PDA

View Full Version : yes to UN treaty regardless on member states positions


lost.in.cali.
03-30-2013, 1:18 PM
Obama to bypass constition and for U.n. treaty
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/30/u-s-government-spokesperson-on-un-arms-treaty-united-states-would-vote-yes-on-the-treaty/

ElvenSoul
03-30-2013, 1:28 PM
He feels safe with his SS backing him....oops I mean homeland insecurity.

:(

ja308
03-30-2013, 1:29 PM
More bad news from this wanna be tin pot dictator!

Guess this proves beyond any doubt the UN agenda trumps individual rights and United States sovereignty !

Librarian
03-30-2013, 1:44 PM
The spokesperson went on to say that the United States would vote “yes” on the treaty in the General Assembly

Stupid, but legitimate.

lost.in.cali.
03-30-2013, 1:53 PM
This just seems to get worst for us. I feel discriminated against

alfred1222
03-30-2013, 2:07 PM
It doesn't matter if our congress doesn't approve it.

njineermike
03-30-2013, 2:08 PM
Baby blue helmets make great targets

Edwood
03-30-2013, 2:31 PM
Say bye bye to $500 Glocks from Austria.

a1c
03-30-2013, 3:30 PM
Baby blue helmets make great targets

That's an ignorant thing to say if you know anything about history.

Plus, I have family members who wore that helmet. I don't appreciate your incredibly stupid and insulting call for murder.

Not to mention, this treaty will never be ratified by the US, and would not have any effect on domestic policy. So cut if off.

CDFingers
03-30-2013, 3:36 PM
Don't let ignorant people tell you the wrong thing.

Obama cannot "bypass" Congress on this.

The Senate must ratify all treaties as per the Constitution, and the Senate will not ratify this.

No ratification, no law.

Don't let ignorant people misinform you: in the last paragraph of the article, it mentions in a weak way that the Senate must ratify.

Don't be fooled by an ignorant article.

CDFingers

lost.in.cali.
03-30-2013, 3:50 PM
Cdfingers thanks for the clarification

jonzer77
03-30-2013, 4:37 PM
Baby blue helmets make great targets

:rofl:

sholling
03-30-2013, 4:45 PM
The One known as the Progressive Messiah has shown little interest in constitutional limits on government power or executive actions. He may simply sign a treaty and begin enforcing the provision without waiting for congress to debate it much less vote on it. But his faithful will keep telling us to look away and pay no attention just like they told us before the elections that Obama didn't want to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights even though he had a track record showing he did - ignore that they said. They just keep telling us to pay no attention and ignore what's happening just be reasonable and let it happen. Well at least they are consistent about giving horrible advice. :rolleyes:

SilverTauron
03-30-2013, 4:46 PM
Don't let ignorant people tell you the wrong thing.


Fair enough. The door's that way.

njineermike
03-30-2013, 4:52 PM
That's an ignorant thing to say if you know anything about history.

Plus, I have family members who wore that helmet. I don't appreciate your incredibly stupid and insulting call for murder.

Not to mention, this treaty will never be ratified by the US, and would not have any effect on domestic policy. So cut if off.


Did I somehow give you the impression your opinion means jack squat to me? Let me rectify that. I don't give a rats *** what you or anybody else thinks of my opinion about the repercussions of bringing FOREIGN INVADING MILITARY ON US SOIL.


Have a nice day.


Or not.

TRICKSTER
03-30-2013, 5:01 PM
Don't let ignorant people tell you the wrong thing.

Obama cannot "bypass" Congress on this.

The Senate must ratify all treaties as per the Constitution, and the Senate will not ratify this.

No ratification, no law.

Don't let ignorant people misinform you: in the last paragraph of the article, it mentions in a weak way that the Senate must ratify.

Don't be fooled by an ignorant article.

CDFingers

This president appears to try and do whatever he wants. Besides, if enough people like you ever get elected to the Senate, this will easily be ratified.
I do appreciate the warning not to listen to liberals.

hawk1
03-30-2013, 5:06 PM
Baby blue helmets make great targets

I believe others have this same opinion...:)

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g290/jslade01/UN_helmet-small.jpg?t=1272745994

TANK
03-30-2013, 5:09 PM
Why doesn't the f-ing president worry about the real issues that need to be addressed. What a POS

VegasND
03-30-2013, 5:11 PM
Don't let ignorant people tell you the wrong thing.
Excellent advice -- read on.

Obama cannot "bypass" Congress on this.

The Senate must ratify all treaties as per the Constitution, and the Senate will not ratify this.

No ratification, no law.
Except this isn't about Senate ratification. It's about the US voting for the treaty in the UN.
Don't let ignorant people misinform you: in the last paragraph of the article, it mentions in a weak way that the Senate must ratify.

Don't be fooled by an ignorant article.

CDFingers
Don't be fooled by mendacious statists either.

FTFA:
The spokesperson went on to say that the United States would vote “yes” on the treaty in the General Assembly, regardless of the positions of other member states. By abandoning the requirement for consensus the United States is assuring passage of the treaty by the United Nations.

kimber_ss
03-30-2013, 5:12 PM
It isn't likely to effect the U.S. directly, because the senate "probably" won't ratify it. However, the implication of the Potus signing it is that his wish list of banning "small arms" fits nicely.

He knows that by signing it, he lends more legitimacy to future acts that would ban small arms. It gives "credibility" to his anti-Constitutional position. He gets to thumb his nose at the Constitution once more.

kick Z tail out
03-30-2013, 5:18 PM
That's an ignorant thing to say if you know anything about history.
Historically they've made great targets.

boltstop
03-30-2013, 5:47 PM
Baby blue helmets make great targets

My father wore that helmet.

And it is never OK to advocate murder.

boltstop
03-30-2013, 5:50 PM
... bringing FOREIGN INVADING MILITARY ON US SOIL.

You need to take your tinfoil hat off.

Oh wait ... do I hear those black helicopters overhead?

kick Z tail out
03-30-2013, 5:56 PM
How many fathers and grandfathers wore the SS uniform?

Just because your dad was part of a group doesn't mean we're all going to share an enchanted view of the organization.

jonzer77
03-30-2013, 5:57 PM
My father wore that helmet.

And it is never OK to advocate murder.

Never say never.

njineermike
03-30-2013, 6:03 PM
You need to take your tinfoil hat off.

Oh wait ... do I hear those black helicopters overhead?

You might. Why don't you run outside and check. Meanwhile, I'll pretend I care.

Moonshine
03-30-2013, 6:21 PM
The UN is essentially a rotary club for dictators with a handful of peaceful democracies. North Korea and Iran have seats in the UN and I believe Syria was once part of the human rights council vote. I don't take ANYTHING the UN says serious and neither should anyone else. It proved completely ineffective at stopping North Korea from acquiring Nuclear weapons and look at the failed state Somalia has become.

Ratification of the arms treaty will be taken as seriously as the North Korean nuclear sanctions. It won't stop guns from selling in the US... In fact it will probably INCREASE sales due to the number of people obsessed with the "new world order" tinfoil conspiracy theory. The Most powerful weapon of the 21st century is a cell phone uploading a video to the Internet NOT a blue helmet on a UN peace keeper.

SilverTauron
03-30-2013, 7:20 PM
Ratification of the arms treaty will be taken as seriously as the North Korean nuclear sanctions. It won't stop guns from selling in the US... In fact it will probably INCREASE sales due to the number of people obsessed with the "new world order" tinfoil conspiracy theory. The Most powerful weapon of the 21st century is a cell phone uploading a video to the Internet NOT a blue helmet on a UN peace keeper.

Think beyond the obvious for a second.

It probably won't pass the Senate. Without the US participating, it was likely the UN SALW/ATT agreement wouldn't make it out of committee. If the largest arms provider in the world doesn't sign on to a global arms trade limitation agreement, what's the point? Then again, it doesn't have to apply directly to us for the anti's to win.

The effects we'll feel as gun owners aren't primary , at least without Senate ratification. More on this in a moment.

However the OTHER countries will certainly enact laws consistent with the UN mandate: and that hurts us secondhand.

Think about Sig Sauer, CZ, Beretta, HK, and Glock. Notice anything they share in common? They're headquartered in a part of the world which hates guns even more then most urban Californians. Once the ATT/SALW treaty's signed, those companies' HQs will have to abide by the agreement.

Kiss HKs and other European made guns goodbye. Foreign companies with guns Made in America using foreign parts from HQ will need to re-negotiate how to stay in business with the new rules, if its possible. Even so, companies cannot create factory space out of thin air. With US factories running full tilt as it is, a certain shortage of foreign made guns will ensue even if they're made in the US! Remember the pricing bubble of late 2012?

Picture a run on anything not made by Smith and Wesson , Ruger, and Remington when this is signed.

Oh, but you live in California and most of the foreign guns I speak of aren't on your roster anyways, so what's the point of trying to stop this?

Cost. With the foreign gun markets embargoed out of the United States, Ruger , S&W, Kimber, and other domestic companies have a green light to raise prices. Unless the idea of paying $700 for a basic M&P9 is your idea of fun I suggest you get on the ball and call your national rep to shut this down.

RMP91
03-30-2013, 7:41 PM
I'm sorry, but didn't North Korea, Iran and Syria vote against this yesterday? I thought this was done...

sl0re10
03-30-2013, 7:53 PM
Stupid, but legitimate.

The gen assembly doesn't carry any force of law in the US right. Need the Senate to vote on it?

HOGLEG
03-30-2013, 8:18 PM
Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

dustoff31
03-30-2013, 9:19 PM
It doesn't matter if our congress doesn't approve it.

You mean the Democrat controlled Senate, right?

sl0re10
03-30-2013, 9:25 PM
You need to take your tinfoil hat off.

Oh wait ... do I hear those black helicopters overhead?

No; its a drone. :D
(kidding)

mosinnagantm9130
03-30-2013, 9:30 PM
You mean the Democrat controlled Senate, right?

Where any treaty still needs a 2/3 vote.

KON5T
03-30-2013, 9:32 PM
"Wanna be"? looks like he is doing a bit better than just wanna be. He has completely and utterly sold the country out to the highest bidder.


More bad news from this wanna be tin pot dictator!

Guess this proves beyond any doubt the UN agenda trumps individual rights and United States sovereignty !

KON5T
03-30-2013, 9:37 PM
They might not directly have any force of law, but they will enforce it here, one way or another.

For example, look at the war on drugs, that is not something the US could stop even if it wanted to, as it is signed up to the UN "single convention on narcotic drugs" from 1961. This is the reason that failed policy is still sending non-violent "criminals" to prison to work in the government gulag work camps.

Another example would be the slow ramping up of agenda 21, coming to a community near you soon.

The gen assembly doesn't carry any force of law in the US right. Need the Senate to vote on it?

Springfield45
03-30-2013, 9:46 PM
Baby blue helmets make great targets

That's an ignorant thing to say if you know anything about history.

Plus, I have family members who wore that helmet. I don't appreciate your incredibly stupid and insulting call for murder.

Not to mention, this treaty will never be ratified by the US, and would not have any effect on domestic policy. So cut if off.

I had to wear that helmet while I was serving MY country in Haiti and I think njineermike is spot on. The UN is the most corrupt organization in the history of the world. I feel sorry for your family members and hope it was not their choice to serve with the UN. If UN troops ever walk american streets they will be legitimate military targets, regardless of it needing to be ratified or not.

nothinghere2c
03-30-2013, 9:47 PM
That's an ignorant thing to say if you know anything about history.

Plus, I have family members who wore that helmet. I don't appreciate your incredibly stupid and insulting call for murder.

Not to mention, this treaty will never be ratified by the US, and would not have any effect on domestic policy. So cut if off.

i dont think he was calling for murder, just being funny.

not to be insensitive, but wake up. lots of crap obama is decreeing is never challenged by congress whether he has the power to do it or not.

nothinghere2c
03-30-2013, 9:49 PM
You need to take your tinfoil hat off.

Oh wait ... do I hear those black helicopters overhead?

obviously you haven't been watching the news...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/28/military-conducts-another-massive-training-drill-involving-helicopters-this-time-in-texas/

and

fOgaotH6uDk

please, keep telling people they are crazy for being suspicious of "black helicopters"

Tincon
03-30-2013, 10:03 PM
It seems like some people here slept through their high-school civics class.


Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

If you really think we are past the point where that limitation matters (I don't), then you should be out fighting a revolution already and not whining about it on the internet.

a1c
03-30-2013, 10:04 PM
i dont think he was calling for murder, just being funny.

not to be insensitive, but wake up. lots of crap obama is decreeing is never challenged by congress whether he has the power to do it or not.

I'm very well awake, and I know that the things we have to worry about are not happening anywhere near the U.N.

boltstop
03-30-2013, 10:13 PM
How many fathers and grandfathers wore the SS uniform?

Just because your dad was part of a group doesn't mean we're all going to share an enchanted view of the organization.

I said my father wore the UN helmet - in the Korean War.

The "group" he was part of was the United States Army.

Rick S.
03-30-2013, 10:19 PM
sounds like some one is part of a bad genetic line of gullible idiots who were fooled by the UN and its "purpose". Some one had to be first i guess. As far as some people sleeping through high school civics class, highly probable, but how about being awake over the couple years of executive orders and "kinetic actions".

Powerkraut
03-30-2013, 10:36 PM
My father wore that helmet.

And it is never OK to advocate murder.

Since when is killing an enemy combatant murder?

rob86
03-30-2013, 11:09 PM
So what happens when they come on U.S. soil. do you honestly think people will do something? I hope they do and I hope I am wrong when I say this but other than vets and nationalist people I don't see Americans doing a darn thing. People keep electing representatives that just give the American people the shaft so why would they do anything other than say oh my gosh.
How would the American people come together and do something if such a thing were to happen?

Tincon
03-30-2013, 11:22 PM
Also, this guy probably wore a blue helmet (8th cav, part of UN line, Korean war), and most of the TFH internet commandos here are not fit to polish his boots:

gTnmDQVMank

If foreign UN troops are here doing anything it will be after the US government has totally collapsed, and you might actually not be entirely unhappy to see them.

G-Man WC
03-30-2013, 11:31 PM
Let's not worry about the U.N. (United Nothing) They would have a bad day if it came down to brass tacks. The government knows it so lets remain calm and stay proficient on the target range.Carry On! -g

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f134/gkolokousis/UN.jpg

a1c
03-30-2013, 11:35 PM
So what happens when they come on U.S. soil.

Not gonna happen. How is that relevant to the subject we're discussing?

Get some education on the topic, will ya? Civics 101, and some basic World History classes are a good start. Then start reading the World pages of the newspaper.

This is tin foil hat BS. Worry about Sacramento. Any of you freaking out about the U.N. been donating to CGF lately? Because if you haven't, you really have no sense of priorities whatsoever.

rob86
03-31-2013, 12:03 AM
Don't tell me what I do or don't need to do. For your record I do contribute, probably have completed more history classes than you have sir. If you did read most of the worlds news it's mostly filtered with a leftist point of view which I don't waste my time reading. If you were paying attention to the conversation you would know how it relates. So why don't take your fingers off the keyboard and quit flaming.

infringed711
03-31-2013, 1:34 AM
The second foriegn troops in blue helmets land as an occupational force on US soil **** is going to go down. Our own military, you know the ones who swore to protect the constitution from all enemies foriegn and domestic, will fight them. Sorry for those of you that have family wearing those blue helmets, they are going to be getting wrecked from every side

infringed711
03-31-2013, 1:39 AM
"...opposition from Iran, North Korea and Syria resulted in nations failing to reach a consensus."

Never thought I would be saying this but thank you Iran, North Korea and Syria, kinda ****ed that they did more to preserve our freedom than our own President...makes me sad

CDFingers
03-31-2013, 8:06 AM
While a few ignorant posters have thrown the expected insults, not one, single insulter has shown that a treaty can be ratified solely by the president.

That means you masters of ignorance continue to demonstrate your mastery of ignorance.

Freedom indeed is untidy.

CDFingers

SilverTauron
03-31-2013, 8:17 AM
While a few ignorant posters have thrown the expected insults, not one, single insulter has shown that a treaty can be ratified solely by the president.

That means you masters of ignorance continue to demonstrate your mastery of ignorance.

Freedom indeed is untidy.

CDFingers

:rolleyes: It doesn't need to be ratified to screw us gun owners.

CDFingers
03-31-2013, 8:31 AM
I think you put the wrong thing in your coffee this morning, Silver.

If it's not ratified it is as valuable in making law as is an on sale pack of six rolls of bathroom tissue.

CDFingers

SilverTauron
03-31-2013, 9:10 AM
I think you put the wrong thing in your coffee this morning, Silver.

If it's not ratified it is as valuable in making law as is an on sale pack of six rolls of bathroom tissue.

CDFingers


Drank decaf this morning eh?

Wake up!

I'm not talking about US law. Notice how some really cool gun companies like FN, HK, Beretta and others are headquartered in countries with governments extremely hostile to the idea of gun ownership by ordinary people.

Those socialist European administrations won't hesitate to enforce export rules in a ratified ATT/SALW treaty, and that will have tangible and adverse effects on us.

Tincon
03-31-2013, 9:24 AM
I'm not talking about US law. Notice how some really cool gun companies like FN, HK, Beretta and others are headquartered in countries with governments extremely hostile to the idea of gun ownership by ordinary people.

Good, let them move here!

CDFingers
03-31-2013, 9:25 AM
You might want to consider the option that the US is protecting domestic manufacturers--well, tried to, anyway.

CDFingers

SilverTauron
03-31-2013, 9:31 AM
Good, let them move here!

Those companies already ARE here.

Unfortunately, factory space is not free or infinite. Expanding a capital facility takes time and money to accomplish, if its physically or legally possible. Right now US factories for Beretta, Sig, and FNH are maxed out as it is making guns to fill demand currently. If the ATT/SALW is adopted, imported guns won't be available to fill US purchase orders-and that will trigger a price spike and/or order backlog on foreign brand firearms.

Tincon
03-31-2013, 9:34 AM
Those companies already ARE here.

Unfortunately, factory space is not free or infinite. Expanding a capital facility takes time and money to accomplish, if its physically or legally possible. Right now US factories for Beretta, Sig, and FNH are maxed out as it is making guns to fill demand currently. If the ATT/SALW is adopted, imported guns won't be available to fill US purchase orders-and that will trigger a price spike and/or order backlog on foreign brand firearms.

Sure, but increased prices will create additional incentive, and capital, for these firms to create new factories here. Capital production is elastic in the long term... There is plenty of room in Texas and Montana! I don't think they are banning guns there any time soon either...

Just playing devil's advocate here, I don't like seeing anyone disarmed. However, I don't think the UN treaty will have a huge impact here in the long run.

KON5T
03-31-2013, 9:44 AM
While a few ignorant posters have thrown the expected insults, not one, single insulter has shown that a treaty can be ratified solely by the president.

That means you masters of ignorance continue to demonstrate your mastery of ignorance.

Freedom indeed is untidy.

CDFingers

you are correct, however if you look at history (and i have given several examples in a previous post), it is clear that there are other ways of enforcing UN treaties in this country

Tincon
03-31-2013, 9:55 AM
Ok then, I'll bite.

They might not directly have any force of law, but they will enforce it here, one way or another.

For example, look at the war on drugs, that is not something the US could stop even if it wanted to, as it is signed up to the UN "single convention on narcotic drugs" from 1961. This is the reason that failed policy is still sending non-violent "criminals" to prison to work in the government gulag work camps.

Please show where individuals went to federal prison without violating a law passed by congress. Or are you suggesting that a treaty somehow forces congress to pass laws?


Another example would be the slow ramping up of agenda 21, coming to a community near you soon.

Please show how agenda 21 is enforced by the federal government absent a federal law.

fonso
03-31-2013, 10:33 AM
[snip]

please, keep telling people they are crazy for being suspicious of "black helicopters"

Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after me! :eek: :cool2:

sholling
03-31-2013, 11:19 AM
The one thing that's absolutely obvious from the desperation of the 'ignore the UN threat and pay no attention to what they are doing' crowd is that some people here are solidly for disarming civilians all over the world. There is no, zip, zero other reason for their loud insistence that we all ignore what's going on in the UN and Obama's support for it until it's too late.

Despite the ravings and desires of the hardcore Progressives among us we have enough brainpower to keep an eye on the gun grabbing California legislators that they voted for and the gun grabbing US congress-critters that they voted for and the gun grabbing senators that they voted for and the gun grabber in chief that they voted for - with attention to spare to keep an eye on the UN.

MindBeyondAverage
03-31-2013, 1:17 PM
Who says the senate won't ratify it? Out of both extremes on this thread, the side that is the most ridiculous, are the ones calling out the "tin foil" BS. I'd rather be paranoid over something that may not happen, then dismiss things that are possible. Some of you act as if you are all knowing and if you say it, it will be. And that, "my grandfather was a nazi so don't talk **** about the third reicht", state of mind is a sad one. I know I may piss off a couple of you "well educated" folk, but just because your family member wore the helmet, doesn't mean they are a force of honor and morality. You call people ignorant and tell them to go educate themselves, yet, it seems like you aren't fully aware of a lot of the negative crap they are behing. I sure wouldn't be proud of my family member wearing that helmet. I'm proud of my family members who have worn the uniform of our nation's military and police.

guntntteacher
03-31-2013, 1:22 PM
The libs on the court will cite it in the next 2nd amendment case they hear. That is why if this passes the general assembly it is a problem for the US.

ja308
03-31-2013, 2:49 PM
Several years ago congressman Ron Paul introduced hr1146 to restore USA sovereignty by getting us out of the UN.

It got 70 co sponsors (all republicans)
They knew as as many us do that the UN is a foreign govt that does not value American rights .

We only need 1/2 of congress plus one to get us out ! Seems this task would be easier than waiting until the wolf is at the door .

Of course there will be 5 th column folks within our ranks,we should expect this They are very easy to spot ,watch those who become angry and sarcastic at any mention of international law being adopted .
By their own words we will know them.
But the majority of folks will look at evidence and join our ranks to preserve the bill of rights .

Trivia question , Who donated the land in NYC the UN building is on?

Let's learn more and join groups to make our job easier .Many hands make for light work .

kick Z tail out
03-31-2013, 3:12 PM
I said my father wore the UN helmet - in the Korean War.

The "group" he was part of was the United States Army.

This isn't Korea. If the blue helmets were ever walking the streets here you'd have to lose your sensitive emotions toward the colored helmet.

blown57due
03-31-2013, 3:12 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/290001-senate-votes-to-stop-us-from-joining-un-arms-treaty#ixzz2ONLBQLiV

HOGLEG
03-31-2013, 3:34 PM
Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/290001-senate-votes-to-stop-us-from-joining-un-arms-treaty#ixzz2P9yGTGdR
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

A listing of Senators that voted for and against the UN Arms Treaty on March 23, 2013.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091


NAYs ---46



Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)


Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)


Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

KON5T
03-31-2013, 3:56 PM
Several years ago congressman Ron Paul introduced hr1146 to restore USA sovereignty by getting us out of the UN.

It got 70 co sponsors (all republicans)
They knew as as many us do that the UN is a foreign govt that does not value American rights .

We only need 1/2 of congress plus one to get us out ! Seems this task would be easier than waiting until the wolf is at the door .

Of course there will be 5 th column folks within our ranks,we should expect this They are very easy to spot ,watch those who become angry and sarcastic at any mention of international law being adopted .
By their own words we will know them.
But the majority of folks will look at evidence and join our ranks to preserve the bill of rights .

Trivia question , Who donated the land in NYC the UN building is on?

Let's learn more and join groups to make our job easier .Many hands make for light work .


you are right, BUT... the UN is not a foreign government, it is in fact not a governmental agency at all, it is a collection of unelected self important idiots who think they can dictate the rules to the world, which they have been doing quite successfully for many years.

njineermike
03-31-2013, 4:00 PM
Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/290001-senate-votes-to-stop-us-from-joining-un-arms-treaty#ixzz2P9yGTGdR
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

A listing of Senators that voted for and against the UN Arms Treaty on March 23, 2013.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091

So it seems our 'friend' Harry Reid voted against it, along with the usual suspect lineup of gun grabbers. So how exactly is he on our side again?

GREASY357
03-31-2013, 4:42 PM
Historically they've made great targets.

:rofl:

a1c
03-31-2013, 5:01 PM
Who says the senate won't ratify it? Out of both extremes on this thread, the side that is the most ridiculous, are the ones calling out the "tin foil" BS. I'd rather be paranoid over something that may not happen, then dismiss things that are possible. Some of you act as if you are all knowing and if you say it, it will be. And that, "my grandfather was a nazi so don't talk **** about the third reicht", state of mind is a sad one. I know I may piss off a couple of you "well educated" folk, but just because your family member wore the helmet, doesn't mean they are a force of honor and morality. You call people ignorant and tell them to go educate themselves, yet, it seems like you aren't fully aware of a lot of the negative crap they are behing. I sure wouldn't be proud of my family member wearing that helmet. I'm proud of my family members who have worn the uniform of our nation's military and police.

This is where you're sadly uneducated.

From Korea to Kosovo, there are thousands of troops which have worn the blue helmet AND their country's uniform.

The U.N. is mostly a toothless organization. Not as powerless as the League of Nations, but still mostly ineffective in dictating governments what to do, except when there is a major consensus to go after a douchebag like Saddam.

The U.S. has veto powers in the U.N.'s Security Council as a permanent member. Advocating leaving the U.N. like Rand Paul has advocated (which was just for show anyway) would actually be a terrible idea.

dustoff31
03-31-2013, 5:42 PM
So it seems our 'friend' Harry Reid voted against it, along with the usual suspect lineup of gun grabbers. So how exactly is he on our side again?

But...but...but, he had his picture taken at a gun range.:rolleyes:

sholling
03-31-2013, 5:47 PM
you are right, BUT... the UN is not a foreign government, it is in fact not a governmental agency at all, it is a collection of unelected self important idiots who think they can dictate the rules to the world, which they have been doing quite successfully for many years.

Exactly! Progressives keep dreaming of the day that the UN will become the world government and impose Progressive ideas on Americans but it's not going to happen. All it is is a collection of dictators, deadbeats, and America haters leaching off the US taxpayer and it's long past time to get out. George Washington was right when he said:

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-foreign-entanglements.html
"Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." -- George Washington, farewell address, 1796.

"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

a1c
03-31-2013, 5:53 PM
Exactly! Progressives keep dreaming of the day that the UN will become the world government and impose Progressive ideas on Americans but it's not going to happen. All it is is a collection of dictators, deadbeats, and America haters leaching off the US taxpayer and it's long past time to get out. George Washington was right when he said:

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-foreign-entanglements.html

I actually count a lot of people among my friends whom could be labeled as "progressives", including a couple who actually worked for the U.N. for some of its agencies.

I have to say however that none of them has ever expressed the idea that the U.N. should ever become a world government. They actually find the idea quite distasteful, and that's not at all how they see the U.N.

It seems to me that the concept of the U.N. as a world government is more of an evil fantasy cultivated by some people on the far right, but it has zero connection with reality.

sholling
03-31-2013, 5:58 PM
It seems to me that the concept of the U.N. as a world government is more of an evil fantasy cultivated by some people on the far right, but it has zero connection with reality.
You keep telling yourself that while the UN dreams of imposing taxes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/22/gop-platform-opposes-un-tax-plans-levies-infringe-/

a1c
03-31-2013, 6:25 PM
You keep telling yourself that while the UN dreams of imposing taxes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/22/gop-platform-opposes-un-tax-plans-levies-infringe-/

Seems to me that the article you posted made my point when I described it as a rather toothless organization.

sound
03-31-2013, 6:27 PM
Some people, it seems, just want to be freaked out over something. :rolleyes:

Do you really think that the UN is going to send troops to disarm us? Please...you're really not paying attention, there are better ways to do it, and despite what some of you must think, those in power are not stupid.

sholling
03-31-2013, 6:53 PM
Seems to me that the article you posted made my point when I described it as a rather toothless organization.
A dictators' club unwilling to remain toothless thus it seeks power to control the means of production and energy through its department of global warming fraud, it seeks to redistribute wealth through taxation, and it seeks to disarm civilians through the arms treaty.

ja308
03-31-2013, 7:08 PM
you are right, BUT... the UN is not a foreign government, it is in fact not a governmental agency at all, it is a collection of unelected self important idiots who think they can dictate the rules to the world, which they have been doing quite successfully for many years.

Semantics aside ,they have nearly every element of a govt such as a
Flag,
Charter,or constitution
President or sec gen
Borders the world
Monetary IMF
An Army
Each nation is considered a state etc

So far no tax authority but watch this pack of tyrants !

I will of course read why you believe they are not a govt and you may convince me too

Micheal New the ourt marshaled medic ,convinced me they are a foreign govt.
Try a dogpile search on him for more info . Read between the lines of course

Sholling you nailed it ! I salute you Sir for stating the difficult in plain language.

waffmaster
03-31-2013, 7:35 PM
The UN tries to give itself normative power. It may help in some very troubled areas of the planet. But here in the US we don't need normative authority beyond what the constitution establishes. Also we don't need a group of elected idiots trying to mess up the country in the name of "common sense". I am waiting them to go home so we can reconstruct, 4 more years I guess...

KON5T
03-31-2013, 7:55 PM
Agenda 21 is being enforced by local pressure groups through an organization called ICLEI (and various others). If you do some research you will find that there are many cases of eminent domain repossession based on Agenda 21 type activities. There are also people in prison who did not move or give up their properties in accordance with local legislation that was enacted by ICLEI groups, over things as nefarious as not registering your underground water bunker with the local authorities, and refusing to pay taxes on the stored water when decided by a judge.

I have a personal friend in New Jersey who lost the water rights to his land because of ICLEI activity and had to pay substantial amounts to get his property connected to the municipal water system, or pay an substantial tax on being independten. I know this is useless without naming names, but a little bit of research will show you how Agenda 21 is creeping into your community, and the strategy is not to go through central government, but through local pressure groups. I also have a colleague who has family members who were moved of their land in Hawaii Gardens CA, again based on ground water rulings.

I think you misunderstand the point I was making in my previous post. The UN does not need to pass any laws through congress, they will apply pressure to the president and the various bodies and "force" a consensus. There are many people in prison because of rulings that were forced through, and passed into law using for example executive orders, or local pressure groups who passed local ordinances. Alternatively they might just persuade the politicians that it is in our "best interest" to have rules passed, like the small arms treaty which we are voting on at present. Remember, the war on drugs was not something that the American people enacted or their own accord, it was the signing of the 1961 "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" that kicked off this incredible badly thought out and failed policy.

The UN has been disarming people all over the world for many decades now, to suggest they are not going to do it over here is frankly naive, and places us within the real risk of waking up one morning and realizing that we are truly ****ed.

The problem I have is that the UN is not an elected representative of either myself or anyone else I know off. It is run by fat bureaucrats who exempt themselves from any form of accountability and have hidden agendas that we are not privy to.

I am not going to give you references to any of the things I have said here, if you are truly interested please have a look yourself, cases are not hard to find. If you need further assistance, PM me.



Ok then, I'll bite.



Please show where individuals went to federal prison without violating a law passed by congress. Or are you suggesting that a treaty somehow forces congress to pass laws?



Please show how agenda 21 is enforced by the federal government absent a federal law.

KON5T
03-31-2013, 8:09 PM
Semantics aside ,they have nearly every element of a govt such as a
Flag,
Charter,or constitution
President or sec gen
Borders the world
Monetary IMF
An Army
Each nation is considered a state etc

So far no tax authority but watch this pack of tyrants !

I will of course read why you believe they are not a govt and you may convince me too

Micheal New the ourt marshaled medic ,convinced me they are a foreign govt.
Try a dogpile search on him for more info . Read between the lines of course

Sholling you nailed it ! I salute you Sir for stating the difficult in plain language.

i think there might be a slight confusion over my post, we are agreeing on the same thing. They are not a government, but they certainly have as much power as many governments, if not more. Something they are working on expanding rapidly.

On the subject of tax authority, they might not have this directly, but have a look at what is happening with ICLEI, which is sending task teams into local communities to raise taxes to control things like energy usage, water rights etc.

5th entry under Michael New is Michael Moore, arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhh

gun toting monkeyboy
03-31-2013, 10:25 PM
Dude, enough. You are the same person who gets all bent out of shape when somebody mentions "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". We are glad that you are a francophile, but you don't have any right NOT to be offended by what people say on a public board. If you don't like it, leave. I am sick of your whining every single time somebody picks on the French or the UN. Guess what? Nobody cares. And to top it all off, both the French and the UN have done more than their share of stupid things over the past few decades. Centuries, in fact, where the French are concerned. Grow up. Get off your high horse. Nobody cares if people laugh at any of them. And if people in baby blue helmets show up here in the US trying to violate our constitutionally protected rights, I'll be out there picking them off too. I am NOT going to let a pseudo-governmental organization that hasn't had adult supervision in 40 years try to dictate what kind of rights they think I should have.

Oh, and for the record, I agree, the treaty is meaningless unless it is ratified by 2/3s of the US senate. Who here thinks THAT is likely to happen?

-Mb

That's an ignorant thing to say if you know anything about history.

Plus, I have family members who wore that helmet. I don't appreciate your incredibly stupid and insulting call for murder.

Not to mention, this treaty will never be ratified by the US, and would not have any effect on domestic policy. So cut if off.

Emdawg
03-31-2013, 11:02 PM
Speaking of worthless international organizations, INTERPOL was under the thumb of the Nazis for a time.

iron cannon
03-31-2013, 11:05 PM
deleted

KON5T
03-31-2013, 11:06 PM
Speaking of worthless international organizations, INTERPOL was under the thumb of the Nazis for a time.

oi vey, now you've gone and done it.....:43:

MountainMike
03-31-2013, 11:06 PM
As far as American soldiers being forced to wear the blue helmet is concerned do you really think if what people are suggesting could happen they will continue to wear them?

Let us not forget that even George Washington wore the uniform of a foreign nation.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur Am I the only one who read this as, not everyone needs to be present and if 3 Senators hold a special hearing while the Senate is on recess only 2 of them need to agree for a treaty to be ratified?

Emdawg
03-31-2013, 11:11 PM
As far as American soldiers being forced to wear the blue helmet is concerned do you really think if what people are suggesting could happen they will continue to wear them?

Let us not forget that even George Washington wore the uniform of a foreign nation.

Am I the only one who read this as, not everyone needs to be present and if 3 Senators hold a special hearing while the Senate is on recess only 2 of them need to agree for a treaty to be ratified?

Hmmmm... seems like your history history class was substituted as naptime.

George Washington served in the Virginia militia under the British Army before the 13 were a nation.

Then again he was wearing the uniform of his colony rather than the Crown's.

iron cannon
03-31-2013, 11:14 PM
deleted

Lugiahua
04-01-2013, 1:10 AM
seriously, where did this idea "UN will send troops to invade us" even came from? It's more reasonable say "Obama is asking China to disarm us" than UN...

UN PKF is a very small organization, contribute by member countries, it's not like a huge private army anyway. They don't even match California National Guard.
Most PKF are some third world countries that can't pay their members fee, instead of paying fee, they "contribute" their troops for PKF causes.

Furthermore, if UN is really a conspiracy as some said above to disarm civilian, that means they also have to invade 70 something other countries as well. Where did PKF get such resources only existed in Sci-Fi?

Lugiahua
04-01-2013, 1:11 AM
seriously, where did this idea "UN will send troops to invade us" even came from? It's more reasonable say "Obama is asking China to disarm us" than UN...

UN PKF is a very small organization, contribute by member countries, it's not like a huge private army anyway. They don't even match California National Guard.
Most PKF are some third world countries that can't pay their members fee, instead of paying fee, they "contribute" their troops for PKF causes.

Furthermore, if UN is really a conspiracy as some said above to disarm civilian, that means they also have to invade 70 something other countries as well. Where did PKF get such resources only existed in Sci-Fi?

CDFingers
04-01-2013, 6:28 AM
From a prone position, realizing they haven't a leg to stand on, many tin foil hat wearers are forced to make stuff up, such as "Agenda 21 will spay or neuter your cat" or "The UN is about to invade East L.A." or some such fiction.

As it turns out, fiction lovers, no treaty may be enforced without first being ratified by the Senate, the Senate Subcommittee signaled the treaty will not be ratified, and Obama cannot enforce a treaty that has not been ratified.

We now return you to your worship of Hannity, and other insanities of fiction.

CDFingers

taperxz
04-01-2013, 7:19 AM
Either the mods are on vacation or this type of rhetoric is now allowed in the 2A forum.

This thread would have been deleted days ago normally.

Unforunately this hoax, scam, bs, and scare has been brought to you by ALL/MOST OF THE 2A ORGS LOOKING FOR MONEY FROM FREE STATES.

5thgen4runner
04-01-2013, 7:25 AM
Did I somehow give you the impression your opinion means jack squat to me? Let me rectify that. I don't give a rats *** what you or anybody else thinks of my opinion about the repercussions of bringing FOREIGN INVADING MILITARY ON US SOIL.


Have a nice day.


Or not.

Win x 1000000

KON5T
04-01-2013, 8:16 AM
seriously, where did this idea "UN will send troops to invade us" even came from? It's more reasonable say "Obama is asking China to disarm us" than UN...

UN PKF is a very small organization, contribute by member countries, it's not like a huge private army anyway. They don't even match California National Guard.
Most PKF are some third world countries that can't pay their members fee, instead of paying fee, they "contribute" their troops for PKF causes.

Furthermore, if UN is really a conspiracy as some said above to disarm civilian, that means they also have to invade 70 something other countries as well. Where did PKF get such resources only existed in Sci-Fi?


So the small arms treaty is now a conspiracy theory is it? :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

seem like conspiracy fact to me, bit like Obama protecting some of the largest corporations in this country from accountability and legal repercussions.

Of course neither of those things could possibly happen over here.,....... oh hang on, the Monstanto protection act was passed last week, never mind go back to watching the game

Tyrone
04-01-2013, 9:15 AM
There seems to be a lot of misdirection going on here. There are two issues that are being conflated: passage of treaty in US and passage of treaty at UN. That the senate needs to ratify by 2/3 vote or that the senate has indicated that it will NOT ratify or that a treaty does not become "enforceable" in US without such ratification are really not in dispute and I haven't really seen anyone make that argument. If US changes position on consensus and votes "yes" on treaty AT UN even if not ultimately ratified here in the US it then is likely to passed at UN and become an existing treaty which is likely would not if US maintains position on consensus. Presuming it both becomes a treaty but is not ratified in the US, the question then becomes what effect if any will it have here in the US. On this point, I do not think there is much dispute that SilverTauron and others of similar mindset are correct that if the treaty is approved, applied, and followed by other nations it will effect trade and availability here in the US of certain arms and that is the point and the basis of using the term "back door" or "bypass." Why this is of concern is that if the US uses it position in the UN to demand consensus before tUN vote, then the proposed treaty may be dead to begin with and the effect on US would not occur.

It also is not tinfoilhattery to have concern over the UN in regards to arms or Agenda 21. While there may be issues concerning degree of reach of certain proposals, there is no dispute that UN has a "disarmament commission" and through such commission and proposed treaties seeks "disarmament" and/or regulation (control) over small arms and ammunition. The stated goals of the UN Commission on disarmament IMHO are "inconsistent" with the 2nd Amdt and this is where the legal rub is. In order for the Const. to "trump" any treaty that has been ratified (which is the rule) the treaty must be "inconsistent" with the Const. There are those that argue that the proposed treaty is not "inconsistent" with the Const. so there is no problem ("look away folks"). Thus, that people have concern or are alarmed by UN motives is not irrationale or based on "black helicopter mentality." Agenda 21 is a different topic for a different board, but it exists and is real.

RuskieShooter
04-01-2013, 10:10 AM
UN PKF is a very small organization, contribute by member countries, it's not like a huge private army anyway. They don't even match California National Guard.

Most PKF are some third world countries that can't pay their members fee, instead of paying fee, they "contribute" their troops for PKF causes.

This.

For those of you concerned about being invaded by the UN military, go look at the composition of ANY UN PKF. What you will see is it is/was made primarily from US forces with a sprinkling of the rest of the world thrown in (and the non-US troops tend to be administrative and non-combatant). The US also supplies almost all of the heavy-lift capability, air power, and naval power.

In short, if the UN puts "boots on the ground" in the US, it will be American troops because the rest of the UN combined couldn't put together enough of a military to do anything; and even if they could, they lack the air/sea lift capability to get them here.

I wish the POTUS luck in convincing the US military to put on blue helmets and start a war with US citizens in the name of a UN mandate...

-Ruskie

donw
04-01-2013, 2:57 PM
1. those who wear the "Blue helmets" are following orders as good soldiers do.

2. the treaty is not likely to be approved by the senate.

3. the POTUS cannot act unilaterally on treaty issues

4. the US is one of the top small arms suppliers on the planet...would we really want to give that up? (financially, NOT morally, or legally, speaking)

ja308
04-01-2013, 8:01 PM
There is no conspiracy!
The documents are all there , written down for those who care to read .

There is a even a state dept document .titled
The United States program for complete disarmement in a peacefull world .
It was signed JFK 1961

I am really shocked how children parrot the media line and distrust adult gun owners who have spent decades in research and can prove every point ,regarding disarm plans .

2Fowl
04-01-2013, 9:25 PM
I had to wear that helmet while I was serving MY country in Haiti and I think njineermike is spot on. The UN is the most corrupt organization in the history of the world. I feel sorry for your family members and hope it was not their choice to serve with the UN. If UN troops ever walk american streets they will be legitimate military targets, regardless of it needing to be ratified or not.

It's a shoot on sight kind of thang!... :79:

2Fowl

CDFingers
04-02-2013, 6:42 AM
Hey: tin foil hatters:

There are no enforcement capabilities outside of the security council. This means that 'Agenda 21' is a policy paper.

My policy is to laugh at the folks who listen to pudgy pundits instead of actually reading the piece.

If you all doubt, you might try reading the actual paper:

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

When y'all find how the blue helmets will come here and force us at bayonet point to spay or neuter our house cats, please come on back and enlighten us.

ROFL

CDFingers

SilverTauron
04-02-2013, 6:50 AM
Hey: tin foil hatters:

There are no enforcement capabilities outside of the security council. This means that 'Agenda 21' is a policy paper.

My policy is to laugh at the folks who listen to pudgy pundits instead of actually reading the piece.

If you all doubt, you might try reading the actual paper:

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

When y'all find how the blue helmets will come here and force us at bayonet point to spay or neuter our house cats, please come on back and enlighten us.

ROFL

CDFingers

Hey, lefty latte addicts.

Get your head out of the sand. The UN can't send people door to door: but they don't have to. An embargo on US imports limits our ability to exercise our rights. You tell me how an internationally ratified SALW/ATT treaty helps us gun owners?

No emotional response or labeling in your response please.

CDFingers
04-02-2013, 7:17 AM
You tell me what influence a US citizen has on other countries' approach to these two treaties.

The same influence as does a flea on the rotation of the Earth: measurable but very small.

CDFingers

KON5T
04-02-2013, 7:40 AM
You tell me what influence a US citizen has on other countries' approach to these two treaties.

The same influence as does a flea on the rotation of the Earth: measurable but very small.

CDFingers

Open your eyes:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Wiz-of-Awd
04-02-2013, 7:55 AM
The government must allow me to have my guns, magazines and ammunition, as per the Constitution.

Oh wait...

A.W.D.

Don't let ignorant people tell you the wrong thing.

Obama cannot "bypass" Congress on this.

The Senate must ratify all treaties as per the Constitution, and the Senate will not ratify this.

No ratification, no law.

Don't let ignorant people misinform you: in the last paragraph of the article, it mentions in a weak way that the Senate must ratify.

Don't be fooled by an ignorant article.

CDFingers

ja308
04-02-2013, 8:02 AM
http://archive.org/details/FreedomFromWar

Does anyone agree with this state dept proposal?

Conspiracy ? No just an honest proposal of plans regarding future gun rights .
Does not say UN troops will go door to door !

sl0re10
04-02-2013, 8:03 AM
I think the UN stuff is a bit 'out there' but I'd throw in a point just for debate. The UN is biased, in general, against the point of view of most of us. They tend to think so too (dems good; repubs bad) but when people with that view come to the US they sometimes find out that the situation 'is a bit more complex'. Time and time again when I explain 'our' pov to Euros (for example; as they're in with the general UN pov) they're surprised. Abortion is legal to the third trimester? yep. You can't ask for ID to vote?? yep. Your black rifle isn't automatic??? Nope.. et cetera... after awhile they start to question their media's reporting on US politics...

Serpentine
04-02-2013, 8:10 AM
Just like Obamacare. We are 9 months away and still - no one knows what's in it!
Thank you not for the change.


The One known as the Progressive Messiah has shown little interest in constitutional limits on government power or executive actions. He may simply sign a treaty and begin enforcing the provision without waiting for congress to debate it much less vote on it. But his faithful will keep telling us to look away and pay no attention just like they told us before the elections that Obama didn't want to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights even though he had a track record showing he did - ignore that they said. They just keep telling us to pay no attention and ignore what's happening just be reasonable and let it happen. Well at least they are consistent about giving horrible advice. :rolleyes:

ja308
04-02-2013, 8:12 AM
During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:
States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.

9


The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.

The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.

The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far reaching as to assure peace and tile just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

The above copied from state dept document few cal gunners will read

Here is the title

FREEDOM FROM WAR

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR
GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARM-
AMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

Notice the word COMPLETE

Tyrone
04-02-2013, 8:17 AM
To those who say the UN statements and proposed treaties will have no effect here in the U.S. I take it then that you too affirmatively oppose such statements and proposed treaties and are merely disagreeing with the impact such may have? If not, please tell us why you support such statements and proposed treaties, why the US should join, and why the US Senate should ratify...

CDFingers
04-02-2013, 8:58 AM
In a country with a free press, "statements" are just that. With no enforcement capabilities, it's just a policy paper.

I do realize, however, that those who worship sweaty pundits have little concept of free expression unless they agree with that sweaty statement...

This is why I like to understand that freedom is untidy. Get used to it.

CDFingers

sholling
04-02-2013, 9:00 AM
This morning the UN General Assembly voted to approve the arms trade treaty so our smug internationalists and semi-antis can be happy - international arms sales by the law abiding will be restricted.

http://news.channelone.com/ap/UN-adopts-treaty-to-regulate-global-arms-trade-58425404-fm

M14 Junkie
04-02-2013, 9:24 AM
Does this mean that milsurp ammo from other countries will be forever gone?

ja308
04-02-2013, 9:24 AM
"The treaty prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. It also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals."

Does this mean what it says?

KON5T
04-02-2013, 9:35 AM
In a country with a free press, "statements" are just that. With no enforcement capabilities, it's just a policy paper.

I do realize, however, that those who worship sweaty pundits have little concept of free expression unless they agree with that sweaty statement...

This is why I like to understand that freedom is untidy. Get used to it.

CDFingers

what free press would that be exactly? the free press that is told what to print and censor? perhaps you could give me some idea which agencies you consider to be "free" ?

njineermike
04-02-2013, 10:13 AM
In a country with a free press, "statements" are just that. With no enforcement capabilities, it's just a policy paper.

I do realize, however, that those who worship sweaty pundits have little concept of free expression unless they agree with that sweaty statement...

This is why I like to understand that freedom is untidy. Get used to it.

CDFingers

Why don't you use the phrase "freedom is untidy" when it's a republican policy?

liketoshoot
04-02-2013, 10:28 AM
"
The National Rifle Association has portrayed the draft treaty as a threat to gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and has lobbied to defeat the proposal at the U.N. The NRA last week praised the Senate’s passage of an amendment to the Democratic budget proposal that would prevent the U.S. from entering into the treaty.



The treaty will supposedly deal primarily with illegal shipments of arms to war torn countries, but it is yet to be seen how it might affect the availability of international weapons in the US and private gun ownership around the world.

Any treaty signed by the US must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate by law."

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/breaking-video-un-overwhelmingly-approves-small-arms-treaty/#



and full art. here; http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/02/un-adopts-pact-to-regulate-multibillion-dollar-global-arms-trade/

J.D.Allen
04-02-2013, 10:49 AM
Wait, wait. Maybe we're all looking at this the wrong way. If we all of a sudden have problems getting Glocks, Berettas, CZ's and HK's I can see sales of Ruger, Colt and S&W skyrocketing.

See, what Obama is really doing is showing his protectionist roots. It's a kind of a back door excise tax or tariff. :D

KON5T
04-02-2013, 11:17 AM
Wait, wait. Maybe we're all looking at this the wrong way. If we all of a sudden have problems getting Glocks, Berettas, CZ's and HK's I can see sales of Ruger, Colt and S&W skyrocketing.

See, what Obama is really doing is showing his protectionist roots. It's a kind of a back door excise tax or tariff. :D

hmmmm ruger, hmmmmm

Dorsai58
04-02-2013, 12:38 PM
I think it's past time that America withdrew from the UN, takes back the building in NY and forces them to meet somewhere else out of our country. It ought to make a whole bunch of other countries happy, considering how much they tell us they hate us while they are enjoy our hospitality. It would certainly make me happy, and make the whole identifying blue helmets as target thing easier to understand.

Meplat
04-02-2013, 1:23 PM
The gen assembly doesn't carry any force of law in the US right. Need the Senate to vote on it?

It is easy to not vote to ratify. It is harder to impeach a popular president that decides to enforce its provisions anyway. Stopping this in the congress would require affirmative action and courage; don't hold your breath.

ja308
04-02-2013, 1:30 PM
It is easy to not vote to ratify. It is harder to impeach a popular president that decides to enforce its provisions anyway. Stopping this in the congress would require affirmative action and courage; don't hold your breath.


What has this congress passed that you disapprove of?

Since GOP took control ,I can think of nothing!

KON5T
04-02-2013, 1:44 PM
What has this congress passed that you disapprove of?

Since GOP took control ,I can think of nothing!

You approve of the monsanto protection act?

Meplat
04-02-2013, 2:11 PM
So what happens when they come on U.S. soil. do you honestly think people will do something? I hope they do and I hope I am wrong when I say this but other than vets and nationalist people I don't see Americans doing a darn thing. People keep electing representatives that just give the American people the shaft so why would they do anything other than say oh my gosh.
How would the American people come together and do something if such a thing were to happen?

Coming together would be a mistake.

Tyrone
04-02-2013, 10:00 PM
In a country with a free press, "statements" are just that. With no enforcement capabilities, it's just a policy paper.

I do realize, however, that those who worship sweaty pundits have little concept of free expression unless they agree with that sweaty statement...

This is why I like to understand that freedom is untidy. Get used to it.

CDFingers

I am quite fine with freedom being untidy. However, you dodged the questions of whether you agree or disagree with the statements and proposed UN arms treaty and if you actually agree, why. That statements are unenforceable is not the point since those statements (position papers) do show where they (UN) are coming from. Ignoring such statements and pretending they don't exist because they are unenforceable would be a mistake. Not sure what you mean by worshiping sweaty pundits or having little concept of free expression.

VegasND
04-03-2013, 7:19 PM
This treaty will probably provide the power to severely restrict international trade in civilian arms and ammunition. The US won't need to block it because the other nations won't allow its export to other countries including the USA.

But the Senate doesn't need to ratify for that to happen -- so the statists who misrepresent everything can smugly say it didn't affect the US internally. In that way they can make our freedom less untidy and more like the "freeing slavery" they crave.
Does this mean that milsurp ammo from other countries will be forever gone?

CaliforniaLiberal
10-22-2013, 8:45 PM
It's Alive! Necrothread is Alive!!


Questions.

Anybody hear anything about the supply of imported firearms to the US being cut off due to the UN Arms Trade Treaty?

Glock? HK? Sig Sauer? Philippine .45s, Beretta? Benelli? FN? Century Arms or other Mosin importers? Stoeger, Taurus, Walther?

How about Eastern European ammunition?

I'm not seeing any change. No Mosin Nagant Bubble.


And also, anyone know what happened to CD Fingers?

baggss
10-22-2013, 9:02 PM
Presidents do this all the time. Sign treaties and then they have to convince Congress to ratify it. If they fail, the government has no power to enforce the properties of the treaty. The treaty is non-binding, regardless of what the President may desire, until ratified.

Example: Woodrow Wilson signed the Treaty Of Versailles in 1919, but Congress failed to ratify it. Technically the US never finished WW 1 and the US never joined Wilson's League of Nations. The first had zero impact on the post war reality, the second had potential huge impacts on the post war world.

dustoff31
10-22-2013, 9:19 PM
Presidents do this all the time. Sign treaties and then they have to convince Congress to ratify it. If they fail, the government has no power to enforce the properties of the treaty. The treaty is non-binding, regardless of what the President may desire, until ratified.

Example: Woodrow Wilson signed the Treaty Of Versailles in 1919, but Congress failed to ratify it. Technically the US never finished WW 1 and the US never joined Wilson's League of Nations. The first had zero impact on the post war reality, the second had potential huge impacts on the post war world.

While the Treaty of Versailles was rejected by Congress, we did officially end the war by signing and ratifying a separate peace treaty with Germany in August of 1921.

arsilva32
10-22-2013, 9:34 PM
Some people, it seems, just want to be freaked out over something. :rolleyes:

Do you really think that the UN is going to send troops to disarm us? Please...you're really not paying attention, there are better ways to do it, and despite what some of you must think, those in power are not stupid.


correct , those that put them in power are stupid!


so even if the worst occurred,our law enforcement and military would just stand aside and let the un come in and enforce this? like we could not do it ourselves? when did the un pkf become so badazz it could out due the us military. i would think our own government would do any enforcing or gun grabbing needed to comply.

njineermike
10-22-2013, 10:13 PM
It's Alive! Necrothread is Alive!!


Questions.

Anybody hear anything about the supply of imported firearms to the US being cut off due to the UN Arms Trade Treaty?

Glock? HK? Sig Sauer? Philippine .45s, Beretta? Benelli? FN? Century Arms or other Mosin importers? Stoeger, Taurus, Walther?

How about Eastern European ammunition?

I'm not seeing any change. No Mosin Nagant Bubble.


And also, anyone know what happened to CD Fingers?

Maybe he got banned for necroposting threads so he could act like a douche.

Maybe not.

CaliforniaLiberal
10-23-2013, 12:56 AM
Maybe he got banned for necroposting threads so he could act like a douche.

Maybe not.


And there it is right under his name.

CD Fingers
banned

I've never observed that acting like a douche was a consistent way to get banned on CalGuns.



But my first question remains.

There were many confident predictions that the UN ATT would result in the loss of access to International Firearms and ammo by US Citizens.

I'm starting to wonder if this was senseless panic by those who believe that the UN is a significant force in our world, poised to invade and trample the rights of honest, decent US Citizens who would take to the woods bravely harassing and sniping at the evil blue helmeted, jack booted thugs.

It's always easier to see clearly in hindsight. I was hoping for a little hindsight here.

sl0re10
10-23-2013, 6:28 AM
That's an ignorant thing to say if you know anything about history.

Plus, I have family members who wore that helmet. I don't appreciate your incredibly stupid and insulting call for murder.

Not to mention, this treaty will never be ratified by the US, and would not have any effect on domestic policy. So cut if off.

A: Its crazy to think they'd end up here in force
B: If they did; you'd be shooting at them with us... so lighten up. :)

sl0re10
10-23-2013, 6:33 AM
It is easy to not vote to ratify. It is harder to impeach a popular president that decides to enforce its provisions anyway. Stopping this in the congress would require affirmative action and courage; don't hold your breath.

true... but wouldn't citizens affected have standing in addition to congress?

njineermike
10-23-2013, 7:27 AM
And there it is right under his name.

CD Fingers
banned

I've never observed that acting like a douche was a consistent way to get banned on CalGuns.



But my first question remains.

There were many confident predictions that the UN ATT would result in the loss of access to International Firearms and ammo by US Citizens.

I'm starting to wonder if this was senseless panic by those who believe that the UN is a significant force in our world, poised to invade and trample the rights of honest, decent US Citizens who would take to the woods bravely harassing and sniping at the evil blue helmeted, jack booted thugs.

It's always easier to see clearly in hindsight. I was hoping for a little hindsight here.


So, in the 6 monhs since it became an issue, you think should have been plenty of time, and since there is no panic, there is no threat.

Artema
10-23-2013, 7:33 AM
My father wore that helmet.

And it is never OK to advocate murder.

Resisting oppression is not murder. However I'm not one of the people who are all anti-UN. Just saying that if they came here and started seizing constitutionally protected equipment, it would open them up to legal resistance.

Mitch
10-23-2013, 7:44 AM
Did I somehow give you the impression your opinion means jack squat to me? Let me rectify that. I don't give a rats *** what you or anybody else thinks of my opinion about the repercussions of bringing FOREIGN INVADING MILITARY ON US SOIL..

http://images.wikia.com/dragonball/images/a/a7/Facepalm_227785.jpg

<plonk>

A: Its crazy to think they'd end up here in force

Yeah, seriously "you shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms" level crazy. It really makes you wonder about some of the people around here.

a1c
10-23-2013, 9:12 AM
Resisting oppression is not murder. However I'm not one of the people who are all anti-UN. Just saying that if they came here and started seizing constitutionally protected equipment, it would open them up to legal resistance.

:facepalm:

furyous68
10-23-2013, 9:44 AM
SOB... gotta remind myself to look at the date of the thread!

CaliforniaLiberal
10-23-2013, 6:18 PM
So, in the 6 monhs since it became an issue, you think should have been plenty of time, and since there is no panic, there is no threat.


So, you're thinking there hasn't been enough for this impending threat to come to pass?

You have a general, ballpark idea of how much longer it will take? Another year? Two?

zimmj
10-23-2013, 8:30 PM
From what I understand even if not ratified now, It can sit for decades and then be ratified when they have the 2/3 required. This bad and it will never go away.

Springfield45
10-23-2013, 11:34 PM
Baby blue helmets make great targets

My father wore that helmet.

And it is never OK to advocate murder.

http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mRSh8j6u1vWLnd6SCpAQlUA.jpg

I have worn that helmet myself. I still have my blue beret if you want to see it. And I agree with njineermike. The UN is the most corrupt organization ever. Lock and Load.

njineermike
10-24-2013, 8:27 AM
So, you're thinking there hasn't been enough for this impending threat to come to pass?

You have a general, ballpark idea of how much longer it will take? Another year? Two?


How do people refuse to see a group with a proven track record of doing this sort of thing as a danger? Every nation the UN "helps" with peacekeeping, it has attempted to disarm civilians first. Do you think Feinstien, Schumer and their ilk won't try and pass yet another gun control bill next year? Or the year after that? You think they don't want the nation disarmed? Do you think they'll ignore a chance to use questionable legislative means to achieve their aims? You think these people aren't patient? You think they won't use this as some excuse to pass a law despite public opinion or constitutionality?

Your sig line says you are pro-2A, you see how often the threats happen, especially in this state, and yet ignore it when it's right in front of you.

KON5T
10-24-2013, 2:33 PM
How do people refuse to see a group with a proven track record of doing this sort of thing as a danger? Every nation the UN "helps" with peacekeeping, it has attempted to disarm civilians first. Do you think Feinstien, Schumer and their ilk won't try and pass yet another gun control bill next year? Or the year after that? You think they don't want the nation disarmed? Do you think they'll ignore a chance to use questionable legislative means to achieve their aims? You think these people aren't patient? You think they won't use this as some excuse to pass a law despite public opinion or constitutionality?

Your sig line says you are pro-2A, you see how often the threats happen, especially in this state, and yet ignore it when it's right in front of you.

For proof that the UN can get its claws into the US mainland, you need only look to the war on drugs, that exists because of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics, with the US signed up for. And of course that was the most wonderfully successful treatise evah (sic)

baggss
10-24-2013, 3:39 PM
While the Treaty of Versailles was rejected by Congress, we did officially end the war by signing and ratifying a separate peace treaty with Germany in August of 1921.

You are correct sir! :D

QQQ
10-24-2013, 5:31 PM
That's an ignorant thing to say if you know anything about history.

Plus, I have family members who wore that helmet. I don't appreciate your incredibly stupid and insulting call for murder.

Not to mention, this treaty will never be ratified by the US, and would not have any effect on domestic policy. So cut if off.

If you know much about the UN's "peacekeeping" operations, you'd know the atrocities that they not only allowed to happen, but also committed and continue to commit.

dwightlooi
10-24-2013, 6:05 PM
What he means is that "the appointee" of the Obama Administration would vote yes. This means nothing as treaties have to be ratified by Congress. And the current congress wouldn't ratify any such nonsense. You need a 2/3rds majority of YES votes in the senate. And, today, there isn't that many Demoncrats in there.


Treaties that are ratified can also be withdrawn from regardless of the terms if future congresses deem it to not be in the best interest of the the nation. Regardless of what the other signatories think, there is nothing they can do and there is nothing the UN can do unless they want to declare war on the USA. There is no such thing a "true international law" because there is no such thing as an international court or enforcement mechanism to force obedience or compliance from a strong nation. Basically a nation can sign whatever treaty and break whatever treaty, and say "screw you" to anyone and anything. The only recourse is to go to war and win against it. Short of that, countries can do whatever they want. The USA will be free only so long as the USA is strong.

CaliforniaLiberal
10-24-2013, 9:33 PM
How do people refuse to see a group with a proven track record of doing this sort of thing as a danger? Every nation the UN "helps" with peacekeeping, it has attempted to disarm civilians first. Do you think Feinstien, Schumer and their ilk won't try and pass yet another gun control bill next year? Or the year after that? You think they don't want the nation disarmed? Do you think they'll ignore a chance to use questionable legislative means to achieve their aims? You think these people aren't patient? You think they won't use this as some excuse to pass a law despite public opinion or constitutionality?

Your sig line says you are pro-2A, you see how often the threats happen, especially in this state, and yet ignore it when it's right in front of you.


I see many threats to the 2nd Amendment and our rights to own and carry firearms. The worst of them are right here in the CA Legislature.

I don't see the UN as one of these threats. They are not a very effective organization. They have little power and little focus. They make lots and lots of 3rd rate speeches but sometimes can gather data well and make useful reports on the world condition. They assist refugees from wars and famines with mixed effectiveness. They coordinate the assistance of a few thousands of soldiers from volunteer countries to assist in suppressing small local wars.

A military invasion of the US by "UN troops" is preposterous, just a popular conspiracy barfed out by creepy, stupid radio personalities. Likewise, the UN has no influence on US foreign or domestic policy.

The UN is not worth the time and effort of 2nd Amendment activists. There are plenty enough real threats.

(In My Humble Opinion)

njineermike
10-25-2013, 8:02 AM
I see many threats to the 2nd Amendment and our rights to own and carry firearms. The worst of them are right here in the CA Legislature.

I don't see the UN as one of these threats. They are not a very effective organization. They have little power and little focus. They make lots and lots of 3rd rate speeches but sometimes can gather data well and make useful reports on the world condition. They assist refugees from wars and famines with mixed effectiveness. They coordinate the assistance of a few thousands of soldiers from volunteer countries to assist in suppressing small local wars.

A military invasion of the US by "UN troops" is preposterous, just a popular conspiracy barfed out by creepy, stupid radio personalities. Likewise, the UN has no influence on US foreign or domestic policy.

The UN is not worth the time and effort of 2nd Amendment activists. There are plenty enough real threats.

(In My Humble Opinion)

I'll use small words this time: It's an excuse the bad people will use when they get the chance.

jonzer77
10-25-2013, 9:06 AM
I see many threats to the 2nd Amendment and our rights to own and carry firearms. The worst of them are right here in the CA Legislature.

I don't see the UN as one of these threats. They are not a very effective organization. They have little power and little focus. They make lots and lots of 3rd rate speeches but sometimes can gather data well and make useful reports on the world condition. They assist refugees from wars and famines with mixed effectiveness. They coordinate the assistance of a few thousands of soldiers from volunteer countries to assist in suppressing small local wars.

A military invasion of the US by "UN troops" is preposterous, just a popular conspiracy barfed out by creepy, stupid radio personalities. Likewise, the UN has no influence on US foreign or domestic policy.

The UN is not worth the time and effort of 2nd Amendment activists. There are plenty enough real threats.

(In My Humble Opinion)

Yes there are plenty of threats and we call them liberal democrat politicians and the same people that vote them into power. You get the government that you vote for.

a1c
10-25-2013, 1:11 PM
If you know much about the UN's "peacekeeping" operations, you'd know the atrocities that they not only allowed to happen, but also committed and continue to commit.

I'm well aware of that, but I'm also pretty wary of quick generalizations. Plenty of atrocities have been committed during peacekeeping operations. Plenty have also been avoided because of them. You make it sound like blue helmets deserve a bullet because some of them have proven corrupt and criminal.

That's exactly how the taliban and Al-Qaeda justify killing U.S. troops and civilians just because a few bad apples took some stupid pictures in an Iraqi prison.

Let's put things in perspective - the U.N. is a red herring when it comes to our 2A rights. It's not threatening us. The U.N. is toothless over U.S. domestic politics. I don't care what the conspiracy theorists can babble about Agenda 21 and all their crap. It's not worth our time and energy. We need to focus on Sacramento and electing pro-2A candidates.

jonzer77
10-25-2013, 1:43 PM
I'm well aware of that, but I'm also pretty wary of quick generalizations. Plenty of atrocities have been committed during peacekeeping operations. Plenty have also been avoided because of them. You make it sound like blue helmets deserve a bullet because some of them have proven corrupt and criminal.

That's exactly how the taliban and Al-Qaeda justify killing U.S. troops and civilians just because a few bad apples took some stupid pictures in an Iraqi prison.

Let's put things in perspective - the U.N. is a red herring when it comes to our 2A rights. It's not threatening us. The U.N. is toothless over U.S. domestic politics. I don't care what the conspiracy theorists can babble about Agenda 21 and all their crap. It's not worth our time and energy. We need to focus on Sacramento and electing pro-2A candidates.

IF the UN ever stepped foot on American soil as an enemy then yes, they would deserve holes in there baby blue helmets......I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

Now do I think it will ever come to that? Most likely not but I not really surprised by things anymore.

a1c
10-25-2013, 2:20 PM
IF the UN ever stepped foot on American soil as an enemy then yes, they would deserve holes in there baby blue helmets......I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

But that's the thing. That's science fiction. Why are we even talking about that stupid scenario?

rootuser
10-25-2013, 2:23 PM
IF the UN ever stepped foot on American soil as an enemy then yes, they would deserve holes in there baby blue helmets......I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

Now do I think it will ever come to that? Most likely not but I not really surprised by things anymore.

Remember, that Judge Head in Texas foretold of the impending Civil War and UN Troops landing on American soil. He said he would stand in front of the armored personnel carriers. I am armed and prepared. I am ready to defend my country at all costs. But where is the Civil War and the blue helmeted thugs invading the beaches and driving in through Mexico? Our sovereignty was supposed to be handed over by now, I'm still waiting........

a1c
10-25-2013, 2:33 PM
Remember, that Judge Head in Texas foretold of the impending Civil War and UN Troops landing on American soil. He said he would stand in front of the armored personnel carriers. I am armed and prepared. I am ready to defend my country at all costs. But where is the Civil War and the blue helmeted thugs invading the beaches and driving in through Mexico? Our sovereignty was supposed to be handed over by now, I'm still waiting........

I can't believe you'd give any credit to that crackpot's ramblings.

Mitch
10-25-2013, 2:57 PM
But where is the Civil War and the blue helmeted thugs invading the beaches and driving in through Mexico? Our sovereignty was supposed to be handed over by now, I'm still waiting........

You're waiting? I'm still waiting for the Vietcong to show up in my backyard.

njineermike
10-25-2013, 3:02 PM
You're waiting? I'm still waiting for the Vietcong to show up in my backyard.

Ever been to Garden Grove?

rootuser
10-25-2013, 3:25 PM
I can't believe you'd give any credit to that crackpot's ramblings.

What more credit do you need than he is a judge? In the land of milk, honey freedom and the cradle of the truths we hold self evident (Texas)? I don't think there are ANY crackpot judges in Texas, there are only liberal, democrat, communist, spineless jellyfish in California that refuse to listen to reason. OUR SOVERIENTY IS AT STAKE! DON'T YOU SEE! The warships are gathering off our coasts. They must be, Judge Head said so!

You're waiting? I'm still waiting for the Vietcong to show up in my backyard.

LOL my father would agree with you.


Ever been to Garden Grove?

:D

2761377
10-25-2013, 4:58 PM
the immediate threat to the 2a stems from domestic political considerations.

it gives the democraps another anti-2a plank for their platform. now they just have to pitch it to our famously intelligent and informed electorate to get something else to hammer the GOP.

a1c
10-25-2013, 5:41 PM
What more credit do you need than he is a judge? In the land of milk, honey freedom and the cradle of the truths we hold self evident (Texas)? I don't think there are ANY crackpot judges in Texas, there are only liberal, democrat, communist, spineless jellyfish in California that refuse to listen to reason. OUR SOVERIENTY IS AT STAKE! DON'T YOU SEE! The warships are gathering off our coasts. They must be, Judge Head said so!

Oh, I see. So the fact that he's a judge automatically means you should take his word for granted? How can you be so naive? How can you be such a sheep?

And because he's from Texas, that basically makes him above reproach? There are good judges in Texas, and then there are bad ones. And crackpots. Here is a Texas judge for you:
http://boingboing.net/2013/10/25/texass-texting-judge-res.html

jwkincal
10-25-2013, 6:28 PM
pstt... a1:

root was being facetious

rootuser
10-25-2013, 10:13 PM
Oh, I see. So the fact that he's a judge automatically means you should take his word for granted? How can you be so naive? How can you be such a sheep?

And because he's from Texas, that basically makes him above reproach? There are good judges in Texas, and then there are bad ones. And crackpots. Here is a Texas judge for you:
http://boingboing.net/2013/10/25/texass-texting-judge-res.html

You're killing me Smalls. :facepalm:

Clearly I am not serious, but perhaps the fault is not yours for missing the tone of my post, but because they are actually enough of these types of posts that are serious around here to make ya wonder :D

Even the "distinguished" Judge Head later said he might have gone overboard heh.

a1c
10-26-2013, 12:39 AM
You're killing me Smalls. :facepalm:

Clearly I am not serious, but perhaps the fault is not yours for missing the tone of my post, but because they are actually enough of these types of posts that are serious around here to make ya wonder :D

Even the "distinguished" Judge Head later said he might have gone overboard heh.

Ha. Yeah, you got me. I missed the sarcasm. Damn it. :D

turinreza
10-26-2013, 1:43 AM
deleted

JDay
10-26-2013, 4:43 PM
Just saw this good news.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2013/10/26/democratic-senators-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty-n1730863

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Doggboy
10-26-2013, 4:59 PM
So much back and forth on whether the treaty will be ratified, if the UN would ever send troops, will this restrict ammo and foreign gun imports...ect.

Lets look at this a little more big picture. The UN is no friend to our rights as Americans, and such a treaty whether you believe it matters or not should be looked at with contempt. As such any politician who endorses it or supports it, is the issue.

I may have a tin foil hat, but people like George Soros and Bill Ayers have long said they want to destroy America and rebuild it in their image. This administration (with direct ties to both of the afore mentioned men) has already shown their opinion of what authority the Constitution holds. While this treaty realistically isn't the straw that breaks the camels back, it is a piece in the structure of thier desired World Government. To say it can't happen here is extremely naive, especially for a group so well versed in history.

Oh, yeah...for those of you who say the UN could never send troops, then mention that family wore the blue helmet IN THE US ARMY should realize that the troops are already here...its called Home Land Security. They are armed to the teeth, already in all major cities and answer only the the Federal Government. They may not be sent out with the blue helmet on, but you can be sure this administration would use them for enforcement.

SCWatson
10-26-2013, 7:40 PM
Hi folks, it's probably already been said, but I'll just provide y'all with what I understand about the ATT.

point 1)
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by Secretary of State J. Kerry (as you all already know). The U.S. Senate will never sign it! at least for the foreseeable future, however the treaty has no expiry date - which means that once the U.S. is a signatory of the treaty (which it is now) it is valid for eternity, the U.S. Senate can attempt to ratify it when ever they want - even in 200 years from now.

point 2)
The threat of the United Nations and it's various arms treaties is often misunderstood, men in blue helmets will never come and knock on your door, the tactics of the anti-2nd Amendment lawmakers will be to use the ATT as a justification to approve tyrannical legislation because:
"oh eh we uh signed the treaty so as a responsible international player it is our duty to up hold and enforce the treaty, to do so uh we must uh pass the following laws..."

Point 3)
The immediate and unavoidable threat of the treaty is that arms manufacturers that make some of your favorite foreign firearms in places such as Italy, Germany and Austria may be told that they cannot trade with America because the U.S. is violating the treaty.
You might not care much for foreign guns like H&K but the problem is that the vast majority of American Made guns have foreign parts in it. So think about the complications...

Point 4)
the U.S. already has some of the toughest import/export standards in the world. The Treaty will raise the standard required of America's international competitors.

I hope I helped some've y'all out!

njineermike
10-27-2013, 10:19 AM
Just saw this good news.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2013/10/26/democratic-senators-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty-n1730863

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


If it's so "worthless", why are these senators taking it seriously?

donw
10-27-2013, 10:28 AM
imo...we should get out of the UN...turn the un complex into a center for the homeless a hospital, a library, school...whatever...

a1c
10-27-2013, 11:50 AM
If it's so "worthless", why are these senators taking it seriously?

Because they need money to get reelected, and there's nothing like the specter of some Red Dawn invasion to get some of their constituents all pissed off and feel like their senator is voicing their anger.

Rickrock1
10-27-2013, 12:21 PM
Another reason not to keep your eggs all in one basket including you hay they need for support.

njineermike
10-27-2013, 1:21 PM
Because they need money to get reelected, and there's nothing like the specter of some Red Dawn invasion to get some of their constituents all pissed off and feel like their senator is voicing their anger.

They must "political amateurs". We should instead listen to some clown on the internet.

QQQ
10-27-2013, 6:16 PM
So much back and forth on whether the treaty will be ratified, if the UN would ever send troops, will this restrict ammo and foreign gun imports...ect.

Lets look at this a little more big picture. The UN is no friend to our rights as Americans, and such a treaty whether you believe it matters or not should be looked at with contempt. As such any politician who endorses it or supports it, is the issue.

I may have a tin foil hat, but people like George Soros and Bill Ayers have long said they want to destroy America and rebuild it in their image. This administration (with direct ties to both of the afore mentioned men) has already shown their opinion of what authority the Constitution holds. While this treaty realistically isn't the straw that breaks the camels back, it is a piece in the structure of thier desired World Government. To say it can't happen here is extremely naive, especially for a group so well versed in history.

Oh, yeah...for those of you who say the UN could never send troops, then mention that family wore the blue helmet IN THE US ARMY should realize that the troops are already here...its called Home Land Security. They are armed to the teeth, already in all major cities and answer only the the Federal Government. They may not be sent out with the blue helmet on, but you can be sure this administration would use them for enforcement.

Black helmets can make okay targets, too.

SCWatson
10-27-2013, 11:22 PM
Black helmets can make okay targets, too.

You raise good points, When I say that the U.N. won't send troops, I mean that there will be no foreign peace keepers in U.N. uniform.

rootuser
10-27-2013, 11:25 PM
You raise good points, When I say that the U.N. won't send troops, I mean that there will be no foreign peace keepers in U.N. uniform.

Yep. Not to mention HLS =/ U.N. Ask anyone that works there how endeared they are to the U.N. They won't be taking their orders from the U.N. that is for certain.