Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That sounds like the beginnings of a national firearm registry, which historically has always preceded confiscation around the world. But I'm sure you still don't know why people who actually support the constitution would be against it and see no problem with the US government tracking US citizens and giving that information to foreign governments.
There are plenty of states with firearm registries, none of them have ever resulted in mass confiscation.
How else would you detect arms flowing into terrorists hands, sounds like a sensible approach.
This reminds me of the UN Disabilities Treaty that was also rejected last year.
Senate would have to ratify the treaty by 2/3 vote, that will be difficult til more Dems get into Senate. Maybe with the Clinton election wave? At least this puts the treaty in the hopper for 2017 or so. Of course this goes against the gun and arms producers represented by the NRA. Lots of money in selling all sorts of weaponry to gun nuts and terrorists all over the world. Being limited to just hunting type 50cal rifles and AR15 type Assault weapons. the gun nuts here are just a small piece of the pie. Yep, NRA has a lot of lobbying income resting on the international trade side of their business.
How about proving the NRA sells weapons to terroists....
The National Rifle Association, which is battling a raft of gun control
measures on Capitol Hill, also has an international fight on its hand as it
gears up to oppose a U.N. treaty designed to restrict the flow of arms to
conflict zones
the great slippery slope is used by libs to justify everything from banning dodge ball to selling large sodas and yet they deny the existence of the slippery slope when cited by gun owners in the presence of a decietful president whose words are meaningless sounds that vibrate the air and a dept of social justice headed by EH who has lost the trust of the American people and whose behavior borders on criminal.
Have you ever read a legal document and completely understood what it meant. A herd of lawyers will take the simplest language and twist an interpretation to their advantage. To hand a non lawyer a legal document and expect them to understand all the possible interpretations is disingenuous and hints at suspect intentions.
How could banning international trade in weapons to keep weapons from terrorists be an issue.
How could letting the U.N. dictate to a sovereign nation what they can or cannot produce or trade in and/or what their citizens are allowed to own be a good thing?
For that matter, I still fail to see how the U.N. itself is a good thing. If their objective is to bring peace and security to the world as they say it is, then they are failing miserably in their goals, and attempting to drag us down with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Only to those who sit in fear that the government is gonna come and take away all your precious guns.
I have no fear that the government is going to come and take my guns at this time, but that doesn't change the fact that you and people like you are doing everything in your power to undermine the 2nd Amendment by supporting idiotic legislation and treaties like this one. If you manage to get your way, then yes, there is a strong possibility that the government would attempt to take the right to keep and bear arms away from U.S. citizens. There is no argument you can possibly make that would convince anyone with a modicum of common sense that you don't support federal confiscation of firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
There are plenty of states with firearm registries, none of them have ever resulted in mass confiscation.
States having a firearms registry is a state issue, as it should be. Your statement is yet further proof that you have no understanding of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights or what they were created for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
How else would you detect arms flowing into terrorists hands, sounds like a sensible approach.
Well, you could ask the United States government which groups they've been arming. That would probably be the most comprehensive list of arms-supplied terrorists in the world. The fact that the Administration is even considering signing a treaty that would effectively stop their illegal trade in firearms amazes me, quite frankly. I'm sure they already have a plan for bypassing the parts of it which they don't agree with, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
This reminds me of the UN Disabilities Treaty that was also rejected last year.
The only treaties which should be signed in the U.N. are treaties relating to war between nations. Neither the Disabilities treaty nor the current Arms Trade Treaty as it is written fall under that category. There is no logical reason why the United States should give up even a portion of its sovereignty to a conglomeration of nations, many of which have societal rules which are in direct conflict with everything that the United States stands for.
Why is Kerry signing the treaty if the federal government isn't going to comply?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
