jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (30 posts)

Obama Admin supportive of UN Proposed Treaty regarding gun controll

  1. profile image61
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    The Obama Administration including the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has shown support for a proposed UN Treaty that would impose new gun controll regulations. Check out the link below. Your thoughts?

    http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/ … p-in-arms/

    1. profile image0
      Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is written by a guy who writes how climate science is false, but is an architect. When reading this article, it is EASILY dismissed by his own words on page 1. He explains that the details are not released but "it most certainly will include...". That it itself proves that this is nothing more than a Republican fear campaign...AGAIN. No foreign law of any kind will affect the Constitution...ever, period. Grow up people

      1. profile image61
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "No foreign law of any kind will affect the Constitution...ever, period."

        I tend to agree. Hopefully we are both right. "Grow up"???? Come on Tex I was just asking for peoples thoughts on the "IDEA" that the UN could trump US LAW....That's it.

        1. profile image0
          Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry CJ, my bad. That wasn't intended to be primarily directed at you, but a manifestation of the frustration I felt after reading 30 hubs. Sorry man...my fault. I was wrong to put that in there.

    2. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Larry Bell has an impressive profile.

      There must be control in ref. to fully automatic weapons.

      I'm with Charlton Heston when he raised a rifle above his head and pronounced to the world: 'You will take my gun over my dead body!"

      I think there are enuf people like me, who will "fight" for my  right to "bear arms!"

      Qwark

  2. dutchman1951 profile image59
    dutchman1951posted 6 years ago

    A Republican fear slant, just in time for elections. It is True the UN wants a Treaty for a ban on Gun trades, like High powered Radioactive amunition, and military style guns that are brutal, they are not interfearing with Individual owning Guns.

    They are after the The ban of Private Trade of Military style weapons between countries. To keep them out of the Hands of Terror groups.

    The Idea is nice, idealistic and all, but a nice nice kind of thought. Problem is they can not stop black marketing of the weapons between Rogue nations.

    and yes, our for sale Congress and Senators who are trying to allow us to be socialy engineered will probably fall for it, with enough bribe perks and such. But I have doubts it would pass in the form suggested in the article. To much force with NRA and Manufacturer's Gun lobby.

    But, I am sure we will some some controls added on and suposidly stiffened in our future. Depending on how it affects the Money influences involved in Gun manufacture and trade.

    Black Market problems, and control of that, I doubt we will see. We have no powers for that across International Borders, except to threaten with sanctions, and we all know how well those things work..!   smile

    Criminal Laws in the Us, Guns taken out of the Hands of Kids, Defense against Criminal Gun attacks etc...  Those things should be our concern right now.

  3. profile image61
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    I will say that the US has NOT filed any reports to the UN regarding this treaty. At least none that have been published. Hillary has hedged her position by stating that the UN decision must be unanimous. In other words, unless all countries go along, the US wont. That's a pretty safe bet. I can't imagine that all contries would agree totally on any thing.

  4. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "The Obama Administration including the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has shown support for a proposed UN Treaty that would impose new gun controll regulations."
    This the US - the biggest arms dealers in the world. Must be some scheme to increase the US monoply.

    1. profile image61
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Intresting angle....

  5. דוד מיכאל profile image61
    דוד מיכאלposted 6 years ago

    makes law enforcement easier...

    1. profile image0
      Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It also makes a foreign invasion easier and a totalitarian control by the government easier. In this land we have here, we don't allow that. I am a HUGE liberal who will always support the right to own guns.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think Ralph will mind that I repeat that he supports the right of an individual to own guns.

        I do. Most liberals do. The debate is over trying to prevent felons and the insane from purchasing weapons. And there is reasonable debate over how far into the realm of military weapons the individual should be allowed to buy.

        The article cited in the OP did not offer one bit of evidence to substantiate the claims. IMO ,it's nothing but rumormongering to keep the NRA membership from thinking about real issues.

        1. profile image61
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Doug, take away the obvious "fear mongering" you mention and replace gun controll with any other Constitutional issue. Do you support UN treaties that undermind US Law? I was more intrested in the concept than the specific issue itself.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I would generally say that I oppose the UN interfering in US law. Since any treaty has to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, the idea that the UN will dictate to the US is fantasy.

        2. profile image61
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Doug, I tend to agree with you. I do question the "need" for an AK or AR, even when they are only semi auto and have limited cap mags. The problem with that is they are so easily modified. Military small arms are made with two things in mind, reliability and ease of use. That being said I do worry about opening the door to restrictions. Once they start where do they stop? Is my 9MM with a 15 round clip too much? Are all semi auto pistols too much? Should we be restricted to black powder Rifles, shot guns and revolvers?

          1. TMMason profile image71
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect yourself from an over-bearing and yranical Govt, our to be exact. And they cannot be stopped with a hundgun.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I suggest that you read the link posted by psycheskinner.
              Unless of course you enjoy winding yourself up over nothing.

              1. TMMason profile image71
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                One I am not all worked up. i did read the link and my point still stands. The 2nd amendment is for defense against our own Govt first and foremost. 

                My comment was as regards ownership of AKs and ARs and  223s... that is all.

                And that treaty is real, just not signed as of yet.

            2. profile image0
              Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              One thing to keep in mind is the mindset of our citizenry, including the military. There isn't a slight chance in hell that if a President ordered our Army to take over a town or lock up our citizens, that they would do it. We are a different breed than the tyrant governments of the past. I know these Army guys, just like you do. They'd tell him to kiss their ass and we'd have us a revolution in about 30 minutes.

          2. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            IMO, the emphasis is skewed the wrong way. Restricting access by weapon type is the wrong approach. Some people should not have weapons because of their temperament. Usually this character trait is substantiated by a criminal record, but I would create avenues for certain professionals to be able to enter names into the 'ban' list.

            But I digress. The most and saddest gun tragedies happen because of ignorance. People are required to demonstrate proficiency to drive a car. But there is no education required for gun owners. For those who own guns,  ignorance is inexcusable, and the government should be leading the charge to educate shooters.

            Bans of weapons by type is a generally ineffective placebo. But it makes sense to me that more advanced weapons would require more advanced training.

  6. TMMason profile image71
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    It is the UN global handgun ban. I tis a fact and they have been trying to get our guns for some many decades now. They can have mine when they ory it from my cold dead hands! Of course they have been attacking the ammo side of this deal also. Ammo is going through the roof.

    1. profile image61
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Demand is running up the price as well.....

      1. TMMason profile image71
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not as much as regulation and taxes. But yes it is as well. And it'll only get higher.

        1. profile image61
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          the taxes are directly related to the increased demand. With all these war's going on, demand is higher. What a great time to increase the tax! People who buy ammo are not going to stop. Why not tax the hell out of them! It's like gas. People have proven it takes a big increase before they stop driving.....Government often taxes until the people scream. Then they back off just a little and there by seem as though they are being gracious. However a new norm and high water mark has been set.

          1. TMMason profile image71
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah thats the way they do it. But that doesn't negate Holder and the regs czar and their actions. I agree with you... but there are other factors also.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, heaven forbid that anything should stop the US arming the worlds terrorists.
              Because that is what the UN treaty is about, not about stopping you from playing Cowboys and Indians at all.

              1. TMMason profile image71
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The UN Global handgun ban I am speaking of wil indeed attempt to dis-arm Americans.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO0k9SHljCc

                It would only take us not paying attention or being lulled into complacency for a lil while for them to push this through..

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  An incredibly biased video!

  7. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    They can have all my guns EXCEPT my last gun, then they can have the ammunition!

  8. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago
 
working