Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

[fredball]

hope this is the right place to post this and not get another warning. Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama Administration will be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

I’m helping lead the fight to defeat this radical treaty in the United States Senate and I want your help.

Please join me by taking a public stand against this outright assault on our national sovereignty by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

Ultimately, the UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN Small Arms Treaty, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.




If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE the U.S. to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.

To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the UN, the United States of America isn’t a “shining city on a hill” -- it’s an affront to their grand designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.

And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.

That’s why I was so glad to hear that the National Association for Gun Rights is leading the fight to stop this assault on our Constitution!




The truth is there’s no time to waste.

You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.

They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the UN Small Arms Treaty into law since the mid-1990s.

But now time may not be on our side.

In fact, we’re likely to only have a few weeks to defeat the treaty when they make their move.

And we definitely don’t have a President in the White House who will oppose this treaty.

So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to stop the UN Small Arms Treaty is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.

As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.

With new pro-gun champions joining me in the Senate, rounding up enough votes to kill this thing should be easy, right?

Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Even with the Republican tidal wave in 2010, there still isn’t a pro-gun majority in the Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.

You know just as well as I do how few Senators are truly “pro-gun.”

Not only that, but many Senators get “queasy” about killing treaties for fear of “embarrassing” the President -- especially with “international prestige” at stake.

They look at ratifying treaties much like approving the President’s Supreme Court nominees.

Remember how many Senators turned their back on us and voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?

A dozen more only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.

So if we’re going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!

Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?

Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your Constitutional rights must be opposed?

If you said “Yes” to these questions, please sign the survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty.




And along with your signed survey, I hope you’ll send a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35 to help finance this battle.

With your generous contribution, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue contacting Second Amendment supporters to turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.

Not only that, but they’re preparing a massive program to launch the second this treaty is brought before the Senate.

Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits. The whole nine yards.

Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that’s not easy, and we may not have much time.

In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty pro-gun Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!

So please put yourself on record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty by signing NAGR’s Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

But along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom,

Rand Paul
United States Senator

P.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced the Obama Administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new GLOBAL, “Small Arms Treaty.”

If we’re going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!

Please return your Firearms Sovereignty Survey and put yourself squarely on the record AGAINST ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Read More

 

[Redcap]

Them pretty powder-blue helmets make excellent targets.

 

[John H]

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

Then how do you know what they what????

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Man, seeing this false drivel is getting so old. It makes me feel really sad for the mental capacity of the people in this country. Go read the proposed treaty and go get a real understanding of the effects it would have on the US (as well as the efforts actually being put into it by this administration) and then get back to us.

PS: What is this, like the 5th time Hillary has supposedly signed this in the past three years. Each time the story circulates it has a new date that she secretly signed it. Someone needs to investigate this "gun rights group" that is soliciting donations with false information.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

 

[VW_Factor]

Did Rand Paul really write any of that, or did someone put his name on it?

 

[drew]

Did Rand Paul really write any of that, or did someone put his name on it?

I looked on his Senate web site and didn't see anything. Until I see a reliable confirmation that he wrote that, I'm assuming it's fake.

 

[fredball]

Snopes is a left wing front I would no more beleive any thing I read on there then Easter Bunny is real

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Snopes is a left wing front I would no more beleive any thing I read on there then Easter Bunny is real

Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!! I love how you will dismiss a site that actually uses factual evidence to report on stories but completely believe a story that has been told a hundred different ways in the past few years with no reputable sources sited or factual evidence given. It really shows the flaw in your reasoning.

 

[Bunny]

Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!! I love how you will dismiss a site that actually uses factual evidence to report on stories but completely believe a story that has been told a hundred different ways in the past few years with no reputable sources sited or factual evidence given. It really shows the flaw in your reasoning.

I wouldn't trust or rely on Snopes, or ANY single publication or source for definitive facts and answers. It really shows the flaw in your reasoning if you do so. Verify, verify, verify. And then do it again.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I wouldn't trust or rely on Snopes, or ANY single publication or source for definitive facts and answers. It really shows the flaw in your reasoning if you do so. Verify, verify, verify. And then do it again.

Wouldn't you think you would need multiple reliable sources to believe something this ridiculous instead of to disbelieve it. There is the flaw in your thinking and the weakness in your beliefs. The idea that both sides are equal until proven is intellectually dishonest. If I say the earth is filled with chocolate pudding that does not make it a topic worth researching just because I said it out loud.

 

[Bunny]

Wouldn't you think you would need multiple reliable sources to believe something this ridiculous instead of to disbelieve it. There is the flaw in your thinking and the weakness in your beliefs. The idea that both sides are equal until proven is intellectually dishonest. If I say the earth is filled with chocolate pudding that does not make it a topic worth researching just because I said it out loud.

So by your logic, something that's widely accepted as truth isn't worth investigating any further? That which is widely accepted as fact, is definitively fact and correct and right?....... Cuz.... If everyone thought that way, scientists would be out of a job, blacks wouldn't be considered people, I'd still be chained to a stove, and you'd still be in a closet. FYI, technically the world IS filled with chocolate pudding, as it exists on just about every continent.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

So by your logic, something that's widely accepted as truth isn't worth investigating any further? That which is widely accepted as fact, is definitively fact and correct and right?....... Cuz.... If everyone thought that way, scientists would be out of a job, blacks wouldn't be considered people, I'd still be chained to a stove, and you'd still be in a closet. FYI, technically the world IS filled with chocolate pudding, as it exists on just about every continent.

Something do not warrant much investigation. That is my point. Trying to give opposing sides equal importance simply because they are opposing is a false tactic used by extremists.

 

[bruzer]

You had me at "chocolate pudding". Now off to get the shovel and start digging!!!
Mike

 

[Blitzkrieg]

So by your logic, something that's widely accepted as truth isn't worth investigating any further? That which is widely accepted as fact, is definitively fact and correct and right?....... Cuz.... If everyone thought that way, scientists would be out of a job, blacks wouldn't be considered people, I'd still be chained to a stove, and you'd still be in a closet. FYI, technically the world IS filled with chocolate pudding, as it exists on just about every continent.

LMAO here !

 

[Bunny]

Something do not warrant much investigation. That is my point. Trying to give opposing sides equal importance simply because they are opposing is a false tactic used by extremists.

I disagree. Only those who are afraid of discovering something they don't like, or who have something to hide would say or believe something like that. Only someone who values their own agenda more than the truth, and who fears being proved wrong would discourage others from seeking it. Thank goodness everyone who ever invented or discovered something useful that someone told them wasn't worth pursuing, didn't listen to them.

You're wrong. Viewing both sides is equally important, which is why I don't just believe whatever snopes tells me. And what you're doing.... Giving more importance to a side simply because it's yours while completely ignoring the other, is a tactic used by deceivers and liars.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I disagree. Only those who are afraid of discovering something they don't like, or who have something to hide would say or believe something like that. Only someone who values their own agenda more than the truth, and who fears being proved wrong would discourage others from seeking it. Thank goodness everyone who ever invented or discovered something useful that someone told them wasn't worth pursuing, didn't listen to them.

You're wrong. Viewing both sides is equally important, which is why I don't just believe whatever snopes tells me. And what you're doing.... Giving more importance to a side simply because it's yours while completely ignoring the other, is a tactic used by deceivers and liars.

You can disagree all you want. It just shows how flawed your thinking is when you look at it. Just because two points are directly opposite does not mean both points are equally valuable. That is the smokescreen used by the anti-intellectual crowd. A blatant falsehood like this story does hold the position of being true until proven guilty. It is actually quite the opposite. Like Carl Sagan says, just because two arguments are given with equal passion does not mean both have equal worth and deserve equal treatment. It also does not mean the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Sometimes one argument is just a lie. To pretend otherwise only serves one purpose. To give weight to biased views and obscure the truth. It is like when oil companies hire false scientist to issue reports that favor their opinions. There is no weight to their opinions, but just saying it out loud and pretending their is actual legitimate dispute clouds the truth and deludes the masses. It is called the "doubt principle." It states you do not have to prove the facts wrong or your lies to be true. You just have to sow the seeds of doubt against the truth.

 

[Bunny]

You can disagree all you want. It just shows how flawed your thinking is when you look at it. Just because two points are directly opposite does not mean both points are equally valuable. That is the smokescreen used by the anti-intellectual crowd. A blatant falsehood like this story does hold the position of being true until proven guilty. It is actually quite the opposite. Like Carl Sagan says, just because two arguments are given with equal passion does not mean both have equal worth and deserve equal treatment. It also does not mean the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Sometimes one argument is just a lie. To pretend otherwise only serves one purpose. To give weight to biased views.

"Just because two points are directly opposite does not mean both points are equally valuable."

True. But both deserve equal analysis. Otherwise how do you expect people to decide which is more valuable AND TRUE if you deny the counterpoint with logic like "Something do not warrant much investigation"? That's like ignoring evidence in a case and making a ruling anyway. You can't just say your point is the most valuable just because it's the only one put on the table. Denying other views doesn't make yours any more legitimate or correct. So tell me, who's using a smokescreen to hide the truth again???


To give weight to biased views and obscure the truth. It is like when oil companies hire false scientist to issue reports that favor their opinions. There is no weight to their opinions, but just saying it out loud and pretending their is actual legitimate dispute clouds the truth and deludes the masses. It is called the "doubt principle." It states you do not have to prove the facts wrong or your lies to be true. You just have to sow the seeds of doubt against the truth.

Isn't that EXACTLY what you're doing right now? Using the information that Snopes provides to sow the seed of doubt here, to suggest that what the OP posted is false? What proof do you have that Snopes doesn't provide false reports that favor their opinions?


Btw, I think it's funny that you quote a scientist who advocates scientifically skeptical inquiry, but then argue against my own skepticism of the validity of snopes, just because it doesn't suit your own bias. You contradict yourself.

 

[fd15k]

lots of words

Anything on the topic ?

 

[Bunny]

Anything on the topic ?

Using the information that Snopes provides to sow the seed of doubt here, to suggest that what the OP posted is false?

Guess you missed that part.

 

[fd15k]

Guess you missed that part.

No, I didn't miss it. If I understand you right, you're just saying that cited sources don't disqualify the OP as a valid information. But I was wondering if you have something to support the OP, other than the abstract logic.