100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Traitors who want to Snatch our guns | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, Yes it is too easily researchable. Perhaps you should read what the senators say instead of stealthily misrepresenting the facts. "Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote." "Fairfax, Va. – Today, four members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and the United Nations with the clear message that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will not be ratified. Earlier this year, the U.N. adopted and President Obama directed Secretary Kerry to sign this treaty, which does not exclude civilian arms from its scope and therefore directly threatens the Second Amendment. “This letter sends a clear message to President Obama and Secretary Kerry that the Arms Trade Treaty will not receive the 67 votes in the U.S. Senate necessary for ratification,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of our 5 million members, the NRA would like to thank those who signed this letter for their principled stand in defending the Second Amendment freedoms of all law-abiding Americans against this attempt by the U.N. to undermine American sovereignty.” Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT), Max Baucus (D-MT), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), and Joe Donnelly (D-IN) sent a letter to President Barack Obama saying, “because of unaddressed concerns that this Treaty’s obligations could undermine our nation’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, we would oppose the Treaty if it were to come before the U.S. Senate.” This joins the bipartisan effort of 50 fellow Senators and 181 members of the U.S. House who sent letters to the President stating their opposition to the ATT earlier this month." I haven't misrepresented anything, the OP mentions a pretty specific un resolution and a claim that it disarms citizens,, anyone who CARES TO READ IT clearly can see that it does no such thing ,,,but on with the 'attack on our rights' fear tactics,,,,if its good enough for the politicians, it must be true,,,,  You misrepresented the FACT that the UN would or would NOT abridge our 2nd amendment rights. The UN document makes it clear that owning a gun is not a right. The Senators understand the document better than you and took action accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would wish that someone would post a picture of the that crazy eyed guitar picker Dianne Fienestein with the AK.. does she not look like she likes it, or what ... she has a gleam in her eye.
tell me i'm wrong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would wish that someone would post a picture of the that crazy eyed guitar picker Dianne Fienestein with the AK.. does she not look like she likes it, or what ... she has a gleam in her eye. tell me i'm wrong damn,you must be in love with Ivy Starnes,if you're looking at her that close! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gun totin morons may need to take a mental wellness exam soon? That should weed out the herd LOL  "We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gun totin morons may need to take a mental wellness exam soon? That should weed out the herd LOL "We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics." Truer words were never spoken. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, Another misinformed liberal voter  Not every American wishes to own or drive a car (the largest cause of deaths accidental or otherwise in the US) but there is no actions to outlaw, limit, or ban them! ANY attack on, or limitation of our Constitutional, or rights by birth, is like surrendering to a criminal the gun he uses to rob you with! To give ANY foreign body power over OUR rights is surrendering your sovereignty and nothing short of treasonous stupidity!  once again, regulating INTERNATIONAL Trading is a government issue, its not a personal collection or attack on PERSONAL OWNERSHIP... Can anyone be that misinformed....really? If the US votes to fall in line with the UN SA treaty, we can kiss sovereign rights goodbye! What part of "compliance" don't you understand? And where is their authority written into our Constitution? It is said however to form friendships with all and alliances with none! Like the TPP, it does nothing for the good of the US populace! It's putting lipstick on a pig for the idiot liberals to kiss easier! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gun totin morons may need to take a mental wellness exam soon? That should weed out the herd LOL "We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics." Truer words were never spoken. Hate to tell ya but... If you think you're safer with a weapon... you're part of the lunatic circle 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, Yes it is too easily researchable. Perhaps you should read what the senators say instead of stealthily misrepresenting the facts. "Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote." "Fairfax, Va. – Today, four members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and the United Nations with the clear message that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will not be ratified. Earlier this year, the U.N. adopted and President Obama directed Secretary Kerry to sign this treaty, which does not exclude civilian arms from its scope and therefore directly threatens the Second Amendment. “This letter sends a clear message to President Obama and Secretary Kerry that the Arms Trade Treaty will not receive the 67 votes in the U.S. Senate necessary for ratification,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of our 5 million members, the NRA would like to thank those who signed this letter for their principled stand in defending the Second Amendment freedoms of all law-abiding Americans against this attempt by the U.N. to undermine American sovereignty.” Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT), Max Baucus (D-MT), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), and Joe Donnelly (D-IN) sent a letter to President Barack Obama saying, “because of unaddressed concerns that this Treaty’s obligations could undermine our nation’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, we would oppose the Treaty if it were to come before the U.S. Senate.” This joins the bipartisan effort of 50 fellow Senators and 181 members of the U.S. House who sent letters to the President stating their opposition to the ATT earlier this month." I haven't misrepresented anything, the OP mentions a pretty specific un resolution and a claim that it disarms citizens,, anyone who CARES TO READ IT clearly can see that it does no such thing ,,,but on with the 'attack on our rights' fear tactics,,,,if its good enough for the politicians, it must be true,,,, You misrepresented the FACT that the UN would or would NOT abridge our 2nd amendment rights. The UN document makes it clear that owning a gun is not a right. The Senators understand the document better than you and took action accordingly. that's a matter of interpretation,, senators aren't all knowing, they can misinterpret like any other human |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gun totin morons may need to take a mental wellness exam soon? That should weed out the herd LOL "We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics." well, fanatics should be weeded out,, if they can be weeded out, it means they don't represent ALL muslim terrorists should be weeded out (from ALL OTHER MUSLIMS) as well.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, Another misinformed liberal voter Not every American wishes to own or drive a car (the largest cause of deaths accidental or otherwise in the US) but there is no actions to outlaw, limit, or ban them! ANY attack on, or limitation of our Constitutional, or rights by birth, is like surrendering to a criminal the gun he uses to rob you with! To give ANY foreign body power over OUR rights is surrendering your sovereignty and nothing short of treasonous stupidity! once again, regulating INTERNATIONAL Trading is a government issue, its not a personal collection or attack on PERSONAL OWNERSHIP... Can anyone be that misinformed....really? If the US votes to fall in line with the UN SA treaty, we can kiss sovereign rights goodbye! What part of "compliance" don't you understand? And where is their authority written into our Constitution? It is said however to form friendships with all and alliances with none! Like the TPP, it does nothing for the good of the US populace! It's putting lipstick on a pig for the idiot liberals to kiss easier! its not about misinformation, once again its about perception and interpretation I don't interpret things as ALL or nothing,,, I don't believe that regulation on the trade and manufacture of vehicles, for instance, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping me from being able to PERSONALLY own a car similarly, I don't believe regulation on trade and/or manufacture of weapons, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping americans their 'right' to personally own a gun,,, ,,but to each their own interpretation of risk and what LT effect a decision will have,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gun totin morons may need to take a mental wellness exam soon? That should weed out the herd LOL "We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics." Truer words were never spoken. Hate to tell ya but... If you think you're safer with a weapon... you're part of the lunatic circle thought it was named Hoplophobia? Well,my bad! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 09/20/14 11:36 AM
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, Another misinformed liberal voter Not every American wishes to own or drive a car (the largest cause of deaths accidental or otherwise in the US) but there is no actions to outlaw, limit, or ban them! ANY attack on, or limitation of our Constitutional, or rights by birth, is like surrendering to a criminal the gun he uses to rob you with! To give ANY foreign body power over OUR rights is surrendering your sovereignty and nothing short of treasonous stupidity! once again, regulating INTERNATIONAL Trading is a government issue, its not a personal collection or attack on PERSONAL OWNERSHIP... Can anyone be that misinformed....really? If the US votes to fall in line with the UN SA treaty, we can kiss sovereign rights goodbye! What part of "compliance" don't you understand? And where is their authority written into our Constitution? It is said however to form friendships with all and alliances with none! Like the TPP, it does nothing for the good of the US populace! It's putting lipstick on a pig for the idiot liberals to kiss easier! its not about misinformation, once again its about perception and interpretation I don't interpret things as ALL or nothing,,, I don't believe that regulation on the trade and manufacture of vehicles, for instance, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping me from being able to PERSONALLY own a car similarly, I don't believe regulation on trade and/or manufacture of weapons, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping americans their 'right' to personally own a gun,,, ,,but to each their own interpretation of risk and what LT effect a decision will have,,, what has your Right to Selfdefense and the Right to Own the Implements to do it with,to do with the Privilege of Driving a Car?  You still are mixing Rights and Privileges! Rights are inherent in the Individual,not bestowed or given by Government! And the First and Second are Foremost,regardless of what Government might do! Any move against those Two is unconstitutional,regardless of what the Liberals think! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 09/20/14 03:53 PM
|
|
gun totin morons may need to take a mental wellness exam soon? That should weed out the herd LOL "We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics." Truer words were never spoken. Hate to tell ya but... If you think you're safer with a weapon... you're part of the lunatic circle Such a broad statement... If we were to use this logic, perhaps one should inform the president that there is no need to arm his secret service. There is no point in arming our military. Or our police force. There is also no point in disarming criminals as they would be no better off being armed. Maybe you didn't actually mean your statement in it's entirety, as I would agree that being armed doesn't keep you out of danger, but with training, it does help you handle that danger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not in its entirety no... It was a two liner
You're perceptive, you understood the reasoning behind it. (Secret service stuff aside) I can only assume it comes from experience. Tell you a story about the smallest Chinaman I ever met, He is Filipino actually. He trained himself in knife work, from butterfly to Buck to machete... hell give this guy a pen knife and I'm pretty sure 5 guys with guns are minced meat close range. He said: "In my country, lots of people with guns... You need to protect yourself from them"  Guns are just a false sense of security and some people cling to their rights to own them... That's fine. Generally, you're not safer with a weapon, in fact, owning more weapons makes everyone less safe because of the possibility for theft. Some crazy azz gun owners leave their weapons in their gloveboxes... That make sense? I call it lunacy not security
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would wish that someone would post a picture of the that crazy eyed guitar picker Dianne Fienestein with the AK.. does she not look like she likes it, or what ... she has a gleam in her eye. tell me i'm wrong Fienstein.  Anyways, don't you people have people that know how to build elec and or steam gas vehicles? Get on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, Another misinformed liberal voter Not every American wishes to own or drive a car (the largest cause of deaths accidental or otherwise in the US) but there is no actions to outlaw, limit, or ban them! ANY attack on, or limitation of our Constitutional, or rights by birth, is like surrendering to a criminal the gun he uses to rob you with! To give ANY foreign body power over OUR rights is surrendering your sovereignty and nothing short of treasonous stupidity! once again, regulating INTERNATIONAL Trading is a government issue, its not a personal collection or attack on PERSONAL OWNERSHIP... Can anyone be that misinformed....really? If the US votes to fall in line with the UN SA treaty, we can kiss sovereign rights goodbye! What part of "compliance" don't you understand? And where is their authority written into our Constitution? It is said however to form friendships with all and alliances with none! Like the TPP, it does nothing for the good of the US populace! It's putting lipstick on a pig for the idiot liberals to kiss easier! its not about misinformation, once again its about perception and interpretation I don't interpret things as ALL or nothing,,, I don't believe that regulation on the trade and manufacture of vehicles, for instance, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping me from being able to PERSONALLY own a car similarly, I don't believe regulation on trade and/or manufacture of weapons, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping americans their 'right' to personally own a gun,,, ,,but to each their own interpretation of risk and what LT effect a decision will have,,, what has your Right to Selfdefense and the Right to Own the Implements to do it with,to do with the Privilege of Driving a Car? You still are mixing Rights and Privileges! Rights are inherent in the Individual,not bestowed or given by Government! And the First and Second are Foremost,regardless of what Government might do! Any move against those Two is unconstitutional,regardless of what the Liberals think! its a simple analogy it has to do with 'all or nothing' thinking as in, if they start with A they will not stop until Z a move to regulate is not a move to ban,,,,regardless of what conservatives think,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, Another misinformed liberal voter Not every American wishes to own or drive a car (the largest cause of deaths accidental or otherwise in the US) but there is no actions to outlaw, limit, or ban them! ANY attack on, or limitation of our Constitutional, or rights by birth, is like surrendering to a criminal the gun he uses to rob you with! To give ANY foreign body power over OUR rights is surrendering your sovereignty and nothing short of treasonous stupidity! once again, regulating INTERNATIONAL Trading is a government issue, its not a personal collection or attack on PERSONAL OWNERSHIP... Can anyone be that misinformed....really? If the US votes to fall in line with the UN SA treaty, we can kiss sovereign rights goodbye! What part of "compliance" don't you understand? And where is their authority written into our Constitution? It is said however to form friendships with all and alliances with none! Like the TPP, it does nothing for the good of the US populace! It's putting lipstick on a pig for the idiot liberals to kiss easier! its not about misinformation, once again its about perception and interpretation I don't interpret things as ALL or nothing,,, I don't believe that regulation on the trade and manufacture of vehicles, for instance, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping me from being able to PERSONALLY own a car similarly, I don't believe regulation on trade and/or manufacture of weapons, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping americans their 'right' to personally own a gun,,, ,,but to each their own interpretation of risk and what LT effect a decision will have,,, what has your Right to Selfdefense and the Right to Own the Implements to do it with,to do with the Privilege of Driving a Car? You still are mixing Rights and Privileges! Rights are inherent in the Individual,not bestowed or given by Government! And the First and Second are Foremost,regardless of what Government might do! Any move against those Two is unconstitutional,regardless of what the Liberals think! its a simple analogy it has to do with 'all or nothing' thinking as in, if they start with A they will not stop until Z a move to regulate is not a move to ban,,,,regardless of what conservatives think,,, Yes, but there was a move to BAN weapons that "look scary" (the loose, ignorant definition of assault weapons that was tossed around), ergonomic attachments, semi-automatic weapons, magazine sizes, muzzle breaks, heat shields, concealed carry, the amount of ammo one can own, and a move to add months to waiting lists for purchasing a firearm, adding various taxes to ammo and guns, limits on the number of guns one can own, strict regulations on how these guns should be stored (dismantled and under separate lock and key from ammo), etc. It seems as though there is a definite push to get from A to Z. Perhaps this is what gun owners are defensive about. Not to mention the simple inability to enforce the laws on the books already makes it rather foolish to add new ones. Just saying, regardless of what liberals think... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, Not to mention that Obama is well known for his anti-gun stance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Wed 09/24/14 05:11 AM
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, Another misinformed liberal voter Not every American wishes to own or drive a car (the largest cause of deaths accidental or otherwise in the US) but there is no actions to outlaw, limit, or ban them! ANY attack on, or limitation of our Constitutional, or rights by birth, is like surrendering to a criminal the gun he uses to rob you with! To give ANY foreign body power over OUR rights is surrendering your sovereignty and nothing short of treasonous stupidity! once again, regulating INTERNATIONAL Trading is a government issue, its not a personal collection or attack on PERSONAL OWNERSHIP... Can anyone be that misinformed....really? If the US votes to fall in line with the UN SA treaty, we can kiss sovereign rights goodbye! What part of "compliance" don't you understand? And where is their authority written into our Constitution? It is said however to form friendships with all and alliances with none! Like the TPP, it does nothing for the good of the US populace! It's putting lipstick on a pig for the idiot liberals to kiss easier! its not about misinformation, once again its about perception and interpretation I don't interpret things as ALL or nothing,,, I don't believe that regulation on the trade and manufacture of vehicles, for instance, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping me from being able to PERSONALLY own a car similarly, I don't believe regulation on trade and/or manufacture of weapons, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping americans their 'right' to personally own a gun,,, ,,but to each their own interpretation of risk and what LT effect a decision will have,,, what has your Right to Selfdefense and the Right to Own the Implements to do it with,to do with the Privilege of Driving a Car? You still are mixing Rights and Privileges! Rights are inherent in the Individual,not bestowed or given by Government! And the First and Second are Foremost,regardless of what Government might do! Any move against those Two is unconstitutional,regardless of what the Liberals think! its a simple analogy it has to do with 'all or nothing' thinking as in, if they start with A they will not stop until Z a move to regulate is not a move to ban,,,,regardless of what conservatives think,,, now you tell me of your "Right" to regulate a pre-existing Right! The 2nd Amendment doesn't bestow that Right,it merely once more confirms it! ......It may be inconvenient, and it is often highly so in politics, to recognize the truth; but there the truth is, that if a man possesses rights,I mean primary rights, rights belonging to human existence, not created by any majority of his fellow men neither that majority nor any other majority outside that man can dispossess him of those rights. To do so is to abolish the very word 'rights' from any place in civilized language." Auberon Herbert and the Right to Selfdefense,which would be meaningless without the Right to Own the Means of Selfdefense,is just such a Primary Right! Doesn't come before your,your State-representative,or your Congressman in Washington for purview! It's outside your Sphere of influence! In other words,None Of Your Beeswax,unless I commit a Crime with that Weapon! |
|
|
|
|
