Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: U.N. ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Windsor, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    I think we all know how the U.N. will vote on this. What do you guys think our senate will do? Will they accept it or reject it? Christ all mighty, it it isn't one thing, it's another.

    Colorado slick

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Windsor, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Yea! I know, beating a dead horse

    Colorado

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    Yeah look I don't work today so I can hangout here and entertain the idea for a moment.

    What do I, personally, think about the "UN Small Arms Treaty?" I believe there Is such a Treaty, if not aptly named such, it exists. It is a Treaty similar to many others- seeking to regulate the International Gun Trade Industry. I say regulate because the UN collective countries (South Korea, Russia, Japan, Brazil, etc) all have money to make in the trade of small arms. The UN, as a collective, will seek to control this flow of money. They need a law to do so and it will come in the form of a Small Arms Treaty. All countries agree to Regulate.

    The average Joe will always be able to purchase a firearm. This is regardless of a treaty or a law or social paradigm.

    I don't, in any way, fear the result of a UN Small Arms Treaty.

    Do I believe the US Senate will sign any UN Treaty that regulates the International Gun Trade....

    Do I believe the US Senate will sign any UN Treaty that restricts Americans from purchasing and trading firearms from each other? Or from State to State? No.

    I simply believe the US Senators will not submit this authority to the UN.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Windsor, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    Yeah look I don't work today so I can hangout here and entertain the idea for a moment.

    What do I, personally, think about the "UN Small Arms Treaty?" I believe there Is such a Treaty, if not aptly named such, it exists. It is a Treaty similar to many others- seeking to regulate the International Gun Trade Industry. I say regulate because the UN collective countries (South Korea, Russia, Japan, Brazil, etc) all have money to make in the trade of small arms. The UN, as a collective, will seek to control this flow of money. They need a law to do so and it will come in the form of a Small Arms Treaty. All countries agree to Regulate.

    The average Joe will always be able to purchase a firearm. This is regardless of a treaty or a law or social paradigm.

    I don't, in any way, fear the result of a UN Small Arms Treaty.

    Do I believe the US Senate will sign any UN Treaty that regulates the International Gun Trade....

    Do I believe the US Senate will sign any UN Treaty that restricts Americans from purchasing and trading firearms from each other? Or from State to State? No.

    I simply believe the US Senators will not submit this authority to the UN.
    Well, suprize partner. I agree with you.

    There is one thing we tend to forget and that is states rights.A state can opt out of things like gun bans and I don't think Colorado will ever ban guns or our right to own or carry them.(I pray to God that is so).

    I am an old man, nearly 75 now and I can recall when I grew up in West Virginia that it was an unspeakable sin and a crime to get caught carrying a gun They would slap your butt in jail in a heart beat but, I grew up so far back in the mountains that we had to pump sunlight in, moonshine out and travel on grapevines. Everyone hated L.E.O's so they didn't bother us and, disrecarding my above statement, everyone carried a rifle if for nothing more than to have something to lean on.So, I hope they just leave us gun nuts alone.

    Colorado Slick.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    colorado slick wrote:
    I am an old man, nearly 75 now and I can recall when I grew up in West Virginia that it was an unspeakable sin and a crime to get caught carrying a gun They would slap your butt in jail in a heart beat
    So much for the good old days before urbanizationthat gavepeople had such unhealthy hoplophobia, eh?

  7. #7
    Regular Member ooghost1oo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    262

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    Do I believe the US Senate will sign any UN Treaty that restricts Americans from purchasing and trading firearms from each other? Or from State to State? No.

    I simply believe the US Senators will not submit this authority to the UN.
    Ah ... think again. That's what the Obama plan is all about.

    And don't forget all the talk last year about the czars. Back when Obama was finding ways to circumvent and make obsolete Congress. Remember?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    What are you so afraid of, Ghost?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Longmont, CO, ,
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    This is a research paper dated May 19th from the Heritage Foundation -- David Kopel is one of the authors:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...ican-Liberties

    Abstract: President Barack Obama has called on the Senate to ratify CIFTA, the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacture of and Trafficking in Firearms, but the convention poses serious prudential risks to liberties guaranteed by the First and Second Amendments. The convention appears to be an end run around domestic obstacles to gun control. Furthermore, ratification of the convention would undermine U.S. sovereignty by legally binding it to fulfill obligations that some current signatories already disregard. The U.S. would be best served by continuing existing programs, cooperating with other countries on a bilateral basis, and making and enforcing its own laws to combat the traffic in illicit arms.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    And are you afraid of this Rabbit? If so, exactly what are you scared of? What, exactly, are you worried about? day-to-day

  11. #11
    Regular Member ooghost1oo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    262

    Post imported post

    From what I've gathered in the last two years, I've determined that Obama is pushing for the dissolution of the United States and the adoption of the NWO. He is a citizen of the world. He acts as the president of the world.

    He's not doing so well right now, because he's waking up the Patriotism in America and we're hurting his goals with lots of bad PR. HOWEVER, until we oust his majorities in the houses, he's going to keep pushing for his goals, aggressively, and the pukes in Washington will fall in line behind Reid and Pelosi because they're bought, corrupt, or cowards.

    Think Obama just sucks when it comes to creating jobs, 'fixing' bad industries, and trying to boost the economy? Of course not. Socialism always fails, but he INTENDS it to fail, and is probably happy to see the Conservatives focusing on only how his Socialist policies don't work.

    He wants the US to fail. He's trying to destroy us. Cripple us and unravel us. So that the last powerful, independent country on Earth is thrown into poverty and chaos, and the UN (NWO) can come on in and assimilate us.

    Sorry to be so dramatic. But think about it.

    Last year, there was concern that his appointing of a billion czars (not elected, but appointed) was an attempt to move all power to the executive branch of the government and circumvent and make obsolete Congress entirely.

    I also remember when someone asked Obama in 2008 if he'll work on gun control. He said, "No, I don't think we'll be able to do that right now." He welcomed the UN Small Arms Treaty instead.

    Right now, he's nationalizing everything he can (in a way that everything will come tumbling down), he's trying to get control over everyone's lives through his Health Care (so people will fail individually), and he'll try to disarm us through foreign troops.

    And if it gets done before we have a possibility of getting rid of the majorities in Congress, do you really think that all those leftist, bought, and cowardly politicians won't go marching behind his Leftist leaders?

    Just like he was able to ram Health Care through, against the majority will of the people, he'll try the same with everything else he can before his galloping destruction of the country is brought to an end.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    www.AboveTopSecret.com

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread329728/pg1
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread353695/pg1
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread267286/pg2
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread360930/pg1
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread354189/pg1
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread570948/pg1

    "9 indicted on charges of accessing Obama records, page 1
    20 posts - 9 authors - Last post: May 13"

    "Obama Makes The Illuminati Hand Gesture: PHOTO, page 1
    20 posts - 17 authors - Last post: Jul 5, 2008"

    "Barack Obama will be The Anti Christ, page 1
    20 posts - 16 authors - Last post: Jan 27, 2008"

    [line]:what:

    You are theorizing that Obama is conspiring to end to USA?
    That would make you a conspiracy theorist. Not always a bad thing. There are always many questions to be asked and Answers untold.

    Have a good one, friend.

    I think we are always going to have legal access to firearms. I would bet my bottom dollar on it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Longmont, CO, ,
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    And are you afraid of this Rabbit? If so, exactly what are you scared of?* What, exactly, are you worried about? day-to-day
    This sounds like a question an anti-gunner would ask. "csitney, what are you so scared of that you need to carry a gun?"

    It has nothing to do with being scared. You can believe whatever you choose, but I think it's better to be wary and gather all the information you can.



    cscitney87 wrote:
    I think we are always going to have legal access to firearms. I would bet my bottom dollar on it.
    The British have "legal access to firearms".

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    You know exactly what I mean. I'm asking because I want to be informed. I am seeking knowledge from you. I am uninformed as to anything scary enough to warrant fear. Stating that there is something to be afraid of; but not pin pointing exactly what that is- is alarmist.

    I'm asking because I want to know. I need to know. For my safety and my families. You have information I do not.

    So am I fearing completely Gun Confiscation? Voluntary or Katrina Style?
    Or am I to fear the ban of firearms trade. Am I to be afraid of the banning of bullets?

    Surely nobody can tell the future, but something Must warrant the fear coming from this UN Small Arms Treaty. What's the deal? Do I stock up on firearms, bullets, both? Do I go ahead and hide them now because danger is imminent? WHAT DO WE DO?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    By the way... It's funny that the text of the UN Smalls Arms Treaty is not being posted here and discussed in detail. What exactly is in the treaty to be feared? We need proof. Everybody only posts articles and links to websites.. Nobody has posted the text and referenced exactly which bylaws are to do what.

    Nobody has anything. It's all links to articles and writers writing. Reports talking to people reporting. In other words.. No facts yet. Just ramblings.

    Can you post the UN Small Arms Treaty and then show me exactly what to be scared of? Here.. I'll go ahead and do the dirty work myself. Straight from the horses mouth

    http://www.poa-iss.org/KIT/KIT.aspx


    A collection of guides and toolkits to assist with immediate implementation of the Programme of Action. They are produced by the United Nations or expert organizations working on small arms.

    Small Arms and Light Weapons Legislation
    (UNDP, 2008)

    Chapter 2: Reviewing Legislation to Regulate Small Arms and Light Weapons:
    Key Issues and Process 7
    21 Information collection 8
    22 Objective setting 10
    23 Policy development 10
    24 Gauging the extent of the review 11
    25 Consultation processes 12
    26 Enforcement and implementation 13
    27 Training 13
    28 Awareness raising and communications 13
    29 Monitoring and evaluation 16
    210 Further information and resources 17
    Chapter 3: Regulating arms in the Hands of Civilians 19
    31 Deinitions and scope20
    32 Purpose of controls 20
    33 Emerging international standards and norms 21
    34 Legislative measures 24
    35 Implementation and enforcement 37
    36 Checklist of elements 39
    37 Further information and resources 42


    Box 23: National example: United States Blue Lantern Programme
    End-use veriication, 75

    Box 24: National example: United Kingdom – Transparency and accountability 77
    Box 25: Issue: Small-scale Craft Production 88
    Box 26: Key instruments: OSCE Handbook of Best Practices and Nairobi Protocol
    Best Practice Guidelines 89
    Box 27: National example: Australia – Dealers, Conditions and Record Keeping 96


    Text from the document..

    The US Government believes that the Blue Lantern programme has strengthened the efectiveness
    of US export controls and has proven to be a useful instrument in: 1) deterring diversions to unauthorised end-users; 2) aiding the disruption of illicit supply networks and international criminal organizations; and 3) informing subsequent licensing assessments, thereby helping to prevent future diversion and misuse.

    [line]

    Yeah sorry folks. There's just nothing to see here at the moment. You can either post the real document and it's text.. Or continue to repeat words unheeded. There's no UN Small Arms Treaty out there to read... this is the UNs Official Word on Small Arms at the moment... I don't see anything wrong here..

    Please.. I employ you to read the UN's own documentation on Small Arms Treaties and Trade..

    Stop reading articles and looking up links and posting sites with no credible information.

    As far as I am concerned... What Small Arms Treaty? A.K.A. It's not going to effect me or my life.

    Post some credible real information.. Stop Fearing the unknown.

  16. #16
    Regular Member ooghost1oo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    262

    Post imported post

    Not talking about the Illuminati or anything crazy.

    I think the pieces I've put together make a lot of sense.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    Ok,Ghost, you're making CS the voice of reason. That's not a good sign.

    Obama can tell the Senate to make him milk and cookies until he's blue in the face, doesn't mean it'll happen. If he pushes for too much, he'll push the swing vote and his party out of majority in the midterms coming up in just a couple of months. He doesn't have the power to "make Congress obsolete".

    Ghost, you've got a contradiction in your premises. You say that the treaty would "legally" make the US submit to the UN. Then you say that the czars would make Congress "obsolete". Let's putaside that the czars don't have anything to do with Congress's authority (what exactly do you think the czars do that would make Congress "obsolete" or have "legal" authority to circumvent them?).

    Follow the scenario you're lalluding to. The Senate first "obeys" Obama while he "makes them obsolete". Now, since making Congress is constitutionally impossible and "illegal", where do you get the idea that Congress would submit to a piece of paper from the UN justbecause it is "legal"? Why would they follow a law giving the UN sovreignty over the US, but not follow a law that legally gives them the authority to remove the entire Executive Administration? That makes as much sense as saying they are so power hungry that they will dissolve themselves.

    You said this is not a tinfoil hat Illuminati conspiracy, so you must have a logical reason for such action in what you've "gathered". Why exactly would Congress follow a law that undermines them and not take their legal power to supercede it? What logical end? What reason would those 435 people have to abolish themselves?

    Let's assume for a second that Obama does want the US to fail and unravel, blah blah blah blah. HOW would he effect that? Congress impeached Clinton over a *******. Do you really think they couldn't remove Obama? The UN will "march in"? With what??? Note the following carefully: The UN Does. Not. Have. Troops. They have NO ONE to march in. What are they going to march in with? The glorified rent-a-cops borrowed from Turkey? Against the United States of America armed forces? Seriously? The same UN whose strongest tactic against Gadaffihijacking the podium for 90 minutes was to break for lunch?

    You really think the office of the president that is constitutionally Congress's errand boy who can't wipe his nose without their permission is able to do that? Sovreign states with their own governments are going to just roll over and let it happen because a sniveling executive said "go ahead"? I didn't buy possibility with any other administration and I'm certainly not buying it from one who hasn't managed to accomplish ANYTHING much less reducing firearm liberties.

    How does it "make sense" in the "information you've gathered" that the only action Obama has taken with regard to firearms was to allow them in National Parks?

    Obama didn't "ram through" health care reform. That's his PR that you bought into. He (and every other executive) pretends they have the power to "ram through" things through Congress and the sheeple believe them. CONGRESS passed the health care reform bill. HIS bill was gutted. One of the houses of Congress's bill was also gutted. The other is what passed after dicking around with it for two years, thenmanaged to pass the other, and Obama put his rubber stamp on it at the end. HE had little to do with it. The EXACT same thing would have happened if the other guy won.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    Dynamite Rabbit wrote:
    This is a research paper dated May 19th from the Heritage Foundation -- David Kopel is one of the authors:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...ican-Liberties

    Abstract: President Barack Obama has called on the Senate to ratify CIFTA, the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacture of and Trafficking in Firearms, but the convention poses serious prudential risks to liberties guaranteed by the First and Second Amendments. The convention appears to be an end run around domestic obstacles to gun control. Furthermore, ratification of the convention would undermine U.S. sovereignty by legally binding it to fulfill obligations that some current signatories already disregard. The U.S. would be best served by continuing existing programs, cooperating with other countries on a bilateral basis, and making and enforcing its own laws to combat the traffic in illicit arms.
    I don't believe Rabbit is saying there is anything to be "scared" of, so much as that it's just a pain in the ass. It an ineffective way to combat illict trafficing. It's like the AWB that did little if anything to combat actual crime, was easily circumvented, and instead just made more red tape and difficulty for everyone else. What is there to be afraid of? The disruption of Congress having to except the US from it, or future executives having to use signature statements, or individual states having to fight with the feds and the courts over which parts to abide by.

    I agree that the Senate would not submit to something incompatible with American civil liberties. So then why sign it knowing that the US will not abide by it? It's pomp and circumstance that just gets in people's way. Day to day, maybe not. Wasting your tax money for your courts and congressional representives spending time on it, though? More loopholes that will create asinine technicalities like the AWB and Saturday Night Specials?

    It's pointless international image polishing that will have the opposite effect when it's not adhered to. Even if we grant that it's symbolic for our international image, what's worse? Our image for not signing it or our image for signing it and not adhering it? As Rabbit notes, wouldn't it make more sense to stand by our principles and enforce laws that have better effect than sign a treaty for symbolic reasons that go against said principles?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    The UN ban, does not apply to this country, or citizens here. I'm sick of this crazy thread and all my friends who call me on my cell phone. It is about the trade of arms country to country, and only limits it in certain ways.

    get out the tinfoil hats my friends.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    Pace wrote:
    The UN ban, does not apply to this country, or citizens here. I'm sick of this crazy thread and all my friends who call me on my cell phone. It is about the trade of arms country to country, and only limits it in certain ways.

    get out the tinfoil hats my friends.
    As long as there's something to be afraid of.. it's easier to sneak legislation and large news events passed the general population. Keep them in fear.. keep them confused.

    It hasn't worked on us, Pace

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Good point. We've allowed Bush to basically curtail our rights, now Obama can do anything.

    Still rather focus on real issues.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Windsor, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Pace wrote:
    Good point. We've allowed Bush to basically curtail our rights, now Obama can do anything.

    Still rather focus on real issues.
    Obama probably knows by now that he doesn't stand a prayer of a chance getting relected so, he is going to do as much damage as he can while he can



    Those damned Clintons have been nothing but a pain in the backside since they hit Washington

    Colorado

  23. #23
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    saw the thread titile, and had to stop, un ban=back door ban. gotta watch those who use the back door!

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    Dear United Nations:

    I'm not quite sure how to put this, so I'll simply say it: Are you folks out of your minds? I do apologize! It's just that I cannot think of a nicer way to address the fact that this is a VERY bad idea.

    Are you so naieve to believe that disarmament is an effective solution to the misuse of arms? Are you not aware that ALL such attempts wind up disarming law-abiding citizens while the law-breaking criminals wind up obtaining, and using, illegal firearms anyhow?

    Historically, the widespread possession of firearms among a general populace is the most effective way of reducing crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this. America's relaxation of gun control over the last twenty years and the resulting massive reduction in crime is another prime example. The United Kingdom's massive increase in gun control and the resulting massive increase in crime are prime examples of what NOT to do.

    An armed society is a polite society. This works because 90% to 95% of society are not law-breakers! It's the 5% to 20% who ARE law-breakers who commit 100% of the crimes. When you either arm everyone (Switzerland) or at least allow everyone to be armed if they so choose (U.S.), the result is a sharp drop in crime. Criminals aren't stupid - if they have reasonable belief that committing a crime may very well result in Joe Citizen responding with deadly force, they will usually re-think their line of "work."

    I am an historian, and served honorably as an officer in the U.S. Air Force for more than 20 years. I know what I'm talking about, and I am always armed, not because I think anything is going to happen today, but knowing full well the odds of something happening in the next 10,000 days are strong. I am not armed because I'm a "gun nut." I don't belong to the NRA or other pro-gun group. I am armed because I consider my personal responsibility to protect myself and those around me against illegal violence.

    I am very glad I live in both a country and a state where I can freely exercise this right! But it's not just a right - it's a responsibility, even a duty.

    I am utterly disgusted with the general anti-gun mentality of the United Nations. It's awash in wishful thinking, totally ignores volumes of history attesting to the fact this is a VERY bad idea, and seeks to undermine a solution which has worked to keep the peace for several hundred thousand years: Armament, education, and peaceful cooperation among the various circles of society.

    I ask you again: Are folks out of your minds?

    As you're looking into "the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of convention arms," PLEASE keep in mind the fact that limiting the possession of weapons by honest, law-abiding citizens DOES NOT WORK!

    I sincerely hope and pray my country's government is NEVER so idiotically stupid to sign off on your ridiculous treaty (here: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convar...html/ATT.shtml)

    If ever they do, I will uphold my solemnly sworn oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

    I will do so TO THE DEATH, should that ever prove necessary.

    Please reconsider this abominable plan of yours.

    Good day, gentleman.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Windsor, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    since9 wrote:
    Dear United Nations:

    I'm not quite sure how to put this, so I'll simply say it: Are you folks out of your minds? I do apologize! It's just that I cannot think of a nicer way to address the fact that this is a VERY bad idea.

    Are you so naieve to believe that disarmament is an effective solution to the misuse of arms? Are you not aware that ALL such attempts wind up disarming law-abiding citizens while the law-breaking criminals wind up obtaining, and using, illegal firearms anyhow?

    Historically, the widespread possession of firearms among a general populace is the most effective way of reducing crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this. America's relaxation of gun control over the last twenty years and the resulting massive reduction in crime is another prime example. The United Kingdom's massive increase in gun control and the resulting massive increase in crime are prime examples of what NOT to do.

    An armed society is a polite society. This works because 90% to 95% of society are not law-breakers! It's the 5% to 20% who ARE law-breakers who commit 100% of the crimes. When you either arm everyone (Switzerland) or at least allow everyone to be armed if they so choose (U.S.), the result is a sharp drop in crime. Criminals aren't stupid - if they have reasonable belief that committing a crime may very well result in Joe Citizen responding with deadly force, they will usually re-think their line of "work."

    I am an historian, and served honorably as an officer in the U.S. Air Force for more than 20 years. I know what I'm talking about, and I am always armed, not because I think anything is going to happen today, but knowing full well the odds of something happening in the next 10,000 days are strong. I am not armed because I'm a "gun nut." I don't belong to the NRA or other pro-gun group. I am armed because I consider my personal responsibility to protect myself and those around me against illegal violence.

    I am very glad I live in both a country and a state where I can freely exercise this right! But it's not just a right - it's a responsibility, even a duty.

    I am utterly disgusted with the general anti-gun mentality of the United Nations. It's awash in wishful thinking, totally ignores volumes of history attesting to the fact this is a VERY bad idea, and seeks to undermine a solution which has worked to keep the peace for several hundred thousand years: Armament, education, and peaceful cooperation among the various circles of society.

    I ask you again: Are folks out of your minds?

    As you're looking into "the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of convention arms," PLEASE keep in mind the fact that limiting the possession of weapons by honest, law-abiding citizens DOES NOT WORK!

    I sincerely hope and pray my country's government is NEVER so idiotically stupid to sign off on your ridiculous treaty (here: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convar...html/ATT.shtml)

    If ever they do, I will uphold my solemnly sworn oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

    I will do so TO THE DEATH, should that ever prove necessary.

    Please reconsider this abominable plan of yours.

    Good day, gentleman.
    Since9, you are right on the mark. Neither am I a "gun nut" but I will not give up my guns. The way things are in the west now: without our shooterswe become setting ducks for criminals.



    Since the U.S. is not a member of the U.N. the senate would have to adopt and ratfy that ban and I think most of our senaters are smart enough to know that if they would adopt and ratify they would find themselves inthe unemployment line.



    I too am and old veteran of both the Air Force and the Army. Guns have been a part of my life since I grew big enough to carry one and if such a "gun grab" would occurre, I would hide mine in a cave up in the mountains before i would turn them over to be cut up and melted down. Good post my friend. Avery good post.

    Colorado Slick

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
  •