Anybody looked into this? to me its scary as hell.
Especially since hillary clinton signed it on Christmas eve
just type it in on google and read what its all about.
Matthew, It's a round about way to undermine the 2nd amendment plain and simple! I usually don't take part in political discussions but this is one that everyone who owns a firearm should be concerned about. KB
I agree, thats why i kept it short and simple. the whole thing explains itself.
think happy thoughts
think happy thoughts......
Hol'on there cowboy !!! Nothing is signed. UN just voted on the 24th to re-start negotiations. Don't panic yet, but keep a sharp eye on'em though.
I know nothing official has happened yet, but Hillary signed that the US was in FAVOR of it. which is scary.
definetly watching them like a hawk!
That Reuters story doesn't tell the entire story (who'd have thought??). There are some provisions in the treaty that we should all be VERY wary of:
a) Under the guise of controlling international arms sales, the treaty provides for 'registration' of ALL arms inside each country. That means our guns will have to be registered. While the treaty doesn't specifically forbid our owning guns, or buying them within the country, it does require registration. Ask Adolph Hitler why that's something the administration would like to have happen, and be able to blame it on the UN.
b) The type of treaty that has been put forward is, under UN rules, able to pass without consensus. It can be passed by simple majority. And then, if it is, after a 3 or 6 month waiting period (I forget which), compliance can be MANDATED by the UN. Again, that means the administration can claim to be against it, but when it passes, they can claim it was 'forced' on us by the world community, and we must comply in the name of international peace and security.
Is this important? You bet!
Is this dangerous? You bet!
Is this going to happen? It will if we let it!
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Just like the Prez. signing Exec.Orders on the weekends, Off the radar so to speak.
I am most certainly NOT an attorney and am only an amateur observer as far as U.S. Constitutional law is concerned, but this whole thing seems wrong to me. I can not believe that an administration can, with the stroke of a pen, negate any part of the U.S. Constitution. Should they actually execute such a document I can't believe it would be binding on U.S. citizens. The U.S. Constitution MUST trump anything and everything we do. After all, isn't it the function of the U.S. Supreme Court to see that the constitution is held above all other considerations?
Anyhow, just my $.02.
How do you cook frogs? slowly turn the heat up.
the ignorrant have no idea till they are cooked.
first it will be " just get your guns registered"
then " autos are now illegal"
then "you can only have 20 rounds"
then "no shotguns" on and on and on.
well you can rest a little easier because... In the constitution it states that the US Constitution is THE law of the land not to be trumped by any foreign treaties or international law. This being said, the only way that the UN Small Arms Agreement would affect us is if the House, Senate, and Executive branch all agreed and signed it into law... and well folks.. that aint gonna happen as long as we have one of those three with common sense.
Rest a little easier? I haven't had a single good nights sleep in nearly fifteen years because I have seen this coming for almost forty years. Unfortunately, I also see a lot worse coming. I was born in the wrong century. I don't know if I was a hundred years too early, or a hundred years too late.
Fifty years ago, we had two major political parties with a basic difference in their approach to how the country should be run and how fast things could or should be changed. But both parties had the best interest of the people of this country at heart.
When I was in high school, a very liberal high school, I often made the statement that "I disagreed with both parties about 90 percent of the time". The political shift was already taking place, and I didn't like what I saw.
Since then I have argued, ranted, spouted, and voted. Things have only gotten worse. Both of our major parties are no longer interested in what is best for the "people" of this country. The hierarchy of both political parties are only interested in "how to separate the masses from their money". The only fundamental difference now is "who are the chosen ones" and "how do we get the masses to allow us to divert all their money to us".
Our nations economy has become a house of cards. There is almost no foundation left. If this nation does not change its direction, it will collapse.
I forget which one it was, but one of George Washington's farewell speeches, he warned against elevating bankers to a level of royalty. (OOPS!)
One thing that saddens me greatly, is all the sacrifices that Abraham Lincoln made in order that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the Earth". It saddens me too much when I think that it will perish anyway.
And then I think of the millions of people that also made huge sacrifices, did what had to be done to preserve a platform for peace. And I get even more sad.
If "WE THE PEOPLE" do not put together a new political party, beholden to no wealth, but to the rights of individuals, and the protection of those rights, we deserve to lose it all.
There are lesser parties today, but none with a vision beyond their core ideal. One minor party that has their head buried in unrealistic sand. A few others touting proven failures of ideas. It will have to be a new political party. It could grow out of one of several currently unguided groups. But those groups, today, lack vision and/or drive to do anything more than protest one thing or another.
Our nation's problems can be solved. But they cannot be solved by crushing the middle class any more than they can be solved by taxing the wealthy all the way into the middle class. Without a strong, working, middle class there can be no wealthy for very long. Again, that, "foundation" thing.
The first thing. What is right, is right. What is wrong, is wrong. Who your friends are does not change that! Stealing is stealing! It does not become okay just because someone kisses their way into a bureaucracy where everyone around them is stealing from the taxpayers. Until the government puts an end to that, roots out the liars and thieves, there will never be a true balanced budget. But that will not happen until it becomes "for the people" again.
I can rant for hours. I barely touched on a number of major areas. It is all stuff I have said for many years. What I have said hasn't changed much in forty years. But the world, and the (I won't say "our" anymore) government has changed. It has gotten much worse. But this rant has gotten long enough for now. Anyone with some real connections want to spend a few days discussing all this? "Ranting lunatic seeks major advisory position within political party"!
Oh well. I doubt I have too many years left. Maybe I can just find a corner to hide out in and play with my model Ts.
Do drive carefully, and have a HAPPY NEW YEAR! W2
The "registration" isn't meant to be forced on individual countries, it's meant to account for the arms crossing international borders. The UN couldn't care less how many small arms the US has, but they sure as hell don't want hundreds of thousands of these falling into the hands of a rogue state
I think its better for me to not get started on subject. There are a few million words I could type on this subject. I grew up with guns, Carried one for my country for 6 years. Either support are 2nd amendment or toss it to the shredder. Ok, This is where I better end my views before I go to far.
You might be surprized at what the u.n. wants. Thats all I have to say on the subject. KB
I still fail to see why anyone needs a gun that can hold more than 6 bullets, let alone be semi-automatic. I have more fun with my flintlock.
How will your single shot flintlock serve you when your house is broken into by more than one, or you are attacked by more than one? If you have ever been in a fire fight, you will know you can never be carrying too much ammunition.
The 2nd amendment was drafted so that a standing militia could be maintained. In the day that militia was every citizen of the country as it should be today. Also to make sure the citizen was as well armed as any army to prevent a repressive government.
2A has nothing to do with hunting, or shooting for sport. It says in plain text that it's purpose is for the security of a free state.
There are many scenarios where high capacity magazines would be useful for that purpose. People tend to have a "normalcy bias" which is basically described as the belief that because things are relatively peaceful now, that it will always be peaceful. Natural disasters, or food shortages can turn ordinary people into violent thugs.
Hurricane Katrina is one example. I know one guy who, in the aftermath, was perched on the roof of his business with an AR-15 to protect his family and property from the roving gangs of thugs. Where were the Police? They were out robbing and looting too. He never had to fire a shot. Gangs would turn around and walk the other way when they would see him from a block away. Now, granted, I'm taking his word for it and he may have been embellishing the story a bit, but the point is valid.
I usually have a lot to say about a lot of things. Quite often what I say is nonsense. But in this case I can only say that the people especially the gun owners in this country that voted for the current administration ought to be ashamed. You brought this on yourselves.
Every time some nut case makes the headlines its just another nail in the coffin in a politicians war on gun control. Although, lately they are getting a whole can full of nails.
That aside, Growing up in a very rural area where it was common to see a rack full of guns year round in the back windows of most all pick up trucks I fully understand one side of this of this complicated controversy over the advocacy of gun ownership. Other than an a few hunting accidents no in my area was ever hurt.
Now living in Central New Jersey seeing on the news almost everyday shootings in the Philadelphia Pennsylvania area and the larger inner cities of this area I can understand there point to remove fire arms the public also.
I would not be able to image how a one law would fit everyone. I feel the laws need to be written to fit the area that they concern.
A case in point, I have a friend where 20+ years ago he signed himself into a mental hospital for 4 days to get his head right after a bad break up with his wife. Today he is a pillar of the community and has 3 kids and 6 grandchildren, he has run his own business for the last 15 years and given back to humanity in many ways.
Because of the state where he lives he is not allowed to own a firearm of any kind do to the fact that 20+ years ago he spent 4 days in a institution to better himself. So in point he is being punished for stepping up to better himself.
I'm an avid trap shooter. At times you may find over 300 12 Gage rounds in my gun room. Dose that constitute that I'm getting ready for a mass shooting? That just means that I'm getting ready for a practice shoot with my family in the back yard. Of course you will find ten boxes of clay pigeons in the garage also. Oh, My friend that I mentioned,, He shoots 25's all the time with my shotguns.
One law dose not fit everyone. I know it would almost be impossible to write one law for everyone but maybe it could be written with certain wavers for select people.
Talk about the UN. It sounds like the UN is in session every time I walk into Walmart. It's the Tower of Babel! Pretty soon if it hasn't happened already English will be America's other language. I guess the Progressives are getting us ready for "The New World Order" inch by inch, a little nudge here a little nudge their. The light of Freedom grows fainter every day under this administration.
I would suggest life long Democrats need to wake up and smell the coffee. Their party of the past has been hijacked by the Progressive movement using the tactics of the Father of community organizers Saul Alinsky, the Presidents mentor.
I would encourage my fellow citizens to Google search Saul Alinski Rules For Radicals, and you will see for yourself how this Administration uses it as their bible.
As a note, if people didn't start these political threads I wouldn't be compelled to add my two cents. If I have offended someone I apologize but maybe it will make you think a bit outside your box.
God Bless America were going to need all we can get from above!
to the flintlock thing, I agree I realy enjoy target shooting with muzzleloaders, takes alot of skill and it alot of fun, although i dont have a flintlock yet.
Ive never wanted an assault weapon, they dont really interest me, but the second amendment is so we can protect our rights from a tyranical government.
I used to have a TCA 50 cal. That would shoot as straight as any other firearm I had back then. It was just a pain in the butt to find the triple F powder to load it with. Swapped it off for a 12 ft flat bottom boat. I made my own lead shot for it.
I hope this does not have to be explained.
What gets me is the folks that say it's OK to ban whatever firearm THEY are not interested in, but don't touch THEIRS. I'm a rifle guy, so it's OK to ban those awful handguns people only use to kill one another. Or I only shoot shotguns, so it doesn't bother me if they want to ban guns with a detachable magazine. Or I only shoot black powder, why does anyone need a semiautomatic? Well, I'm here to tell you, once they get rid of one, it won't be long until they go after the next one (After all, OBVIOUSLY, they need to do more 'cause people are still killing one another, right?). How long before they get around to getting rid of the ones YOU like to shoot? I shoot some of ALL of them and I don't want anyone messing with my ability, or dare I say RIGHT, to do so.
I believe in gun control. When used in conjunction with breath control, placement of the aiming point and a steady rearward trigger pull; it'll maximize consistency in putting rounds on target. Wife and I have guns / lots of guns. She bought me 1000 rounds of 9 mm ammo for Christmas and I surprised her with 1000 rounds of .38 Special. But I would consent to turn my guns in . . . for every pistol given up I'd want the Ten Commandments permanently displayed in just one classroom
Well said Hal!!!!!!!!
When they came for the Jews, I said I was not a Jew, and it doesn't concern me!
When the state took over the main street stores, I said, oh well, I don't own one, it doesn't concern me!
When they took all the guns, I said I don't have any, and it doesn't concern me!
When they came for me, there was no one left to Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“First they came…” is a famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. There is some disagreement over the exact wording of the quotation and when it was created; the content of the quotation may have been presented differently by Niemöller on different occasions.
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
Least we forget History has a way of repeating itself.
Listening to the latest media chatter, one could get the impression that murder in the US is historically bad and getting worse. As the Reverend Al Sharpton put it, "The time for their talk is over. Now's the time for action, and real change on gun control."
Actually, now would seem to be a very bad time for such action. The reason is simple: the murder rate is historically low and is already trending downward. In fact, the murder rate in 2011 was the lowest since 1961: 4.7 murders per 100,000 people. In only 5 years since 1910 has it been lower: 1955-59, when it was only slightly lower at 4.5 or 4.6.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html#ixzz2G IAlFFIi
Well if Al Sharpton or his cohorts every worked a lick in their lives it werent for the good of their own people,it was for their own good.
Why they have such power over the "masses"?Because the media gives it to them.If the camera trucks would kick in passing gear and drive right by those blathering idiots,the world would be a better place.
All violent crimes have been trending downward since the early 90s. That's when more states started enacting concealed carry laws. Coincidental? Possibly, but not likely. The drop continues as more states enact similar laws. It puts just enough doubt in criminal minds to make them think twice. There was a slight jump in property crimes a few years ago but that resumed a downward trend as the criminals learned the meaning of "protection of life AND property" written into the laws.
The Right To Keep And Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
End of subject.
If criminals thought twice, would there be any?
......the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms......
I am a life member NRA also Gun Owners Of America,these org's.let's us know what's going on so we can call our senator and congresmen,without them 2nd would probably be gone!