- Messages
- 2,538
- Reactions
- 632
I don't know. I'm not qualified to make that kind of assessment. Are you?
So it is a contest of who has more links ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't know. I'm not qualified to make that kind of assessment. Are you?
Anybody who tries to grab my guns better be ready for an acute case of lead poisoning. That being said, I would be surprised if this treaty puts those wheels in motion. After a decent amount of research, I believe the story in the original post is mostly false. Fox News actually had a decent article on it
Proposed U.N. Treaty To Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns For U.S. Gun Makers | Fox News
So it is a contest of who has more links ?
I was wondering if you have something to support the OP, other than the abstract logic.
Are you threatened by the size of my linkage?
Hey bud the truth is in your previous posts so any one can verify where you stand. If you belive snopes dosent have an agenda then your in denial
What they would like to do, and what the can do are two totally different things...Overturning the second amendment of the Constitution is a bit much for even the most liberal of Supreme Court justices...
So it is a contest of who has more links ?
Blatant misrepresentation bordering on outright lying. That is not what the dissenting opinion said at all.Heller was 5/4.. the 4 voted to end the 2nd amendment..
Not to get off topic, but I would love to see you provide some of my previous posts that paint me as "Obama lovin."
Heller was 5/4.. the 4 voted to end the 2nd amendment..
How many 1st world nations have a real right to own firearms here in 2012? This was by international design
Nearly every gun owner I know would become an "insurgent" and any/all UN smurfs that came to looking for their guns would find them, sure enough, business end pointed straight at their puff blue helmets.
I dont need to post all of them here all people have to do is look for themselves. There are many were you try and defend him and that cant be denied. Also just to make my point who did you vote for and who will you vote for. I dont think you will admit it , i know i sure wouldnt
Yes, because that's what UN does - goes to places wearing blue helmets Here is one thing to remember :
Top 10 Member States in assessment for the UN regular budget, 2005
Assessment rates/amount
Country (per cent) ($millions)
United States 22.00 362.7
Japan 19.47 279.6
Germany 8.66 124.4
United Kingdom 6.13 88.0
France 6.03 86.6
Italy 4.89 70.2
Canada 2.81 40.4
Spain 2.52 36.2
China 2.05 29.5
Mexico 1.88 27.0
Basically we pay most of their budget, and we ignore them most of the time
Yeah, no accounting for taste: we provide over 1 Billion a year in aid to Pakistan!
DJM
Or how about this one :
The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second.
I would love to see you directly reference just a couple.
Typical...blame Obama. I don't remember Bush and the republicans doing anything to get you a bigger toaster the whole time they had complete control of the government. * * * * * *.You do realize that story does not quote Obama at all. It does not even quote an official saying Obama supports it. It just cites a statement made regarding a proposal to reduce incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas. Yeah, that is horrible. Removing tax breaks and payouts to companies that avoid taxes by shipping jobs overseas. *.... * * * * * * * * * *Where do idiots keep coming up with this "nothing to loose" nonsense. The same argument was made about Bush and how if he got a second term he would have "nothing to loose" and would do away with citizens rights, put people in concentration camps, etc. Politicians are still controlled by their party. This isn't a single game scenario. The parties are thinking several administrations ahead. They do not care who currently holds the torch as much as they do who will hold it next
Plus, politicians never have "nothing to loose." They have to keep the right people happy so they can get their six figure speaking gigs, their seven figure consulting jobs, and their other promised perks after they leave office. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I am afraid what you just said does not jive with the demonized version of the uber-liberal Obama that the far right media has portrayed. Therefore, I have to dismiss you without acknowledging the accuracy of your statement. Obama was put in power for one reason IMHO. That reason was to be a scapegoat for decades of failed policy. The main factor of this failed policy being deregulation that started under Reagan and continued through Clinton and Bush. Deregulation was a means for the wealthy and the powerful to gain unfair advantages and create artificial and unsustainable profits. When it inevitably came crashing down they could not have their regular cronies from either side taking the blame so along comes Obama to be the scapegoat. How else do you explain his meteor like rise to power. * * * * * * * * Please elaborate how Obama is against your best interests in anyway more than any other established politician. Plus, what you said is you would vote for anyone put forth to run against Obama. That indicates you would blindly ignore their positions as long as they were in opposition to Obama.* Here are some put i got sick of reading your nonsense