UN Registration/Will you surrender your arms!

Discussion in 'Second Amendment & Legal' started by thomasjefferson, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. thomasjefferson

    thomasjefferson New Member

    14
    0
    Let's be realistic; You have careers, families, retirement. The powers that be want our arms under the guise of "stopping mass murderers".

    No doubt, the CO shooting will bring about the UN treaty along with its registration (and historically proven) eventual confiscation.

    I will resist and they can pry them from my cold dead hands. If we all have this policy, we will remain free, if not, humanity might enter a new dark age of tyranny forever locked in with the assistance of technology.

    Will you surrender? I say, Molon Labe!!
     
  2. series11

    series11 Hail Commifornia Lifetime Supporting Member

    6,370
    44
    A robber took all mine... I have a made in China bb gun they can have.
     

  3. SeventiesWreckers

    SeventiesWreckers Load Bearing Wall

    I gotta go watch Red Dawn again, I forget what happens next.
     
  4. lxlate

    lxlate New Member

    192
    0
    What are the UN's plannes for the US?
     
  5. thomasjefferson

    thomasjefferson New Member

    14
    0
    Has the entertainment industry and freedom created so much apathy that the first three answers are sarcastic and void of intelligent responses?

    If the future is left of up to you two (gun owners? Or teenagers?) then there will surely be widespread (maybe voluntary ) serfdom. Oops, is that word too big and uncommon for you too understand?

    I'm looking for a serious response with some indication of intellectualism.
     
  6. thomasjefferson

    thomasjefferson New Member

    14
    0
    Key word is REALISTIC
     
  7. thomasjefferson

    thomasjefferson New Member

    14
    0
    You can only speak for yourself
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2012
  8. dwcfastrice

    dwcfastrice Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporting Member

    "Realistically"?

    I believe, realistically, the US holds the right to refuse (part of the stipulation to even have this debate/discussion within the UN) and as a sovereign nation does NOT have to adhere to anything that the UN passes. The UN is one of the LEAST effective organizations in terms of "policing". It's not a "world government" and holds NO sovereign authority over ANY nation.

    Just becuase an ambassador signs an agreement doesn't mean COngress will ratify it.

    So you're really speaking in hypotheticals here. Still, It's a very good question.

    When push comes to shove and you have to choose between family's survival and your firearms, what would you choose.

    Anyone can spew rhetoric, but when and IF (the BIG IF) push comes to shove, most people will pick survival over rhetoric. Call me an idealist, but I still believe in the power of the American people and the American system. We won't let our nation's sovereignty be taken away. We're not that weak.........YET.

    D
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2012
  9. Hey, wasnt this supposed to be signed today? I logged on here hoping to hear whether or not it went through. As far as what I will do is concerned-I would hate to have to get into a conflict with anyone, especially our own police or military, but no matter who it is-if they try enforcing some kind of weapons confiscation upon me (kinda like what happened in New Orleans), shots will ring out. This is not my masculinity speaking, this is my american patriotism clinging to our constitution. I feel that as a public, everyone is fine with the little "chips" here and there at our liberties and rights, which absolutely frightens me. It is only when the American people stand strong against these attacks that our country can return to what the founding fathers originally intended.
     
  10. jonm61

    jonm61 New Member

    1,348
    5
    I've read the full text of the treaty. While I am opposed to the treaty, it's not because it has any chance of having any impact on our gun rights.

    This treaty applies to nations selling or providing weapons to another nation. Throughout the document, every section clearly states "imports" and "exports". None of it has the slightest application, nor implication, relating to our gun rights. There is nothing in it that could possibly be construed to apply to gun rights. There is nothing calling for a registry. In fact, at the beginning, it's stated clearly that each nation's laws or constitutions are not affected by the treaty.

    I would link to it, but the copy I read has been marked up by NAGR and has clearly been done so as a desperate attempt to generate donations for their "fight" against it. Everything they've highlighted or commented on is so ridiculously far off base that whoever did it should be flogged. :rolleyes:

    After reading it, I'm opposed to this treaty, primarily, for two reasons. One, it's going to cost us money, as we'll be the primary nation who will have to "contribute" to help those "nations in need" who can't afford the costs of implementing the treaty and two, because it may lower our standards to that of the lowest common denominator among nations involved.

    Seriously, the hype on this, like so much else, is way overblown. I'm far more interested in the magazine capacity limit in the amendment to the Cybersecurity Bill in the Senate than I am this treaty.


     
  11. ROYALE-W-CHEESE

    ROYALE-W-CHEESE New Member

    479
    1
    It's the UN Arms Trade Treaty, relating to international commerce and trafficking of conventional weapons. It does not relate to firearm bans within the US. No where in its scope does it intend to "come take 'em" especially not in the US. They oughta know better.

    So unless someone plans on becoming an international large-scale arms dealer, gun runner or weapons trafficker, I see not how the ATT directly affects my personal gun ownership. In fact, many aspects of the US involvement in the ATT specifically underscores that the ATT shall not restrict or impede existing US laws including and especially our Second Amendment rights.

    The ATT's scope is mostly about warlords illegally or otherwise selling and buying tanks, missiles, small arms and light weapons, etc. We're trying to keep these out of the hands of the global terrorists and human rights criminals. It's not about restricting American 2A rights.

    Edit: Here's just one reference, as a starting point. It's not hard to google up other credible references that all summarize essentially the same thing I and jonm61 wrote. http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2012
  12. justinp1987

    justinp1987 New Member

    45
    0
    I'm telling you what man the only way there getting my guns is when I'm dead I will fight for the 2nd amendment and the freedom of this country for as long as I live long live the republic..Justin
     
  13. lbwar15

    lbwar15 New Member

    81
    0
    I'm guessing y'all have not heard the news. The US, Russia , and a few others backed out of the ATT today. They are saying they need more time to decide. It dose not seem like it is going to pass. Not after the comments obama got from the UN after backing out.
     
  14. Had not heard, so thanks for posting an update. Today was a good day!
     
  15. lbwar15

    lbwar15 New Member

    81
    0
    I tried to post a link but it would not let me. We are not out of the woods yet. They just said they need more time. But in this situation hesitation is a good thing.
     
  16. Hesitation shows they know they're beat.
     
  17. Eye_Peeled

    Eye_Peeled 8th Gen. Fla Cracker (not creepy though)

    Respectfully, we are a pretty close-knit family here with very real concerns for our gun-rights. We don't take this lightly and back when you were a non-member here, we were discussing this intelligently, using big words and everything. You didn't just come along like an all-knowing professor and shed light on this situation for us. May I suggest if you want to be part of this family, you show a little respect, that is, if you don't want to be run out of town. We are mostly full-grown men and women here, some of which are former, as well as current military/law enforcement. Thank you and try a different approach.
     
  18. lbwar15

    lbwar15 New Member

    81
    0
    Yep. Not to mention over 1/2 the senate said they will strongly oppose any treaty that interferes with the 2A.
     
  19. glocknloaded

    glocknloaded Click Click Boom Supporter

    45,268
    18
    I understand your question but I doesn't need a hostile response. This is a friendly forum and if you don't like the answers given simply skip the response and on to the next.

    My answer would be No I would Not freely hand over my firearms I would take my family north to the redwoods and live off the land just the way we started, the only difference is I will have high powered rifles instead of arrows. If they want my firearms come and get them!!!