PDA

View Full Version : Kerry signs UN weapons ban


JustEd
09-24-2013, 3:45 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/?intcmp=HPBucket

btw, it doesn't matter if it is ratified or not, the UN still considers Kerry's signature as agreeing to the terms of the treaty.

RMP91
09-24-2013, 4:13 PM
No Senate ratification (which, is next to impossible) = Words on a piece of paper and nothing more.

The other nations that sign, however... For C&R/Import/Parts kit guys, this *might* be the "Kiss of Death". However, from my understanding of it at least 50+ nations have to sign it in order for it to be in effect and it would be a pointless treaty if even one of the major arms exporting countries (USA, Brazil, Russia, China, France, Germany, Italy, UK, Czech Republic etc.) doesn't sign.

JustEd
09-24-2013, 4:57 PM
Sure we can bluster about it not getting ratified, doesn't mean the UN can't put pressure on the U.S. to adhere to the treaty terms.

G-Man WC
09-24-2013, 5:28 PM
F*** the UN. They need to go police a 3rd world country
where they can boss people around. -g

njineermike
09-24-2013, 5:37 PM
Sure we can bluster about it not getting ratified, doesn't mean the UN can't put pressure on the U.S. to adhere to the treaty terms.

A sternly worded memo wih a vague discussion about convening a committee to debate the wording of a letter regarding the possibility of drafting a preliminary text of a resolution to have a vote on condemning our actions is something we should all take seriously. It could result in a list of some sort.

big jim
09-24-2013, 7:59 PM
Can we get some buses together and some other 2a forums signed on and go occupy the un?

LoneYote
09-24-2013, 8:18 PM
A sternly worded memo wih a vague discussion about convening a committee to debate the wording of a letter regarding the possibility of drafting a preliminary text of a resolution to have a vote on condemning our actions is something we should all take seriously. It could result in a list of some sort.

Hilarious!!

SWalt
09-24-2013, 8:31 PM
No Senate ratification (which, is next to impossible) = Words on a piece of paper and nothing more.

The other nations that sign, however... For C&R/Import/Parts kit guys, this *might* be the "Kiss of Death". However, from my understanding of it at least 50+ nations have to sign it in order for it to be in effect and it would be a pointless treaty if even one of the major arms exporting countries (USA, Brazil, Russia, China, France, Germany, Italy, UK, Czech Republic etc.) doesn't sign.

You mean at this current time. Obozo signs it and it sits until a time when it can be ratified by a future senate.

SonofWWIIDI
09-24-2013, 8:32 PM
A sternly worded memo wih a vague discussion about convening a committee to debate the wording of a letter regarding the possibility of drafting a preliminary text of a resolution to have a vote on condemning our actions is something we should all take seriously. It could result in a list of some sort.

Truth is usually the funniest sort of comedy...and you got a pile of truth right there!!! Awesome!!!
:D

JustEd
09-24-2013, 9:10 PM
A sternly worded memo wih a vague discussion about convening a committee to debate the wording of a letter regarding the possibility of drafting a preliminary text of a resolution to have a vote on condemning our actions is something we should all take seriously. It could result in a list of some sort.

Yeah, you go work on that. Remember to spell check!:)

JustEd
09-24-2013, 9:12 PM
You mean at this current time. Obozo signs it and it sits until a time when it can be ratified by a future senate.

Yeppers! And in the meantime Barry the Clown can have the DOJ act as if we have ratified this pos.

SWalt
09-24-2013, 10:23 PM
Yeppers! And in the meantime Barry the Clown can have the DOJ act as if we have ratified this pos.

Exactly. All one has to do is think what he has done to the importation of Korean Garrands. Didn't even need a treaty to do that. Plus the US can accommodate other countries wishes and do it through policy. The president is the chief executive and gets to nominate who the agency's head will be. He gets his guys in there and suddenly his vision become the guiding principals with which the agency decides policy and interpretation of the laws on the books. That is how the game is played. A unratified treaty? No sweat. When SCOTUS told obama that his "recess appointments" for the NRLB were unconstitutional, what happened? Absolutely nothing, his appointments are still there guiding the agency. There is NO entity that can force a president to follow law. Think eric holder would enforce SCOTUS' ruling? Congress? Only through impeachment and its not like that would happen to right a wrong done to gun owners.

voiceofreason
09-24-2013, 11:12 PM
Incrementally moving toward their goal.

The Democrats have sold out this great country of ours in every way possible.

From not enforcing immigration laws, to encouraging a welfare state, to ceding control of sovereign power to other countries...

I dislike Republicans as they're not much different, just doing it slower.

Politicians are the new upper class in our society.

Why do we keep voting these clowns in?

You don't get a $1M+ war chest by being a good guy taking care of constituents... you get that be becoming beholden to groups and corporate interests.

POLICESTATE
09-24-2013, 11:25 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/?intcmp=HPBucket

btw, it doesn't matter if it is ratified or not, the UN still considers Kerry's signature as agreeing to the terms of the treaty.


It doesn't matter what the UN thinks of it. They can go suck ***.

wjc
09-25-2013, 2:08 AM
That reminds me....I need to buy more rope.

JustEd
09-25-2013, 6:38 AM
Exactly. All one has to do is think what he has done to the importation of Korean Garrands. Didn't even need a treaty to do that. Plus the US can accommodate other countries wishes and do it through policy. The president is the chief executive and gets to nominate who the agency's head will be. He gets his guys in there and suddenly his vision become the guiding principals with which the agency decides policy and interpretation of the laws on the books. That is how the game is played. A unratified treaty? No sweat. When SCOTUS told obama that his "recess appointments" for the NRLB were unconstitutional, what happened? Absolutely nothing, his appointments are still there guiding the agency. There is NO entity that can force a president to follow law. Think eric holder would enforce SCOTUS' ruling? Congress? Only through impeachment and its not like that would happen to right a wrong done to gun owners.

^Yeah, but it's a GOOD OPINION!!!:)

vantec08
09-25-2013, 7:57 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/


Sentor Corker, R-TN, claimed the treaty raises "fundamental issues" concerning "individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Artema
09-25-2013, 7:59 AM
*** ****er can **** my god**** ****.

Lester53
09-25-2013, 8:04 AM
I think we all knew it would happen, but it is still unbelievable.....

L.A. Saiga
09-25-2013, 8:10 AM
so, does this effect importation of combloc kits/ammo?
The treaty DOES mention small arms...it's rather vague though

spruce3311
09-25-2013, 8:18 AM
It needs to be ratified by Congress
It won't pass

bako88fan
09-25-2013, 8:24 AM
*** ****er can **** my god**** ****.

Dude you just made me spit coffee all over my table and I'm at Starbucks. Yours should be post of the day!

The Tiger
09-25-2013, 8:26 AM
Kerry signed it

The Tiger
09-25-2013, 8:48 AM
So does this mean we will stop providing weapons to terrorists in Syria?

USMC VET
09-25-2013, 9:10 AM
It's signed but won't get ratified, I don't see a big problem here. You even have people far on the left saying this is a violation of our rights.

X-NewYawker
09-25-2013, 9:17 AM
So does this mean we will stop providing weapons to terrorists in Syria?

No. Just Domestic terrorists: Americans.

SchooBaka
09-25-2013, 9:21 AM
So does this mean we will stop providing weapons to terrorists in Syria?

That was my thought. Of course it was already illegal.....:mad:
Laws are only for us little people.

Moemoe1
09-25-2013, 9:26 AM
Will this affect HKs, springfields, and other firearms??

POLICESTATE
09-25-2013, 9:35 AM
We'll have to wait and see if it gets ratified by Congress first.

Even so, other countries that have signed on already should probably be stopping exports to civilian markets here as well yes?

USMC VET
09-25-2013, 9:35 AM
This is not ratified therefore it is nothing, how it affects the movement of firearms made outside the US is yet to be seen assuming those countries sign and go along with it, but for us here in America we should see nothing different.

The Gleam
09-25-2013, 9:42 AM
This is not ratified therefore it is nothing, how it affects the movement of firearms made outside the US is yet to be seen assuming those countries sign and go along with it, but for us here in America we should see nothing different.

Correct; but by Kerry signing this, it sends a VERY WRONG message to many other countries that they are wearing us down and making us compliant to their goals, from the UK to Cuba, that we are now under leaders of our country that are ready to allign our laws, economy, healthcare, and our very daily being with the Neosocialists of the world who seek to emulate a certain Gemran Chancellor's ideals from 1933.

It's sickening. This is NOT the message to telegraph by any means, but one should have expected a Socialist shill like Kerry to do something like this. :mad:

BBJohnnyT
09-25-2013, 9:49 AM
It needs to be ratified by Congress
It won't pass
Most likely not... by THIS Congress. The problem is that there is no expiration date on ratifying this treaty. Once it's signed, it's signed and any future Congress can ratify it. So now the specter of this will be hanging over us and could reappear at any time like a bad case of herpes. If the Dems get, God forbid, supermajority control of both Houses, even 50 years from now, it can happen.

dustoff31
09-25-2013, 9:59 AM
We'll have to wait and see if it gets ratified by Congress first.

Even so, other countries that have signed on already should probably be stopping exports to civilian markets here as well yes?

I think this is exactly what will happen. I doubt the treaty will be ratified here, at least for the forseeable future. But as you point out that has no effect at all on other countries, many if not most of whom lack the will or ability to tell the UN to jam it.

Armando de la Guerra
09-25-2013, 10:24 AM
What is a 'rogue actor'? Somebody who doesn't pay union dues to SAG-AFTRA?

JustEd
09-25-2013, 10:42 AM
It's signed but won't get ratified, I don't see a big problem here. You even have people far on the left saying this is a violation of our rights.

Obama agrees with the spirit of the agreement, so you can be sure he will push for legislation to meet its requirements while directing his agencies to assert regulations which help meet compliance.

Obama doesn't need the Constitutional process (my opinion of him).

eric_650
09-25-2013, 10:44 AM
"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes."

So, how regulated are those arms going to be that are being sent Al-Qaeda? This is a circus.

njineermike
09-25-2013, 10:46 AM
Obama agrees with the spirit of the agreement, so you can be sure he will push for legislation to meet its requirements while directing his agencies to assert regulations which help meet compliance.

Obama doesn't need the Constitutional process (my opinion of him).

It's not just your opinion. He's demonstrated a complete disdain for any constitutionally defined law he fells is in direct conflict with his vision of a "new america".

ufcfan83
09-25-2013, 10:47 AM
It's signed but won't get ratified, I don't see a big problem here. You even have people far on the left saying this is a violation of our rights.

I think that is the obvious problem. This is blatantly unconstitutional and treasonous yet our politicians who are signing these articles are not being held accountable by our justice system. That sir, is the big problem. We can not let this go as a moot issue just because of the strong opposition and the probable chance it will fail. These radicals need to be held accountable for their actions. They should not be exempt from justice.

POLICESTATE
09-25-2013, 10:51 AM
"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes."

So, how regulated are those arms going to be that are being sent Al-Qaeda? This is a circus.


Not if the US Government simply states that the people they are supplying arms to are not terrorists or rogue actors. Don't worry, they'll get AK's and stuff that won't be traced back to here, so even if they end up being used in a terrorist act further down the road our hands will be clean.

Hoooper
09-25-2013, 11:02 AM
hopefully Russia doesnt sign it, what will happen to Wolf/Tula/etc????

the86d
09-25-2013, 11:05 AM
Blue-helmet-enforcement might be considered an invasion, and be dealt with accordingly.
Baby-Blue contrasts well, even against black front-sight-posts. ;)

JustEd
09-25-2013, 11:25 AM
Most likely not... by THIS Congress. The problem is that there is no expiration date on ratifying this treaty. Once it's signed, it's signed and any future Congress can ratify it. So now the specter of this will be hanging over us and could reappear at any time like a bad case of herpes. If the Dems get, God forbid, supermajority control of both Houses, even 50 years from now, it can happen.

^Thank you, I tried to make a similar post but it doesn't show up.
In the interim you can bet that Obama will do everything he can to make sure the DOJ and his other agencies work towards compliance.

POLICESTATE
09-25-2013, 11:29 AM
hopefully Russia doesnt sign it, what will happen to Wolf/Tula/etc????

Russia would sign it, and then do what they want. Same for China.

JustEd
09-25-2013, 11:30 AM
btw, Just got a call from the NRA urging a largish donation to help fight ratification. They mentioned that it was like Obama Care where you don't know what's in it until it is law.

Anyway, to all those who say it doesn't matter....apparently the NRA differs.

SaltyDogUSMC
09-25-2013, 11:51 AM
Powder blue helmets make great targets ;)

Rodell
09-25-2013, 12:23 PM
It needs to be ratified by Congress
It won't pass

Yes, and no.

Theodore Bromund, of The Heritage Foundation wrote "It’s commonly said that the Senate has to provide its advice and consent to any treaty – commonly known as ratifying it – before it can take effect. That’s true, but there’s a loophole. Once the U.S. signs a treaty, we hold ourselves bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.” " He went on "In other words, we obey in practice treaties that the Senate has never ratified."

The complete article is at: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/25/un-arms-treaty-will-be-menace-to-us-for-years-to-come/?intcmp=HPBucket

In other words, the administration can behave like it has been ratified, and then actually request ratification when the winds are right. It makes me ill.

MolonLabe2008
09-25-2013, 12:45 PM
Is the Democrat Party that stupid?

This will just be used against them during the 2014 midterms and 2016 Presidential election.

kurac
09-25-2013, 12:48 PM
If the UN wasn't so worthless I would be worried about. They couldn't even condemn Syria because Russia and China wouldn't sign it, and if they did, woopti doo

CalUSMCvet
09-25-2013, 1:02 PM
People, it does matter. Understand, this treaty goes back to the early 60s. They are using time to rid us of the 2a. Listen, we are losing every time someone Saiz, or believes this means nothing. We aren't screwing ourselves, we are screwing our children, their children, and future generations. We need to act now.

Vaktathi
09-25-2013, 1:06 PM
If the UN wasn't so worthless I would be worried about. They couldn't even condemn Syria because Russia and China wouldn't sign it, and if they did, woopti doo

To be fair, it was intentionally made very difficult to get acts of force passed, and all of the founding members insisted on such Veto power. Nobody wants it strong, everyone derides it for being weak :p

Wildhawk66
09-25-2013, 1:10 PM
Is the Democrat Party that stupid?

This will just be used against them during the 2014 midterms and 2016 Presidential election.

I think some of them actually believe the BS polling data they have been spouting this past year.

Here's hoping it comes back to haunt them in a big way at the next election.

rootuser
09-25-2013, 1:13 PM
First it's not law, it's a treaty.

That being said I don't see anywhere this creating any change to the way guns are handled in the U.S., by citizens, or a change to the second amendment. If I were to trade my guns to a despot, I could be held in violation of the treaty (something I would never do anyway, so I think most people are safe on this one).

Can some one actually point out to where this is the end of the second amendment and the blue helmets will be landing? I've been waiting for this impending invasion. Guns and ammo are ready to fight back, just need to know where the landing point will be.

Not that I would ever sign this treaty myself, its worthless toilet paper and should be used accordingly.

Ripon83
09-25-2013, 1:15 PM
It needs to be ratified by Congress
It won't pass

Only the senate correct? Not sure with the democrats in control. Court decisions are in our favor I believe on this topic.

Artema
09-25-2013, 1:17 PM
First it's not law, it's a treaty.

Treaties are treated as international and U.S. law.

POLICESTATE
09-25-2013, 1:21 PM
Is the Democrat Party that stupid?

This will just be used against them during the 2014 midterms and 2016 Presidential election.

Yes they are, and most of the voting base supports the UN more or less. The idea of it anyway.

rootuser
09-25-2013, 1:24 PM
Treaties are treated as international and U.S. law.

Right due to the "law of the land" doctrine, but it's still a treaty. An agreement between nations. So this would be how we do gun trade with other nations, something most of us don't do, not how we do gun trade with each other.

Is that not correct? Please enlighten here, I am getting more concerned as this drags on.

Artema
09-25-2013, 1:26 PM
Right due to the "law of the land" doctrine, but it's still a treaty. An agreement between nations. So this would be how we do gun trade with other nations, something most of us don't do, not how we do gun trade with each other.

Is that not correct? Please enlighten here, I am getting more concerned as this drags on.

What you're saying is true, but a lot of guns are not American made, which is just their way of pinching off a sector. I'm not sure how much it'll affect things.

rootuser
09-25-2013, 1:33 PM
What you're saying is true, but a lot of guns are not American made, which is just their way of pinching off a sector. I'm not sure how much it'll affect things.

AHH ok got it. So I won't expect the UN invasion just yet. Time to rotate the MREs :)

Thank you for clarifications. So if we want to buy an Italian made gun for example, we just have to make sure the world doesn't deem us to be terrorists. Does that about sum it up?

Spyguy
09-25-2013, 1:34 PM
The Democrat Party has been completely overtaken by the "Progressives" (which is merely a palatable euphemism for "Communists"). The Democrat Party does NOT represent the American people at all, yet there are still many here that do not realize this and continue to empower these statists. :mad:

Rodell
09-25-2013, 1:55 PM
AHH ok got it. So I won't expect the UN invasion just yet. Time to rotate the MREs :)

Thank you for clarifications. So if we want to buy an Italian made gun for example, we just have to make sure the world doesn't deem us to be terrorists. Does that about sum it up?

No.

The treaty requires individual nations to have certain controls in place on their own arms and the ones of its citizens. Some would read this as "registration". I happen to subscribe to that. Also, the same applies to ammunition and components. Lots of terms are left vague in the treaty, and, the people in power will interpret them as they see fit - and right now that isn't in our favor.

The Administration has always had the power to ban imports as "non-sporting", but they have an additional tool within this treaty as imports and exports must be (more) carefully controlled.

ap3572001
09-25-2013, 2:16 PM
So does this mean we will stop providing weapons to terrorists in Syria?

LOL. Funny but true.

Spyguy
09-25-2013, 2:22 PM
So does this mean we will stop providing weapons to terrorists in Syria?
Obama will just issue an Executive Order to allow him to continue to arm al Qaeda. I'm sure he'll also issue an EO to allow Eric Holder to continue to arm the drug cartels.

Frito Bandido
09-25-2013, 2:24 PM
A sternly worded memo wih a vague discussion about convening a committee to debate the wording of a letter regarding the possibility of drafting a preliminary text of a resolution to have a vote on condemning our actions is something we should all take seriously. It could result in a list of some sort.

OMG WE'RE DOOMED11!!1!

Interfan
09-25-2013, 2:36 PM
Perhaps AQ will send Kerry a "Genghis Khan ear necklace" as a thank you gift for arming them and attempting to make the case for the US to do their heavy lifting. Kerry lost all credibility 40 years ago. If he hadn't been a serial millionaire/billionaire heiress banger, he would have slipped into the ****can of history years ago. The electorate of Massachusetts are equally as stupid as California's voters with senators.

The UN arms treaty adds one more level of complication to an already complicated system, provided it is ever enforced.

One78Shovel
09-25-2013, 6:05 PM
Bring em all on. California goons and now the UN.

As we used to say

'Time to get bizzzzzzy'

-178S

SunkenShadow
09-25-2013, 6:41 PM
I would normally be tripping out with all of you but this is why I'm not.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

Sakiri
09-25-2013, 6:48 PM
Sure we can bluster about it not getting ratified, doesn't mean the UN can't put pressure on the U.S. to adhere to the treaty terms.

Let them.

It's not ratified.

Neither is Kyoto Protocol, yet we signed it.
Neither is Law of the Sea.

Signature means jack squat without ratification.

Sakiri
09-25-2013, 6:49 PM
You mean at this current time. Obozo signs it and it sits until a time when it can be ratified by a future senate.

If Senate refuses to ratify it, he can't "sit on it".

If it's not ratified by the end of the current session, it's gone.

Sakiri
09-25-2013, 6:59 PM
Yes, and no.

Theodore Bromund, of The Heritage Foundation wrote "It’s commonly said that the Senate has to provide its advice and consent to any treaty – commonly known as ratifying it – before it can take effect. That’s true, but there’s a loophole. Once the U.S. signs a treaty, we hold ourselves bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.” " He went on "In other words, we obey in practice treaties that the Senate has never ratified."

The complete article is at: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/25/un-arms-treaty-will-be-menace-to-us-for-years-to-come/?intcmp=HPBucket

In other words, the administration can behave like it has been ratified, and then actually request ratification when the winds are right. It makes me ill.

Except that another one we "signed" but didn't ratify, the Kyoto Protocol, has not been kept to "object and purpose" because reducing emissions as far as they wanted us to would irreparably damage the United States' economy.

This treaty is bullsh1t, is being signed symbolically, by traitors that are, as far as I know, being paid by the UN itself.

The UN can't even figure out how to wipe their own backside, so why should they get the "right" to dictate how we work? It's like the kids in schools. Let them beat the **** out of each other, establish a pecking order and be done with it. Was how we did it in school 30 years ago.

If they really wanted to adhere to the spirit of the treaty, the UN would reject the United States' signature on the basis that we told Russia and China to GTFO, we're going to bomb Syria, and then proceed to arm militants that are sponsored by terrorists.

They won't do that. They need the "most powerful nation in the world" on that list of supporters to make it look good. Nevermind we're violating it.

JustEd
09-25-2013, 7:36 PM
No.

The treaty requires individual nations to have certain controls in place on their own arms and the ones of its citizens. Some would read this as "registration". I happen to subscribe to that. Also, the same applies to ammunition and components. Lots of terms are left vague in the treaty, and, the people in power will interpret them as they see fit - and right now that isn't in our favor.

The Administration has always had the power to ban imports as "non-sporting", but they have an additional tool within this treaty as imports and exports must be (more) carefully controlled.

^What he said:)

That is indeed how it works.

SOAR79
09-25-2013, 7:38 PM
he's a turd

JustEd
09-25-2013, 7:40 PM
Let them.

It's not ratified.

Neither is Kyoto Protocol, yet we signed it.
Neither is Law of the Sea.

Signature means jack squat without ratification.

To you possibly, to what edicts the POTUS issues from his high and mighty throne.....yes it does! Remember he has the DOJ, FBI and Homeland Security to back up his decisions.

artoaster
09-25-2013, 7:41 PM
Bunch of nothing.

Gutpile66
09-25-2013, 8:24 PM
ufcfan got it right. Treason. We have their oaths. Pretty simple case.

Sakiri
09-25-2013, 10:42 PM
To you possibly, to what edicts the POTUS issues from his high and mighty throne.....yes it does! Remember he has the DOJ, FBI and Homeland Security to back up his decisions.

http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXXX

2. Treaties transmitted by the President to the Senate for ratification shall be resumed at the second or any subsequent session of the same Congress at the stage in which they were left at the final adjournment of the session at which they were transmitted; but all proceedings on treaties shall terminate with the Congress, and they shall be resumed at the commencement of the next Congress as if no proceedings had previously been had thereon.

He has until the end of session to get an answer.

If he decides to try funny business without getting Senate approval, there will be some serious Hell to pay. Government letter agencies don't scare me when the rest of the citizenry has had enough BS.

doctor_vals
09-25-2013, 11:34 PM
So does this mean we will stop providing weapons to terrorists in Syria?

What you mean by that?

Should Kerry be prosecuted as well as Holder and Obomba and put in jail for violation just recently signed document?

SWalt
09-25-2013, 11:57 PM
http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXXX

2. Treaties transmitted by the President to the Senate for ratification shall be resumed at the second or any subsequent session of the same Congress at the stage in which they were left at the final adjournment of the session at which they were transmitted; but all proceedings on treaties shall terminate with the Congress, and they shall be resumed at the commencement of the next Congress as if no proceedings had previously been had thereon.

He has until the end of session to get an answer.

If he decides to try funny business without getting Senate approval, there will be some serious Hell to pay. Government letter agencies don't scare me when the rest of the citizenry has had enough BS.

He has until congress votes Yes or No. Whether its THIS congress or the next or the one following that, it sits until it gets a yes or no vote. So obozo can get more than 1 shot to get it ratified. Or a future president gets a shot at it as long as its never been voted on. It can be decades of it sitting until the most opportune time.

VendetAR
09-26-2013, 12:02 AM
It is vague but I'd imagine it would have very little impact for the US overall since we would be considered well regulated by national standards.

"The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.


Bolded is rifles, hand guns and associated ammunition.

It 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. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.


Well then, that clears it up. We fall under the auspices of most all of those categories, past and/or present.

You cant hand guns to Al Qaeda in Syria, oh Im sorry the "rebels" and them not be used on civilians as well as military.

Our country is what this treaty was written for and Kerry fkn signed it.

Rodell
09-26-2013, 6:51 AM
"To prevent the clandestine export of light weapons to other countries, we will have to account of all of the weapons within our borders, and we will need to have you register every weapon you own. Our budget woes prevent us from registering them all, so every citizen will need to reduce their ownership to no more than three, and others must be turned in to Law Enforcement. "

"It's for the children, you know".

Sailormilan2
09-26-2013, 7:32 AM
http://gunowners.org/n09252013.htm

Wednesday, 25 September 2013 17:10
Written by Mike Hammond
Analysis of the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)

by Mike Hammond

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was scheduled for approval in the UN last year, in July, but was suddenly pulled off the table because Barack Obama thought (correctly) that it would destroy his reelection prospects. Interestingly, in considering Obama’s honesty and motives, the treaty was resurrected within a day or so after the November election.

Given Obama’s record of expansively interpreting statutes -- and even ignoring them -- we have to assume that the ATT would be implemented in the broadest possible manner. And, because under cases interpreting Article I and the Supremacy Clause, a treaty has the force of law, no further congressional action would be necessary for the ATT gun bans and registration to be put into effect.

With this in mind, briefly, the ATT would:

- ban large categories of firearms, including semi-automatics and handguns;

- require universal gun registration and licensure;

- require microstamping and, through that requirement, effectively ban most guns and ammunition.

Preliminary Observations: Preambles are not legally binding

The administration’s primary means of political “cover” consists of items in the preamble that supposedly gives a nod to the existence of the Second Amendment. These items talk about “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory [emphasis added]” and “use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities…”

If anything, these statements, because of their omissions, make things worse than if they hadn’t been included at all. The gun control advocates crafting this treaty, for example, fail, in their finding, to acknowledge the legitimate use of firearms for self-defense. And they understand, but don’t admit, that they will argue that no firearms sales in America are “exclusively” within our territory, given the bleeding of arms across the border to Mexican drug cartels.

But even if the preamble were perfect, as a general rule preambles and findings are meaningless and do not have the force of law. True, a judge intent on reaching a particular outcome can draw from any source that suits his fancy. That said, findings and preambles which are not echoed in the binding language of the text are not worth the paper they’re written on.

Handgun and Semi-Auto Bans

A couple of preliminary observations:

First, Article 2 states that the treaty applies to, inter alia, “Small arms and light weapons.”

Second, Article 1 states that one of the two objects of the treaty is to “[p]revent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms… for the purpose of…[r]educing human suffering.” (No exclusion is made for domestic sales and possession of firearms.) In judging whether or not “illicit” sales are being used as a pretext for regulation of legal sales, note that we have spent all year fighting regulation of LEGAL firearms sales being pushed by an organization which styles itself as Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Third, Article 5 states that “[e]ach State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.” [Emphasis added]

Fourth, the United States, even if it withdraws from the treaty, may “not be discharged, by means of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Treaty while it was a Party…” Hence, the United States could be barred from repealing its national gun registry.

Fifth, under Article 17, the treaty will be interpreted by a Conference of State Parties, and, under Article 20, after six years, can be amended by a three-fourths vote. Although the United States must accept the amendment to be bound, it appears that the acceptance can be accomplished by the unilateral action of the president.

Article 9, purporting to deal with “Transit or trans-shipment,” states: “Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to regulate, where necessary and feasible, the transit…under its jurisdiction of conventional arms…through its territory…”

Note that the breadth of the language of Article 9, which far exceeds its intended purpose: Transport of a gun from California to New York (or even from your home to your place of business) is transportation “through the territory of the United States” -- and appears to be capable of being regulated in any way the Obama administration deems “appropriate.”

Article 9 imposes no limitations whatsoever on the types of regulations which can be imposed, including gun bans and microstamping requirements.

Furthermore, Article 14 provides, in its entirety:

“Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to enforce national laws AND REGULATIONS that implement the provisions of this treaty.” [Emphasis added]

Therefore, if, under Article 9, the government is given a carte blanche to regulate guns, under Article 14, it is authorized to regulate by administrative fiat.

Gun Registration

Article 5 states that “[e]ach State Party shall establish and maintain a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.” The term “national control list” is nowhere defined, which means that the Obama administration will define it. (Take into consideration the effort and political capital Obama has expended in order to establish a de facto gun registry by legislation.)

The article goes on to provide that “[e]ach State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other State Parties.” [Emphasis added]

Finally, Article 5 states that “[e]ach State Party shall take measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms…” [Emphasis added]

It is inconceivable that, in Obama’s eyes, an “effective national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms” would not include a universal background check and national gun registry.

Article 12 states that “[e]ach State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms…that are transferred to its territory as the final destination.” These records would include, but not be limited to “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2(1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users…”

Article 11 requires each “State Party involved in the transfer of conventional arms,” which surely includes the United States, to “take measures to prevent their diversion.” Remember that, for the ostensible purpose of preventing arms from going to drug cartels in Mexico, Attorney General Eric Holder established an illegal system requiring the reporting of guns purchased in certain states.

Summary

At the beginning, I state some of the probable regulations which would be implemented by executive fiat pursuant to the ATT, if it were ratified by us.

These horror stories were chosen because these are some of the types of gun control that are being sought by Obama or are being imposed by some of the more anti-gun states.

But, in truth, there is no limit to the imposition of gun control which someone like Barack Obama could achieve, without legislative action, using this treaty as justification.


http://www.thedailysheeple.com/un-arms-trade-treaty-calls-for-disarmament-of-persons-55-and-older_042013

“There’s an emerging consensus that certain groups should be restricted from possessing conventional arms, certainly those who fuel conflict, arm criminals or violations of international humanitarian or human rights law are at the top of the list,” Ban Ki-moon continued.

“But also, the international community believes segments of the population that present a danger to themselves and others, chiefly individuals deemed or adjudicated mentally defective and persons with attenuating cerebral faculties, should be added to that list.”

While Ban Ki-moon did not elaborate on what he meant by persons with “attenuating cerebral faculties,” a UN liaison with Amnesty International spelled it out in an interview with the Washington Post.

“Simply put, the UN believes guns don’t belong in the hands of the elderly,” said H. Michael Chase, an attorney for the human rights watchdog group.

“Pools of research show that a significant majority of gun-related suicides, accidental shootings, non-fatal negligent discharges are perpetrated by persons 55 and over,” Chase said.

“Along with the mentally ill, preventing those who are advancing in age from gaining easy access to firearms is a common sense way to save lives,” concluded Chase.

Dr. Michael Betti from the John Hopkins Center for Public Health Preparedness embraced the UN’s call to disarm senior citizens.



“Science tells us that we grow old,” said Dr. Betti, a neurologist who specializes in evaluating and treating patients with memory disorders. “And as we do, our reflexes diminish, our senses become impaired and our cognitive skills weaken … Therefore, as we enter our twilight years – clinically speaking, age 50 and above [Global life expectancy is only 67 years] – science tells us that we are in no shape to be handling or using a deadly weapon.”

In lieu of firearms, Dr. Betti suggests that seniors find other, non-violent and non-lethal options for self-defense.

“The optimal self-defense posture for seniors would include such items as a rape whistle or high-decibel air horn, quick-strike road flares, an electronic medical alert system, a cellular telephone with a large display, morphine injections, neon or glow-in-the-dark armbands, a mesh vest, a pith helmet with flashing headgear and a solar-powered radio,” said Dr. Betti.



Thus far, the White House has not offered a specific comment on the arms trade agreement or its call to disarm seniors, but to echo a recent statement issued by Secretary of State John Kerry, “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty.”

As for the constitutionality of revoking an elderly person’s Second Amendment rights here in the U.S., at least one gun control advocate said, “That’s not a problem.”

“Look, Justice Scalia already ruled that the Second Amendment had ‘reasonable limitations,’” said William Kirchmeyer of the Coalition to Prevent Mass Shootings, in an interview with the Washington Post. “What can be more reasonable than taking guns away from people who are essentially ticking time bombs?”

JustEd
09-26-2013, 11:27 AM
http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXXX

2. Treaties transmitted by the President to the Senate for ratification shall be resumed at the second or any subsequent session of the same Congress at the stage in which they were left at the final adjournment of the session at which they were transmitted; but all proceedings on treaties shall terminate with the Congress, and they shall be resumed at the commencement of the next Congress as if no proceedings had previously been had thereon.

He has until the end of session to get an answer.

If he decides to try funny business without getting Senate approval, there will be some serious Hell to pay. Government letter agencies don't scare me when the rest of the citizenry has had enough BS.

Not trying to be sarcastic nor argumentative so let me just say....He don't follow the rules and the Senate isn't going to stop him.

JustEd
09-26-2013, 11:38 AM
http://gunowners.org/n09252013.htm


[QUOTE]by Mike Hammond


“The optimal self-defense posture for seniors would include such items as a rape whistle or high-decibel air horn, quick-strike road flares, an electronic medical alert system, a cellular telephone with a large display, morphine injections, neon or glow-in-the-dark armbands, a mesh vest, a pith helmet with flashing headgear and a solar-powered radio,” said Dr. Betti.

MORPHINE INJECTIONS, really:facepalm:

Ok, on second thought....I am well into my sixties and the bones do creak a bit. Now let me think....Sig, Glock, Mossberg OR morphine? Hmmmm, tough choice! (sarcasm)

Seriously, how in heck would morphine injections prevent violence upon the elderly? Can I actually carry quick strike road flares through airport security, or the high decibel alarm, or pith helmet.

What planet is this dude on?

sirgrumps
09-26-2013, 1:11 PM
We all thought the French looking, Jr. Senator from MA John F. Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, was a major league wimp, when he ran for President.

As Secretary of State, he might actually be the tough guy compared to the Prez.

Scary thought.

doctor_vals
09-26-2013, 5:00 PM
We all thought the French looking, Jr. Senator from MA John F. Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, was a major league wimp, when he ran for President.

As Secretary of State, he might actually be the tough guy compared to the Prez.

Scary thought.

Do you know HOW he served in Vietnam???

He've got more medals in first half of 1969 than a lot of REAL warriors in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan.

He is clown as his chief; and his service was a joke.

Wherryj
09-27-2013, 2:55 PM
Sure we can bluster about it not getting ratified, doesn't mean the UN can't put pressure on the U.S. to adhere to the treaty terms.

Yeah, they might even send their baby blue helmeted goons to come here and do nothing but grouse, whine and stand around doing nothing too.

Wherryj
09-27-2013, 2:58 PM
[QUOTE=Sailormilan2;12404109]http://gunowners.org/n09252013.htm




MORPHINE INJECTIONS, really:facepalm:

Ok, on second thought....I am well into my sixties and the bones do creak a bit. Now let me think....Sig, Glock, Mossberg OR morphine? Hmmmm, tough choice! (sarcasm)

Seriously, how in heck would morphine injections prevent violence upon the elderly? Can I actually carry quick strike road flares through airport security, or the high decibel alarm, or pith helmet.

What planet is this dude on?
I think that what they're trying to say is that you'll NEED IV morphine if you don't have a Mossberg in that kit?

RMP91
09-27-2013, 7:51 PM
Do we have any comment from any of the big (foreign) gunmakers on this?

What's their take on this? How will this affect imports for private ownership?

I was merely speculating in my previous post (I skimmed the text), hopefully this will remain nothing more than words on a piece of paper so long as the Senate refuses to ratify it.

Sakiri
09-28-2013, 12:55 AM
Seriously. F the UN.

We don't want IngSoc.

RobGR
09-29-2013, 1:33 PM
Do we have any comment from any of the big (foreign) gunmakers on this?

What's their take on this? How will this affect imports for private ownership?

I was merely speculating in my previous post (I skimmed the text), hopefully this will remain nothing more than words on a piece of paper so long as the Senate refuses to ratify it.

Curious to know what any of the manufacturers, foreign & domestic (impacts US makers as well right), do think as well.

Sunday
09-29-2013, 1:57 PM
"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes."

So, how regulated are those arms going to be that are being sent Al-Qaeda? This is a circus.

Actually it is about disarming the citizens of the world except for a controlling "police" force and a U.N.armed force to keep peace and do the rest of the control. The guns that are sent "rebel/ rouge" forces will continue as the rebels are for a purpose. This treaty opens up the door as mentioned blue helmets most likely Russian troops to confiscate our weapons.

Sunday
09-29-2013, 2:01 PM
btw, Just got a call from the NRA urging a largish donation to help fight ratification. They mentioned that it was like Obama Care where you don't know what's in it until it is law.

Anyway, to all those who say it doesn't matter....apparently the NRA differs.
This treaty ratification has been in the works for years and is well known by those who pay attention to more than the evening news. I learned about it in the late 1960s. We are screwed bad!

Sunday
09-29-2013, 2:01 PM
Seriously. F the UN.

We don't want IngSoc.

Possibly too late.

Sakiri
09-29-2013, 4:36 PM
Possibly too late.

Probably, but yeah.

This has been in the works since the UN was founded.

ja308
03-04-2014, 6:01 PM
Typical law enforcement position to Kerry signing the UN small arms agreement !
Language caution

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_QQW0RswpQ4

GaryV
03-04-2014, 6:06 PM
Sure we can bluster about it not getting ratified, doesn't mean the UN can't put pressure on the U.S. to adhere to the treaty terms.

They could do that whether Kerry signs it or not. It's not like the UN has much pressure to apply. Signing without ratification is totally meaningless. Just look at Kyoto. Dead in the water.

btw, Just got a call from the NRA urging a largish donation to help fight ratification. They mentioned that it was like Obama Care where you don't know what's in it until it is law.

Anyway, to all those who say it doesn't matter....apparently the NRA differs.

Of course they differ - they want you to make that largish donation, which you likely wouldn't do if you weren't freaked out about the latest attempt to ban guns.

ja308
03-04-2014, 8:32 PM
As posted by Gary,
They could do that whether Kerry signs it or not. It's not like the UN has much pressure to apply. Signing without ratification is totally meaningless. Just look at Kyoto. Dead in the water.


W refused to sign Kyoto ! So far Obama has not signed it either !
So apparently being " dead in the water" really applies to treaty's not signed !

Ninask
03-04-2014, 8:37 PM
Incrementally moving toward their goal.

The Democrats have sold out this great country of ours in every way possible
Why do we keep voting these clowns in?

You don't get a $1M+ war chest by being a good guy taking care of constituents... you get that be becoming beholden to groups and corporate interests.

You're naive if you think this only relates to the Dems, remember the patriot Act?
N

Gryff
03-04-2014, 8:44 PM
btw, it doesn't matter if it is ratified or not, the UN still considers Kerry's signature as agreeing to the terms of the treaty.

So what? What are they going to do...send a continent of Jordanian or Irish troops over here to collect our guns?

Sure we can bluster about it not getting ratified, doesn't mean the UN can't put pressure on the U.S. to adhere to the treaty terms.

Did you actually type that with a straight face? Do you honestly believe the treaty means ANYTHING if we don't ratify it?

ja308
03-04-2014, 8:53 PM
You're naive if you think this only relates to the Dems, remember the patriot Act?
N


Yeah I liked the patriot act as written by A rated Jim Sensenbruner and administered by A rated George W Bush !

Please provide a list of all the people you know who were charged,fined or imprisoned as a result of the patriot act during the Bush years ! In fact none of us were ever targeted for 8 wonderful years !
" gun culture. " types joked about how Larry Pratt and Wayne LaPierre had offices in the White House .


Personally I would trust this police chiefs knowledge over nearly every Calgunner on this thread !
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_QQW0RswpQ4

Tarn_Helm
03-04-2014, 9:51 PM
It doesn't matter what the UN thinks of it. They can go suck ***.

This. ^

President Lame Duck can't do shiznit.

:p

He has been coasting in neutral since he won his second term.

I predict he does the following throughout his second term:
U9c_KttvQPU

ja308
03-05-2014, 9:17 AM
So what? What are they going to do...send a continent of Jordanian or Irish troops over here to collect our guns?



Did you actually type that with a straight face? Do you honestly believe the treaty means ANYTHING if we don't ratify it?



The signature of USA Secretary of State on a UN gun registration scheme is a big deal!
Its part of a long range plan to register and consficate guns in the hands of private individuals .

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/9/obama-administration-signs-united-nations-arms-trade-treaty.aspx

lakersandguns
03-05-2014, 9:29 AM
Typical law enforcement position to Kerry signing the UN small arms agreement !
Language caution

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_QQW0RswpQ4

Old

hi5
03-05-2014, 10:06 AM
F.U.N.

castgold
03-05-2014, 10:21 AM
A sternly worded memo wih a vague discussion about convening a committee to debate the wording of a letter regarding the possibility of drafting a preliminary text of a resolution to have a vote on condemning our actions is something we should all take seriously. It could result in a list of some sort.

Enough with the clichés. :D

Cowboy T
03-05-2014, 10:33 AM
Yeah I liked the patriot act as written by A rated Jim Sensenbruner and administered by A rated George W Bush !

Too bad you don't recognize it for the huge Executive Branch power-grab that it is. There's nothing patriotic about that Act. And the same applies to all these repeated attempts to get this UN small-arms treaty ratified.


Please provide a list of all the people you know who were charged,fined or imprisoned as a result of the patriot act during the Bush years ! In fact none of us were ever targeted for 8 wonderful years !

Wrong answer. You know, or should know, that it's a secret list, per the "PAT RIOT" Act itself. Actually, there are quite a few such "secret lists", like this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/15/judge-orders-malaysian-professor-name-removed-from-us-no-fly-list-after-long/

ja308
03-05-2014, 11:47 AM
Too bad you don't recognize it for the huge Executive Branch power-grab that it is. There's nothing patriotic about that Act. And the same applies to all these repeated attempts to get this UN small-arms treaty ratified.



Wrong answer. You know, or should know, that it's a secret list, per the "PAT RIOT" Act itself. Actually, there are quite a few such "secret lists", like this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/15/judge-orders-malaysian-professor-name-removed-from-us-no-fly-list-after-long/


We honestly can't blame Bush or Sennnsenbruner for some women being put on a no fly list in 2014 .

The main compliant was phone surveillance w/o warrants ! This was only authorized when a call originated or was placed to a nation outside of the USA . This was according to a leftist book I read at the library ! Like all leftist publications its possible they missed real issues .

Rather strange few Callgunners seem bothered by the testimony that Obama admin is listening in to every call. Even those within the USA, which was NOT authorized by the pat act .
Yet it's blame Bush again !

Back to the topic, George W Bush selected a very beautiful, extremely intellegent, pro gun, Condoleeza Rice for secratary of state.
Rice unlike democrat hack John F Kerry would never sign away gun rights to the dictators at the UN !

ChrisC
03-05-2014, 1:45 PM
Yeah I liked the patriot act as written by A rated Jim Sensenbruner and administered by A rated George W Bush !

I knew you would have no problem with a republican taking away your 4th amendment right. No surprise though, as long as no one touches your 2A rights, right?

I bet your ok with the TSA as well, which was signed into law by Bush.

How Patriotic of you!

JustEd
03-05-2014, 5:50 PM
So what? What are they going to do...send a continent of Jordanian or Irish troops over here to collect our guns?



Did you actually type that with a straight face? Do you honestly believe the treaty means ANYTHING if we don't ratify it?


Yup, Yup and you are about five or six months late in picking up on this.

ja308
03-06-2014, 8:52 AM
I knew you would have no problem with a republican taking away your 4th amendment right. No surprise though, as long as no one touches your 2A rights, right?

I bet your ok with the TSA as well, which was signed into law by Bush.

How Patriotic of you!


Please explain how my 4 th amendment rights are gone ?
We recently flew to Hawaii and the TSA guys commented on how nice we dressed for our vacation .
( life is more fun if you dress nice)
One agent asked if I needed the " cold steel" tactical carbon fiber cane I was carrying ?
I suggested at times I'm prone to having my ankle twist ( true)

Yes I would have preferred to have airlines handling security themselves, but I did not feel any loss of rights getting on an airplane because of TSA :)

Artema
03-06-2014, 4:41 PM
Please explain how my 4 th amendment rights are gone ?
We recently flew to Hawaii and the TSA guys commented on how nice we dressed for our vacation .
( life is more fun if you dress nice)
One agent asked if I needed the " cold steel" tactical carbon fiber cane I was carrying ?
I suggested at times I'm prone to having my ankle twist ( true)

Yes I would have preferred to have airlines handling security themselves, but I did not feel any loss of rights getting on an airplane because of TSA :)

As long as you pass through fine (this time) everything is okay. :facepalm:

Frito Bandido
03-06-2014, 4:55 PM
Oh no! Not the U.N.!! He signed a piece of paper!? They might start talking about having a meeting and talk about stuff! We're doomed!

ja308
03-07-2014, 7:31 AM
Oh no! Not the U.N.!! He signed a piece of paper!? They might start talking about having a meeting and talk about stuff! We're doomed!



Correct ! Death by a thousand cuts !

Jimi Jah
03-07-2014, 8:46 AM
Does kerry still park his yacht in RI to escape MA taxes?

GM4spd
03-07-2014, 9:25 AM
Rather strange few Callgunners seem bothered by the testimony that Obama admin is listening in to every call.

I'd rather they listen to my calls then read all the stuff I see on this board!

Pete

ja308
03-07-2014, 9:49 AM
I'd rather they listen to my calls then read all the stuff I see on this board!

Pete


They are not only reading this board, they are posting on this board ! :oji:

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents, says Glenn Greenwald in this article, How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations, at The Intercept.

broofy
03-19-2014, 7:03 PM
Incrementally moving toward their goal.

The Democrats have sold out this great country of ours in every way possible.

From not enforcing immigration laws, to encouraging a welfare state, to ceding control of sovereign power to other countries...

I dislike Republicans as they're not much different, just doing it slower.

Politicians are the new upper class in our society.

Why do we keep voting these clowns in?

You don't get a $1M+ war chest by being a good guy taking care of constituents... you get that be becoming beholden to groups and corporate interests.

Do we vote them in? When the party in power can re-district (gerrymander) so that members are in essentially bulletproof districts, they can do what they like. The re-election rate for incumbents is 90% in congress, despite historically low approval ratings.

The whole (D) vs (R) polarization is a game played to keep the electorate divided and give us someone (the "other" party) to ***** about. The only thing that matters in DC is money and since corporations are "people", we are all well and truly screwed barring a major unbalancing event.

Our "Leaders" are going to fiddle while rome burns until its truly time for torches and pitchforks. This is true regardless of political stripe. The environment, the economy, personal liberty...its all a ticking clock.

I realize I sound like a real pessimist, but I honestly believe I'm a realist. There are good people trying to do good things, but the system is so corrupted by money and distanced from real people that it's like fighting the tide with a broom. You get real tired, and the sand is just as wet.

ja308
03-20-2014, 8:38 AM
The whole (D) vs (R) polarization is a game played to keep the electorate divided and give us someone (the "other" party) to ***** about. The only thing that matters in DC is money and since corporations are "people", we are all well and truly screwed barring a major unbalancing event.


You are correct corporations are run by people ! Often times very smart people. Usually very good people too, I'm proud to own stock in some very well run and principled corporations, which unlike unions, corporations actually become successfull by making people happy !

Incidentally I'm very proud of many republican state govts. If your not, your either anti gun or asleep !
Actually I'm pleased with most republicans in fed gov too ! Please list every anti gun law proposed by BO and considered by republicans John Beohner or Mitch Mc Connell ?
Answer Zero !

Many Calgunner would benefit by being NRA members, that way they could really keep up on issues, that effect RKBA !

HUTCH 7.62
03-20-2014, 8:45 AM
202_R0BT0sg


The Blue Helmets are coming! The Blue Helmets are coming!

Jimi Jah
03-20-2014, 9:18 AM
Don't we have a treaty someplace that makes us defend Ukraine?

How's that one working out?

Remember, Kerry was against it before he was for it, or something like that.

ElvenSoul
03-20-2014, 9:27 AM
It is alright to arm civilians of other countries to fight against oppression. Just not in the USA.

You just keep signing away Gunboat.

ja308
03-21-2014, 9:20 AM
We can always tell when an oppressive govt is desired by the USA ! Just watch UN peacekeepers ! They ALWAYS and without exception back the oppressors ! Notice how the United Nations peacekeepers are staying out of the Soviet military expansion !
See Katanga and dozens of other conflicts where the UN sided with the wrong side .

The treaty Kerry signed is a perfect example of the UNs hostility toward arms they dont control .

Yeah I mean Bosnia too !