TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

C-dub wrote:Anyone see this today?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/10 ... s-to-iran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A little more than a week after accusing Iran of supplying arms for Syria's bloody crackdown on democracy-minded rebels, the UN has given Tehran a key seat at negotiations for a global arms treaty.

Last night, my roommate and I had the following verbal exchange (or something very very close to this):
Me: "Hey, guess who's been put in change of negotiations for the UN arms treaty."
Roommy: "Well, if it was a sane choice, we wouldn't be discussing this... Iran would probably be the worst possible choice, and since they're so obviously the wrong choice, yeah, I'm going with the Iranians."

C-dub wrote:It actually makes feel a bit more secure that this is never going to happen here in the USA.

You say that like you think the gun-grabers won't try if Obama wins again.

A little more than a week after accusing Iran of supplying arms for Syria's bloody crackdown on democracy-minded rebels, the UN has given Tehran a key seat at negotiations for a global arms treaty.

AndyC wrote:If all else fails, blue helmets make great targets. Just sayin'.

gdanaher wrote:I would suggest that this treaty, by its own design is moot. Read the details, please. It is inherently designed to fail and is only offering lip service to show that the UN is concerned--much like it offers lip service to those murdered in Kenya, Somalia, Rwanda, Yemen, and Burundi, amongst others. Will this affect private gun ownership in the United States? Are you kidding me? This discussion reminds me of a group of old women, sitting around the quilting circle and wringing their hands in fear of a meteor strike in Kansas. Read the details of the proposed treaty and draw your own conclusions. But do read it first.