Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   The next move of the gun grabbers (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/next-move-gun-grabbers-89102/)

molonlabexx 04-19-2013 12:56 AM

The next move of the gun grabbers
 
One thing is for certain, there is a freight training coming for our guns, itís time to derail itÖ [LINK]

gr8oldguy 04-19-2013 01:16 AM

Who exactly is coming to get my guns? I hope they wait until next week because I just picked a new one up today and I'd like to get a chance to shoot it a couple of times before "they" take it away.

molonlabexx 04-19-2013 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gr8oldguy (Post 1218706)
Who exactly is coming to get my guns? I hope they wait until next week because I just picked a new one up today and I'd like to get a chance to shoot it a couple of times before "they" take it away.

The "Yea" section of this list...

Rocky7 04-19-2013 01:34 AM

It won't take months and it won't need much momentum, IMO.

It will come soon in both our countries and it will be called the Arms Trade Treaty.

Even before his most ambitious gun-control proposals were falling by the
wayside, President Obama was turning for help to the United Nations. On
April 2, the United States led 154 nations to approve the Arms Trade Treaty
in the U.N. General Assembly. While much of the treaty governs the
international sale of conventional weapons, its regulation of small arms
would provide American gun-control advocates with a new tool for restricting
rights. Yet because the Constitution requires that two-thirds of the Senate
give its advice and consent to any treaty, Second Amendment supporters still
have a political route to stop the administration.

Like many international schemes, this treaty has seemingly benign motives.
It seeks to "eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent
their diversion to the illicit market," where they are used in civil wars
and human-rights disasters. The treaty calls for rigorous export controls on
heavy conventional weapons, such as tanks, missiles, artillery, helicopters
and warships. Yet, as with many utopian devices, the treaty fails the test
of enforcement. Some of the world's largest arms traffickers either voted
against the agreement or abstained. The U.S., quite rightly, already has the
world's most serious export controls in place, while nations such as North
Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia and China will continue to traffic in arms with
abandon.

But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light
weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain
a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10
requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The
treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares
it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for
"recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word
about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of
self-defense.

Gun-control advocates will use these provisions to argue that the U.S. must
enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and
ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain
weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run
around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails. As the Supreme
Court's Heller and McDonald cases recently declared, the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual right "to keep and bear Arms" such as handguns and
rifles. Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce remains broad, but
the court's decisions in other cases-even last year's challenge to the
Affordable Care Act-remind us that those powers are limited.

International treaties don't suffer these limits............


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324504704578413110123095782.html

molonlabexx 04-19-2013 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocky7 (Post 1218733)
It won't take months and it won't need much momentum, IMO.

It will come soon in both our countries and it will be called the Arms Trade Treaty.

Even before his most ambitious gun-control proposals were falling by the
wayside, President Obama was turning for help to the United Nations. On
April 2, the United States led 154 nations to approve the Arms Trade Treaty
in the U.N. General Assembly. While much of the treaty governs the
international sale of conventional weapons, its regulation of small arms
would provide American gun-control advocates with a new tool for restricting
rights. Yet because the Constitution requires that two-thirds of the Senate
give its advice and consent to any treaty, Second Amendment supporters still
have a political route to stop the administration.

Like many international schemes, this treaty has seemingly benign motives.
It seeks to "eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent
their diversion to the illicit market," where they are used in civil wars
and human-rights disasters. The treaty calls for rigorous export controls on
heavy conventional weapons, such as tanks, missiles, artillery, helicopters
and warships. Yet, as with many utopian devices, the treaty fails the test
of enforcement. Some of the world's largest arms traffickers either voted
against the agreement or abstained. The U.S., quite rightly, already has the
world's most serious export controls in place, while nations such as North
Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia and China will continue to traffic in arms with
abandon.

But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light
weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain
a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10
requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The
treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares
it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for
"recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word
about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of
self-defense.

Gun-control advocates will use these provisions to argue that the U.S. must
enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and
ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain
weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run
around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails. As the Supreme
Court's Heller and McDonald cases recently declared, the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual right "to keep and bear Arms" such as handguns and
rifles. Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce remains broad, but
the court's decisions in other cases-even last year's challenge to the
Affordable Care Act-remind us that those powers are limited.

International treaties don't suffer these limits............


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324504704578413110123095782.html

Yeah the UN is pretty much the foundation of a one world order.

gr8oldguy 04-19-2013 01:38 AM

Now I'm scared.

molonlabexx 04-19-2013 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gr8oldguy (Post 1218738)
Now I'm scared.

About what?

sputnik1988 04-19-2013 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gr8oldguy (Post 1218738)
Now I'm scared.

Nothing to be scared of, this is nothing new, 'they' have been after our guns for 100 years, nothing has changed.

They wont ever stop either, so its up to us to either let it happen, or support our pro gun groups and remind those who betray us that we run the ballot box. There will always be those who wish to take our God given rights, we cant stop that, but we can be stronger than they are.

We cant just continue this defense of our remaining rights, its time to take the fight to them and reinstate the rights that have been taken from us. As long as we 'hold our ground' they will periodically gain ground on us, we have to take ground from them and let it be known, that they can't trample us as they have done for so long


It's time to take our rights back and I think this reciprocal concealed carry and GFZs (thanks 95sniper) are a good places to start.

95sniper 04-19-2013 03:13 AM

Sorry, wierd double post.

95sniper 04-19-2013 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sputnik1988 (Post 1218862)

Nothing to be scared of, this is nothing new, 'they' have been after our guns for 100 years, nothing has changed.

They wont ever stop either, so its up to us to either let it happen, or support or pro gun groups and remind those who betray us that we run the ballot box. There will always be those who wish to take our God given rights, we cant stop that, but we can be stronger than they are.

We cant just continue this defense of our remaining rights, its time to take the fight to them and reinstate the rights that have been taken from us. As long as we 'hold or ground' they will periodically gain ground on us, we have to take ground from them and let it be known, that they can't trample us as they have done for so long

It's time to take our rights back, I think this reciprocal concealed carry is a good place to start.

And gun free zones. It makes me sick to hear people say that they would rather give away our rights to be "safer" it really makes no sense.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:46 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.