National gun rights.org

Discussion in 'Politics' started by HozayBuck, Apr 4, 2010.

  1. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
  2. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    again I see no correlation between restricting the sale of guns to terrorists as the government looking to take control of our weapons.

    here's a few links to articles on US adoption of this treaty. And here's a FoxNews report detailing president Obama's backing away from an assault-rifle ban.

    In the blog, he states the goals of the treaty to be such:

    That red tape is there for a reason. Here's an excerpt from the wiki article on what the intent of the treaty should be,

    It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:
    • Be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity;
    • Facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime;
    • Violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes;
    • Be diverted from its stated recipient;
    • Adversely affect regional security; or
    • Seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development.

    As to the blogger's second point that it would be used to confiscate and destroy "unauthorized" civilian guns, I don't see how this would affect them as it's an international trade law not a national ownership law.

    The third point made by the blogger is unfounded on the very grounds that it has nothing to do with the Arms Trade Treaty. If you were to say the treaty is a stepping stone for that, that's a different argument, and one he'll probably lose if Obama follows the same deliberate line he has in the past (as noted by the FoxNews article)

    The fourth and final point is that this treaty would create an international gun registry, which it is yet to specify and is not part of the treaties intent, and that this registry would then be used to "set the stage for full-scale gun confiscation." What I think is interesting here is that this "full-scale gun confiscation" does not logically follow from the registry he stipulates.

    It does not follow logically that a registry is followed by a removal of what is registered.

    This blog is speculation at best, hysteria at worst.
     

  3. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    So why would we want to take part in this UN fiasco? What benefit would there be other than to provide the UN with more leverage over what types of firearms are available on the civilian market? Remember the media BS awhile back about the Mexican druggies getting most of their weapons from the US? Would the US then be "obligated" to ban the purchase of "assault rifles?" (Most of the weapons shown were already illegal or tightly restricted in the US but the media eggheads were either too ignorant to know that or they were just twisting and misrepresenting the truth to push for gun bans.)

    The UN does not believe in national sovereignty of any nation. Most of the countries involved are little dictator run, socialist, communist, collectivist enclaves with deep envy of US productivity and freedoms. They hate us yet want to be like us. Except for little things such as the Bill of Rights which they have no respect for.

    The UN is one of the premier pushers of gun bans and socialism. Why would we want to give them ANY control or authority over US citizens. Would you really trust those clowns?
     
  4. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    Kogneto
    I'm a bit lost in your point, so would you make it clear ? are you for or against anything to do with this treaty? are you ok with some " reasonable" gun laws? I'm not trying to flame you but I really couldn't figure out your point..maybe I'm having a blond day which is hard for a bald guy with brown hair...

    To say this is ok because it's not this just don't cut it, as the old Chinese proverd goes..."The thousand mile journey begins with one step"

    I may be wrong here and would hope some of our members in The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia can clear it up... But as I recall The Kal gov said, register your "Assault" weapons, we just wanna know who has them and where they are, so people did ( some people) next was a law change that made them illegal, so it was , sell it out of state, send it out of state or turn it in..that's my understanding of it... no grandfather clause... regardless, a foot in the door WILL turn into a leg and then a hip etc etc.... we as gun owners need to agree on a line in the sane and warn the Pols that this is where we stop being " reasonable "...

    As for me, I don't belong to the UN, and I obey no laws they might make, there's my line in the sand.
     
  5. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    I would say I'm against disinformation, and emotion based politics. I do believe there is a fervor to rush to judgement on many gun laws. I think that just laws are good laws. If a laws purpose is to make it harder for criminals or anyone who would do me and mine harm, to receive a gun, and that means having to wait a day before getting a gun, or registering your assault rifle with the state, then I am not opposed to it. I understand that we have a second amendment right to own and keep guns, and I will never say to anyone that they should not exercise this right. I enjoy shooting and have been shooting many times since I was a small child at church camp (lol praise the lord and pass the ammo). But I also understand that a clear reading of the text is that it's goal is to restrict the international movement of weapons, not to take away any American citizens guns. You can say that this is a stepping stone, but if your evidence is that any gun law is a bad law, then I don't see that as enough proof.

    right but the government you live in is, does, and will continue
     
  6. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    Well first of all, NO gun law has ever kept a criminal from getting a gun, never has never will...

    " Reasonable " gun laws have been passed many times and in many places, most have turned into dictatorships and several resulted in massive Genocide , one can say , well this could never happen here, uh huh ...right, and I have beach property for sale in Florida, how deep can you dive and how long can you hold your breath?... Remember Waco?

    You can not allow the camel to get it's nose under the tent, History has proven this time and time again.

    No gun law will protect you and yours, nor are the Police required to as stated by the SCOTUS . Dial 911 and die

    I'm sorry b.ut I think you have a different view of the America then I do , I see "change" and I don't like it, I see politicians calling for "reasonable laws" which in the end are never reasonable...

    And while , yes the US of A belongs to the UN and may continue to do so, I will not abide by UN Laws pushed by and agreed to by the hacks in DC.

    If you haven't figured it out, they are not your friend, they will not take care of you and yours, you only have you to count on and maybe a few family or friends.

    I've lost all faith in the Government and figure that sooner or later I'll have even more reason for it.

    Anyway, nuff said, I understand where your coming from now and that was my point...we can agree to disagree as Gentlemen..:D :beercheer:
     
  7. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    Gun control laws are about as effective as a restraining order. The only person they'll stop is the person you never needed to worry about in the first place.
     
  8. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    :beercheer: but it's so much more fun to discourse!
     
  9. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    Frankly, I cringe inwardly everytime a politico utters phrases like "Sensible Gun Laws", "Common Sense", etc.
    And EVERY nation that has instituted Gun Registration has, without exception, extended their laws to make more types of guns illegal to possess.
    England, Australia, Canada - nations we look to as the most akin to our own "Democracy" - all have horribly draconian ANTIgun laws. It is possible to own some guns there, but the list is highly restricted, and the hoops one must go through sicken any Freedom-loving American citizen.
    Do we want this.....? NO! We have our Constitutional rights, and we have laws to restrict criminals from possession - punish those who break those laws, NOT the honest citizenry. We do NOT need MORE laws - we just need to ENFORCE those we do have.
    And the UN has NO place in our national policies and internal laws. We should boot them out of that nice building in NYC, send the buggers back to Belgium, and lease that office space to those companies displaced by the 9/11 killers. A much better use of OUR sovereign land.
    The UN has long ago overstepped their original mandate - no longer a mediating organization, they seek to GOVERN the world, under their own rule of law - considering the UN is led by the Third World, this is NOT in our best interests.
     
  10. DocWard

    DocWard Well-Known Member

    113
    0
    I've always considered "shall not be infringed" to be pretty straightforward.
     
  11. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    BigDog - I don't feel that our gun-rights in Canada are all that restricted. I would hazzard to say that the "free-gun" states where concealed carry and any gun imaginable would think we are restricted, but, other states (I believe like NewYork) would think that our gun-laws are fairly easy to get along with.

    No, I can't have a full-automatic weapon, but, I can own virtually any semi-auto that I want (hand and rifle). No, I can't have a 100-round magazine attached to my semi-auto, but, I can carry a backpack full of magazines and they are easy enough to change out quickly. No, I can't have a derringer, but, I can have a nice double-action "cowboy" revolver in virtually any caliber I can hold ...

    I am also slightly limited to the type of ammo I can own - no flechettes for my shotgun and no armor-piercing rounds (or explosive rounds) ... but - using those kinds of ammo really ruin the meat that I want in my freezer ...

    Honestly - I hear those from the USA telling me that I am very restricted, but, in reality, I feel that the rules here are quite reasonable - and - it seems that registration of long-guns will be scrapped after being in effect for just over a dozen years with no loss of long-guns reported due to misuse ..
     
  12. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    I always heard that yawl had to have your guns locked up in some locl armory and had to check them out and bring them back...

    I think I like our laws best, I wanted a can for my 308 bolt gun, I paid the stupid tax of 200 bucks and had one built, at the same time I had my HB 223 bolt gun and one AR adapted to use the same can... then I got one for my 10-22 that will fit anything I want to have threaded...22 that is... if I have the bucks to pay 15 K for a stupid M-16 that plus 200,00 will get me one...naaa

    But I see your point, I guess us Yanks have had the best of it so long that when they say " OK, you can no longer have 10 pieces of candy but instead only 8" we get all head up and on the fight.. They can keep the candy, I'll keep my guns!! hahaahha... AN AR with a Beta C 100 round drum is awesome!!...:D
     
  13. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    Hell no. Lockup for me means that if I want to have my gun on the wall to show-off, I just need to use a cable-lock to make sure that it stays on that damn wall and I just need to have my ammo away from the gun to make it more difficult for a thief to snag both the gun and ammo.

    I can hang a rifle, shotgun or pistol on the wall.

    If I don't want to have the gun hanging on a wall, they recommend that it is placed in a specially locked room or in a gun-safe so that it is "outta-sight, outta-mind". I can go an extra step and put a trigger-lock onto the gun and then put it into a locked-room and go even further and put the ammo into a seperate gun-safe or seperate gun-room .... but I don't HAVE-TO.

    The laws are written in such a way that no matter what happens with your gun - you are 100% responsible for it. If it is stolen and used in a crime and you didn't report it stolen (missing) soon enough, you are just as responsible as the criminal in that crime. What you do to protect your own *** is upto you and the courts will decide after the fact if it was sufficient.