UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights

[jaxhawksfan]

WACO, TX ring a bell???

Was the military used at Waco? I thought it was just the ATF and/or FBI. We know neither of those two are corrupt agencies. However, your point is well taken, and probably right Pete, but 80 million of us would sure put up one hell of a fight.

 

[Pez68]

Was the military used at Waco? I thought it was just the ATF and/or FBI. We know neither of those two are corrupt agencies. However, your point is well taken, and probably right Pete, but 80 million of us would sure put up one hell of a fight.

You are correct.

 

[Larmer83]

Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. Everyone who wants to keep the right to bear arms is an illiterate hick. Those of us who worry about the government infringing upon that right are just plain stupid wackos.

Okay.



Do you believe that someone like myself that looks at the dust up from this UN arms treaty as bullshit is nothing more than an ultra liberal, tree hugging, pro abortion, elitist, just hoping that Obama can somehow circumvent the 2nd Amendment?



No doubt that Obama would eviserate the 2nd Amendment if given the chance. He'll never get the chance and it won't happen with this UN treaty.



I just can't help but think that people stirring the pot on this issue have an agenda.



Dick Morris? Never trust an adult male with the given name of Richard that goes by Dick. See Durbin, Jauron, Cheney, etc. The only exception is Dick Van Dyke for obvious reasons.



The NRA? Could it be that the US is #1 in the export of arms? Hmm.

 

[Rex]

I'll just say this. Canada used to have a similar right to bare arms. Since the 1970's any owner of a "restricted" firearm in the governments eyes, must be on a list similar to a sex offender.



Since the 90's it is now all gun owners are on this list. Long guns, Hand guns, etc.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

Okay.



Do you believe that someone like myself that looks at the dust up from this UN arms treaty as bullshit is nothing more than an ultra liberal, tree hugging, pro abortion, elitist, just hoping that Obama can somehow circumvent the 2nd Amendment?



No doubt that Obama would eviserate the 2nd Amendment if given the chance. He'll never get the chance and it won't happen with this UN treaty.



I just can't help but think that people stirring the pot on this issue have an agenda.



Dick Morris? Never trust an adult male with the given name of Richard that goes by Dick. See Durbin, Jauron, Cheney, etc. The only exception is Dick Van Dyke for obvious reasons.



The NRA? Could it be that the US is #1 in the export of arms? Hmm.

You make very valid points Larmer. I just choose to be leary of the gov't where firearms are concerned. I've seen the history of bullshit laws. There is no reason to believe they won't continue to chip and chip away.



P.S. For the record, I never said anyone who doesn't like guns must be a liberal tree hugger. I know there are plenty of conservatives that don't like them either. There is a reason why only 1/4-1/3 of our population own them.



Edit: Sorry. I was using outdated numbers. The current percentage, as of last year is reported to be 47% of Americans say they have at least 1 gun in the home or on the property. 1/3 of respondents personally own a gun. Another interesting stat is that as ownership has risen, violent crime has gone down.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

 

[jaxhawksfan]

And then there's this: Yeah buddy, I believe you when you say you believe in the 2nd Amendment, and that it only applies to hunting and shooting weapons. WHAT THE **** DO YOU CALL AN AK-47? Oh, that's right, I forgot, you call it an "assault weapon" because you are ignorant.



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-urges-tighter-background-checks-gun-buyers-aurora-033815400.html

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Okay.



Do you believe that someone like myself that looks at the dust up from this UN arms treaty as bullshit is nothing more than an ultra liberal, tree hugging, pro abortion, elitist, just hoping that Obama can somehow circumvent the 2nd Amendment?



No doubt that Obama would eviserate the 2nd Amendment if given the chance. He'll never get the chance and it won't happen with this UN treaty.



I just can't help but think that people stirring the pot on this issue have an agenda.



Dick Morris? Never trust an adult male with the given name of Richard that goes by Dick. See Durbin, Jauron, Cheney, etc. The only exception is Dick Van Dyke for obvious reasons.



The NRA? Could it be that the US is #1 in the export of arms? Hmm.

LOL I didnt trust him from day one. But yes you might be on to something about men named Dick.

 

[Larmer83]

You make very valid points Larmer. I just choose to be leary of the gov't where firearms are concerned. I've seen the history of bullshit laws. There is no reason to believe they won't continue to chip and chip away.



P.S. For the record, I never said anyone who doesn't like guns must be a liberal tree hugger. I know there are plenty of conservatives that don't like them either. There is a reason why only 1/4-1/3 of our population own them.



Edit: Sorry. I was using outdated numbers. The current percentage, as of last year is reported to be 47% of Americans say they have at least 1 gun in the home or on the property. 1/3 of respondents personally own a gun. Another interesting stat is that as ownership has risen, violent crime has gone down.



http://www.gallup.co...ghest-1993.aspx

I know that. It was my way to make a point concerning this topic.

 

[IceHogsFan]

I'll just say this. Canada used to have a similar right to bare arms. Since the 1970's any owner of a "restricted" firearm in the governments eyes, must be on a list similar to a sex offender.



Since the 90's it is now all gun owners are on this list. Long guns, Hand guns, etc.

And that my friends is the proof of what could happen to us here in the States.



Little by little they add laws to lessen the right to bear arms. You only need to look at Chicago as an example. Chicago loses their case in the US Supreme Court and are told that their laws regarding firearms in the city limits is unconstitutional. What do they do? THEY make new laws that make it even harder to purchase a gun in the city.



My antennae are up.........

 

[jakobeast]

Someone look up how many existing gun laws there are on the books right now, nationwide. I am too lazy. I would also like to see how many of those laws contradict another one.



I would also be willing to bet that if the existing laws were enforced we wouldn't have as many issues as we do.

 

[LordKOTL]

My problem is not nor has it ever been civillians owning Uncle Kalashnikov. It's always been outlaws, who can give a **** about gun laws, owning Uncle Kalashnikov. I'd rather deal with a well-armed populace than rely on a government agency in preventing people from becoming victims.

 

[Tater]

My problem is not nor has it ever been civillians owning Uncle Kalashnikov. It's always been outlaws, who can give a **** about gun laws, owning Uncle Kalashnikov. I'd rather deal with a well-armed populace than rely on a government agency in preventing people from becoming victims.

Good post.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away....

 

[Rex]

My problem is not nor has it ever been civillians owning Uncle Kalashnikov. It's always been outlaws, who can give a **** about gun laws, owning Uncle Kalashnikov. I'd rather deal with a well-armed populace than rely on a government agency in preventing people from becoming victims.

ding ding.



when there is gun control, only the criminals will own guns.

 

[Rex]

And that my friends is the proof of what could happen to us here in the States.



Little by little they add laws to lessen the right to bear arms. You only need to look at Chicago as an example. Chicago loses their case in the US Supreme Court and are told that their laws regarding firearms in the city limits is unconstitutional. What do they do? THEY make new laws that make it even harder to purchase a gun in the city.



My antennae are up.........

It can, and will happen. My entire family is on a government list like pedophiles because they hunt. Why is that fair?

 

[BigPete]

Was the military used at Waco? I thought it was just the ATF and/or FBI. We know neither of those two are corrupt agencies. However, your point is well taken, and probably right Pete, but 80 million of us would sure put up one hell of a fight.

I believe the TX National Guard assisted them. They had actual tanks and the last time I checked the BATFE and FBI have never owned tanks, just some armored assault vehicles.

 

[BigPete]

And then there's this: Yeah buddy, I believe you when you say you believe in the 2nd Amendment, and that it only applies to hunting and shooting weapons. WHAT THE **** DO YOU CALL AN AK-47? Oh, that's right, I forgot, you call it an "assault weapon" because you are ignorant.



http://news.yahoo.co...-033815400.html

I agree that he should have said fully automatic long rifle or something more descriptive. I don't see the harm in an 'AK-47' or 'AR-15' so long as they are not fully auto. In that way Obama is right, those weapons belong only on the battlefield.

 

[BigPete]

Someone look up how many existing gun laws there are on the books right now, nationwide. I am too lazy. I would also like to see how many of those laws contradict another one.



I would also be willing to bet that if the existing laws were enforced we wouldn't have as many issues as we do.

Based on the notion of unlawful search and seizure we will never be able to rid the populace of unlawful firearms completely. If the Feds and local law enforcement could do 'health and welfare' sweeps for 'bad' guns then a lot of the illegal weapons could be taken off the streets....but again, we have this silly prohibition on unlawful search and seizure.

 

[LordKOTL]

I agree that he should have said fully automatic long rifle or something more descriptive. I don't see the harm in an 'AK-47' or 'AR-15' so long as they are not fully auto. In that way Obama is right, those weapons belong only on the battlefield.

Disagree. IMHO if a civillian wanted to own a full military spec SAW or the like, then by all means they have that right, full auto or not.



I mean, hell, most people in the US could get by in a vehicle that only has a 100hp engine and no larger than, say a Toyota Matrix. Does that mean that cars like a 'vette only belong at the racetrack because the speed at which they can go can kill and cause collateral damage?



I don't think so, and honestly if you have criminals toting mac-10's I have no problem with any of my neighbors toting a full-auto vz .58. If they misuse it, then fine, charge them. But if they want to arm themselves to a high level that is there right.



It seems to me that a well-armed populace makes politicians nervous. Good. They should be, that's thy the 2nd amendment is there in the 1st place.

 

[BigPete]

It seems to me that a well-armed populace makes politicians nervous. Good. They should be, that's thy the 2nd amendment is there in the 1st place.

I completely disagree with that. IMHO



The language of the original AND modified 2A does not say that "the people should be able to have guns so they can rise up against the government". If that is really what they meant, then they would have said so. SCOTUS ruling be damned.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

I completely disagree with that. IMHO



The language of the original AND modified 2A does not say that "the people should be able to have guns so they can rise up against the government". If that is really what they meant, then they would have said so. SCOTUS ruling be damned.

The 2nd Amendment, and The Federalist Papers make it very clear what the intent was Pete. Don't try to deny what the purpose is.