TexasCHLforum.com

gringo pistolero wrote:Any politician voting to ratify a treaty that opposes the constitution proves they're no friend of the constitution.

Any government employee acting to enforce treaties or laws that that oppose the constitution proves they're no friend of the constitution.

It doesn't matter if they're foreign or domestic.

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Iran has been chosen as a member of the “bureau” overseeing a month-long United Nations conference in New York aimed at finalizing a controversial global “arms trade treaty.”

74novaman wrote:

Iran has been chosen as a member of the “bureau” overseeing a month-long United Nations conference in New York aimed at finalizing a controversial global “arms trade treaty.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-na ... off-police


Yes, a police state that we know have been providing arms to terrorist groups and the insurgency against US troops in Iraq seems like a solid choice to talk about arms control.

Dave2 wrote:

74novaman wrote:

Iran has been chosen as a member of the “bureau” overseeing a month-long United Nations conference in New York aimed at finalizing a controversial global “arms trade treaty.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-na ... off-police


Yes, a police state that we know have been providing arms to terrorist groups and the insurgency against US troops in Iraq seems like a solid choice to talk about arms control.

Now, now, if we didn't have the rotating schedule, someone might deservedly get their feelings hurt.

chasfm11 wrote:

gdanaher wrote:The proposed treaty would regulate the sale of weapons to nations in crisis both militarily and in terms of human rights. The UN concern is that every minute, someone in these various countries, largely Africa and the Middle East, dies from violent combative gun fire. The goal is to prevent the sale to and distribution of weapons to those nations. Unless you are in the business of selling AK's to Somalia, you probably don't have much to worry about here.

It is strange to me that the UN's "good intentions" seem to get applied to the US far more often than to the places where they really might have an impact. For example,
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29 ... ns-rights/ (sorry about the Fox News link but they seem to be the only ones reporting this.)
Yep, when I think of Iran, I think of the paragon of women's rights, a shining example for other countries to emulate.

The UN has accused the US of voter fraud (and I can agree with them in some cities like Chicago and NY) but somehow Iran and Russian don't even get honorable mention in this category. Why? Does the US truly disenfranchise its voters more than Tehran?

I have no respect at all of the UN or any of its "elected" officials. When it comes to the worst places on the planet for mass murder, somehow, like Somilia, they turn a blind eye to the problem while all of the voices are clamoring for US intervention. Bosnia was another horribly managed mass murder situation from a UN perspective. Where is the UN outrage about Mexico? Oh, that's right - it is all the US's fault that the drug cartels are heavily armed and slaughtering 10s of thousands of civilians.

The US should tell the UN to read Matthew 7:5. That said, however, there are enough anti-gun Elites in the US, some in positions of power, who would like nothing better than to use a UN treaty as a means to their end. It is a sad commentary on our Federal government when I, as a citizen, have to worry about the clandestine implementation of a UN gun treaty. And I am worried. Since no one would tolerate the implementation of much of what is happening at the Federal level if it were exposed to the light of day, far too much is being done by stealth, backdoor means. Our Legislative branch seems more than willing to cede extraordinary powers to the Executive branch. I fully understand the treaty ratification process but I thought I understood the taxation powers, too. Boy was I wrong.

74novaman wrote:2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

VMI77 wrote:

74novaman wrote:2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

Heartland Patriot wrote: So, you either have to simply take it, or simply take it; if you lose, you lose...and if you win, you lose because the "justice" system will convict YOU of injuring the others if you defend yourself successfully.

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.

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.

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

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.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

74novaman wrote:2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

VMI, there was a case in the UK some while ago where a group of three (IIRC) thugs were taken to court by a man's mother on his behalf, because he was a little too (permanently) messed up to do it for himself. They beat him pretty much senseless IN HIS OWN APARTMENT. However, he tried to fend them off for a few minutes, with his bare hands...and because he did that, the judge wouldn't allow the case to proceed because of it. So, you either have to simply take it, or simply take it; if you lose, you lose...and if you win, you lose because the "justice" system will convict YOU of injuring the others if you defend yourself successfully. I will ask the question again: why is it always okay to START trouble, but never okay to end it? Can any of our legal minds please answer this question for me, in a manner that a mere layman and mechanic can understand? Because otherwise, all I smell is a collectivist rat carcass by the name of Marx stinking the place up...