U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

[hip55]

Just a heads up -

http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=359#more-359

[Moviestar]

Just a heads up -

http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=359#more-359

I was going to sign their petition, but they require a donation....besides i'd like to see the actual agreement, or plan for this. They have no links to any agreement, and is written really poorly. To me it sounds like the tinfoil hats are coming out, and they want money.

[gnihcraes]

donation not required, it says at the top of that scren after submit that it's been submitted and then they ask for a donation... it's misleading on purpose.

[Moviestar]

donation not required, it says at the top of that scren after submit that it's been submitted and then they ask for a donation... it's misleading on purpose.

Ahh didn't see that part. I saw them asking for my money and automatically dismissed the whole thing as bs anyway.

[theGinsue]

I'd really like to see something official on this.

[Irving]

I'd really like to see something official on this.

Don't worry, you're state appointed lawyer will probably pass you something about it through the glass after you are apprehended.

[Moviestar]

I'd really like to see something official on this.
I did some searching around on this earlier, the only thing that clinton has backed in the past 6 months was a control on international arms trade, that had nothing to do with our firearms as citizens, and it's been going on and off since 2003, and even before that in prelim. stages.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gadis3335.doc.htm

That's what they are talking about, and it is small arms trade between countries. It has nothing to do with private citizens. But seeing as we are the biggest supplier of small arms to other countries I can see why people say this is an attack at our 2nd amendment right, but it isn't. Just do research and take off the tin foil hats.

[AAdvsr]

The NRA-ILA is usually a pretty credible source. Here's the latest I found at their site.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5224

[BPTactical]

I did some searching around on this earlier, the only thing that clinton has backed in the past 6 months was a control on international arms trade, that had nothing to do with our firearms as citizens, and it's been going on and off since 2003, and even before that in prelim. stages.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gadis3335.doc.htm

That's what they are talking about, and it is small arms trade between countries. It has nothing to do with private citizens. But seeing as we are the biggest supplier of small arms to other countries I can see why people say this is an attack at our 2nd amendment right, but it isn't. Just do research and take off the tin foil hats.

So this wont affect the firearms industry in the U.S. eh?
Bullshit!
Heckler and Koch, Sig Sauer, Glock, Walther, Taurus, Springfield Armory, Beretta, Rock Island Armory, Ishmash, Norinco, FN Herstal and Steyr just to name a few are all either foreign manufactured or foreign owned. They and us will be impacted by this treaty.
First you will see prices skyrocket and then there will be no more importation allowed.
Think back when you could get a brand new Norinco AK for $199.00. As soon as importation of them was banned they hit $500+.
I will agree it is not a DIRECT attack of 2A it is a backdoor to controlling what We The People can purchase.
Think about a couple of things here.
We have in place the most firearms unfriendly Admenstruation in history. The Pretender in Chief made it VERY clear while campaigning that he would PERMANENTLY ban the sale and possesion of "Assault Weapons".
We have an Attorney General that feels the only people that should have access to firearms is L.E. and the Military.

But they have a couple of problems in their way.
1- The Constitution of The United States. Pay close attention to what the Liberals are saying in regards to it. They have flat out stated that they feel it is an outdated document and they would like to change it. We need to oppose ANY attempt to change any part of the Constitution.
It is also a fact that NO treaty or agreement of any type usurps the Constitution as it stands.
Read up on the UN a bit. For any country to recieve any benefits from the UN they have to comply with some basic UN doctrines. One of which is no small arms ownership by a civilian populace.
This is one of the reasons why the U.S. has never become a full member of the UN.
In it's present form any treaty that is entered with the UN must be ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate and Congress. I dont see that happening.
2- Since the Pretender in Chief was elected firearm sales have been in excess of 1 million per month. That puts over 200 million firearms in the hands of roughly 80 million law abiding citizens. Thats 80 million that vote.
Obammy got a clear message from this.
The thing we have to watch is as he goes down in flames he will get vindictive and desperate. If he clearly see's that he will not get re-erected I would not be surprised to see some heavy legislation get signed as he goes out the door.
Make no bones about it- The politicos hate the subjects owning firearms. We stand in their way of their agenda.
3- If it becomes a gun grab who is going to do it? I have spoken to quite a few military and L.E. on the subject. None of them would agree to it. They realize that 1-It would be unconstitutional and 2-it would be a suicide mission.
Even if only 10% of gun owners stood by the "They can have it from my cold dead hands" theory that would still equate to 8+ million. 8+ million pissed off owners that would rather die than see their rights negated. That would equal alot of bodies on both sides. Imagine the political fallout.

I feel that when it comes to this subject we all need to be very aware and politically active. Dont trust in the NRA and others such as GOA and SAF to save our rights. They are nothing without our voices, letters and votes.
Now more than ever though we need to support these organizations.

If we dont stand up to them we wont have to worry about our Rights being taken away.
We will give them away.

[Moviestar]

you're getting way too worked up on something that "may" be drafted by 2012. Also, i',m fairly certain there is a difference between arms trading, and importing arms. Difference being, The "arms trade" is when a country sells them to other countries, importing is..well..importing. There is a fine line difference. There is no sense getting all worked up over something that doesn't even have a draft yet.


Think of the trade as, we have a whole shit load of surplus guns, we decide to trade them to thailand for some rice and curry, because we don't have enough rice and curry, and they dont have enough guns. Then those guns get used to invade cambodia. Cambodians get pissed, call china, china sees we gave thailand guns, china gets pissed, our economy takes a shit.

The import is where a company here in america, or another country, for example Eagle Imports, pays Bersa for the rights to import and sell bersa firearms. Eagle imports ships a gun to green mountain guns, you go pick it up for a price that has the import, shipping, ect ect already factored in. Now, thailand could do the exact same thing if they wanted to, buy guns for cash money, and that would be legal.