Just my thoughts on,,,,,

[BLG]

Some time back Pres. Obama signed a United Nations treaty banning small arms in the global theater, which many countries have signed on. Yea, Yea all of you say, but its got to be ratified by the senate. And just recently Mr Reid advanced the "Nuclear clause" (for 1 purpose only) into the Senate theatre to prevent the fillibuster from being used by the minority party in the Senate. Which by the way, was the only way to stop (well, sometimes stop)very unpopular legislation. But now that the "precedent" is in place, does anyone not think that it could also be used to advance the anti-gun agenda, namely the U.N. treaty ?

[1Admin]

Listening to Penna Dexter (SP?) on Point of view Friday about this reminded me just how far we have went downhill.

[rockriver]

blg,
thanks... i had not considered this...
i suspect you are right.
rr

[Pete]

Oh my! I never thought of that! Good eye, BLG!

[qrprat77]

I don't doubt it in the least. Whatever they want to pass, they will, by hook or crook. Everything they do will be legal. Sooner or later we will all choose who we are to be.

[ibetiny]

I posted this question on another board but got no response. I will start another thread there, and if there are any game changing ideas from them I will try to give everyone here the gist of it. On something this inportant we need all the thinking we can get.

[ibetiny]

Got a good answer. It takes a 2/3 majority, that number is written in the constitution. The "nuclear option" does not apply to that number. Makes me feel somewhat safer, but still ready to get rid of the fedgov all together.

[rockriver]

before the big bank bailout a few years back... I saw 2 or 3 big SOUTHERN senators talking on the telly... experienced conservative senators... men that stood for the righteous way and the American way.... men ready to take a stand...
and they looked into the camera and with the voice of a lion stated clearly " there is no way that America needs to bail out these failing banks"
I felt so proud that the rest of American politicians were mices and that our southern politicians
would stand in the gap and defeat this provision that had our gov't spending our tax money to rescue a private business.
they had a big meeting that night and I knew I could count on these men of integrity.
--
the next day we learned that America would indeed be bailing out a bunch of failing private businesses.
our great southern statesman were on tv being interviewed,
"uh uhm, oh, ... well, you see, uhmm. there were uh well, there were factors , uhm. that we uh learned that convinced us that uh this was the thing to do."
with the tone and attitude of a mouse... not a lion.
then the great senators ducked their heads and turned from the interview and walked off.
----
I've never heard what they were told in that meeting.... but I think they were convinced that all hell was coming down on the country, if they didn't prop up the private businesses/banks.

[BWnTX]

Ratification of treaties requires 2/3 of the Senate to concur (66 out of 100). This is fixed in the Constitution. The recent procedure changes by the dems cannot effect how treaties are ratified.

[tech]

Since when did Obama care what the Constitution said? He'll just say it's the law and that'll be it - again.

[Jeweltgirl]

This Un treaty is kinda tricky. Kerry signed it.

The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.

It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

(how will anyone know what the guns will be used for?)

In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.

(measures? great more gun laws and bans I can see it :( )

I can't see it passin, but with the way our Gov is not working together who knows. I can see them taking the wording and twisting it to fit there needs to ban or restrict guns etc.

I thought also that so many countrys had to sign for it to even come into effect?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...n-to-block-it/ <---Link

[tarheelsman71]

I think it comes down to perception, and how they (Politicians and lame stream media) spin the yarn to make guns the weapons of mass destruction that connecticut was portrayed as. Just remember that whoever wins the war gets to right the history lesson. With that being said I dont think the Gestopo is going to show up at night and one patriot at a time swoop in and take guns. I think they will have a voluntary turn in on a crazy scale with rewards that will offset college loans, home loans, healthcare expenses. People drowning in debt will praise the administration for such a generous offer. The sheeple will still mire themselves in debt, and a whistleblower call or email of someone holding on to weapons after the weapons treaty goes into affect, will get them off the hook from the credit fiasco that they have created for themselves. Weapon would be rounded up that way. Think about how inept our government is, and what a beauracratic nightmare it would be to pick up guns from everyone. In california they are just now working on picking up firearms from felons that became felons, served their time for years and came home and still had their firearms. Nobody bothered to pick those guns up for years.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

I think they will have a voluntary turn in on a crazy scale with rewards that will offset college loans, home loans, healthcare expenses. People drowning in debt will praise the administration for such a generous offer.

I agree with you... Hitler convinced the Germans to hand over the weapons willingly (at least the majority). But it will be a multi angle method.

They will keep pushing the idea that the GUN is bad (not the person using it) through media both news and TV/Movies/Talk Shows. They will also show up at night under the shadow of taking guns from people seen as unfit until a couple bad "accidents" were Good LEO get injured or killed by those "unfit". These accidents will be used by media to further push their agenda and try to get you to feel guilty by association and convenience your neighbors that you as a gun owner are bad or the gun will turn you bad sooner or later. Then they will start the "bribes" but it will not be pay off your debt or to give you money, no the bribes will not be for you the gun owner, they will be for your neighbor (just like in Germany) they will attempt to get your neighbor to turn on you. And that then helps them by keeping you focused on the puppet (neighbor/media/LEO/politicians) and not the puppet masters (those paying/controlling our politicians).

But back to "Treaty" if not followed makes the US a "Rogue State"?... Breaking International Law, right? So yet another way to push in the media that we should do away with the 2nd? Also gives the UN just MORE justification (through their eyes) to come rolling down our streets if they so choose.