Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: That didn't take long! UN arms treaty is back

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    24

    That didn't take long! UN arms treaty is back

    The UN arms treaty which also governs small arms is up for debate again in 2013.

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-win-u-ba...193445288.html

    Now that he got a second chance Obama will probably support this.

  2. #2
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    That didn't take long! UN arms treaty is back

    I wish we could actually try him for treason if he does this. Not that we don't already have a reason.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.
    "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," the official said.
    "We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
    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.
    Apparently this would not affect domestically-made civilian arms.

    Would this have any effect on imports of civilian arms?
    Last edited by MAC702; 11-07-2012 at 07:39 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    I wish we could actually try him for treason if he does this. Not that we don't already have a reason.
    No, but he can be impeached for violating his oath of office to defend the constitution.

  5. #5
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    That didn't take long! UN arms treaty is back

    That's like a slap on the wrist and also not likely to happen. Divided we shall fall. They've done a great job at dividing this nation.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  6. #6
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    I wish we could actually try him for treason if he does this. Not that we don't already have a reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    No, but he can be impeached for violating his oath of office to defend the constitution.
    He is too well protected by those with wealth and agenda's, it will never happen. If it were to happen, it would have in his first term.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    No, but he can be impeached for violating his oath of office to defend the constitution.

    Ummm. No. Impeachment can only happen under three circumstances, and you know that a congress that can't read the constitution will suddenly develop the ability to read with unerring precision if impeachment comes onto the table.



    Article II, section 4:

    The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-08-2012 at 12:25 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Ummm. No. Impeachment can only happen under three circumstances, and you know that a congress that can't read the constitution will suddenly develop the ability to read with unerring precision if impeachment comes onto the table.



    Article II, section 4:

    The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.Whenever the senate will agree with congress that a president shall be removed from office at their own discretion regardless of what illegal acts the president has committed or not committed
    There FIFY
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Y'all realize that FIFY is a violation of board rules, right?

    I'm not singling out EMN. I've noticed a few others doing it lately.

    The mods will have something to say if they see it. I'm not making this up or interpreting the rule; they've done this a number of times in the past.

    (16) NO FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS: Editing quoted posts by another member to make it appear as if they said something other than what they intended will NOT be tolerated!


    You can still get the point across, you just have to copy-and-paste, then edit, then say, "This is how it should appear." Or, some such. The old FIFY was fun, and I don't know anybody who was stupid enough to think the edited quote was actually the original version when FIFY was written right below the dammed thing. But, that's how the mods want to play it. They reserve the right to edit any post for themselves. But, nobody else can. I imagine some sourpuss hated somebody else's FIFY of his post and complained about it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-08-2012 at 12:54 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member bmg50cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
    Posts
    307
    Perhaps E.M.N. represents Educate Me Now.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    While I don't believe the UN ATT has a realistic chance of being ratified by congress, I do agree that we need to keep our eyes on it, just as we need to keep our eyes on Washington Ceasefire and Senators Kline, Kohl-Welles (sp?) and others who work against our best interests. And now, it looks like we may have an anti-gun governor, no matter what Alpine believes.

    According to the website http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Jay...un_Control.htm Jay Inslee:


    • Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
    • Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
    • Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
    • Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)
    • Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Apparently this would not affect domestically-made civilian arms.

    Would this have any effect on imports of civilian arms?
    My XD is "manufactured" by a US based company and the gun was "imported" from Croatia where it was "manufactured." It all depends on the specific language in the final version of the "treaty" that would be voted on.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Ummm. No. Impeachment can only happen under three circumstances, and you know that a congress that can't read the constitution will suddenly develop the ability to read with unerring precision if impeachment comes onto the table.



    Article II, section 4:

    The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
    So which of those did Clinton commit? He broke an oath.

  14. #14
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953


    Here we go again.
    Last edited by amlevin; 11-08-2012 at 09:42 AM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Ummm. No. Impeachment can only happen under three circumstances, and you know that a congress that can't read the constitution will suddenly develop the ability to read with unerring precision if impeachment comes onto the table.



    Article II, section 4:

    The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Using your post as a jumping off post and for clarity.

    I was under the assumption before that "High crimes" were something akin to a felony. I was wrong and I hear many people use it wrong (not saying you did here), a high crime by its definition of the time of being put into the constitution, meant something political in nature done by those on "high" and can be anything from unjust acts to misappropriating funds or misrepresenting their constituents. It was a well understood subjective term meant to put a check on those in public power.

    As one old English definition I recently read put it, "for whatever reason whatsoever".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC
    Posts
    160

    After Obama win, US is back in on UN Small Arms Treaty

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A627J20121107

    Obama quit talks because he didn't want to give Mitt ammo, well now that he got reelected he's not worried about it.

    They claim they wont' accept a treaty that hurts the 2A. Well if I can't buy an XD or a Glock or any other gun built in a different country, I feel that hurts.

    Here's whats going to happen if this takes place:
    Can't buy a gun built in a different country so you have to buy American.
    American made gun prices will skyrocket, A) Supply and Demand, B) along with the treaty, expect new taxes on guns and ammo, along with all sorts of new red tape.

    /gets out a bowl of jalapeno popcorn

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Brion View Post
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A627J20121107

    Obama quit talks because he didn't want to give Mitt ammo, well now that he got reelected he's not worried about it.

    They claim they wont' accept a treaty that hurts the 2A. Well if I can't buy an XD or a Glock or any other gun built in a different country, I feel that hurts.

    Here's whats going to happen if this takes place:
    Can't buy a gun built in a different country so you have to buy American.
    American made gun prices will skyrocket, A) Supply and Demand, B) along with the treaty, expect new taxes on guns and ammo, along with all sorts of new red tape.

    /gets out a bowl of jalapeno popcorn
    All the taxes on firearms and other arms are unconstitutional in the first place. They were asked to be put in place by the sportsmen groups to help pay for the conservation of hunting areas.

    You cannot tax a right period. The power to tax is the power to destroy, which, is the point you've made.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Brion View Post
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A627J20121107

    They claim they wont' accept a treaty that hurts the 2A.
    2nd amendment of what? They don't know what the constitution means so they must be talking about something else.

  19. #19
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Elections have consequences. Period.

    http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Massa...e-long-did-it/

    From Mossad Ayoob. Yeah, I'm feeling very safe about my rights.

  20. #20
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    I have been hearing a lot of talk about this UN treaty. I've heard people say it it goes into affect that it would supersede our 2nd amendment. Or like above, ban US weapons and tax and regulate ammo. Does anyone know where I can look to find the truth on this.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Executive orders first.

  22. #22
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by conandan View Post
    I have been hearing a lot of talk about this UN treaty. I've heard people say it it goes into affect that it would supersede our 2nd amendment. Or like above, ban US weapons and tax and regulate ammo. Does anyone know where I can look to find the truth on this.
    That's a difficult proposition because it involves researching 3 seemingly separate treaties.

    You could start with the anti-gun sight below to try to understand the scope of the treaty. What all it will actually cover. And note that the US is pushing for "small arms" to be added.

    http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms_trade_treaty

    You could read the Op-Ed in Forbes magazine from June of 2011:

    http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/20...rs-up-in-arms/

    Being an NRA member you could go to the NRA pages dedicated to this issue.

    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...y.aspx?st=&ps=

    http://www.nraila.org/search.aspx?s=...de%20Treaty%22

    But the bottom line is, you have to decide what you call truth I guess. If you don't believe any of the above, not sure what else to tell you.

  23. #23
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    [QUOTE=mobiushky;1849542]That's a difficult proposition because it involves researching 3 seemingly separate treaties.

    You could start with the anti-gun sight below to try to understand the scope of the treaty. What all it will actually cover. And note that the US is pushing for "small arms" to be added.

    http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms_trade_treaty

    You could read the Op-Ed in Forbes magazine from June of 2011:

    http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/20...rs-up-in-arms/

    Being an NRA member you could go to the NRA pages dedicated to this issue.

    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...y.aspx?st=&ps=

    http://www.nraila.org/search.aspx?s=...de%20Treaty%22

    Thank you for the extra links. I have read some of the NRA bulletins on the subject. It's impossible to know who is has the right information and who's just putting out their opinion. My only hope is that congress won't pass it in any form.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Apparently this would not affect domestically-made civilian arms.

    Would this have any effect on imports of civilian arms?
    Yes. Basically the gist of it is that it will either heavily regulate or outlaw exportation/importation of small arms. So all those Browning, Remington, Beretta, Taurus, and countless other US branded firearms or foreign firearms that are currently available in the US will no longer be able to be exported/imported or some such muckity muck. The wording in it doesn't limit it to military arms but small arms in general.

  25. #25
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    It is time to start calling your senators and letting them know that in no uncertain terms if they vote to pass this garbage they will be voted out of office.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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