thebuns1 4,323 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Keeping our focus in the middle east, seemed a good way to sway peoples attention. http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/un-small-arms-treaty-passes-while-media-sleeps/#ixzz273yd3gOd 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedChallenger 149 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 WTF? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 The Camel's Nose is Under the Tent. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 The Camel's Nose is Under the Tent. His body will soon follow.... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) Yep... Via Executive Orders which circumvent Congress & the Constitution. Edited September 22, 2012 by ChileRelleno 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theorangeplanet 968 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Passed in its second session of the UN conference as was expected...this does NOT mean it was ratified by the United States house and congress. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
timy 1,185 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Passed in its second session of the UN conference as was expected...this does NOT mean it was ratified by the United States house and congress. And it best not be. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Warthog35F 11 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Five words for the UN Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dayofruin 425 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Passed in its second session of the UN conference as was expected...this does NOT mean it was ratified by the United States house and congress. And it best not be. Most likely won't be. I honestly don't think there could ever be door to door confiscation as some think. The cost in money and life would be far more than our gvmt or the UN would be willing to pay. Registration with the UN? None of their business what we have or don't have... Non compliance is key. Gvmt doesn't control people unless they let it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Hard to say. Everyone was ready to bank on SCOTUS striking down obamacare too, but we all know how that turned out. Point being, anything is possible nowdays. And it could be pused through via executive order and bypass any opposition it may recieve. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theorangeplanet 968 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Hard to say. Everyone was ready to bank on SCOTUS striking down obamacare too, but we all know how that turned out. Point being, anything is possible nowdays. And it could be pused through via executive order and bypass any opposition it may recieve. Only if you know who gets re-elected... another underscore to a very important November Tuesday. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
timy 1,185 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 I hope you guys are right. I do know the British and Australians didn't put up too much of a struggle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrThunder88 912 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Hard to say. Everyone was ready to bank on SCOTUS striking down obamacare too, but we all know how that turned out. Point being, anything is possible nowdays. And it could be pused through via executive order and bypass any opposition it may recieve. Only if you know who gets re-elected... another underscore to a very important November Tuesday. "Only" isn't the word I'd use. "Likely" doesn't undersell the potential for what's-his-name to do the same thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
filthygovemploye 64 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Five words for the UN i know i know pick me pick me!!! .....from my cold dead hands!!!! as far as the treaty goes, my future foundation, tentatively called "dont be a pussy" will address issues like this. its stance will be, protect your own ass imbecile!!! i will dumb it down a bit of course... as shotgun news suggested, letting the whole rest of the world go to shit is stupid. the whole point of self defense is thats a right granted by being born, not "given" (or taken)by any gooberment...so, its our duty as a free society to say, HEY!!! wait a sec, FUCK THAT SHIT!!! no russia, you cant disarm those peasants and throw em in a goulag... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
read_the_wall 614 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 I hope you guys are right. I do know the British and Australians didn't put up too much of a struggle. We are not the British and Australians ......................... ............................. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chevyman097 2,579 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 At this point I gave up giving a shit what they pass....I pass the time by loading mags. They can pass any law they want. Im an American citizen and the Constitution trumps anything. Kiss my ass UN. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
liberty -r- death 1,445 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 You guys already know how I feel about this issue. I'll be waiting. . . 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 I share your feelings too fellas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Squishy 1,149 Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 I know some don't consider the NRA to be entirely trustworthy or a trustworthy source of information so take this however you choose; Rumor Control: U.N. ATT and POA, Bad but Different Posted on September 21, 2012 The latest rumor making its way through the darker corners of the internet is an inaccurate spin on the U.N.'s never-ending mission to disarm the American people. The rumors vary, but some have wrongly claimed that the U.S. has secretly adopted a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, subjecting Americans to the schemes of U.N. gun controllers. The confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the differences between July's month-long U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and the Second Review Conference for the U.N. Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (POA) that took place August 27 through September 7. The ATT and POA, while having many of the same anti-gun supporters and objectives, are two distinct U.N. initiatives. The ATT would be a legally binding treaty that would require parties to the treaty to adhere to the treaty's provisions, many of which (as proposed in July) are incompatible with our Second Amendment rights. For the treaty to be ratified it would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate. During the July ATT conference, NRA conducted a successful campaign to stop the treaty. The treaty has been shelved for the moment, but there have been attempts to revive it. The POA, on the other hand, is an attempt to create a voluntary international set of standards for the control of small arms. Under the program, states are encouraged to adopt these controls domestically and to report on their progress. Although many of the standards proposed in the POA process conflict with the rights of gun owners, the U.S. has participated in the discussions. However, no domestic legislation has been passed as a result. The POA is not an extension or alternative to the ATT. Rumor mongers have treated the continued participation of the U.S. in the POA process as evidence that the U.S. has adopted the ATT or another mandatory U.N. gun control program. Continued participation in the POA is misguided and a long-term threat to gun owners, but is not connected to the signing or ratification of the ATT. Some confusion regarding the ATT and POA is understandable, considering the highly bureaucratic nature of U.N. activities. However, some of the writers have presented misinformation about the NRA's efforts to combat U.N. gun control, with one writer claiming that the U.N. gun control plans have "flown under the radar of most gun rights groups." In fact, the NRA has been deeply engaged in fighting the U.N.'s civilian disarmament efforts since 1995. At the U.N. Conference on the ATT in July, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the conference on behalf of gun owners, as he did the year before during the ATT's Third Preparatory Committee session. The NRA was integral in organizing a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlining a majority of U.S. senators' opposition to a treaty encompassing civilian arms. We also helped organize a similar letter from the House of Representatives, and successfully urged thousands of gun owners to contact their elected officials. And the NRA has kept gun owners updated on these developments with numerous articles and alert items, including a September 7 item summarizing the recent POA conference. The civilian disarmament crowd certainly recognizes NRA's efforts in thwarting the U.N. A recent article for Foreign Policy lamented our clout, appearing in several newspapers under the headline, "What NRA Wants Now: Global Domination." Other partisan news outlets and Amnesty International have similarly blamed the NRA for the ATT's July defeat. A careful reading of the documents produced for the ATT and POA make clear that these U.N. initiatives are aimed at controlling civilian gun ownership. However, thanks to the NRA, informed gun owners and our friends in Congress, such attempts have failed. History has made clear that the U.N. attempts to disarm civilians won't end any time soon, but rest assured that the NRA is working to ensure they do not succeed--and that we will keep America's gun owners informed of every development. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mogunner 240 Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 ACTUALLY... c'mon guys, does anyone bother to actually find out about something before just spouting off whatever first reaction they have to crap that someone sees on another forum or on one of these online "shock sites" that are only intended to piss people off that don't know what's actually going on? The NRA wants to take credit, that's fine, they don't seem to mention that other countries besides the US asked for more time to look over the treaty, only to have the UN slap their little hands and say NO and leave the conference. Most consider these "time" requests to have been little more than statements that "we want to stall on this for a while before we say no". Here's my question... anyone actually read the treaty proposal? Didn't think so... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
liberty -r- death 1,445 Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 ACTUALLY... c'mon guys, does anyone bother to actually find out about something before just spouting off whatever first reaction they have to crap that someone sees on another forum or on one of these online "shock sites" that are only intended to piss people off that don't know what's actually going on? The NRA wants to take credit, that's fine, they don't seem to mention that other countries besides the US asked for more time to look over the treaty, only to have the UN slap their little hands and say NO and leave the conference. Most consider these "time" requests to have been little more than statements that "we want to stall on this for a while before we say no". Here's my question... anyone actually read the treaty proposal? Didn't think so... I read it, and it's shit. Thanks for spouting off though. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted September 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 ACTUALLY... c'mon guys, does anyone bother to actually find out about something before just spouting off whatever first reaction they have to crap that someone sees on another forum or on one of these online "shock sites" that are only intended to piss people off that don't know what's actually going on? The NRA wants to take credit, that's fine, they don't seem to mention that other countries besides the US asked for more time to look over the treaty, only to have the UN slap their little hands and say NO and leave the conference. Most consider these "time" requests to have been little more than statements that "we want to stall on this for a while before we say no". Here's my question... anyone actually read the treaty proposal? Didn't think so... Just passing along information. Not spouting off shit. Take it for what its worth as I dont give a damn one way or the other. The POA and the ATT both have the same end results and will likely be implemented eventually one way or another regardless of how we or Congress feel about it. And I did read a good chunk of it, but not the entire thing. Its just a small portion of real events threatening our liberties. And with the lame representation that we have, Im not suprised with any legislation that gets proposed. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
timy 1,185 Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 I hope you guys are right. I do know the British and Australians didn't put up too much of a struggle. We are not the British and Australians ......................... ............................. Correct, at least for now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
read_the_wall 614 Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 I hope you guys are right. I do know the British and Australians didn't put up too much of a struggle. We are not the British and Australians ......................... ............................. Correct, at least for now. Or ever....... A turn in or confiscating attempt would not end well in this part of the world...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mogunner 240 Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) ACTUALLY... c'mon guys, does anyone bother to actually find out about something before just spouting off whatever first reaction they have to crap that someone sees on another forum or on one of these online "shock sites" that are only intended to piss people off that don't know what's actually going on? The NRA wants to take credit, that's fine, they don't seem to mention that other countries besides the US asked for more time to look over the treaty, only to have the UN slap their little hands and say NO and leave the conference. Most consider these "time" requests to have been little more than statements that "we want to stall on this for a while before we say no". Here's my question... anyone actually read the treaty proposal? Didn't think so... I read it, and it's shit. Thanks for spouting off though. So you read all 25 resolutions, good for you. Then you know that it's intended to enforce serial-numbering of firearms and make manufacturers keep production records, as well as more stringent inventory requirements for government ammunition stockpiles then... The UN can "adopt" any treaty it wants, it's just basically a "wish list" that they hope one day all the nations will sign so that it actually becomes something and they can all go home and feel justified in their lives. And it wasn't a treaty, it was a Final Report. “The final report expresses the international community's unwavering commitment to combat the devastating impacts of illicit small arms and light weapons,” the spokesperson said in a statement today. “It also sets out a roadmap for the period 2012-2018, with concrete, actionable steps to implement the Programme of Action.” The Programme of Action, which countries adopted by consensus in 2001, contains concrete recommendations for improving national legislation and controls over illicit small arms, fostering regional cooperation and promoting international assistance and cooperation on the issue. Countries agreed to, among other measures, ensuring that licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process, and to keeping comprehensive and accurate records for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. “The Secretary-General believes that the success achieved at this Review Conference will further bolster the international community's efforts to tackle the challenges associated with the wide availability of illicit small arms,” the UN chief's spokesperson added. “In particular, this success should give further impetus to the efforts to conclude the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) process in the nearest future.” It's amazing how many times this "information" pops up across forums... kind of like the "how many guns do you have" thread, or "which is the best caliber for home defense"... Google is your friend... Edited September 24, 2012 by mogunner Quote Link to post Share on other sites
liberty -r- death 1,445 Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 ACTUALLY... c'mon guys, does anyone bother to actually find out about something before just spouting off whatever first reaction they have to crap that someone sees on another forum or on one of these online "shock sites" that are only intended to piss people off that don't know what's actually going on? The NRA wants to take credit, that's fine, they don't seem to mention that other countries besides the US asked for more time to look over the treaty, only to have the UN slap their little hands and say NO and leave the conference. Most consider these "time" requests to have been little more than statements that "we want to stall on this for a while before we say no". Here's my question... anyone actually read the treaty proposal? Didn't think so... I read it, and it's shit. Thanks for spouting off though. So you read all 25 resolutions, good for you. Then you know that it's intended to enforce serial-numbering of firearms and make manufacturers keep production records, as well as more stringent inventory requirements for government ammunition stockpiles then... The UN can "adopt" any treaty it wants, it's just basically a "wish list" that they hope one day all the nations will sign so that it actually becomes something and they can all go home and feel justified in their lives. And it wasn't a treaty, it was a Final Report. “The final report expresses the international community's unwavering commitment to combat the devastating impacts of illicit small arms and light weapons,” the spokesperson said in a statement today. “It also sets out a roadmap for the period 2012-2018, with concrete, actionable steps to implement the Programme of Action.” The Programme of Action, which countries adopted by consensus in 2001, contains concrete recommendations for improving national legislation and controls over illicit small arms, fostering regional cooperation and promoting international assistance and cooperation on the issue. Countries agreed to, among other measures, ensuring that licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process, and to keeping comprehensive and accurate records for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. “The Secretary-General believes that the success achieved at this Review Conference will further bolster the international community's efforts to tackle the challenges associated with the wide availability of illicit small arms,” the UN chief's spokesperson added. “In particular, this success should give further impetus to the efforts to conclude the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) process in the nearest future.” It's amazing how many times this "information" pops up across forums... kind of like the "how many guns do you have" thread, or "which is the best caliber for home defense"... Google is your friend... Google is not our friend. They give up who you are what you are searching for to the Feds. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mogunner 240 Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 I apologize for not being more specific, the reference intended was to use the internet to confirm/deny or just find out more information on things rather than immediately assume it's accurate. Whether you use Google, Bing or any of the other methods is entirely up to you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.