may be acquired, held or used within a state’s territory, where other limitations of international law and multilateral agreements already exist. It is also clear that an ATT must allow for flexibility for states to facilitate temporary export or import of certain goods, such as antique or sporting or hunting firearms used in legitimate activities. It should also respect the legitimate interests of firearms owners, producers and retailers.


A majority of states believe that an ATT must cover “all conventional weapons,” such as, but not limited to:

- Small arms and light weapons;
- Man Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS);
- Main battle tanks;
- Armoured fighting vehicles;
- Combat aircraft;
- Warships and conventionally armed missiles;
- Ammunition (including explosives);
- Parts and components.


http://www.controlarms.org/en/documents%20and%20files/reports/english-reports/what-states-want

The treaty is a little more involved with arming countries that keeping guns out of the hands of the NRA.

[Tool-Slinger]

Women, children, oldsters and wussies with maybe a few who would jeopardize family members to go against the government. We would not be the first country to fall to a government coup using the countries military.

Word would spread quickly that families of military personnel will be treated better and with a decline of jobs having more Americans working for the government, it could easily occur.
Numerically.our military is not so large. If they tried a confiscation plan, it would be a disaster even with 100 percent support of our military. More likely I will lay an egg in the morning. Nobody is giving up guns willingly, it is a political loser.

The military cannot, numerical disadvantage and dissent within the ranks over constitutional issues,.... but you would get a hellacious revolt if it was even attempted, forget the teaparty, every nut will crawl of of the woodwork, me included perhaps. It cannot happen that way, that is too obvious. They could not even try a regional enforcement angle, It would float like a rock. Obamacorps cannot handle this one, once again dead on arrival.

[Tool-Slinger]

And why do you think that? Did you look up the people backing the treaty? The major one's are NGO's that end up mopping up poor war torn countries after they had been armed to the teeth. Amnesty International, Oxfam...

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_11/ArmsTradeTreaty

http://www.peacebuild.ca/documents/Transfers Brief Epps 2008-05-12.pdf

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/pressreleases/worlds-biggest-arms-traders-promise-global-arms-treaty

A Global Arms Trade Treaty: What States Want






http://www.controlarms.org/en/documents%20and%20files/reports/english-reports/what-states-want

The treaty is a little more involved with arming countries that keeping guns out of the hands of the NRA.
It has been linked to USA sales of guns which get transferred [smuggled]over to Mexico. They want to infringe sales here because of that.

[printer2]

Women, children, oldsters and wussies with maybe a few who would jeopardize family members to go against the government. We would not be the first country to fall to a government coup using the countries military.

Word would spread quickly that families of military personnel will be treated better and with a decline of jobs having more Americans working for the government, it could easily occur.

Do you realize China sent troops from another part of the country that did not speak the local language to Tiananmen Square? They did not want a repeat of Poland where little old ladies would say to the solders 'Shame on you.'

[Tool-Slinger]

Do you realize China sent troops from another part of the country that did not speak the local language to Tiananmen Square? They did not want a repeat of Poland where little old ladies would say to the solders 'Shame on you.'
Good history lesson. Deserves some thought.

[printer2]

It has been linked to USA sales of guns which get transferred [smuggled]over to Mexico. They want to infringe sales here because of that.

You mean to say that guns are being bought in the US and then illegally shipped over to Mexico to supply the Drug gangs to take over parts of the country?

[printer2]

Good history lesson. Deserves some thought.

Politicians only have power if the people back them. I can see a military coup before I can see American solders enslaving their own people.

Makes for a good movie though.

[Tool-Slinger]

You mean to say that guns are being bought in the US and then illegally shipped over to Mexico to supply the Drug gangs to take over parts of the country?
Yes, exactly. You can buy guns here then easily drive over the border with them. There is no interference in making the smuggle, or border crossing, easy as pie.

That is why they are trying to crack-down on sales within our borders,... or at least one excuse for doing so. Make no mistake, this does involve the infringement of our gun ownership rights.

[bootlen]

Or would they follow orders like they did at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Those events were both Feds being blind...not the military.

If you watched the SOTU, it was obvious that the CoS were NOT impressed by BO. They can't wait to be rid of that idiot.

[acmanko]

I just don't see getting all paranoid about the gov taking our guns. It just ain't gonna happen

can't you so called conservatives go more than a week without crying about something that your afraid of

or better yet, grow a set a make the gov afraid of you

[jmac00]

the U.N ?????????

you can't spell UNETHICAL with out U.N.

we should boot the U.N. out of the country, send the whole lot to France.

Hey I hear the U.N. has a new flag, it's a white cross, on a white back ground :patriot:

[ga-hvac-tech]

Wise old proverb:

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer...

Having the UN inside the USA has its advantages... We can keep a closer eye on them on our doorstep than down the street... :patriot:

[ga-hvac-tech]

I just don't see getting all paranoid about the gov taking our guns. It just ain't gonna happen

can't you so called conservatives go more than a week without crying about something that your afraid of

or better yet, grow a set a make the gov afraid of you

I like this idea! Not that one should step out and do something that will lead to incarceration... rather rally the neighbors to have a single political view: Follow the Constitution, as interpreted the way the writers intended.

I think any power hungry politician would seriously FEAR a public that was well educated on the writings in the Constitution.

[RoBoTeq]

Numerically.our military is not so large. If they tried a confiscation plan, it would be a disaster even with 100 percent support of our military. More likely I will lay an egg in the morning. Nobody is giving up guns willingly, it is a political loser.

The military cannot, numerical disadvantage and dissent within the ranks over constitutional issues,.... but you would get a hellacious revolt if it was even attempted, forget the teaparty, every nut will crawl of of the woodwork, me included perhaps. It cannot happen that way, that is too obvious. They could not even try a regional enforcement angle, It would float like a rock. Obamacorps cannot handle this one, once again dead on arrival.
It would all depend on how bad things get prior to taking away our guns. It's not like nations larger and more relatively powerful have not fallen to government take overs before.

Think about how many armed persons it takes to rob places where there are a lot more people being robbed then robbers. One person with a gun can prevent 20 people from acting, even if some of them have guns.

[ga-hvac-tech]

It would all depend on how bad things get prior to taking away our guns. It's not like nations larger and more relatively powerful have not fallen to government take overs before.

Think about how many armed persons it takes to rob places where there are a lot more people being robbed then robbers. One person with a gun can prevent 20 people from acting, even if some of them have guns.

Three letters:

CCW

As the news goes out that maximum # of American own, carry, and are trained... guess what: Folks with 'alternative intents' tend to change their mind as to what they are ready to do...

Insurgency works both ways... (I would hate for the USA to end up with an 'underground resistance' similar to France in WW2).

[RoBoTeq]

Do you realize China sent troops from another part of the country that did not speak the local language to Tiananmen Square? They did not want a repeat of Poland where little old ladies would say to the solders 'Shame on you.'
What's your point? Do you not think that there are a lot of Blacks in our military who would just love to be forcing White southerners to give up their arms and do as they say...or else? Conversely, how many White Southern boys in uniform would have no problems going into Black neighborhoods of large cities and subdoing those troublesome Black people? Maybe there is a real reason for President Obama making sure that Americans are more racially divided then we were in the 1960's.

"Divide and conquer" seems to be the motive of our current administration. They are dividing us racially, dividing us socially and dividing us politically, more than ever in my lifetime. A nation divided can easily have sides pitted against sides by a government in control of our military and our police.

The last thing we want to be doing right now is underestimating our government. It has become too powerful.

[RoBoTeq]

Politicians only have power if the people back them. I can see a military coup before I can see American solders enslaving their own people.

Makes for a good movie though.
What do you think I'm preparing for? Who strikes first is going to have the upper advantage in the outcome.

[bootlen]

Why are we making treaties with that waste of tax payers' money anyway. This is similar to offering a thief your credit card in an attempt to keep him from stealing. The UN is nothing more than a huge scam. That group should be run out of the nation on a rail.

[RoBoTeq]

Why are we making treaties with that waste of tax payers' money anyway. This is similar to offering a thief your credit card in an attempt to keep him from stealing. The UN is nothing more than a huge scam. That group should be run out of the nation on a rail.
Best post of this thread.

[acmanko]

Why are we making treaties with that waste of tax payers' money anyway. This is similar to offering a thief your credit card in an attempt to keep him from stealing. The UN is nothing more than a huge scam. That group should be run out of the nation on a rail.

HMMMMM ,Bush invaded Iraq because of violations of UN Sanctions. You DID support this. Are you just getting senile in your golden years?

[geerair]

Actually, they are gunning for our guns. This time, they are going to try it through that oh so useful organization, the United Nations; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2439535/posts

http://www.therepublicantemple.com/2009/12/23/hillary-clinton-commits-to-un-small-arms-treaty/

If you are interested, here is a petition to stop this from passing; http://www.nagr.org/UNpetition1.aspx?pid=n12Free republic? That is scraping the bottom of the rightwingnut barrel.

You girls can quit wetting your panties, free republic and republican temple are hysterically wrong as usual.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/

[RoBoTeq]

Free republic? That is scraping the bottom of the rightwingnut barrel.

You girls can quit wetting your panties, free republic and republican temple are hysterically wrong as usual.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/
Hey look everyone! Here's geer, just dismissing the source of information as usual. How did we ever get by without geer?

Com'on geer, tell us how stupid we all are:pop:

Really; we care about what you post:troll2:

[geerair]

Com'on geer, tell us how stupid we all are:pop:The general trend of intelligence quotient here is well below the national mean but mostly it is a question of extreme partisanship and gullibility.

Two qualities with which you are abundantly endowed.

[bootlen]

HMMMMM ,Bush invaded Iraq because of violations of UN Sanctions. You DID support this. Are you just getting senile in your golden years?

Finally! A liberal who admits W had license to attack Iraq!

Thanks, ac!

[REECHMAN]

When the stuff hits the fan it will be us ignorant, paranoid,hicks protecting all the genius's like geerair.

[bootlen]

Free republic? That is scraping the bottom of the rightwingnut barrel.

You girls can quit wetting your panties, free republic and republican temple are hysterically wrong as usual.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/

Apparently, geer thinks it's gonna happen overnight.

Just one step at a time.

Ol' Nikita said they would bury us. He said it 50 years ago! Actually, he meant we would bury ourselves and so we have...one step at a time.

[RoBoTeq]

The general trend of intelligence quotient here is well below the national mean but mostly it is a question of extreme partisanship and gullibility.

Two qualities with which you are abundantly endowed.
OMG! I feel like I've been touched by greatness. Even though I am the one always promoting polypartisanship and even supporting the elemination of the party system, geer has granted me his wisdom.

Or, am I just being gullible?:troll2:

[RoBoTeq]

When the stuff hits the fan it will be us ignorant, paranoid,hicks protecting all the genius's like geerair.
Not if I can get a bead on him:eek2:

[geerair]

Finally! A liberal who admits W had license to attack Iraq!

Thanks, ac!Bush claimed he invaded because of UN sanctions.

Only thing, Bush was required to have UN Security Council approval before invading Iraq. He did not get this approval.

[REECHMAN]

Ouch! That's harsh Robo.

[geerair]

When the stuff hits the fan it will be us ignorant, paranoid,hicks protecting all the genius's like geerair.Thank you for your kind offer of protection but I decline.

Ignorant yahoos waving guns about in a zealous display of alleged manhood are just walking friendly fire accidents waiting to happen.

[geerair]

Apparently, geer thinks it's gonna happen overnight.No dear sir, that would be you.

[geerair]

OMG! I feel like I've been touched by greatness. Even though I am the one always promoting polypartisanship and even supporting the elemination of the party system, geer has granted me his wisdomYour incessant posts about liberals, Obama, Democrats prove otherwise.





Or, am I just being gullible?:Both.

[geerair]

Not if I can get a bead on him:eek2:About the only thing you have consistently drew a bead on is your own feet.

[frozensolid]

Com'on geer, tell us how stupid we all are:pop:

:

No need to confirm the obvious.

Geer, facts are something the extreme right has no use for.

Its kinda like that guy on mythbusters says, they dismiss true reality and substitute their own reality in it's place.

[RoBoTeq]

Ouch! That's harsh Robo.
Why? It's his type that is going to put us into that position.

[RoBoTeq]

About the only thing you have consistently drew a bead on is your own feet.
Since I can't see them, I can't agree or deny.

[RoBoTeq]

No need to confirm the obvious.

Geer, facts are something the extreme right has no use for.

Its kinda like that guy on mythbusters says, they dismiss true reality and substitute their own reality in it's place.
I agree. The extreme right is as bad as you extreme leftists are. It's people like me who understand that listening to Al Gore or Michael Savage, who is more then likely just using his extreme right attitude to make money, just as Al Gore uses global warming for money and power.

[bootlen]

No dear sir, that would be you.

Lose your ladder, didja?

[jmac00]

okay, lets settle down a little bit and try to think logically and think economicallyy

First: exactly how many people are unemployed........16-20% of 300M people? that works out to..........60 million people?

second: How many people are working in the firearms industry?.............estimated, i figure there would be close to 2 to 8 million (this would include, firearms manufacturers, FFL holders, ammo manufacture, bullet manufactures, holster makers, stock makers, powder.....and the list is very long)

Third: IF NObama, Pelosi, Reid and Boxer could ban weapons, they would INSTANTLY put all those people on UNEMPLOYMENT


I wonder how that would go over in November?

Nope, i don't see the government BANNING weapons. I don't see the UN banning weapons either. it's not like any other country has ever ignored a U.N. Mandate.

I DO see the government taxing the firearms industry to the point that, we will still own firearms, but simply will not be able to afford to shoot

[acmanko]

okay, lets settle down a little bit and try to think logically and think economicallyy

First: exactly how many people are unemployed........16-20% of 300M people? that works out to..........60 million people?

second: How many people are working in the firearms industry?.............estimated, i figure there would be close to 2 to 8 million (this would include, firearms manufacturers, FFL holders, ammo manufacture, bullet manufactures, holster makers, stock makers, powder.....and the list is very long)

Third: IF NObama, Pelosi, Reid and Boxer could ban weapons, they would INSTANTLY put all those people on UNEMPLOYMENT

I wonder how that would go over in November?

Nope, i don't see the government BANNING weapons. I don't see the UN banning weapons either. it's not like any other country has ever ignored a U.N. Mandate.

I DO see the government taxing the firearms industry to the point that, we will still own firearms, but simply will not be able to afford to shoot

I think lessons learned during prohibition would prevent gunpowder being restricted.

You can also fire a bullet with more ways than gunpowder

[jmac00]

I think lessons learned during prohibition would prevent gunpowder being restricted.

You can also fire a bullet with more ways than gunpowder


sooooo, exactly what does this post have to do with putting millions of people on unemployment? :patriot:

[acmanko]

sooooo, exactly what does this post have to do with putting millions of people on unemployment? :patriot:

well, if they aren't working making weapons that you know about, they might be making weapons you don't know about. We spend 750 billion a year on defense, which happens to be one of the powers granted to the government in the Constitution. I don't see millions losing there jobs.

[jmac00]

well, if they aren't working making weapons that you know about, they might be making weapons you don't know about. We spend 750 billion a year on defense, which happens to be one of the powers granted to the government in the Constitution. I don't see millions losing there jobs.


oooh there is going to be job losses in the Firearms industry, but it will be very gradual due to tax increases.

[seatonheating]

Man, you guys in ARP sure get worked up about guns. Sure you aren't compensating for something?

[acmanko]

Man, you guys in ARP sure get worked up about guns. Sure you aren't compensating for something?

they are paranoid about everything. you could more than likely just slap them and take away anything they got.

[seatonheating]

they are paranoid about everything. you could more than likely just slap them and take away anything they got.


Ya, I think someone did that and took away their common sense years ago.

[acmanko]

Ya, I think someone did that and took away their common sense years ago.

common sense doesn't exist down this far in the choice column

[glennac]

Man, you guys in ARP sure get worked up about guns. Sure you aren't compensating for something?

Well we sure ain't trying to denie folks Constitutional rights like your friends in the Democratic Party stay up late at night trying to do. Thank you very much

[RoBoTeq]

Man, you guys in ARP sure get worked up about guns. Sure you aren't compensating for something?
Yea, we're sure we aren't compensating for anything. How about you? You ever wonder what it's like to have what you think we are trying to compensate for?

[RoBoTeq]

they are paranoid about everything. you could more than likely just slap them and take away anything they got.
Could be. If you slap me, you take away my reason for not doing a few things to you.

[printer2]

What's your point? Do you not think that there are a lot of Blacks in our military who would just love to be forcing White southerners to give up their arms and do as they say...or else? Conversely, how many White Southern boys in uniform would have no problems going into Black neighborhoods of large cities and subdoing those troublesome Black people? Maybe there is a real reason for President Obama making sure that Americans are more racially divided then we were in the 1960's.

"Divide and conquer" seems to be the motive of our current administration. They are dividing us racially, dividing us socially and dividing us politically, more than ever in my lifetime. A nation divided can easily have sides pitted against sides by a government in control of our military and our police.

The last thing we want to be doing right now is underestimating our government. It has become too powerful.

As far as I know most of your troops can speak English. Also they are proud of their country otherwise they would not be in uniform. I would think that they had as much sense as a Polish soldier when told to subdue the population for political purposes.

[printer2]

Man, you guys in ARP sure get worked up about guns. Sure you aren't compensating for something?

What do you mean by that?

[ga-hvac-tech]

It appears the resident ARROGANT liberal did a 'drive by posting'... and left... as usual.

If there is any doubt, it should be totally removed... that liberal only cares to cause trouble... 'it' does not demonstrate the ability to have a meaningful conversation.

Solution: use the ignore feature on the forum, end of discussion.

[RoBoTeq]

As far as I know most of your troops can speak English. Also they are proud of their country otherwise they would not be in uniform. I would think that they had as much sense as a Polish soldier when told to subdue the population for political purposes.
Pride of country is one of the things that an oppressive government counts on for the military that they control.

Most soldiers would believe that they were doing what was best for their country when told that civilians need to be subdued.

[glennac]

Pride of country is one of the things that an oppressive government counts on for the military that they control.

Most soldiers would believe that they were doing what was best for their country when told that civilians need to be subdued.

Sure if they are rioting and burning down private property like the riots after MLK death and the ones in 70 when I was in the Tenn. Nat Guard (after my discharge from the Army).

We rolled into Chattanooga to quell the rioting in the "hood". We stopped it cold. Now if you mean protests against our commie government then that would be different in my opinion. Thank you very much.

[Hugh B]

Man, you guys in ARP sure get worked up about guns. Sure you aren't compensating for something?

I have several guns with compensators on them. Built into the end of the barrel.





Nothing compensates for not having a gun when you really need one! Plus, we have a constitutional right to own them. Are you afraid of citizens owning firearms or something?

The second amendment is the amendment that allows us to enforce the other amendments.

[printer2]

I have several guns with compensators on them. Built into the end of the barrel.





Nothing compensates for not having a gun when you really need one! Plus, we have a constitutional right to own them. Are you afraid of citizens owning firearms or something?

The second amendment is the amendment that allows us to enforce the other amendments.

Thought it was for the British.


Got to build me race gun for rapid fire work. Compensator, red dot, a few bits and pieces.

[jmac00]

Thought it was for the British.


Got to build me race gun for rapid fire work. Compensator, red dot, a few bits and pieces.

break out your check book:

http://www.stiguns.com/guns/MatchMaster/MatchMaster.php :patriot:

[printer2]

break out your check book:

http://www.stiguns.com/guns/MatchMaster/MatchMaster.php :patriot:

Yes please, one in 9mm.

[tombeaux]

It's not the gun ,,, but the freedom of choice to own / not own one that matters ! Dont give Me one to defend strangers and then take away My ability to defend My loved ones.

[the mojo]

break out your check book:

http://www.stiguns.com/guns/MatchMaster/MatchMaster.php :patriot:

http://www.youtube.com/user/bkeeler1


Just for you jmac,running and gunning.

[jmac00]

http://www.youtube.com/user/bkeeler1


Just for you jmac,running and gunning.

thats what I do (indoors this time of year) Every Wednesday night and I am a member of the USPSA.

My "race gun" is a custom made Para-Ordnance P16-40. I have seven 140mm magazines that hold 20 rounds each. My gun looks "normal" but there are a lot of changes IN it, for example, the barrel is match grade and will only accept cartridges less than .425 diameter, the grip safety has been disabled (don't need it for competition) guide rod and spring are much "heaver" and there are a bunch of other changes

I have TWO Dillon 550B reloading press's. One is dedicated to 40 cal the other I reload 380, 44mag/spl and 30-30win


This is NOT a cheap sport. If your going to try this on a regular basis you MUST reload. Unless your really rich.A good 'speed holster" will cost you anywhere from $150 to $300, Magazines will cost about $100 each (mag tube=$40, spring=$10, follower=$10, extended base pad=$35)

If anyone wants to know the rules or what is required to shoot USPSA, let me know. :patriot:

[RoBoTeq]

I used to be an active member of the USPA. What's the USPSA stand for? I'm just too lazy to google.

[jmac00]

I used to be an active member of the USPA. What's the USPSA stand for? I'm just too lazy to google.

United States Practical Shooting Association http://www.uspsa.org/

[RoBoTeq]

United States Practical Shooting Association http://www.uspsa.org/
Why do you want to shoot practicals? What have practicals ever done to you?

[jmac00]

Why do you want to shoot practicals? What have practicals ever done to you?


hey, if the little poops get in the way, they get shot :oops::patriot:

[acmanko]

They shoot at practically anything

[bootlen]

They shoot at practically anything

You might wanna keep a low profile.:couchhide:













Oh, wait. You're not practical.:.02:

[acmanko]

You might wanna keep a low profile.:couchhide:













Oh, wait. You're not practical.:.02:

I shoot back

[Hugh B]

Man, you guys in ARP sure get worked up about guns. Sure you aren't compensating for something?



The fight for gun rights is about more than guns. It's about liberty, freedom, individualism, and self-reliance.

[jmac00]

The fight for gun rights is about more than guns. It's about liberty, freedom, individualism, and self-reliance.

and control :patriot:they want to control the population and we want to control our firearms

[printer2]

and control :patriot:they want to control the population and we want to control our firearms

Yes, the reason for the treaty is to stop people arming up and killing the population that does not agree with them.

[bootlen]

I shoot back

Mmhmm. I notice they're all blanks, too.

[jmac00]

Yes, the reason for the treaty is to stop people arming up and killing the population that does not agree with them.

we don't care about any treaty. if the rest of the world doesn't want there citizens to have firearms thats fine, but leave America out of it.

WE LIKE GUNS get over it:patriot::patriot::patriot:

[jmac00]

Mmhmm. I notice they're all blanks, too.

ouch :eek2::det:

[glennac]

Yes, the reason for the treaty is to stop people arming up and killing the population that does not agree with them.

Then only the commies (government) and criminals will have guns. Thank you very much

[printer2]

we don't care about any treaty. if the rest of the world doesn't want there citizens to have firearms thats fine, but leave America out of it.

WE LIKE GUNS get over it:patriot::patriot::patriot:

I like guns also (is that a surprise?). The treaty is not about your guns but transfers from one country to another. You really do not know what the treaty is about, do you?

[printer2]

Then only the commies (government) and criminals will have guns. Thank you very much

No it is not. Glen, read the treaty. Part of it is keeping the guns out of illegitimate governments. It is about not supplying two sides so they can slug it out in a civil war. It is about keeping explosives out of the hands of people that want to blow up your solders.

[RoBoTeq]

I like guns also (is that a surprise?). The treaty is not about your guns but transfers from one country to another. You really do not know what the treaty is about, do you?
We know from experience that when it comes to power over the citizens, when you give a government an inch, it quickly becomes a ruler.

It is already illegal for Americans to transport guns across our borders. Why do we need to join in on some international pact with an organization that has done nothing but use and abuse us since its' inception?

[jmac00]

We know from experience that when it comes to power over the citizens, when you give a government an inch, it quickly becomes a ruler.

It is already illegal for Americans to transport guns across our borders. Why do we need to join in on some international pact with an organization that has done nothing but use and abuse us since its' inception?

The U.N. ? Bringing pointless squabble to art form :patriot:

BTW: the members of the U.N. owe NYC about 36 million dollars.........in parking fines, NY could solve our fiscal problems simply by collecting on the parking fines. But the U.N. claims diplomatic immunity, go figure :patriot:

[glennac]

No it is not. Glen, read the treaty. Part of it is keeping the guns out of illegitimate governments. It is about not supplying two sides so they can slug it out in a civil war. It is about keeping explosives out of the hands of people that want to blow up your solders.

Oh well now I suppose that means we can't supply arms to a pro democracy group who are trying to overthrow a repressive regime like a communist or radical Muslim government. N Korea, Iran, Borneo, etc.


We also would have been unable to aide the overthrow of the Taliban by aiding the Northern tribes. Who will decide what regime is oppressive or not the commie UN or a free democracy say like the US before Obama? Nah bad treaty.

[jmac00]

ya well, Smith & Wesson didn't help the matter any.

A couple of executives got arrested at the SHOT show in Vegas :patriot:

[ga-hvac-tech]

No it is not. Glen, read the treaty. Part of it is keeping the guns out of illegitimate governments. It is about not supplying two sides so they can slug it out in a civil war. It is about keeping explosives out of the hands of people that want to blow up your solders.

Please correct me if I am wrong, however I do not think you understand the way governments reach their goals...

They start with a little law that really does not cause anyone within their jurisdiction any hassle or pain... actually something with good intentions. Then there is just a little more added to the law to solve 'this' issue... then more added and more added and more added... until the law eventually has taken the rights of the citizens to control their own lives away... leaving same citizens dependent on a government that does not meet those needs as well as the citizens did before... and does not care about said citizens either.

Case in point: Folks are happier when they work for a living and support themselves (well not a few lazy liberals, but that is another post). The more governments create entitlement programs to 'help the poor', the less incentive there is to work. And as the entitlement programs become more a basis of society, honest working folks have accepted that they 'owe' taxes to pay for lazy folks that do not want to work... folks that could have had a productive life before the 'mental cancer' of dependency infected their minds. The basis of a productive society is that if you do not work, you do not eat... Imagine how crime would go down if folks had to work or starve? And if the so called 'underprivlidged' tried to steal to live... they would get the just reward for that action because a jury of 12 believed in working for a living. But we have allowed socialism to infect us like a cancer... and it may well be too late to stop it... as the country would be in a mess if all entitlements were stopped.

It will be the same with gun laws... there are more than enough gun laws on the books now... why do we need more?

But to be fair; show me a situation concerning guns where we need a new gun law, and I am sure we can find many existing gun laws that address that situation.

As far as controlling the international gun trade... that is not the US's responsibility, and as such is not something the US needs to concern themselves with. As Glenn suggested: Who decides which government gets guns and which one does not? An organization that has a track record of the worst corruption in history? Yeah, that sounds like a GRAND idea... Put folks that could care less about citizens in charge of regulating who gets guns and who does not... kinda like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse...

The best defense is a strong offense.

[printer2]

Oh well now I suppose that means we can't supply arms to a pro democracy group who are trying to overthrow a repressive regime like a communist or radical Muslim government. N Korea, Iran, Borneo, etc.


We also would have been unable to aide the overthrow of the Taliban by aiding the Northern tribes. Who will decide what regime is oppressive or not the commie UN or a free democracy say like the US before Obama? Nah bad treaty.

You really do not get it do you? This is not about stopping all arms from flowing. This is about accountability. This is about some company not doing backroom deals bypassing your government and sending arms to people you do not like.

[printer2]

As far as controlling the international gun trade... that is not the US's responsibility, and as such is not something the US needs to concern themselves with. As Glenn suggested: Who decides which government gets guns and which one does not? An organization that has a track record of the worst corruption in history? Yeah, that sounds like a GRAND idea... Put folks that could care less about citizens in charge of regulating who gets guns and who does not... kinda like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse...


The gun trade is in part the US's responsibility as it is the largest source of weapons in the world. As far as who decides who gets the guns and who does not there is no provision in the treaty for the UN to oversee the program. This is about each country's government overseeing the people that manufacture and ship guns outside their borders.

[ga-hvac-tech]

You really do not get it do you? This is not about stopping all arms from flowing. This is about accountability. This is about some company not doing backroom deals bypassing your government and sending arms to people you do not like.

Printer, that is what they WANT you to believe. I am not dissing you, however you really should do some serious historical research. Specifically examine the chain of events associated with governments trying to 'fix' things... When one looks carefully at the steps a government takes... they will see a pattern that might lessen your blind faith in a government having the better good at heart. (We are all well aware that you have the ability to do that research).

Here is an example: Look at the failed health care legislation in the USA... The message preached in public was all rosey... If one read the bill, they found other things that were really NOT a government taking care of the citizen's best interests. It is just the nature of power... it always corrupts.

What I do not understand is why you are soo strongly supportive of organizations that take your money (by the force of law), and waste it making your life less than it could be? Please explain that one to me; I would really like to know.

[ga-hvac-tech]

The gun trade is in part the US's responsibility as it is the largest source of weapons in the world. As far as who decides who gets the guns and who does not there is no provision in the treaty for the UN to oversee the program. This is about each country's government overseeing the people that manufacture and ship guns outside their borders.

Weapons and guns are two different things.

I agree that the USA has a large military budget, however it does not go to hand guns and rifles... Rather it goes to aircraft carriers, fighter/bombers, drones, high-tech items, etc.

The most manufactured personal weapon in the world is the AK-47... Google it. Made in dozens of countries, and carried by terrorists worldwide. In many conflicts abroad, a US soldier can spot a terrorist by what rifle he carries (thankfully a US soldier is trained to look farther than this). So do NOT give me that 'anti-American' rhetoric (which is spun lies) about he USA being the bad guy.

This is a classic example of the way information is spun (the act of political spinning of truth); Take the total US military budget, and say 'Oh... the US spends the most on weapons... therefore they are the cause of terrorism". Not true (read above).

Printer, one has to learn to read between the lines with a cautious mind to truly understand what is going on in the world. That cautious mind is the key... And I have seen few liberals that even come close... Most of them just jump on the wagon without carefully examining what really goes on.

A politician that lusts for power just LOVES someone that will jump on their wagon without carefully examining what they are preaching, who profits, and why it is needed... In the USA we have a classic example of this with the current POTUS... folks voted for him without thinking... now they wish they could change their votes.

As far as some government group (whether it be a single countries' government or an organization of countries)... trying to stop 'back room deals'... that is a joke. Who do you think asks the manufacturers to come to the back room and make a deal? Again, this is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse... This is not only not smart... it is just plain stupid.

[whec720]

F the UN. No one listens to them anyway. They can pass all the treaties they want and the world will use them as toilet paper. Now that is the history of the UN.

[printer2]

Printer, that is what they WANT you to believe. I am not dissing you, however you really should do some serious historical research. Specifically examine the chain of events associated with governments trying to 'fix' things... When one looks carefully at the steps a government takes... they will see a pattern that might lessen your blind faith in a government having the better good at heart. (We are all well aware that you have the ability to do that research).

Here is an example: Look at the failed health care legislation in the USA... The message preached in public was all rosey... If one read the bill, they found other things that were really NOT a government taking care of the citizen's best interests. It is just the nature of power... it always corrupts.

What I do not understand is why you are soo strongly supportive of organizations that take your money (by the force of law), and waste it making your life less than it could be? Please explain that one to me; I would really like to know.

I am not disagreeing with you on some of the aspects of government. I do not have blind faith in them but I do realize that unlike what some think government officials do not just make rules because they want to control us.

Everybody says they want less government in their lives. Last night I saw an example of it getting in our lives. There was a large truck in the next lane and it had a screen that gets pulled over the load so that something that they are hauling does not fly out.

Years ago trucks around here were not required to have it but now anyone, even myself pulling my trailer to the dump, needs to cover their load otherwise they can be ticketed. Damn it, it is just another rule for us to follow and government to control how we do things!

But as you say rules are generally there to rectify a perceived fault. In this case lot of trucks were allowing garbage to fly out into the street. I myself had to get a window replaced on a car because of a stone flying out of a gravel truck before the law was enacted.

So yes we do need rules to live by. The greater space between people the less need for them. The more closer we live together the more we end up having in order to stop one person's actions from infringing on another person's rights.

At one time no one really had to care much about what happened at the other end of the world. They could go about their life and we could go about ours without any interaction. But the world has gotten a lot smaller and we do effect each other. It would all be wonderful if we all acted like good neighbors but sometimes that is not the case. So we try to find ways for everyone to just get along.

As far as the weapons go it would be wonderful if the people involved acted responsibly in who gets them and who does not. But that is not the case. So people are working to make governments take action to at least know where these weapons end up.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I am not disagreeing with you on some of the aspects of government. I do not have blind faith in them but I do realize that unlike what some think government officials do not just make rules because they want to control us.

Everybody says they want less government in their lives. Last night I saw an example of it getting in our lives. There was a large truck in the next lane and it had a screen that gets pulled over the load so that something that they are hauling does not fly out.

Years ago trucks around here were not required to have it but now anyone, even myself pulling my trailer to the dump, needs to cover their load otherwise they can be ticketed. Damn it, it is just another rule for us to follow and government to control how we do things!

But as you say rules are generally there to rectify a perceived fault. In this case lot of trucks were allowing garbage to fly out into the street. I myself had to get a window replaced on a car because of a stone flying out of a gravel truck before the law was enacted.

So yes we do need rules to live by. The greater space between people the less need for them. The more closer we live together the more we end up having in order to stop one person's actions from infringing on another person's rights.

At one time no one really had to care much about what happened at the other end of the world. They could go about their life and we could go about ours without any interaction. But the world has gotten a lot smaller and we do effect each other. It would all be wonderful if we all acted like good neighbors but sometimes that is not the case. So we try to find ways for everyone to just get along.

As far as the weapons go it would be wonderful if the people involved acted responsibly in who gets them and who does not. But that is not the case. So people are working to make governments take action to at least know where these weapons end up.

Actually, you and I are not that far apart...

I have seen too much corruption from governments... that is why I am not very trusting of their intentions... Taking your example; Decades ago when I lived in Houston Texas, there was this same problem with gravel trucks and winshields... It took 3 years (not a type) to get a law passed... Why? The trucking lobby had a lot of $$$ in the political process.

The problem is governments are for sale... always have been, always will be. What we as citizens need to do is keep a careful and VERY vocal eye on literally everything a government does.

I fully realize we as humans need to be governed. The Founding Fathers of the USA understood it also... They also understood the reality of corruption that comes with political power, and tried to design a country where the citizens would keep the government in check...

My (and many conservatives) argument is that we the citizens need to vigilantly (and legally) keep the governments in check.

I am not saying NO laws, I am saying ONLY the necessary laws.

[printer2]

Weapons and guns are two different things.

I agree that the USA has a large military budget, however it does not go to hand guns and rifles... Rather it goes to aircraft carriers, fighter/bombers, drones, high-tech items, etc.

The most manufactured personal weapon in the world is the AK-47... Google it. Made in dozens of countries, and carried by terrorists worldwide. In many conflicts abroad, a US soldier can spot a terrorist by what rifle he carries (thankfully a US soldier is trained to look farther than this). So do NOT give me that 'anti-American' rhetoric (which is spun lies) about he USA being the bad guy.

This is a classic example of the way information is spun (the act of political spinning of truth); Take the total US military budget, and say 'Oh... the US spends the most on weapons... therefore they are the cause of terrorism". Not true (read above).

Printer, one has to learn to read between the lines with a cautious mind to truly understand what is going on in the world. That cautious mind is the key... And I have seen few liberals that even come close... Most of them just jump on the wagon without carefully examining what really goes on.

A politician that lusts for power just LOVES someone that will jump on their wagon without carefully examining what they are preaching, who profits, and why it is needed... In the USA we have a classic example of this with the current POTUS... folks voted for him without thinking... now they wish they could change their votes.

As far as some government group (whether it be a single countries' government or an organization of countries)... trying to stop 'back room deals'... that is a joke. Who do you think asks the manufacturers to come to the back room and make a deal? Again, this is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse... This is not only not smart... it is just plain stupid.

I was not talking about the US military budget. Two different things. And yes the AK-47 is the most numerous rifle out there, adopted by many because of its virtues. The illegal trade in these rifles would help stop the killing.

Now why would the US not want the flow of guns stop going to people who should not get them?

Actually the US does a good job of licensing its sales of light arms. Other countries do a worse job. This treaty is meant to get countries to all act responsibly. It is strange that it is the US that is the biggest impediment to the treaty.

Until you think about the second amendment. Americans get all up in arms (could not resist that) when someone talks about guns so it is politically hard to get on board with everybody yelling 'gun control' when they do not even bother reading what the treaty is about.

An older article but it does show that the problem has been around for a while.


Key Points

* Light weapons are the principal cause of death in conflicts around the world, and the vast majority of casualties are civilians.
* The easy availability of light military weaponry contributes to international crime, terrorism, and internal conflict, which are some of Washington’s foremost security concerns.
* Both the black-market traffic in arms and the legal trade must be addressed.

Throughout the cold war, policy analysts and peace activists alike focused principally on nuclear (and, to a lesser extent, chemical and biological) weapons because of their potential for causing mass death and destruction. Scant attention was paid to limiting the production and traffic in small arms and light (man-portable) weapons—like assault rifles, mortars, grenades, and landmines. In fact, the major and mid-level military powers exported such weapons with abandon. It is somewhat ironic that, at the century’s close, government officials are beginning to recognize the spread of these low-end weapons as a major threat not only to human security (which has long been the case) but also to U.S. national security interests....

http://www.fpif.org/reports/small_arms_trade

[ga-hvac-tech]

Hmmm, lessee... lots of folks are murdered with ice picks, and society really does not need ice-picks... I guess we need to outlaw ice-picks.

Then when there are no guns and no ice-picks, we will find that folks are murdered with knives... I guess we will outlaw knives... and do away with a thick, juicy steak because one needs a knife to cut it...

Then after there are no knives... they will use baseball bats... and we will do away with the national past-time game because bats are WMD's...

Do you see a pattern Printer?

[printer2]

Actually, you and I are not that far apart...

I have seen too much corruption from governments... that is why I am not very trusting of their intentions... Taking your example; Decades ago when I lived in Houston Texas, there was this same problem with gravel trucks and winshields... It took 3 years (not a type) to get a law passed... Why? The trucking lobby had a lot of $$$ in the political process.

The problem is governments are for sale... always have been, always will be. What we as citizens need to do is keep a careful and VERY vocal eye on literally everything a government does.

I fully realize we as humans need to be governed. The Founding Fathers of the USA understood it also... They also understood the reality of corruption that comes with political power, and tried to design a country where the citizens would keep the government in check...

My (and many conservatives) argument is that we the citizens need to vigilantly (and legally) keep the governments in check.

I am not saying NO laws, I am saying ONLY the necessary laws.

I am sure we are not too far from each other on many issues. And I agree with you that people need to keep an eye on elected officials, business, any group pushing their own agenda. The way to do this is with accurate information to determine what the ramifications will be.

And that is what gets me in trouble here. Not that I am that far left but when I see 100 blogs about the government trying to take away peoples guns when it is obvious few of them have looked into the actual scope of what is being proposed.

The same thing with the Senate report on global warming scientist's consensus. You would think they would be using credible information to give to lawmakers and people so we could decide what path we want to take. But that does not seem to be the case.

That is why I question. Sometimes that is inconvenient to people's opinions especially when they are used to thinking in a certain mindset. It is much easier to follow what others preach what is happening than to determine it yourself.

[printer2]

Hmmm, lessee... lots of folks are murdered with ice picks, and society really does not need ice-picks... I guess we need to outlaw ice-picks.

Then when there are no guns and no ice-picks, we will find that folks are murdered with knives... I guess we will outlaw knives... and do away with a thick, juicy steak because one needs a knife to cut it...

Then after there are no knives... they will use baseball bats... and we will do away with the national past-time game because bats are WMD's...

Do you see a pattern Printer?

If icepicks were the cause of one people to terrorize and control a population then some controls should be put in place.

[ga-hvac-tech]

If icepicks were the cause of one people to terrorize and control a population then some controls should be put in place.

You miss the point of the post Printer...

When will we regulate enough to stop the crime??? When there are no tools to commit the crime? That, my friend, will never happen.

If there were no guns, ice-picks, knives, or baseball bats... a criminal would just pick up a stick or some piece of trash...

The issue with crime (and terrorism is a crime) is the attitude behind it. Now tell me how to change the attitudes of folks around the world so crime will not be an issue...

[ga-hvac-tech]

I am sure we are not too far from each other on many issues. And I agree with you that people need to keep an eye on elected officials, business, any group pushing their own agenda. The way to do this is with accurate information to determine what the ramifications will be.

And that is what gets me in trouble here. Not that I am that far left but when I see 100 blogs about the government trying to take away peoples guns when it is obvious few of them have looked into the actual scope of what is being proposed.

The same thing with the Senate report on global warming scientist's consensus. You would think they would be using credible information to give to lawmakers and people so we could decide what path we want to take. But that does not seem to be the case.

That is why I question. Sometimes that is inconvenient to people's opinions especially when they are used to thinking in a certain mindset. It is much easier to follow what others preach what is happening than to determine it yourself.

The eternal vigilance to keep a CLOSE eye on government (and as a result keep the corruption that comes with power in check) is the key to freedom. And Freedom handled responsibly is the key to a good life.

It is a challenge for those willing to accept it; it is NOT an intellectual experience nor a social experiment.

[jmac00]

I was not talking about the US military budget. Two different things. And yes the AK-47 is the most numerous rifle out there, adopted by many because of its virtues. The illegal trade in these rifles would help stop the killing.

everyone uses an AK-47 because of it's virtues, they use it because it is very cheap to make, it's unbelievably reliable and the countries that manufacture it don't give a rats a$$ who they sell them to.

Stop trying to blame America for the small arms trade. When it come to firearms we can' sneeze without a ton of paper work. And OUR GOVERNMENT is watching who sells what, to whom.

One of S&W top executives was just arrested by the FBI for bribing a foreign official to accept a bid. The actual sale was not illegal, the method they want about the sale was :patriot:and there are some very "interesting" circumstances around how the FBI went about there business. :patriot:

[ga-hvac-tech]

Printer is beginning to remind me of Geer... he does not really know what he believes, he is just here to play his spin game.

[jmac00]

Printer is beginning to remind me of Geer... he does not really know what he believes, he is just here to play his spin game.

ya, for some reason every problem on the planet is Americas fault.

In general, I still don't understand the liberal need to "pool" all the money and help EVERYONE out.

Gezz if ya want to better yourself get out there and work for it like the rest of us. :patriot:

[printer2]

ya, for some reason every problem on the planet is Americas fault.

In general, I still don't understand the liberal need to "pool" all the money and help EVERYONE out.

Gezz if ya want to better yourself get out there and work for it like the rest of us. :patriot:

So why is the US against the treaty when you are doing such a good job regulating small arms, other than the Mexican border that is?

[printer2]

everyone uses an AK-47 because of it's virtues, they use it because it is very cheap to make, it's unbelievably reliable and the countries that manufacture it don't give a rats a$$ who they sell them to.


And that is a good reason for this treaty.

[Tool-Slinger]

And that is a good reason for this treaty.
Sounded to me like it affected sales within the USA, not sales outside except in an indirect fashion. I cannot buy an AK47 already....

[jmac00]

So why is the US against the treaty when you are doing such a good job regulating small arms, other than the Mexican border that is?


Could it be it's a indirect way for the U.N. and the rest of the liberals to disarm Americans.

And we do a great job of regulating small arms, just try and come here to buy a hand gun/firearm......LEGALLY.

and whats with the Mexican boarder thing? I take it, your in the camp that believes ALL of mexico's drug war/firearm problems are a direct result of America's RKBA :patriot:

[Tool-Slinger]

Could it be it's a indirect way for the U.N. and the rest of the liberals to disarm Americans.

And we do a great job of regulating small arms, just try and come here to buy a hand gun/firearm......LEGALLY.

and whats with the Mexican boarder thing? I take it, your in the camp that believes ALL of mexico's drug war/firearm problems are a direct result of America's RKBA :patriot:
Mexican thing is a back-door issue, sure, guns go south.... But they are illegal in mexico, even ammo is illegal, and that is not where they get the full auto machine guns from.

The UN wants our guns, make no mistake about that.

[whec720]

And that is a good reason for this treaty.

Treaty smeady.....its the UN....WTF cares.

[Hugh B]

Sounded to me like it affected sales within the USA, not sales outside except in an indirect fashion. I cannot buy an AK47 already....


I can get them. I have several AKs and can get more from my local dealer. Are they illegal in Texas?

[Tool-Slinger]

I can get them. I have several AKs and can get more from my local dealer. Are they illegal in Texas?
Full auto? I don't know anyone who has a full auto anything,.... But the criminals in mexico get them from somewhere, they ain't coming from here.

[Hugh B]

Full auto? I don't know anyone who has a full auto anything,.... But the criminals in mexico get them from somewhere, they ain't coming from here.

You did not state that you ment fully auto. AKs are available in semiauto ya know. I have two semiauto AKs, two semiauto AR15s and one semiauto Thompson from WW2.

You can legally own full auto in the United States if you want. However, the requirements are not worth the trouble.

You are correct that the fully auto weapons in Mexico did not come from the United States.

[jmac00]

Full auto? I don't know anyone who has a full auto anything,.... But the criminals in mexico get them from somewhere, they ain't coming from here.


although it's not published by ANYONE, it is legal to own fully automatic weapons in either Pennsylvania or Virginia ( I forgot which ) might be Arizona to??

Your going to need a SPOTLESS record and a bank full of money to get a permit. but you can own automatic firearms:patriot:

[jpsmith1cm]

Full auto? I don't know anyone who has a full auto anything,.... But the criminals in mexico get them from somewhere, they ain't coming from here.

Exactly.

Between the pompous asses that are our politicians and the talking-head empty-suits that are the media, you would think that people hunt deer with M-60s and bazookas.

Yes, I know people who have Class III full auto weapons. Machine guns and silencers. They AIN'T easy to get, LEGALLY.

Myself, I wouldn't know where to go to obtain one illegally. I suppose that Mexico would be a fair place to start.

[jpsmith1cm]

although it's not published by ANYONE, it is legal to own fully automatic weapons in either Pennsylvania or Virginia ( I forgot which ) might be Arizona to??

Your going to need a SPOTLESS record and a bank full of money to get a permit. but you can own automatic firearms:patriot:

There are a number of other places where it is legal to own a Class III.

[Hugh B]

although it's not published by ANYONE, it is legal to own fully automatic weapons in either Pennsylvania or Virginia ( I forgot which ) might be Arizona to??

Your going to need a SPOTLESS record and a bank full of money to get a permit. but you can own automatic firearms:patriot:

It is a Federal permit thru the BATF, costs $750 for the permit and you need a clean background check. You register the gun with the BATF, tell them where you will keep it and it had better be exactly where you say you keep it.

You also give up your personal right to privacy. They can search your home or business at will, without prior notice and without a warrant and can do so at any time they choose. You agree to this when you make the application.

Fully auto is actually not all that impressive for personal defense. Semiauto is just fine for superior shot placement and conserving ammo.

[Hugh B]

There are a number of other places where it is legal to own a Class III.



With a BATF permit it is actually legal in most states.

California is one of the worst states in which to own guns.

[Tool-Slinger]

You did not state that you ment fully auto. AKs are available in semiauto ya know. I have two semiauto AKs, two semiauto AR15s and one semiauto Thompson from WW2.

You can legally own full auto in the United States if you want. However, the requirements are not worth the trouble.

You are correct that the fully auto weapons in Mexico did not come from the United States.
I apologize for any confusing statement, I can buy about any military arm in the semi-auto version. I don't think they are much different from what might be considered a hunting weapon, generally speaking.

Mexican criminals have full autos, they have used hand gernades too.

You might be able to own a full auto in the USA, but it is highly regulated. I mean, you cannot just buy a couple dozen and drive them to mexico.

Mexico has a huge gun problem, and guns are illegal there.

[Hugh B]

I apologize for any confusing statement, I can buy about any military arm in the semi-auto version. I don't think they are much different from what might be considered a hunting weapon, generally speaking.

Mexican criminals have full autos, they have used hand gernades too.

You might be able to own a full auto in the USA, but it is highly regulated. I mean, you cannot just buy a couple dozen and drive them to mexico.

Mexico has a huge gun problem, and guns are illegal there.


Agreed. Fully autos in Mexico obviously did not come from private owners in the US.

[jmac00]

It is a Federal permit thru the BATF, costs $750 for the permit and you need a clean background check. You register the gun with the BATF, tell them where you will keep it and it had better be exactly where you say you keep it.

You also give up your personal right to privacy. They can search your home or business at will, without prior notice and without a warrant and can do so at any time they choose. You agree to this when you make the application.

Fully auto is actually not all that impressive for personal defense. Semiauto is just fine for superior shot placement and conserving ammo.


ya, but who can afford to dump 3000-4000 rounds in an hour :eek2:

[Hugh B]

ya, but who can afford to dump 3000-4000 rounds in an hour :eek2:

The US Army can!!!! And, they do. If ya really want to shoot fullyauto join up!

[jmac00]

The US Army can!!!! And, they do. If ya really want to shoot fullyauto join up!


I tried to join, for some reason they don't want an old guy with a FUBAR back and sore feet??? I don't get it? I figure one of them young whipper-snappers can carry my gear...........

hey I offered :patriot::whistle:

[ga-hvac-tech]

Going back to Printer's comment:

The issue is NOT to prevent weapons from getting into the wrong hands... that will happen regardless of 10 Trillion new laws. You are not going to stop the black market in anything... and anyone naive enough to think laws will stop criminals is just putting their head in the sand.

What stops criminals is the sure threat of DEATH! We could stop the drug issue in Mexico in a few weeks if we sent in the seals or beret to take out the drug lords (all of them, at the same time). We could even hire the Israelies to do it for us... they could use the $$$. Honestly, I do not think TPTB want to stop the drug lords... if they did, they would 'just do it'

The true issue is the right to bear arms, a right that NO government can take away. A person who does not understand that right, does not understand freedom.

And as far as I am concerned... anyone that thinks a government can stop crime by regulating guns has been drinking too much of the koolaid. What scares me is not the guns... it is the folks scared of guns that are voting.

[printer2]

Previously, approximately 148 special agents were dedicated to investigating firearms trafficking on a full-time basis and 59 IOIs were responsible for conducting regulatory inspections of federally licensed gun dealers, known as federal firearms licensees (FFLs) along the Southwest border.

As the sole federal agency that regulates FFLs, ATF’s cadre of IOIs work to identify and prioritize for inspection those FFLs with a history of noncompliance that represent a risk to public safety; who sell the weapons most commonly used by drug trafficking organizations in the region; and have numerous unsuccessful traces and a large volume of firearms recoveries in high-crime areas. Along the Southwest border, ATF inspected approximately 1,700 FFLs in FY 2007 and 1,900 in FY 2008.


ATF has analyzed firearms recovered in Mexico from 2005-2008 and has identified the following weapons most commonly used by drug trafficking organizations: 9mm pistols; .38-caliber revolvers; 5.7mm pistols; .223-caliber rifles; 7.62mm rifles; and .50 caliber rifles.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2009/04/040209-doj-factsheet-combatting-mexican-cartels.html


According to ATF,during the past three years, more than 1,000 firearms either confiscated from drug cartel members, or recovered at cartel-related crime scenes in Mexico have been traced back to California.

We have been informed by out California ATF that because of the Tiahrt Amendment, ATF is unable to share firearm trace information with any law enforcement agency, (including DOJ) that did not request the trace. As a result of this restriction, California law enforcement agencies (specifically the Bureau of Firearms within DOJ) have been unable to identify the California firearm dealers whose firearms are finding their way into Mexico's drug war.

http://protectpolice.org/sites/all/files/docs/CA_DOJ_Mexico_Traces.pdf

[jmac00]

We have been informed by out California ATF that because of the Tiahrt Amendment, ATF is unable to share firearm trace information with any law enforcement agency, (including DOJ) that did not request the trace. As a result of this restriction, California law enforcement agencies (specifically the Bureau of Firearms within DOJ) have been unable to identify the California firearm dealers whose firearms are finding their way into Mexico's drug war.

there is a reason for that: from the NRA website: :patriot::patriot:

For more than five years, cities suing the gun industry and anti-gun organizations have sought access to confidential law enforcement data on firearms traces. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) compiles these records when it traces firearms in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.

Every year since 2003, the U.S. Congress has passed increasingly strong language to keep this information confidential. The legislation—a series of "riders" to the appropriations bill that funds BATFE—is widely known as the "Tiahrt Amendment," after its sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.).

There are good reasons for keeping this information confidential, and for strengthening the Tiahrt Amendment and making it permanent:

* Releasing the information serves no useful purpose. The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said "firearm trace data may be biased" and "cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public."[1] These limitations exist because the "tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."[2]
* Traced guns aren’t always “crime guns”; firearms may be traced for reasons unrelated to any armed crime. The BATFE trace request form lists “crime codes” for traffic offenses and election law violations, among many others.
* Trace information remains available for law enforcement use. The FY 2007 version of the Tiahrt amendment ensures that trace data is available to federal, state, and local agencies "in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution" or for use in administrative actions by BATFE—which is, of course, the principal agency responsible for overseeing the conduct of federally licensed firearms dealers.The language and history of the Gun Control Act are clear: Congress always intended to keep this information confidential, and to allow its use only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The firearms trace database includes information such as the agency requesting a gun trace, the location from which the gun was recovered, and the identity of the dealer and original retail buyer.
* Both BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) oppose release of trace data. In fact, BATFE has fought for years in the federal courts to keep the databases confidential, because they contain information (such as names of gun buyers) that could jeopardize ongoing investigations—not to mention law enforcement officers’ lives. For example, a suspected gun trafficker could search databases for names of "straw purchasers" he had used to buy handguns, or for traces requested on guns he had sold. That information could lead him to names of officers, informants and other witnesses against his crimes. (View commentary by FOP President Chuck Canterbury from April 24, 2007)
* Even the current language has allowed too many disclosures of sensitive information. For instance, anti-gun groups and the media have repeatedly received confidential trace data from government "leaks." And Judge Jack Weinstein of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, who presides over New York City's lawsuit against the firearms industry, has "creatively" ruled that the riders do not protect the information that Congress so clearly intended to protect.

NRA is committed to ensuring confidentiality of sensitive law enforcement information, on two fronts:

* NRA supports continuing and strengthening the annual appropriations riders that prevent abuse of this information outside legitimate criminal investigations.
* In the 109th Congress, NRA supported H.R. 5005 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), which would make the disclosure ban permanent.

# Resources Letter from the Southern States Police Benevolent Association
# Letter from the New York Police Commissioner Opposing Firearms Trace Data Release
# FOP letter to Senators Mikulski and Shelby opposing the release of trace data
# FOP letter to Congress opposing the release of trace data
# Memo from FOP President Chuck Canterbury to FOP Executive Board
# Commentary by FOP President Chuck Canterbury (Wichita Eagle, April 24, 2007
# Department of Justice letter to Mayor Bloomberg
# Letter from Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell to Mayor Bloomberg
# Project 21 Press Release

[1] Congressional Research Service, Gun Control: Statutory Disclosure Limitations on ATF Firearms Trace Data and Multiple Handgun Sales Reports 3 (June 30, 2006).

[2] Congressional Research Service, Assault Weapons@: Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues (May 13, 1992).

[printer2]

Sure, read all that from their website. So what good does it do if one agency can not solve crimes because the other agency is not allowed to share the information? Makes no sense when people are breaking the law in your country and you have the means of catching them but you do not.

[Tool-Slinger]

Sure, read all that from their website. So what good does it do if one agency can not solve crimes because the other agency is not allowed to share the information? Makes no sense when people are breaking the law in your country and you have the means of catching them but you do not.
I say let mexico solve their own problems,.. Why should USA laws change to fix their problems?

[printer2]

I say let mexico solve their own problems,.. Why should USA laws change to fix their problems?

And they should just say to the gangs, give us 10% tax and you can operate freely exporting drugs to the US. Not our problem what happens there.

[jpsmith1cm]

And they should just say to the gangs, give us 10% tax and you can operate freely exporting drugs to the US. Not our problem what happens there.

Better a tax than the bribery that happens normally, right?

At least the tax money can be funneled to the poor and unproductive rather than to the rich and unproductive.

[Tool-Slinger]

And they should just say to the gangs, give us 10% tax and you can operate freely exporting drugs to the US. Not our problem what happens there.
I cannot understand the tax angle,,,,

Gun ownership is a 'right' here.

I cannot justify giving up a 'right' because of some screwballs in another nation.

And no, I would not support taxing drug-runners.

[printer2]

I cannot understand the tax angle,,,,

Gun ownership is a 'right' here.

I cannot justify giving up a 'right' because of some screwballs in another nation.

And no, I would not support taxing drug-runners.

Where does it say anything about giving up your right to have guns in the proposed treaty. Go back to the links I supplied, what a country does within its own borders is its own business. When guns leave their borders to other places then the spotlight is on them, but that is all it is, a spotlight. There is no punishment mechanism in the draft. If somebody misbehaves badly then the UN can talk about sanctions. And you know how many you are under.

You might have miss-read so I will explain. Not you taxing drug-runners but the Mexicans. You know, slip me a few hundred and I will look the other way.

So why are the drug gangs killing cops, judges and politicians in Mexico? Because they are trying to clean up the country, mainly because the US had told them to. So the war on drugs has turned into a mini war. Or at least turned the border towns of Mexico a war zone.

Is this all new to you?

[Tool-Slinger]

Where does it say anything about giving up your right to have guns in the proposed treaty. Go back to the links I supplied, what a country does within its own borders is its own business. When guns leave their borders to other places then the spotlight is on them, but that is all it is, a spotlight. There is no punishment mechanism in the draft. If somebody misbehaves badly then the UN can talk about sanctions. And you know how many you are under.

You might have miss-read so I will explain. Not you taxing drug-runners but the Mexicans. You know, slip me a few hundred and I will look the other way.

So why are the drug gangs killing cops, judges and politicians in Mexico? Because they are trying to clean up the country, mainly because the US had told them to. So the war on drugs has turned into a mini war. Or at least turned the border towns of Mexico a war zone.

Is this all new to you?
Well according to the OP link:

* Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally.
* CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course)
* BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons
* Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.


Sounds like my rights are at stake here.

[ga-hvac-tech]

OK, let start over here (again)...

The GOAL is not solving crimes at any cost... That is a fear based goal. Rather;

The goal is to have a society with freedoms guaranteed by the government. Yes, there will be some messy things along the way... but to turn one of the greatest countries that ever existed into a police state just so we can 'feel good' (with no real facts to back up that feeling) about solving crime (crime has been around since the first family of the world... Cain murdered Able); Is more than just plain stupid... it is the voice of a child that does not understand freedom.

What was that quote about folks that do not value freedom more than life do not deserve to have it???

[ga-hvac-tech]

Oh, and do not kid yourselves... politicians are getting rich off the drug trade... somewhere. Why do you think the Mexican police and army look the other way soo much???

Count and connect the dots... if it is not too scary to be honest with oneself...

[Tool-Slinger]

OK, let start over here (again)...

The GOAL is not solving crimes at any cost... That is a fear based goal. Rather;

The goal is to have a society with freedoms guaranteed by the government. Yes, there will be some messy things along the way... but to turn one of the greatest countries that ever existed into a police state just so we can 'feel good' (with no real facts to back up that feeling) about solving crime (crime has been around since the first family of the world... Cain murdered Able); Is more than just plain stupid... it is the voice of a child that does not understand freedom.

What was that quote about folks that do not value freedom more than life do not deserve to have it???
On one hand, I think me and printer just kike to argue,,, on the other hand, I think some folks just want to dance around the maypole singing praises to obama and the new world without any weapons or strife. I suspect they wear skirts, prolly pink ones. I am not sure, since I do not attend these parties.

[RoBoTeq]

And they should just say to the gangs, give us 10% tax and you can operate freely exporting drugs to the US. Not our problem what happens there.
It is the responsibility of U.S. Customs to stop illegal products from entering the U.S. and it is the responsibility of the Mexican and Canadian Customs to stop illegal products from entering those countries. I only added Canada because I unwittingly "smuggled" an illegal weapon into Canada.

[RoBoTeq]

Oh, and do not kid yourselves... politicians are getting rich off the drug trade... somewhere. Why do you think the Mexican police and army look the other way soo much???

Count and connect the dots... if it is not too scary to be honest with oneself...
Drugs, just like anything else, will always be very profitable to the criminal element as long as they are illegal. As long as the criminal element has so much control over our political leaders, drugs will continue to stay illegal. If drugs were legalized, our citizens could benefit from them with taxes imposed on them and the criminal element would lose the profits from drugs.

[printer2]

Well according to the OP link:

* Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally.
* CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course)
* BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons
* Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.


Sounds like my rights are at stake here.

And how many time have we found that the initial premise of a thread was wrong? I posted the actual wording of the proposed treaty and analysis of it. At no time did I find any credible links to support the worries that you outlined in red.

Kind of thought that is part of why we discuss things in this forum. At times separating fact from fiction.

[printer2]

What was that quote about folks that do not value freedom more than life do not deserve to have it???

There is always limits to freedom in every society.

[printer2]

On one hand, I think me and printer just kike to argue,,,

What fun would it be if we all agreed? Kind of boring don't ya think?

[printer2]

It is the responsibility of U.S. Customs to stop illegal products from entering the U.S. and it is the responsibility of the Mexican and Canadian Customs to stop illegal products from entering those countries. I only added Canada because I unwittingly "smuggled" an illegal weapon into Canada.

And with the same thinking it is not Mexico's responsibility to stop the drugs from coming into the US. If they absolved themselves of that responsibility they would not have a problem with gun violence.

I forgot you did that. Well at least you took it back out. All is forgiven.

[RoBoTeq]

And with the same thinking it is not Mexico's responsibility to stop the drugs from coming into the US. If they absolved themselves of that responsibility they would not have a problem with gun violence.

I forgot you did that. Well at least you took it back out. All is forgiven.
So; we agree?

[ga-hvac-tech]

Drugs, just like anything else, will always be very profitable to the criminal element as long as they are illegal. As long as the criminal element has so much control over our political leaders, drugs will continue to stay illegal. If drugs were legalized, our citizens could benefit from them with taxes imposed on them and the criminal element would lose the profits from drugs.

I truly wish we could solve the problem this way... however I doubt it will ever happen. Oh well...

[printer2]

So; we agree?

And spoil our track record?

[jmac00]

there is one other point we are all missing:

IF the treaty get signed or NOBama agrees to this stupidity, we as Americans will be giving up our sovereignty. That I will not abide by

My laws are based on the Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA........

Not the rules of one of the most corrupt groups of people on the planet. :patriot::patriot::patriot:

[REECHMAN]

There's a highway that comes across the border from Mexico into Arizona, they have check points along this highway checking for dope but when it starts to sprinkle rain they close down the check points allowing the drug runners to roll right through. Who is responsible for this? It's not our Border Patrol Agents. It's Jon McCain and the rest of these "politicians" who make these policies. They could stop all illegal activity on the border if they wanted, it's called "The National Guard" You know, Guard the Nation.

[printer2]

there is one other point we are all missing:

IF the treaty get signed or NOBama agrees to this stupidity, we as Americans will be giving up our sovereignty. That I will not abide by

My laws are based on the Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA........

Not the rules of one of the most corrupt groups of people on the planet. :patriot::patriot::patriot:

If you think you have not given up some of your sovereignty before you are sadly misinformed. Find out how many treaties the US government has signed with other countries. Each one is a loss of sovereignty. The question is what do you get in return?


WTO Rulings Benefit America

U.S. Wins After World Trade Organization Resolves Disputes

The WTO is a forum that holds countries accountable for their trade commitments. Ideally, participating WTO nations enjoy reduced red tape, lessened corruption and greater reliability for exporters, importers and consumers.

America's goal is to use the WTO as a tool to negotiate the best possible outcomes for U.S. workers, farmers and manufacturers.

Recently, America was an active participant in helping Saudi Arabia to join the WTO, Ukraine and Vietnam to complete bilateral market agreements and Russia to negotiate bilateral market access. Once party to a WTO agreement, the U.S. can appeal to the WTO court of appeal to ensure that participating nations conduct their international trade transactions with integrity.

http://world-trade-organization.suite101.com/article.cfm/wto_rulings_benefit_america

[jmac00]

If you think you have not given up some of your sovereignty before you are sadly misinformed. Find out how many treaties the US government has signed with other countries. Each one is a loss of sovereignty. The question is what do you get in return?



http://world-trade-organization.suite101.com/article.cfm/wto_rulings_benefit_america

ya, but none of those has to do with my RKBA :patriot:

[printer2]

ya, but none of those has to do with my RKBA :patriot:

And the small arms treaty does not take away your right to bear arms. Can you show me where it does in this draft?



1. All international transfers of arms and ammunition (hereafter referred to as "arms") shall be authorized by a recognized state (......).

2. States shall not authorize international transfers of arms that violate their expressed obligations under international law. These obligations include: obligations under the Charter of the United Nations - including binding resolutions of the Security Council, etc., any other treaty or decision by which a state is bound, and universally accepted principles of international humanitarian law - including the prohibition on the use of arms that are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, the prohibition on weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians.

3. States shall not authorize international transfers of arms where they will be used or are likely to be used for violations of international law, including breaches of the UN Charter and customary law rules relating to the use of force, gross violations of international human rights law, serious violations of international humanitarian law, acts of genocide, or crimes against humanity.

4. States shall take into account other factors, including the likely use of the arms, before authorizing an arms transfer, including the recipient's record of compliance with commitments and transparency in the field of non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament.
States should not authorize the transfer if it is likely to: be used for or to facilitate terrorist attacks; be used for or to facilitate the commission of violent or organized crime; adversely affect regional security or stability; adversely affect sustainable development; involve corrupt practices; contravene other international, regional, or sub-regional commitments or decisions made, or agreements on non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament to which the exporting, importing, or transit States are party.

5. States shall submit comprehensive national annual reports on all their international arms and ammunition transfers to an international registry, which shall publish a compiled, comprehensive, international annual report.

6. States shall establish common standards for specific mechanisms to control: all import and export of arms; arms brokering activities; transfers of arms production capacity; and the transit and trans-shipment of arms.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/UN/disarmament/arms/att/view0704.html

[jmac00]

And the small arms treaty does not take away your right to bear arms. Can you show me where it does in this draft?




http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/UN/disarmament/arms/att/view0704.html

it's just the beginning of then end. :patriot:

[jpsmith1cm]

Printer,

This gives the GOVERNMENT absolute authority over our firearms.

The second amendment was written with the idea in mind that the second amendment would give US, the citizenry, absolute authority over the government.

Anything less than the founder's intent is unacceptable. It completely changes the format of our government.

[printer2]

it's just the beginning of then end. :patriot:

No, that happened when they gave women the vote.

[jpsmith1cm]

No, that happened when they gave women the vote.

Actually, I would be willing to bet that it happened before that.

[jmac00]

No, that happened when they gave women the vote.

oooh Christ! are you really going to go there. Try to stay on topic :tussor:

Look, we in America are a free people with the RKBA. If Canadians and the rest of the world want a bunch of third world dictators running your lives, fine, knock yourselves out.

LEAVE AMERICA ALONE, period.

'nough said :patriot:

[jpsmith1cm]

Well said, Jmac.

[printer2]

oooh Christ! are you really going to go there. Try to stay on topic :tussor:

Look, we in America are a free people with the RKBA. If Canadians and the rest of the world want a bunch of third world dictators running your lives, fine, knock yourselves out.

LEAVE AMERICA ALONE, period.

'nough said :patriot:

Again, the treaty is about exports to another country, nothing to do with arms staying in the country. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand, that is why I am repeating it again.

[RoBoTeq]

oooh Christ! are you really going to go there. Try to stay on topic :tussor:

Look, we in America are a free people with the RKBA. If Canadians and the rest of the world want a bunch of third world dictators running your lives, fine, knock yourselves out.

LEAVE AMERICA ALONE, period.

'nough said :patriot:
Here, here!:patriot:

[jmac00]

Again, the treaty is about exports to another country, nothing to do with arms staying in the country. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand, that is why I am repeating it again.

You can repeat whatever gobbledygook you want to keep regurgitating.

I really could careless. The real reason for gun registration and this "small arms treaty" is for future confiscation. :patriot:

Your not going to convince me otherwise.

You can live in your Utopian, all be it perverted, perfect world. I'll keep my guns and my freedom :patriot::patriot:

[glennac]

How does the treaty help the US? We have police, military and legally armed citizens. Can't see this helping us. Show us where it is to our benefit and not our harm and then we can look at it carefully. Thank you very much

[Tool-Slinger]

How does the treaty help the US? We have police, military and legally armed citizens. Can't see this helping us. Show us where it is to our benefit and not our harm and then we can look at it carefully. Thank you very much
Perfect. Perhaps the most sane comment on this entire thread. I am with Glennac on this one.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Again, the treaty is about exports to another country, nothing to do with arms staying in the country. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand, that is why I am repeating it again.

We have had this discussion too many times...

That is what they want you to believe. The REAL agenda is to lay the ground work to take guns away.

Read up on what went on in the 1930's in Germany... they registered all the guns, then they collected all the guns, then there was no way to resist a bad government taking over. Imagine this: If Germany had not been dis-armed... WW2 may not have happened. YES, that is potentially true.

The first reality to understanding politics is that what they say and what they intend to do are two different things. Always judge a man by his actions, not his words. Anyone can lie and spin...

Do you really want a person who's only real talent is lieing and spinning making laws you have to be accountable to?

[the mojo]

There's a highway that comes across the border from Mexico into Arizona, they have check points along this highway checking for dope but when it starts to sprinkle rain they close down the check points allowing the drug runners to roll right through. Who is responsible for this? It's not our Border Patrol Agents. It's Jon McCain and the rest of these "politicians" who make these policies. They could stop all illegal activity on the border if they wanted, it's called "The National Guard" You know, Guard the Nation.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177

You wonder why McCain is pro-illegal alien and a RINO.

[REECHMAN]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177

You wonder why McCain is pro-illegal alien and a RINO.
Thanks mojo, great info, that's the kind of stuff that should be on the 5 oclock news, not who won on American Idol last night. This is proof that this country is being destroyed from within. It's funny, when I go to the barber shop they argue Republican this and Democrat that. Most of those guys don't have a clue and that's the way the puppet masters want it.

[printer2]

How does the treaty help the US? We have police, military and legally armed citizens. Can't see this helping us. Show us where it is to our benefit and not our harm and then we can look at it carefully. Thank you very much

There are time when countries in the world act as a community and do things for the greater good. Why ban landmines? Because once the war is over civilians continue to get blown up 50 years later. Why the treaty against cluster bombs? Because they do not discriminate between a soldier and a child.

More and more it is now the civilian population that you have to win over to win a war rather than just achieve a military victory. It will become more rare to see countries going at each other in the future while most of the strife will come from disenfranchised sections of the population.

Even though the trouble occurs outside your borders you end up being involved cleaning up the mess.