Guns Don’t Kill People, Government Having a Monopoly on Force Does

reply to post by queenofswords
Since I knew it was coming, Wiki on snopes:

FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases.

Regardless,

Look, I know there are individuals within the UN and our own country that want to see guns disappear.

And that a second Obama term may very well look much different than his first. It's just that I haven't seen any evidence that the Second is at any real risk of being infringed upon any time soon. When I do, I'll eat my keyboard, pick up arms and join you in protecting our Constitutional rights.

reply to post by seabag

Dear seabag,

Nice to see you still up and running. Not so nice that this thread is scaring the pants of me. Not so much the Agenda 21 or the treaty but something else I found while poking around the UN site. Try this, if you haven't already, especially the goals in Section II:
www.poa-iss.org... It's the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons.

2. To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons, . . .;

9. To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities.

10. To ensure responsibility for all small arms and light weapons held and issued by the State and effective measures for tracing such weapons.

20. . . . the public destruction of surplus weapons and the voluntary surrender of small arms and light weapons, if possible, in cooperation with civil society and non-governmental organizations, with a view to eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.

30. To support, where appropriate, national disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, particularly in post-conflict situations, with special reference to the measures agreed upon in paragraphs 28 to 31 of this section.

33. To request the Secretary-General of the United Nations, within existing resources, through the Department for Disarmament Affairs, to collate and circulate data and information provided by States on a voluntary basis and including national reports, on implementation by those States of the Programme of Action.

34. To encourage, particularly in post-conflict situations, the disarmament and demobilization of ex-combatants and their subsequent reintegration into civilian life, including providing support for the effective disposition, as stipulated in paragraph 17 of this section, of collected small arms and light weapons.

How would you like to be de-mobilized, reintegrated, and disarmed?

Yup, I'm scared.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by queenofswords

 

And that a second Obama term may very well look much different than his first. It's just that I haven't seen any evidence that the Second is at any real risk of being infringed upon any time soon. When I do, I'll eat my keyboard, pick up arms and join you in protecting our Constitutional rights.

By the time you "see" it, it will be too late. Nudge by nudge---barely perceptible---one little chink at a time in the wall----then it all comes falling down. Thank goodness, folks like those at the NRA, a few congressmen and senators, and some watchful American citizens are trying to stay vigilant even through all the insults and criticisms about "clinging to our guns".

reply to post by seabag


If he signs it, you won't do anything.

So stop talking tough or get to work.

reply to post by charles1952


Good to see you, sir!

It's funny that Sek82 fell silent. He must have seen the light after reading your post! Good observation.

Yes, this is the globalist's agenda and the UN is a global tool. It's terrifying to think that people among us are helping forward this agenda while others (some within this thread) will not only turn a blind eye but actively defend these tyrants.

Scary times indeed. 

reply to post by lives

reply to post by seabag 


If he signs it, you won't do anything. 

So stop talking tough or get to work.

The only thing I said I'd do is not abide by it if he signs it, which is what I intend to do. 

No tough talk here. 

reply to post by seabag


I thought you were an "oath keeper"??

cool smileys

reply to post by seabag



I think every American should have as many guns as they want to protect their home, person or possessions.

The guns should be licensed and people instructed how to use them since they are deadly weapons and the number of accidental deaths warrant it.

I don't think they should be permitted in public or in recreational areas where a fee is charged to get in. Like the old time saloons you should leave your gun with the proprietor.

I am certain the 2nd amendment did not anticipate, cover nor intend to cover assault weapons.
I think assault weapons should be banned.


Bring on the h8rs!

reply to post by newcovenant


I have no problem at all with assault weapons being banned. As long as they are banned for our military as well.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about personal protection. It is about protecting the country from its government. The intention is that if the government has access to a weapon, The People should too. Of course, the government is also not supposed to arm one militia over another, which means what it does with the military is of questionable constitutionality.

Regardless, our government should not have access to weapons that I do not have access to. Consequently, they really, really screwed the pooch when they made the atomic weapon.

Now, I am no moron. I know that my above viewpoint has to be tempered with common sense. I am only trying to point out that our 2nd Amendment was really not intended to be used with a government under the control of the military industrial complex, or by a people willing to use science to kill instead of save people. Today we can send a bolt of lightning to kill someone, yet haven't a clue how to cure cancer (officially).

reply to post by lives

I thought you were an "oath keeper"??

I am....

I took an oath to defend the constitution not an oath to follow unconstitutional UN mandates signed by the POTUS. 

I'm a member of the NRA and I vote. What more do you propose I do at this stage?

reply to post by newcovenant

I think every American should have as many guns as they want to protect their home, person or possessions.

There is no law limiting the amount of guns an American can own. 

The guns should be licensed and people instructed how to use them since they are deadly weapons and the number of accidental deaths warrant it.

There is no federal gun registry nor is there a need. This is something the UN wants though.

I don't think they should be permitted in public or in recreational areas where a fee is charged to get in. Like the old time saloons you should leave your gun with the proprietor.

This type of thing is a states rights issue. Some states may agree with you; others don't. 

I am certain the 2nd amendment did not anticipate, cover nor intend to cover assault weapons. 
I think assault weapons should be banned.

What makes a weapon a "assault weapon" in your opinion and what makes ownership of that weapon any different? 

Weapons are not inherently dangerous...people are. 

It is easy to see how the regulation of international trade will lead to regulation of weapons within the US. It is the same way the Federal government uses the commerce clause to regulate guns. It could enter into interstate commerce and is therefore uder the jurisdiction of the federal government by way of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. By that same reasoning, any guns held within the US could enter into international trade or illicit trade and therefore would be regulated by the UN in this treaty. One more small step, then will come another. Just joining the NRA annd voting is not enough, write your representatives and remind them who they work for. Support those that run for office that are in opposition to these international agreements, or if there aren't any, run for office yourself.

Originally posted by seabag
It's funny that Sek82 fell silent. He must have seen the light after reading your post!

Good observation.

I made my points and had nothing further to contribute. Also, sleep isn't something I sacrifice unless for good reason

Speaking of seeing the light, the Arms Trade Treaty featured in this thread of which you provided no insight to isn't even applicable to domestic gun laws. The language in it makes that crystal clear.

If you (or heck anyone else) cited ISACS as a threat, you'd be onto something. This isn't it, though.

4 out of 5 historians agree that giving up your guns to governments who own guns....can be harmful
or fatal to the citizens who own guns.

I will give mine up freely, as soon as EVERYONE else in the world gives up theirs....

I will go last....It will be me and the only other guy on the planet with a gun.....both of us standing
there in front of a huge cauldron of the melting remnants of all the other guns in the world

....and he will say "You first" and I will say "No, you first."

reply to post by Sek82

I made my points and had nothing further to contribute. Also, sleep isn't something I sacrifice unless for good reason.

Sleep is good!

Speaking of seeing the light, the Arms Trade Treaty featured in this thread of which you provided no insight to isn't even applicable to domestic gun laws. The language in it makes that crystal clear.

If you (or heck anyone else) cited ISACS as a threat, you'd be onto something. This isn't it, though.

That’s not true, sir.

The ATT is a backdoor attempt to impose massive restrictions on U.S. gun rights. While negotiations on the treaty are being held behind closed doors, it is certain to include language that will:

* Require the registration and licensure of American firearms;

* Ban large categories of firearms;

* Require the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms;

* Define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds an accessory such as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license;

* Require “microstamping” of ammunition.

The treaty could also be self-executing, which would mean that it would achieve its anti-gun objectives whether or not implementing legislation was passed by Congress.

link

This is a slippery slope, friend. One need only read about the UN's intent to understand where this will lead.

reply to post by borracho

It is easy to see how the regulation of international trade will lead to regulation of weapons within the US. It is the same way the Federal government uses the commerce clause to regulate guns. It could enter into interstate commerce and is therefore uder the jurisdiction of the federal government by way of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. By that same reasoning, any guns held within the US could enter into international trade or illicit trade and therefore would be regulated by the UN in this treaty. One more small step, then will come another.

You’re right on the money.

Just joining the NRA annd voting is not enough, write your representatives and remind them who they work for. Support those that run for office that are in opposition to these international agreements, or if there aren't any, run for office yourself.

I’ve done those things too (except running for office myself).

I live in Texas and there aren’t a lot of anti-gun people (all of my reps are pro gun) nor are there many fans of the UN here.

The UN, only good for jump starting a vomit....

Hopefully this will not interfere with some very nice importered italian guns
that we can get...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by newcovenant

 

I have no problem at all with assault weapons being banned. As long as they are banned for our military as well.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about personal protection. It is about protecting the country from its government. The intention is that if the government has access to a weapon, The People should too. Of course, the government is also not supposed to arm one militia over another, which means what it does with the military is of questionable constitutionality.

Regardless, our government should not have access to weapons that I do not have access to. Consequently, they really, really screwed the pooch when they made the atomic weapon.

Now, I am no moron. I know that my above viewpoint has to be tempered with common sense. I am only trying to point out that our 2nd Amendment was really not intended to be used with a government under the control of the military industrial complex, or by a people willing to use science to kill instead of save people. Today we can send a bolt of lightning to kill someone, yet haven't a clue how to cure cancer (officially).

OK Fair enough. Show me that part in the 2nd amendment will you? Part where it says, or alludes, the guns are for protection from government.

reply to post by newcovenant


Well, the 2nd Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

To maintain a free state you have to be ready to defend your liberty from all foes, "foreign and domestic". It is in the very fabric of our nation.

In support of this viewpoint, we have Thomas Jefferson stating, ""The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."

Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson issued the opinion of, ""It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

I think that you can interpret anything in any way. But to keep in mind that the Constitution was drafted during a time when the colonists were recovering from the habit of the European monarchs to seize all weapons. This was done to prevent uprisings. Our founders saw this as an evil, and believed that The People should have a hedge against the evils of tyranny. Thus, we were armed. Not to protect ourselves, but rather to protect the Constitution.

reply to post by Sek82

Speaking of seeing the light, the Arms Trade Treaty featured in this thread of which you provided no insight to isn't even applicable to domestic gun laws. The language in it makes that crystal clear.

The NRA believes it does.

Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not,” LaPierre said. “It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty,” he warned

NRA president LaPierre came out swinging today:

LaPierre, who serves as NRA executive vice president, warns that the “UN’s refusal” to remove civilian firearms and ammunition from the scope of the treaty amounts to a declaration that only governments should be gun owners.

But he revealed he was set Wednesday to tell the UN gathering that 58 U.S. senators had signed a letter saying that they would refuse to ratify any treaty that includes controls over civilian guns or ammunition.

Another point to note, if it passes, this treaty must be ratified by the Senate in order to take effect.

Ratification by two-thirds of the Senate is necessary before an international treaty negotiated by the executive branch can become U.S. law.

link