U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

[dross]

I would say your numbers are a bit exagerrated when it comes to the amount of Democrats who support gun control. I will ask the question you like to ask which is "do you have any facts to back that number up?" Also, if you are a libertarian by ideology then I can't see how you can agree with many of the Republicans views at all. Finally, I have no idea where you are looking to see a night and day difference between elected Republicans and Democrats. The last several presidents whether Republican or Democrat were progressives and globalists along with many of the leading politicians in each party. I realize on this board it is "bad will" to talk politely about the Democrats but if you take the blinders off you will see that both sides are equally wrong in so many ways.

You're right, after some quick checks on a few bills it's more like 75 to 88%, depending on the particular issue. I don't think this affects my thesis, especially when you consider that on some votes, when there's enough to go strongly one way or the other, the party leadership allows a particular congressman to vote against the party in order to shore up a record that can be used in the next election.

 

[Designer99]

why do the bilderbergs want my guns?

Because they don't want you to use point your guns at them when they take your rights away.

 

[Designer99]

Yeah, this is never going to happen. It would mean open warfare in the streets and complete chaos. Not even Obama is that dumb and it's a sure bet that Hillary is smart enough to realise it.

It won't happen by itself. It will be accompanied by some sort of pandemic / terror attack / reason they need to keep us all safe! That way it's under a guise of protection.

 

[Designer99]

Who is going to perform this confiscation? The ATF? They're not that stupid.

Nope. Foreign troops that don't speak any english besides "hand over guns."

 

[SavageEagle]

Nope. Foreign troops that don't speak any english besides "hand over guns."

They're called UN Peace Keepers. But there will also be traitors in our own military and police forces and federal agencies. Not a lot, but there will be some. Probably a sizable amount total. To think otherwise would be naive.

 

[dukeboy_318]

they can have my guns, but they are getting them bullets first!!

 

[ThrottleJockey]

They likely won't even go door to door. They will pass a law, ask you to turn them in, give an "amnesty period" for you to do so, then make it a very SEVERE criminal act to be in possession. Much like they have done in other countries like England.....

 

[dustjunky2000]

I agree with most of you, but I hate to have to be the one to say this, to all of you who believe this can't happen. It certainly can, and if we let it, it will happen. Maybe in 2012, maybe in 2062.

Our Rights, more specifically in this instance, our Second Amendment Rights have been eroded. Has any of your Right to keep and bear arms, for the security of the state, even been infringed? Mine has. I had to wait until I was 21 to purchase a handgun. I had to purchase a license to bear it in public. I can't carry it into post offices or other government building. My Right to own a machine gun is infringed when the final decision is left up to my local Sheriff and ATF office. I can't own a tank or nuclear bomb. (It doesn't say the right to keep and bear "small arms") My Right to keep and bear arms has not only been infringed, but in my opinion, it's already gone. When someone can cay "Why do you need an assault rifle to hunt?" the entire point of the Second Amendment has been entirely lost and forgotten. I don't need it to hunt, I don't hunt. I need an assault rifle to protect myself, my family, my state, and my country, from enemies foreign and domestic. Those usually don't include deer.

The argument that government and LE should be the only one's allowed to use small arms makes me sick. Government is the only entity in the US authorized (by itself) to use large arms. Why? Because they are so responsible? When was the last time our government used a tank or attack helicopter in defense of the United States? I'm not talking about our soldiers stationed in FOREIGN countries, I'm talking about the US.

It has certainly already begun. Most of us have conceded, unfortunately, that full-autos should be regulated, thus infringing our 2A Right. If that passed, why couldn't they ban semi-autos? Then hunting rifles? Then we can ban glass mugs, knives, and chains. Maybe the UN just needs to rewrite our Second Amendment. The Right to be safe and secure at all times, for the necessity of comfort and security, shall not be infringed.

Don't even get me started on every other "Right" we're supposed to have in this country. They have all been eradicated. The simple fact that we aren't allowed to talk about what must be done to take them back is evidence enough that we no longer have the "unabridged" right to freedom of speech. My question is, did we ever have these "rights"? Or did congress pass the Bill of Rights and then we immediately couldn't handle the freedom and started giving them back Right by Right?

End rant.

 

[irishfan]

You're right, after some quick checks on a few bills it's more like 75 to 88%, depending on the particular issue. I don't think this affects my thesis, especially when you consider that on some votes, when there's enough to go strongly one way or the other, the party leadership allows a particular congressman to vote against the party in order to shore up a record that can be used in the next election.

Try and spin it however you would like but what I said is correct whether you admit it or not. There is NO night and day difference between Republicans and Democrats and if you don't push so hard to make your agenda look right then it is obvious. Leaders of both parties let their people throw votes to protect themselves in elections so again you proved my point that both parties are just alike.

 

[MyGlockRocks19]

The effort would look something like this.

A treaty cannot circumvent the Constitution. They might try it, but the results would likely be something that we wouldn't care to contemplate. Civil wars are fought over things like this.

Hopefully this will not even be attempted. It would be an extremely bad move on the part of the President, as I believe he will be in breach of his Oath of Office. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, just another "bitter clinger".

 

[gglass]

The effort would look something like this.

A treaty cannot circumvent the Constitution. They might try it, but the results would likely be something that we wouldn't care to contemplate. Civil wars are fought over things like this.

Hopefully this will not even be attempted. It would be an extremely bad move on the part of the President, as I believe he will be in breach of his Oath of Office. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, just another "bitter clinger".

I just love that pic!!!

 

[88E30M50]

They likely won't even go door to door. They will pass a law, ask you to turn them in, give an "amnesty period" for you to do so, then make it a very SEVERE criminal act to be in possession. Much like they have done in other countries like England.....

TJ's right. Going door to door would cause a huge uproar, where as putting huge penalties on failure to surrender them would scare many into turning them in. Then, publicise each and every arrest for possession with the penalties to get the holdouts to turn in theirs.

The beauty of that solution is that to fight it would require an offensive action, which would be played up by the media to portray the remaining holdouts as home grown terrorists. This tactic would limit the usefulness of weapons by requiring them to be well hidden by the holdouts. Then, people would start to question the intelligence of assuming the risk of having one if you cannot actually benefit from it. From that point, a lot of them would just turn them in.

Take a look at the videos of the piles and piles of perfectly good weapons turned in over in England and Australia. Those were not all turned in by people that hated guns, but also by people that loved their guns, but no longer thought the risk was worth the possession.

I certainly believe it could happen here in the good ole USA if we allow it. Losing gun rights is like sand disappearing from a beach. It does not disappear in one big wave, but in millions of little waves over a span of years.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Hopefully this will not even be attempted. It would be an extremely bad move on the part of the President, as I believe he will be in breach of his Oath of Office. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, just another "bitter clinger".

The great O is already guilty of high treason and breaching his oath of office. He doesn't give a . He sits as head of the UN security council putting another nation/gov. before his duties and responsibilities to the USA, as commander in chief, this is high treason and requires him to hang in the gallows.

 

[dieselman]

see sig. come and get 'em b!tches!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Cygnus]

IBTL.......

 

[dieselman]

I would like to propose an idea based on current events.

We have seen this year the democrats loss of power through 3 elections: NJ and VA governor, and Scott Brown's election in MA (first republican senator since the '70s). This just serves as proof that pissing off the American people results in not getting re-elected. period. That being said, I expect to see the right take control in this years elections, imho.

Now in 2012, we have another election year. Not only for Senate, but for president as well. The eyes of the country will be on every move the national legislature and the executive branch makes. In the event that the ratification of this treaty were to come before the senate, they will have the benefit of a few years of history that tells them one thing: dont **** off the american people. Any lawmaker who votes to ratify that treaty will know darn well that that vote will cause millions of proud gun owners and supporters of the 2nd, potential voters as well, to turn their backs on them completely, giving them the finger as they do it. I doubt too many US senators want to be known in history as one of those who removed what many consider the greatest constitutional liberty, not to mention commit politcal suicide hardcore.

theres my 2 cents...

Oh and one more time..

Molon Labe b!tches!

 

[Manan]

Tis a slippery slope.

 

[SavageEagle]

The great O is already guilty of high treason and breaching his oath of office. He doesn't give a . He sits as head of the UN security council putting another nation/gov. before his duties and responsibilities to the USA, as commander in chief, this is high treason and requires him to hang in the gallows.

If ONLY this Country had the balls to charge him with it. However, this Country as a whole has lost it's nerve and the world no longer works that way.

 

[ocsdor]

...and, just when you think things in this country can't get any worse, we will be invaded by a foreign army made up of atleast 24 million Chinamen.

Related article: Print Story: Skewed China birth rate to leave 24 mln men single - Yahoo! News

 

[SavageEagle]

...and, just when you think things in this country can't get any worse, we will be invaded by a foreign army made up of atleast 24 million Chinamen.

Related article: Print Story: Skewed China birth rate to leave 24 mln men single - Yahoo! News

Yea, well, those horny little short guys with guns won't be getting near my wife and daughters.