View Full Version : The Official M4C Gun Control Thread
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-win-u-backs-u-n-arms-treaty-193445288.html
Only took hours for them to reschedule the UN treaty talks.
Magic_Salad0892
11-07-12, 19:19
Look at these parts:
"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,"
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.
Does anybody know what this treaty actually is? Because this doesn't make it sound too bad. But I could be wrong.
How many pro-gun Senators did we lose? We had 55 opposed to the treaty.
Would "exports" include exports to the US? No more HKs? No more Austrian Glocks? No more AKs?
sinlessorrow
11-07-12, 19:44
Look at these parts:
Does anybody know what this treaty actually is? Because this doesn't make it sound too bad. But I could be wrong.
It will only affect imported and exported fire arms, domestic made firearms will not be affect, thus our 2A will not be challenged.
Would "exports" include exports to the US? No more HKs? No more Austrian Glocks? No more AKs?
from what I can find if you purchase an imported weapon you will be reported to the country it came from and kept on record for 20 years.
sinlessorrow
11-07-12, 20:06
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/
KEY U.S. REDLINES
The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
There will be no lowering of current international standards.
Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.
Wont effect us yet !
Its like letting a guy take your daughter out and saying no really we just cuddled
It start with a innocent hand up the shirt and we know what it leads to and what they really want !
I hope it gets signed tomorrow. Anyone who has read it and understands the constitution should know that it will have no impact at all on private ownership of firearms in this country.
Email the fricking thing to me, I'll sign it so it's done and over with.
sinlessorrow
11-07-12, 21:15
I hope it gets signed tomorrow. Anyone who has read it and understands the constitution should know that it will have no impact at all on private ownership of firearms in this country.
Email the fricking thing to me, I'll sign it so it's done and over with.
Agreed, I listed the Redlines that would keep it from getting signed, they will not touch domestic rifles produced in the USA and they will not touch our 2A.
from what I can find if you purchase an imported weapon you will be reported to the country it came from and kept on record for 20 years.
**** that noise. I'm not going to be databased by these puppet masters.
Why we bend the knee to these bastards I'll never understand. It's not as if african warlords straw purchase rifles off US shelves. The war guns have been in circulation for years, and will be in circulation for years, all black-market. Nobody can trace them. It's impossible. There are 10's of millions of them and it's not as if anyone tells an authority when they purchase such arms.
sinlessorrow
11-07-12, 21:23
**** that noise. I'm not going to be databased by these puppet masters.
Why we bend the knee to these bastards I'll never understand. It's not as if african warlords straw purchase rifles off US shelves. The war guns have been in circulation for years, and will be in circulation for years, all black-market. Nobody can trace them. It's impossible. There are 10's of millions of them and it's not as if anyone tells an authority when they purchase such arms.
Only place I could find it was the NRA website and while I am a member with them they are also a fanatical group so I tend to take their stuff with a grain of salt. I was unable to find that info anywhere other than the NRA website. If its true then it only counts with imported weapons, ones made domestically won't have that happen.
http://marketdailynews.com/2012/11/07/senator-dianne-feinstein-moves-to-ban-all-assault-rifles-high-capacity-magazines-and-pistol-grips/
sinlessorrow
11-08-12, 07:22
It will never happen, not with the Republicans controlling the house.
It will never happen, not with the Republicans controlling the house.
You are assuming they will play within the framework of the Constitution. I'm not convinced they will.
The_War_Wagon
11-08-12, 07:49
Molon labe, baby... :cool:
You are assuming they will play within the framework of the Constitution. I'm not convinced they will.
Explain
When is that crusty old bag going to kick the bucket?
sinlessorrow
11-08-12, 08:22
Explain
Tin foil hat.
If what I read is real, I have my doubts her own party would approve something so retarded.
Explain
No tinfoil hat stuff, I just think that the frontal assault (legislation) will fail, so other angles will be taken. Things like executive orders, crippling taxation or regulatory changes making mail order ammunition a thing of the past.
Your thoughts?
ETA: For example, the failed attempt to ban lead ammunition. They'll keep trying until something sticks.
Explain
There weren't enough votes to pass the health care law, yet it passed.
This administration has demonstrated a willingness to bypass the Constitution to get what they want.
They could use the EPA to go after ammunition manufacturing and use, BHO could use executive orders to implement his agenda and I'm confident there are numerous other administrative avenues he could use to go after the 2A.
Just my opinion,
Mike
Not to mention a Republican base that just got roughed up in the election & will be moving left in an attempt to save their seats in 2014.
Not saying they'll cave on 2A, but the likelihood of them "bending" to appear to be working with the President is a real threat.
nineteenkilo
11-08-12, 08:41
I'm going to view it a little differently:
We knew they were going to try an AWB - it was said during the debate openly. I don't think anyone is really all that shocked by this. I'm just glad we can go ahead and get moving in the political arena so that we have something tangible to oppose. This is why:
1. Grumbling about an AWB amounts to squat. We need something tangible to oppose and it looks like it is beginning.
2. Now is a great time for them to try it. With the burning hatred felt by many after the election a couple of days ago - it is easier for us to rally the troops.
3. By adding the 'scare' of the NATO (Errr UN) treaty (that doesn't affect us domestically) to the babblings of a FAR left Kalifornia Dem, we are basically being handed the high ground.
Let's make the most of it.
I'll be danged. I was optimistic there for second.
I'm all for an attempt at AGGRESSIVE gun control measures. Let's get this war under way.
I'm going to view it a little differently:
We knew they were going to try an AWB - it was said during the debate openly. I don't think anyone is really all that shocked by this. I'm just glad we can go ahead and get moving in the political arena so that we have something tangible to oppose. This is why:
1. Grumbling about an AWB amounts to squat. We need something tangible to oppose and it looks like it is beginning.
2. Now is a great time for them to try it. With the burning hatred felt by many after the election a couple of days ago - it is easier for us to rally the troops.
3. By adding the 'scare' of the NATO treaty (that doesn't affect us domestically) to the babblings of a FAR left Kalifornia Dem, we are basically being handed the high ground.
Let's make the most of it.
I'll be danged. I was optimistic there for second.
I'm sure you meant UN treaty, but I do admire your optimism.
I agree that people are fired up and an outright ban that requires weapons to be turned in has no chance through proper channels, but it shows that they will waste no time going after their goals. It's going to be a long 4 years. :(
nineteenkilo
11-08-12, 08:59
I'm sure you meant UN treaty, but I do admire your optimism.
I agree that people are fired up and an outright ban that requires weapons to be turned in has no chance through proper channels, but it shows that they will waste no time going after their goals. It's going to be a long 4 years. :(
Dang. Yes - UN.
It's still early. :D
sinlessorrow
11-08-12, 09:03
There weren't enough votes to pass the health care law, yet it passed.
This administration has demonstrated a willingness to bypass the Constitution to get what they want.
They could use the EPA to go after ammunition manufacturing and use, BHO could use executive orders to implement his agenda and I'm confident there are numerous other administrative avenues he could use to go after the 2A.
Just my opinion,
Mike
This is going into tinfoil territory.
Did anyone read the site, that quotes a site, that said this This same “pretty good intelligence” says
They cant put a tax on a weapon this was discussed in another thread on this forum.
I truly think the gun community is becoming a bunch of paranoid individuals. While an AWB is possible its unlikely. The link from the OP is bogus, why is it no one other than that one quoted website has headd of this? Not even the NRA Is saying anything.
Just like the UN ATT is going after our guns to huh?:rolleyes:
To add: if this is true then everyone who just went and blew thousands on guns and ammo to prepare for the AWB will have waisted all that money, since you will bave to turn your guns in.
I'm all for an attempt at AGGRESSIVE gun control measures. Let's get this war under way.
:lol:
As much as I want to believe that it would cause hell to be unleashed, I bet there are damned few gun owners that would actually pony up when the time came and violence was a reality. Alot of gun owners are just hunters/sportsmen.
sinlessorrow
11-08-12, 09:22
I'm sure you meant UN treaty, but I do admire your optimism.
I agree that people are fired up and an outright ban that requires weapons to be turned in has no chance through proper channels, but it shows that they will waste no time going after their goals. It's going to be a long 4 years. :(
It doesn't show anything.
Do you read the national enquiror and believe everythin it says to? There is no confirmed sources for this aside from: This same “pretty good intelligence” says
Its like believing everything you read posted by matthew cox on military.com from his "super secret sources".
No legit wesbite is reporting it.
:lol:
As much as I want to believe that it would cause hell to be unleashed, I bet there are damned few gun owners that would actually pony up when the time came and violence was a reality. Alot of gun owners are just hunters/sportsmen.
Very true. The whole "molon labe" crowd is a farce. I'll never forget during the AWB there was a molon labe pic with an AWB compliant AR. C'MON, MAN!
Doc Safari
11-08-12, 09:25
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107
After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks
U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.
The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. interest group, strongly opposes the arms treaty and had endorsed Romney.
My take: It sounds like another Bush 41 import ban. Any guns, ammo, accessories, mags, and whatnot of foreign origin (including our own guns sold to foreign governments) would probably be banned, or could be banned if the treaty's intent is "stretched" to allow Barry some of this "under the radar" gun control.
You can also bet that if a gun you purchased on a 4473 ever, and I mean EVER, ends up in Mexico through theft or anything other reason, then your ass had better report it stolen ASAP or it may be your keester in the pen for violating the UN Arms Treaty.
Tinfoil? I don't think so.
We also discussed in another thread how the Senate might just sit on it and not address it. In that case the treaty would be "in effect" as long as it's not voted down.
Somebody can probably shed more light on how that works, but I have heard that from more than one source. I'll try to do some Googling later between things I've got to do at the ranch.
Barry didn't even wait one day.
This does not bode well.
GeorgiaBoy
11-08-12, 09:45
I don't mean to be negative here, but I don't really see how a UN arms treaty actually violates the 2A.
I oppose it (because I like foreign made guns and ammo), but I don't quite get the gist of how its nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be, as far as a ban on imports go.
Educate me.
Doc Safari
11-08-12, 09:53
I don't mean to be negative here, but I don't really see how a UN arms treaty actually violates the 2A.
I oppose it (because I like foreign made guns and ammo), but I don't quite get the gist of how its nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be, as far as a ban on imports go.
Educate me.
My perspective is that it's the singer, not the song. The fact that Barry wants it so bad makes me mistrust the intent and ultimate purpose of this.
We know he wants backdoor gun control. Some, maybe not-so-expert opinions are that this treaty would require the UN to be notified of an end-purchaser's identity. In other words (and I know it's a stretch) let's say you bought a post-treaty imported firearm. The information on the 4473 might have to be on file at the UN.
I personally do not know if that's true or even if true that they could even enforce it.
As I stated earlier, my take is that Obama will use it to sign a bunch of executive orders banning imported guns, ammo, and whatnot.
sinlessorrow
11-08-12, 10:08
The UN ATT is not coming after our guns, and we already have a topic about this.
I ya'll would take the time to read the redlines and what this treaty does you would see this has nothing to do with our 2A or domestic production.
30 cal slut
11-08-12, 10:18
rotsa ruck getting this one passed.
rotsa ruck getting this one passed.
Doesn't need to be passed. Just ratified by a democratic controlled Senate.
2/3 vote in Senate to ratify. House can withhold funding, but gets no say.
The UN ATT is not coming after our guns, and we already have a topic about this.
I ya'll would take the time to read the redlines and what this treaty does you would see this has nothing to do with our 2A or domestic production.
While I agree with the assessment given how the treaty and the way we "monitor" cross border transactions stands today, I think there is plenty of wiggle room on the final write up.
The biggest headache will be if stolen guns end up across a border or guns sold by original owners end up across a border. We all know that the ATF and UN are incredibly efficient at updating paperwork so people could end up getting stung cause the UN is not such a strong proponent of the innocent till proven guilty model. Is it likely, hopefully not but i still don't want to see it ratified in the USA.
Doc Safari
11-08-12, 10:34
Those of you who aren't worried about it I have to say one thing.
If it's no big deal, why is the NRA against it?
Cincinnatus
11-08-12, 10:34
Apparently there is now a domestic push too in the Senate, not just an "international" one with UN treaty route.
http://marketdailynews.com/2012/11/07/senator-dianne-feinstein-moves-to-ban-all-assault-rifles-high-capacity-magazines-and-pistol-grips/
Doc Safari
11-08-12, 10:39
Apparently there is now a domestic push too in the Senate, not just an "international" one with UN treaty route.
http://marketdailynews.com/2012/11/07/senator-dianne-feinstein-moves-to-ban-all-assault-rifles-high-capacity-magazines-and-pistol-grips/
Quoting that article:
It would essentially ban thousands of firearms and require gun owners to turn them over to the Federal government.
I don’t have the minutes of the meeting (yet), but sources tell me California Senator and longtime gun-hater Dianne Feinstein’s legal staff held meetings on Friday with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new “Assault Weapons Ban” Madame Feinstein would be looking to push through Congress if President Obama wins reelection.
This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a banwould ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”.
They tried the same thing in the 1990's, and the confiscation clauses got stripped out of the final bill. That doesn't mean they would this time.
With Republicans controlling the House we've basically got two years to relax (but not too much).
Should the Dems take the Senate and the House next time we are in heap big trouble.
sinlessorrow
11-08-12, 11:07
Those of you who aren't worried about it I have to say one thing.
If it's no big deal, why is the NRA against it?
Because the NRA are against everything. I am a NRA member but I am also smart enough to realise they get pretty crazy over some small things.
I have read the NRA stuff about this and to them the ATT is going to strip away our 2A and take all of our guns, thats not correct no matter what they say.
Eta: can we please quit quoting the random websit with a source that reads :This same “pretty good intelligence” says: about a AWB and feinstein, do you believe the things in the national enquiror as well?
Doc Safari
11-08-12, 11:18
Eta: can we please quit quoting the random websit with a source that reads :This same “pretty good intelligence” says: about a AWB and feinstein, do you believe the things in the national enquiror as well?
Point taken, but since the quotes pretty much 100% reflect Feinswine's position and plans in the 1990's, I think we can rely on it.
PrivateCitizen
11-08-12, 11:27
Before anyone freaks out … is there any links to the ACTUAL proposal?
The U.N. is ALWAYS talking. They are immensely good at it.What we need to see is what they are DOING.
sinlessorrow
11-08-12, 11:28
Point taken, but since the quotes pretty much 100% reflect Feinswine's position and plans in the 1990's, I think we can rely on it.
Then you understand how easy it would be to make it up.
There is no one out there talking about it, not her, not the media, not the NRA, no one except this one random source.
Doc Safari
11-08-12, 11:36
All you have to do is Google it, and you'll find source after source.
She was talking about this before the election. I found numerous articles as far back as July on just the first Google page. Not all of them go into the same detail, but she has never given up the idea of banning assault weapons with no grandfathering.
Denial must be a medical condition among gun owners.
Back on topic, we are talking about the UN Arms Treaty.
Someone made a good suggestion to find the actual text of the treaty.
My contention is that whatever the text is it will be used to "bend the rules" and allow Barry wiggle room for some executive orders affecting imports.
sinlessorrow
11-08-12, 11:40
All you have to do is Google it, and you'll find source after source.
She was talking about this before the election. I found numerous articles as far back as July on just the first Google page. Not all of them go into the same detail, but she has never given up the idea of banning assault weapons with no grandfathering.
Denial must be a medical condition among gun owners.
Back on topic, we are talking about the UN Arms Treaty.
Someone made a good suggestion to find the actual text of the treaty.
My contention is that whatever the text is it will be used to "bend the rules" and allow Barry wiggle room for some executive orders affecting imports.
I did google it. I found article after article quoting the exac same anonymous source and the exact same website who supposedly has the annonymous source, every article had the exact same quote.
I could not find anything from anyone other than the annonymous source. I am no in denial I just want proof, not some random annonymous source on a website I have never heard o that gets quoted 100 times.
un att (http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/)
It doesn't show anything.
Do you read the national enquiror and believe everythin it says to? There is no confirmed sources for this aside from: This same “pretty good intelligence” says
Its like believing everything you read posted by matthew cox on military.com from his "super secret sources".
No legit wesbite is reporting it.
Do you feel the need to insult me? National Enquirer? Really? Come on, be civil.
I have no idea if this particular story is accurate. You seem to know, so you tell me. What I do know is I remember this story (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/239343-feinstein-johnson-spar-over-expired-assault-weapons-ban) and I distinctly heard the President say he would "revisit" an assault weapon ban.
Pardon my ignorance & gullibility if I'm not surprised when stories like this pop up.
sinlessorrow
11-08-12, 11:52
Do you feel the need to insult me? National Enquirer? Really? Come on, be civil.
I have no idea if this particular story is accurate. You seem to know, so you tell me. What I do know is I remember this story (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/239343-feinstein-johnson-spar-over-expired-assault-weapons-ban) and I distinctly heard the President say he would "revisit" an assault weapon ban.
Pardon my ignorance & gullibility if I'm not surprised when stories like this pop up.
I did not insult you, don't take things so personally. I sai do you believe everything you read and used the national enquiror as an example.
While I do get that Obama mentioned a AWBit does not mean much yet. The issue here is that some website(that I have never heard of, theshootingwire.com)supposedly has an annonymous, usuall pretty good source that has some sort of secret inside information that no other website on the internet has ever heard of.
Now tell me, does that sound true or not? The other issue is that everyone on the internet seems to be believeing it, I googled feinstein 2012 AWB and I had 3 pages of different websites quoting the exact same quote.
Doc Safari
11-08-12, 11:52
Feinstein calling for a new assault weapons ban:
Direct interview with KQED from September:
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/09/10/sen-dianne-feinstein-on-gun-control-mitt-romney-and-the-republican-agenda/
Quoting an interview with KPCC in September:
http://thepatriotperspective.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/senator-dianne-feinstein-to-introduce-updated-assault-weapons-ban-at-dnc/
KPCC's write-up:
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/09/05/34168/senator-feinstein-says-shell-reintroduce-gun-legis/
The confiscation and/or registration provisions have ALWAYS been a part of her efforts. I sweated bullets in the 1990's wondering if we were going to have to register our assault weapons. She has never given up on that idea.
sinlessorrow
11-09-12, 13:46
Even if feinstein wants to do it no one else will.
There are far more gun owners now than in '94 and a lot more using them for sports. We control the house and alot of dem's do not want an AWB either.
There is less focus on gun control than in the past, alot are realising that gun control =/= less crime. Obama has not even tried anything either.
The most he has done in his presidency was 3 sentences abou seeing about an AWB then quickly changing the subjet to education. If he wanted gun control he would have talked about it.
Feinstein is the only person that wants an AWB, it will go no where. Even her own party does no want an AWB.
Funny thing is ARFCOM of all places is being more rational about this than everyone here. In 4 years everyone will look back at this and laugh about how silly everyone is being.
Doc Safari
11-09-12, 13:51
Even if feinstein wants to do it no one else will.
There are far more gun owners now than in '94 and a lot more using them for sports. We control the house and alot of dem's do not want an AWB either.
There is less focus on gun control than in the past, alot are realising that gun control =/= less crime. Obama has not even tried anything either.
The most he has done in his presidency was 3 sentences abou seeing about an AWB then quickly changing the subjet to education. If he wanted gun control he would have talked about it.
Feinstein is the only person that wants an AWB, it will go no where. Even her own party does no want an AWB.
Twenty-four hours ago I would have agreed with you.
If you've been watching the news blogs like Drudge, you've seen Boehner basically turn into a wimpy marshmallow: "pro-amnesty, Obamacare is here to stay, and let's raise taxes." I can just hear the phrase "common sense gun legislation" coming out of his lips shortly.
I'm not saying you're wrong, and I damn sure hope you're not. I hope Fineswine is out there on a limb by herself.
I just say, "Stay alert. Don't go back to sleep. Don't live in denial."
I'm hoping someone will take apart my analysis of the UN treaty.
Really....somebody...please prove me wrong.
sinlessorrow
11-09-12, 14:22
Twenty-four hours ago I would have agreed with you.
If you've been watching the news blogs like Drudge, you've seen Boehner basically turn into a wimpy marshmallow: "pro-amnesty, Obamacare is here to stay, and let's raise taxes." I can just hear the phrase "common sense gun legislation" coming out of his lips shortly.
I'm not saying you're wrong, and I damn sure hope you're not. I hope Fineswine is out there on a limb by herself.
I just say, "Stay alert. Don't go back to sleep. Don't live in denial."
I'm hoping someone will take apart my analysis of the UN treaty.
Really....somebody...please prove me wrong.
Im not saying lets live in denial. The fact is the votes are not there for feinstein.
Obama doesn't care about gun control, if he did he would have talked about it. Obama said 3 sentences about it when someone asked him a question and as quickly as he could he changed the subject to education. If he cared he would talked about it like he does with things he cares about.
Obamacare happened because people wanted health care, the Republicans had nothing, so we now have Obamacare, it's something that has been looked at alot over time and finally happened, though not everyone is happy with it now, but Obama was the only one who actually brought it forward.
People in the US care less about gun control now than in a long time, this is a good thing. Not only do we have the house, but we have enough in the senate that with the Dems who do not want an AWB nothig would even come close to passing.
Feinstein is a broken record, she has been wanting an AWB for a long time and now shes about to kill over so why not make one last push while shes still able to make it. It will go nowhere though.
There are more guns in the hands of US citizen than ever, and more and more sports are coming out to allow the use of those guns, not only that but there are more gun manuf. than ever in multiple Dem states.
Passing an AWB would be a career suicide for anyone wanting a seat in the house or senate, it just won't happen.
SomeOtherGuy
11-09-12, 15:34
We already knew that Feinstein and Franken, among others, were rabidly anti-gun.
We already knew that Obama is hostile to guns, but hasn't made anti-gun legislation a priority, and seems aware of the third rail politics of going after guns.
AR15s were in very few civilian hands back in 1994, and for many they were a curiousity. Post 2004, the market has absolutely exploded, and it's now one of (the?) most common rifles in the US.
The Obama regime has 20 more important ways to rape the majority of the country before they get around to this one. Not letting my guard down, but not getting overly excited either.
However, it IS a great opportunity to sell your DPMSolympicShrub on TOS or wherever you like, while the demand is high.
Littlelebowski
11-09-12, 15:44
How is this Obama?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Doc Safari
11-09-12, 15:49
How is this Obama?
According to the articles, the treaty talks had collapsed in July because of Obama not wanting gun control to come up as an election issue. I'm assuming that means the day after the election he made some phone calls and said, "Let's go ahead and schedule a meeting on this gun treaty." At any rate, the talks are on again with meeting scheduled in March.
Littlelebowski
11-09-12, 15:59
This isn't from the same site that predicted wwIII would happen on September 25 2012?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Doc Safari
11-09-12, 16:05
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/08/With-Election-Over-Obama-Re-Opens-Talks-On-U-N-Arms-Trade-Treaty
With Election Over, Obama Reopens Talks on U.N. Firearms Treaty
With the presidential election behind him, President Obama has signaled he is ready to restart U.N. talks on the Arms Trade Treaty.
These negotiations carried on through the summer, until they abruptly ended July 28 with a U.S. pullout.
The U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee has already voted and set dates for treaty discussions on March 17-18, 2013.
The author states that it won't go anywhere without Senate ratification, but I reiterate statements I've read (some by members here) that if the Senate refuses to take it up, it will be "in effect" until they do.
I also wonder if people are placing too much faith in the Senate not to ratify it. To hear the Republicans shaking in their boots after election day I almost believe Barry could get them to vote for Obamacare.
sinlessorrow
11-09-12, 16:07
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/08/With-Election-Over-Obama-Re-Opens-Talks-On-U-N-Arms-Trade-Treaty
The author states that it won't go anywhere without Senate ratification, but I reiterate statements I've read (some by members here) that if the Senate refuses to take it up, it will be "in effect" until they do.
I also wonder if people are placing too much faith in the Senate not to ratify it. To hear the Republicans shaking in their boots after election day I almost believe Barry could get them to vote for Obamacare.
The UN ATT will not affect us in any way.
Doc Safari
11-09-12, 16:32
Found it. I'm not crazy after all:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/25/un-treaty-takes-shape-and-takes-aim-at-gun-owners/
...experts told FoxNews.com that if the Obama administration signs on and the Senate does not expressly reject it, the treaty may later be enforceable in the United States as international "customary law" – absent a successful challenge based on the Constitution.
The article clarifies a lot of other things as well, like the weakness in the language that supposedly exempts civilian firearms, but I would almost have to copy and paste the whole article to catch all of them.
sinlessorrow
11-09-12, 17:04
Found it. I'm not crazy after all:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/25/un-treaty-takes-shape-and-takes-aim-at-gun-owners/
The article clarifies a lot of other things as well, like the weakness in the language that supposedly exempts civilian firearms, but I would almost have to copy and paste the whole article to catch all of them.
I saw no proof that they will strip away our 2A and our guns.
Doc Safari
11-09-12, 17:10
I saw no proof that they will strip away our 2A and our guns.
You won't find any "proof". The premise is that Obama will stretch the language of the treaty to allow backdoor gun control measures.
It's a theory; that's all.
sinlessorrow
11-09-12, 20:00
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.
What are you prepared to do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOvH-7lcjb0
I believe it would be naive to put the thought of an AWB on the back burner. Before the debates, gun bans were merely speculation. Then on debate #2, the chosen one blatantly stated he wants an AWB. His minions have proven quick to draft bills knowing there's a good chance they'll push them through. Just like that snapper head Pelosi said "It will be hard to go after guns. So instead we'll go after ammo" or something of that nature. Something is bound to come down the pipeline. Semi autos, pistols, mags, ammo...something.
The Clinton ban of 94 is proof that an AWB can happen.
sinlessorrow
11-09-12, 20:20
I believe it would be naive to put the thought of an AWB on the back burner. Before the debates, gun bans were merely speculation. Then on debate #2, the chosen one blatantly stated he wants an AWB. His minions have proven quick to draft bills knowing there's a good chance they'll push them through. Just like that snapper head Pelosi said "It will be hard to go after guns. So instead we'll go after ammo" or something of that nature. Something is bound to come down the pipeline. Semi autos, pistols, mags, ammo...something.
The Clinton ban of 94 is proof that an AWB can happen.
Today is far different than '94 when it comes to firearms owners and business.
Obama was asked a question and he spent 10 seconds mentioning looking into an AWB, it wont happen. Obama doesn't care about an awb, when he cares about something he talks about it and pushes it. He has yet to talk about an AWB aside from 10 seconds in response to a question.
An AWB won't happen, there are far more gun owner than ever, more sports designed for guns than ever, more gun manuf. than ever, and far less people wanting gun control than ever. People are finally figuring ou gun control =/= less crime which is why the want for a gun ban is lower than ever.
It just won't happen, this is not '94 anymore.
Today is far different than '94 when it comes to firearms owners and business.
Obama was asked a question and he spent 10 seconds mentioning looking into an AWB, it wont happen. Obama doesn't care about an awb, when he cares about something he talks about it and pushes it. He has yet to talk about an AWB aside from 10 seconds in response to a question.
An AWB won't happen, there are far more gun owner than ever, more sports designed for guns than ever, more gun manuf. than ever, and far less people wanting gun control than ever. People are finally figuring ou gun control =/= less crime which is why the want for a gun ban is lower than ever.
It just won't happen, this is not '94 anymore.
Uh, ok.
Magic_Salad0892
11-10-12, 02:23
Where does it say any guns coming into the US are regulated in any way?
I only see where it says guns being exported FROM the us are being regulated.
Am I blind?
We aren't going to start a new thread every time someone politician opens their yap.
Instead of posting a new thread every 12 hours when some new control measure real or imagined comes up we are going to combine them here. Feel free to start posting.
Mauser KAR98K
11-10-12, 11:44
Where does it say any guns coming into the US are regulated in any way?
I only see where it says guns being exported FROM the us are being regulated.
Am I blind?
Yeah, but the other country EXPORTS them to us. The UN treaty would stop that.
polymorpheous
11-10-12, 12:30
Instead of posting a new thread every 12 hours when some new control measure real or imagined comes up we are going to combine them here. Feel free to start posting.
Good idea.
Based on how the president and his contender answered the gun violence/control question during the town-hall-style debate, it is clear they are both under the popular but mistaken impression that an AK (or AR) is an "automatic weapon". We won't even get into the stupid "assault rifle" designation that is perpetuated as a propaganda tool to instill fear of certain types of firearms.
The president in particular went on to state that those type of weapons belong in the hands of soldiers but not civilians (which is contrary to the traditionally understood purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is not about hunting or target shooting. It, like others among the Bill of Rights, is designed to ensure we the people cannot be subjected to tyranny and can resist an out-of-control government, by arms if necessary).
When their answers were given, it was clear to those with ears to hear that the fight to maintain our rights is not anywhere near over, and to think there is no danger hidden in every piece of gun-related legislation is to be naive. When you understand that the other half of the voting population in America actively wants us to be like Europe in every way (fiscally, socially, legally), you will begin to see through the charade.
And if you think it's fine if Americans can no longer import AK-style rifles from Eastern Europe because you're an AR elitist, then you're part of the problem. If you don't stand up for everyone's rights, what goes around comes around and there'll be a time when they take away yours, too.
Please explain what imports are affected? You realize that there has been a ban in place already since 1989 and I believe that President Clinton later banned the importation of parts kits.
Most AK's on the market aside from those made by Arsenal are either pre-ban AK's or are built on parts kits.
No one said the fight is over. You are simply being a drama queen and reading into what is being posted. Instead of wasting time focusing on some silly U.N treaty that has no legal standing we need to focusing on the real potential issues.
Based on how the president and his contender answered the gun violence/control question during the town-hall-style debate, it is clear they are both under the popular but mistaken impression that an AK (or AR) is an "automatic weapon". We won't even get into the stupid "assault rifle" designation that is perpetuated as a propaganda tool to instill fear of certain types of firearms.
The president in particular went on to state that those type of weapons belong in the hands of soldiers but not civilians (which is contrary to the traditionally understood purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is not about hunting or target shooting. It, like others among the Bill of Rights, is designed to ensure we the people cannot be subjected to tyranny and can resist an out-of-control government, by arms if necessary).
When their answers were given, it was clear to those with ears to hear that the fight to maintain our rights is not anywhere near over, and to think there is no danger hidden in every piece of gun-related legislation is to be naive. When you understand that the other half of the voting population in America actively wants us to be like Europe in every way (fiscally, socially, legally), you will begin to see through the charade.
And if you think it's fine if Americans can no longer import AK-style rifles from Eastern Europe because you're an AR elitist, then you're part of the problem. If you don't stand up for everyone's rights, what goes around comes around and there'll be a time when they take away yours, too.
3 paragraphs essentially stating facts, 1 paragraph sharing an opinion. Zero drama included.
sinlessorrow
11-10-12, 22:45
3 paragraphs essentially stating facts, 1 paragraph sharing an opinion. Zero drama included.
got any proof to those "facts"
got any proof to those "facts"
If you watched the debate in question, you know what was stated by the candidates.
If you've studied the 2nd amendment, you know what its intent and purpose is.
If you've examined the political intent of the left, you know what their goals are and how their legislation works.
So you must be referring to the final paragraph, which is just opinion.
sinlessorrow
11-10-12, 23:13
If you watched the debate in question, you know what was stated by the candidates.
If you've studied the 2nd amendment, you know what its intent and purpose is.
If you've examined the political intent of the left, you know what their goals are and how their legislation works.
So you must be referring to the final paragraph, which is just opinion.
So other than a 10 seconds statement when asked a question that he quickly disregarded you don't have any proof?
So other than a 10 seconds statement when asked a question that he quickly disregarded you don't have any proof?
10 seconds, huh? You must be thinking of Romney's comments, because Romney's first 10 seconds would line up with your sentiments. He quickly disregarded new legislation and correctly identified that automatic weapons are already illegal in the first 10 seconds of his response. Perhaps you missed the two minutes preceding Romney's comments, which contained Obama's comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyVldVMA7vU
Obama made it clear he will use the cover of "gun violence" to further restrict the type of weapons you can own, despite that having absolutely nothing to do with "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals", which is the oft repeated excuse used to do so. (And putting to lie the claim that he respects the 2nd amendment.) Those first two minutes, which contained the president's first remarks, are where my comments come from, and they are spot on. If you have trouble seeing that, I'm sorry for you.
sinlessorrow
11-11-12, 17:25
10 seconds, huh? You must be thinking of Romney's comments, because Romney's first 10 seconds would line up with your sentiments. He quickly disregarded new legislation and correctly identified that automatic weapons are already illegal in the first 10 seconds of his response. Perhaps you missed the two minutes preceding Romney's comments, which contained Obama's comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyVldVMA7vU
Obama made it clear he will use the cover of "gun violence" to further restrict the type of weapons you can own, despite that having absolutely nothing to do with "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals", which is the oft repeated excuse used to do so. (And putting to lie the claim that he respects the 2nd amendment.) Those first two minutes, which contained the president's first remarks, are where my comments come from, and they are spot on. If you have trouble seeing that, I'm sorry for you.
So how do you expect Obama to go about getting an AWB in place and shutting down every gun company that makes AR-15 platform rifles and handguns? Because thats what an AWB would do. How would he do this?
The fact that he's amenable to it should be concerning enough and reason enough to stay on guard. It is unlikely he will unilaterally create anti-gun legislation. The danger is that he's agreeable to it, which signals that if such legislation crosses his desk, you can expect it to be signed. That he was willing to say as much during a public debate shows he's not too concerned about placating gun owners.
If you go back and read my posts that you quoted and responded to, perhaps you'll see that's the gist of what I was getting at. I never said anyone, let alone Obama himself, is going to take your guns away tomorrow. I said that he follows some common but mistaken lines of thinking related to guns and to the 2nd amendment that should put up a red flag, and that should be a warning not to take lightly any gun-related legislation that pops up in the next four years. And given how the other half behaves, we can expect multiple challenges on multiple fronts over the course of the next four years, some of which will come in seemingly benign forms, as is their favorite tactic.
Anyone thinking we're somehow in the clear and relying on a lower House majority or higher percentage of gun owners in the nation is playing a high-risk game of apathy on what is arguably one of the most serious topics related to liberty, and likely hasn't considered all the factors at play. Think back over the past couple decades how certain scenarios emerge that can encourage vast segments of the population to willingly give up freedoms or liberties. It's quite easy to envision plausible scenarios that would lead to large segments of "gun owners" willingly giving up certain liberties or rights. Heck, proof of point: in some states, they already have allowed some pretty absurd restrictions. And just examine certain European countries for the most likely next steps to come.
So back to your challenges, I think perhaps you had me confused with someone arguing about the UN treaty as if that's going to take away our rifles. I was discussing the broader topic of this thread, which is gun control in general, in light of the comments made by the president during the 2nd debate. I think I've successfully evidenced or at least defended my points, and find it hard to imagine you actually disagree with what I wrote, as much as what you perhaps somehow thought I wrote.
Doc Safari
11-12-12, 09:19
So how do you expect Obama to go about getting an AWB in place and shutting down every gun company that makes AR-15 platform rifles and handguns? Because thats what an AWB would do. How would he do this?
We've already beat to death the UN Arms Treaty so I won't repeat any of my theories on that.
No, I do not believe an AWB could pass the House.
But look at the bigger picture.
Mr. Community Organizer may get to appoint up to three SCOTUS justices during his second term.
Do you honestly think that if he gets to appoint enough to make a majority that they won't have some 2A court case ready to go to overturn Heller?
All the Barry-appointed SCOTUS has to do is say that the 2A is a "collective right" that applies to an organized military unit, and the idea of individual ownership is obsolete since the concept of the citizen soldier has been replaced by the National Guard. Therefore you have no right as an individual to keep and bear arms.
That pretty much puts gun ownership on the level with tobacco use: it's a "privilege" that they can tax, restrict, ban certain types, or whatever. I have no doubt they are smart enough to know that confiscation is not feasible. But once gun ownership is no longer an absolute "right" they will legislate, regulate, and tax it to death.
We will be a nation of .22 owners with a decade.
sinlessorrow
11-12-12, 09:29
We've already beat to death the UN Arms Treaty so I won't repeat any of my theories on that.
No, I do not believe an AWB could pass the House.
But look at the bigger picture.
Mr. Community Organizer may get to appoint up to three SCOTUS justices during his second term.
Do you honestly think that if he gets to appoint enough to make a majority that they won't have some 2A court case ready to go to overturn Heller?
All the Barry-appointed SCOTUS has to do is say that the 2A is a "collective right" that applies to an organized military unit, and the idea of individual ownership is obsolete since the concept of the citizen soldier has been replaced by the National Guard. Therefore you have no right as an individual to keep and bear arms.
That pretty much puts gun ownership on the level with tobacco use: it's a "privilege" that they can tax, restrict, ban certain types, or whatever. I have no doubt they are smart enough to know that confiscation is not feasible. But once gun ownership is no longer an absolute "right" they will legislate, regulate, and tax it to death.
We will be a nation of .22 owners with a decade.
Well at least every gun store/range/manuf. will be in the unemployment line.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.