Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: U.S. GUN OWNERS SUBJECT TO INTERNATIONAL LAWS

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    Sure we think we are smart to paralyze the anti-gun politicians with our pro-gun lobbies . We have pissed off alot of people in doing so too .

    http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/colu...omments=legacy

    Obama is a life long liberal radical against the 2A .

    The world is greeted at the United Nations in N.Y.City by a huge statue of an American revolver that is twisted into the shape of a pretzel .

    So while we laugh & pat each other on the back about H.R. 45 , the CIFTA Treaty begins to revise , rethink , and jettison our history and constitution .

    H.R. 45 is a long long shot and will not pass the house & senate however the CIFTA Treaty is much more dangerous due to its subtlety and less cumbersome process of passage . It makes U.S.gun owners subject to international gun laws .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transna..._progressivism




  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    Our political servants are forgetting who is in charge .

    The DHS Domestic Extremism Lexicon was way too much .

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    186

    Post imported post

    "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

    "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings[, politicians, senators, congressman, or presidents] to govern him? Let history answer this question."

    "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

    Thomas Jefferson is the man.


    I believe that it is possible to see revolution, at least in my time. But before citizens are willing to defend their guns through the use of those guns, there will be a great deal of oppression and tyranny shouldered before it is thrown off. A great deal of oppression will be tolerated before we rebel. Say, for instance, that an international arms treaty prohibited the open carry of your firearms. Would you, when stopped to be disarmed and tried for the bogus idealism of today's "global citizenship", be willing to shoot you way to freedom? Just as with the French revolution, tyranny is shouldered for a long period of time before it is thrown off. Kennedy said that "those you make peacefully revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

    This is America. We are a Republic comprised of her citizens. Our natural and God-given freedoms are protected under the Constitution. We will not allow our freedom to be violated. We answer to no one foreign nor domestic; we answer to ourselves.

    No international - peace loving- gun barrel twisting - United Nations - old white liberal - prius driving - hippie - tyrant - dictator will strip me of my inalienable rights to defend my life, liberty, and happiness. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Give me Death!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    R a Z o R wrote:
    Sure we think we are smart to paralyze the anti-gun politicians with our pro-gun lobbies . We have pissed off alot of people in doing so too .

    http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/colu...omments=legacy

    Obama is a life long liberal radical against the 2A .

    The world is greeted at the United Nations in N.Y.City by a huge statue of an American revolver that is twisted into the shape of a pretzel .

    So while we laugh & pat each other on the back about H.R. 45 , the CIFTA Treaty begins to revise , rethink , and jettison our history and constitution .

    H.R. 45 is a long long shot and will not pass the house & senate however the CIFTA Treaty is much more dangerous due to its subtlety and less cumbersome process of passage . It makes U.S.gun owners subject to international gun laws .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transna..._progressivism


    Sure, I feel much safer when only criminals in government have guns.

    Perhaps these U.N. thugs should place said revolver in a statue of one of history's most abhored murdering psychopathic dictators, such as Adolf Hitler. Kinda changes the scenery a bit huh? Let's see, 20 million political opponents; Jews; Gypsies; critics; "examples", DEAD because they were unable to effectively defend themselves because their system of government gave them
    • Registration & Licensing
    • Stricter handgun laws
    • Ban on possession
    http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    186

    Post imported post

    Word.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Few things truly make me angry, and one of those is gun control nut cases. I am disgusted by that twisted revolver. What is that doing on American soil? For that matter, why the hell is the U.N. on American soil?

    How about a bill to remove that piece of garbage from public view? That is a government building is it not? Freedom of Speech DOES NOT APPLY !



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    186

    Post imported post

    Tyrants like to pick and chose which rights they will uphold. It would not fly if a statue was made depicting the lips of a man sewn shut, or the turban, Star of David, or the Cross being defamed and disgraced. Speech and Arms are the essence of liberty.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    The worsepart of the CIFTA Gun control censorship is ...



  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    A funny bit of irony occurred to me just now.

    When the UN is dealing with issues of international law such as sanctions, resolutions, etc, all the right-wingers say, "haha what a joke that UN is! They're powerless to get anything done."

    But when dealing with UN issues effecting the US, all the right-wingers say, "zomg the all-powerful UN is out to get us!! They're so dangerous! They have so much influence!!" :quirky

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    A funny bit of irony occurred to me just now.

    When the UN is dealing with issues of international law such as sanctions, resolutions, etc, all the right-wingers say, "haha what a joke that UN is! They're powerless to get anything done."

    But when dealing with UN issues effecting the US, all the right-wingers say, "zomg the all-powerful UN is out to get us!! They're so dangerous! They have so much influence!!" :quirky
    The UN could not take away my guns.

    An obamination cannot take my guns because the supreme court would not allow it.

    The CIFTA is dangerous because there is now a pretext for confiscation, following a ratified treaty.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    A funny bit of irony occurred to me just now.
    But when dealing with UN issues effecting the US, all the right-wingers say, "zomg the all-powerful UN is out to get us!!
    AWDstlez ,

    I am an American Centrist that believes in the RKBA .

    The Obama have been told to back off their gun ban agenda until after the 2010 elections .

    Every Second Amendment supporter will know everything about the CIFTA GUN CONTROL TREATY.

    We must unite and vote .

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    An obamination cannot take my guns because the supreme court would not allow it.
    Until the surpreme court is stacked with handpicked judges.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    A funny bit of irony occurred to me just now.

    When the UN is dealing with issues of international law such as sanctions, resolutions, etc, all the right-wingers say, "haha what a joke that UN is! They're powerless to get anything done."

    But when dealing with UN issues effecting the US, all the right-wingers say, "zomg the all-powerful UN is out to get us!! They're so dangerous! They have so much influence!!" :quirky
    Just like the government is powerless to stop criminals from buying full auto machine guns and arming up and carrying concealed without permits, the UN is powerless to enforce sanctions against rogue nations because so many other rogue nations are on the councils.... but, with treaties about guns... and the language within those treaties.... they could easily grab one American (who owns a gun illegal somewhere else in the world)at a time while they're traveling abroad away from the protections of our borders or government and try them in the Hague.

    For example, who here has built their own AR-15? Well, if they spy long enough, they'll be able to find out who is buying AR lowers.... and then make the arrest when we're vacationing somewhere in Europe.... sounds far fetched... but I'll bet you that something similar is coming down the pike.

    So while the UN is completely useless in international enforcement of laws or sanctions... member countries could very well snag Americans deemed a threat to world peace.... to make examples of them.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    An obamination cannot take my guns because the supreme court would not allow it.
    Until the surpreme court is stacked with handpicked judges.
    They're all handpicked since the country began O.o

    Stupid process imo, president picking SC justices, but...meh

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    It's an interesting choice of weapon in the statue. They chose a revolver. It is not a nuke, bomb, land mine, flame thrower, or tank, but a revolver. A revolver is a symbol of civilian firearm ownership whereas all the other implements are used almost exclusively by the state.

    Why couldn't the terrorists fly the planes into the UN building and do the entire world a favor?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    It's an interesting choice of weapon in the statue. They chose a revolver. It is not a nuke, bomb, land mine, flame thrower, or tank, but a revolver. A revolver is a symbol of civilian firearm ownership whereas all the other implements are used almost exclusively by the state.
    " Laws that forbid the carry of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants ; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides , for an unarmed man be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man . "

    TJ

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    186

    Post imported post

    R a Z o R wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    It's an interesting choice of weapon in the statue. They chose a revolver. It is not a nuke, bomb, land mine, flame thrower, or tank, but a revolver. A revolver is a symbol of civilian firearm ownership whereas all the other implements are used almost exclusively by the state.
    " Laws that forbid the carry of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants ; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides , for an unarmed man be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man . "

    TJ
    +1

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    hansolo wrote:
    R a Z o R wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    It's an interesting choice of weapon in the statue. They chose a revolver. It is not a nuke, bomb, land mine, flame thrower, or tank, but a revolver. A revolver is a symbol of civilian firearm ownership whereas all the other implements are used almost exclusively by the state.
    " Laws that forbid the carry of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants ; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides , for an unarmed man be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man . "

    TJ
    +1


    Hansolo,

    You know that the initials "TJ" at the bottom of that quote stand for Thomas Jefferson, right?

    Basically, you just plus-one'd one of the main gun quotes by one of the most influential and respected individuals in US history.

    And you only gave him a plus-one.



    (just razzin' ya)
    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member zoom6zoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dale City, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,694

    Post imported post

    Without US funding the UN would collapse. If the gov is looking for a place to save money, there's a good place to start. And once you kick them out, you can get some tax paying business using that property too.


    And if not, those blue helmets are real easy to spot at 500 yards.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    zoom6zoom wrote:
    SNIP If the gov is looking for a place to save money...
    Why would they want to save money?

    They know how much sugar to put in the KoolAid so they can keep raising taxes to pay for whatever pet programs and earmarks keep the votes coming.

    Chuckle. At this instant, your post count is 911.

    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.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    A funny bit of irony

    But when dealing with UN issues effecting the US, all the right-wingers say, "zomg the all-powerful UN is out to get us!! They're so dangerous!

    Obama is pushing Anti - Gun United Nations . . . T R E A T Y .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o

    Watch President Obama say it on CNN in this short video .

    Am I wrong ?

    What do you think ?

    Is this a backdoor Gun Control ?


Posting Permissions

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