• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

U.N. ban

colorado slick

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
111
Location
Windsor, Colorado, USA
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
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

beating_a_dead_horse.jpg
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
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.... :question:

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.
 

colorado slick

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
111
Location
Windsor, Colorado, USA
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.... :question:

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.
 

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
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?
 

ooghost1oo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2009
Messages
262
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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?
 

Dynamite Rabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
220
Location
Longmont, CO, ,
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/Re...ntion-Is-Incompatible-with-American-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.
 

ooghost1oo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2009
Messages
262
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
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]:lol::lol::lol::what::lol:

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.
 

Dynamite Rabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
220
Location
Longmont, CO, ,
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".
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
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?
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
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.
 

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
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 blowjob. 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.
 

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
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/Reports/2010/05/The-OAS-Firearms-Convention-Is-Incompatible-with-American-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?
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
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.
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
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 ;)
 
Top