UPDATED : U.N. Arms trade treaty talks and DC gun control

[wwkii]

This whole nw firearms site has been taking over by the libs

 

[fd15k]

This forum has been well penetrated by the anti-American "Progressives".

 

[DMax]

What I find interesting is the libs say don't worry but all they can do on this thread is attack and attack the message and the messenger and if they really aren't worried then why do they continue to defend and protect Tyrants and progressives the real destructionists of America. It's a great boring defense strategy by the 2A Pretenders

 

[deen_ad]

Again, see my above post regarding Reid v. Covert. Even if the treaty is ratified (questionable) it is trumped by the Second Amendment. The treaty's effect on the Second Amendment would be - as Rush Limbaugh would say - Zilch. Zero. Nada. Don't be used by political operatives who are secretly smirking and laughing at how easily some gun owners fall for their manipulation and fear-mongering.

This president has proved he doesn't care about the Constitution and will write what ever laws he wants.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

This thread is just the same reactionary people reacting to the same fear mongering misinformation.

Shame on anyone one that would call themselves a journalist that would be presenting it again without acknowledging it as nothing but gossip...and not even new gossip. It has supposedly been signed no less than six times in the past three years. The story just keeps changing the dates when the old ones pass. Also shame on any "journalist" that would fail to acknowledge the legal reality of UN Treaties to begin with.

 

[deen_ad]

There is no city or state in this country where it is impossible to own most types of firearms. Even the worst of them, like NYC, Chicago, Washington, DC, California, and New Jersey, don't have total gun bans.

They don't come out and actually say that but try to buy a handgun in most of those places. A long gun is not that useful for concealed carry either.

 

[BSG 75]

This president has proved he doesn't care about the Constitution and will write what ever laws he wants.

The President doesn't write laws, Congress does.

President Obama said Thursday that he believes that the Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms - but added that it doesn't mean that the government can't work to keep guns from being sent to Mexico, where a violent drug war rages.

"The Second Amendment in this country is part of our Constitution and the president of the United States is bound by our Constitution," he said. "So I believe in the Second Amendment. It does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses. That does not mean that we cannot constrain gun runners from shipping guns into Mexico."

Obama: I believe in the Second Amendment - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.


Mitt Romney signs legislation to extend the Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons on July 1, 2004.

"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

http://nationalgunrights.org/images/Romney-AWban-pr.pdf

 

[Partsproduction]

This thread is just the same reactionary people reacting to the same fear mongering misinformation.

Yeah, and the NRA are in on it too, I believe all the 2nd amendment groups are warning about it but it's just fear mongering.

Yeah right!

We will lose our right to keep and bear arms because "progressive" gun owners are selling us out.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Yeah, and the NRA are in on it too, I believe all the 2nd amendment groups are warning about it but it's just fear mongering.

Yeah right!

We will lose our right to keep and bear arms because "progressive" gun owners are selling us out.

Yup, and a means to garner money. This story has been repeated so many times and is so full of holes it isn't funny. It has been around for three years now and anyone that can work a computer can find out how fake it is in 15 minutes.

 

[BSG 75]

We will lose our right to keep and bear arms...

Wanna bet? How about Mitt Romney's favorite wager, $10,000?

[video=youtube_share;0CPQMDS_XO0]http://youtu.be/0CPQMDS_XO0[/video]

If we have completely lost our right to keep and bear arms by the end of the next President's term of office - either because Obama is re-elected or because of the scary UN Arms Trade Treaty - I'll pay you $10,000. If we still have our right to keep and bear arms in 2017 then you'll pay me $10,000. Deal?

 

[Partsproduction]

If it comes true, what consolation will we get from you PBP? Will you say "I was wrong"? Would it matter? I don't think so. What harm, on the other hand, will it do to throw a flaming fit every time those anti-American marxists start talking about it? Do you think they don't notice when people get scared? I think they do and need to!
The fact is we the people need to take the government away from progressives and give it back to the people, where it is supposed to be. Personally I don't wish for violence, but will understand if it comes, and will begin to think there are still true Americans left if it does.

Per the NRA, in a very short time;


As called for in a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 2009, a conference will begin this Monday, July 2, in New York City, to draft the treaty's language. The "United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty" is one of the most serious threats to American gun owners in decades.

That's how one sneaks stuff like this over people like you, make it take a long time so you will say "We haven't lost our guns yet!", but again, what will take the place of our rights even if you admitted some day that we were right?

 

[deen_ad]

The President doesn't write laws, Congress does.

You haven't been paying attention to the new "proclimations" (sp?) he's signed have you? Check out the latest immigration non-enforcment of laws, or the new requirement for multiple gun sales along the Mexican border, or allowing people to vote who don't have any identification.

Obwan has already said if Congress doesn't give him what he wants he'll bypass them and do it anyway.

 

[Bigfoot]

Jaime6.5, what does the treaty say about banning the trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic weapons? I've read about this in several news reports now.

The 2nd A doesn't say what kind of firearms are allowed and I could see both R and D administrations banning them. The SCOTUS could easily agree.

If us doubters are wrong about this treaty then life goes on as usual.

What happens if the pro-government crowd is wrong?

Many of us don't trust the government to defend our rights. Or trust that they will do much of anything competently. Some of you do and that's fine. I respect your views. Can you understand or at least respect ours?

 

[BSG 75]

You haven't been paying attention to the new "proclimations" (sp?) he's signed have you? Check out the latest immigration non-enforcment of laws, or the new requirement for multiple gun sales along the Mexican border, or allowing people to vote who don't have any identification.

Obwan has already said if Congress doesn't give him what he wants he'll bypass them and do it anyway.

They still aren't laws. If Obama is the gun grabber that his detractors claim he is, why hasn't he then issued a "proclimation" [sic] banning and confiscating all guns? Or at least banning "assault rifles" (like the bill Mitt happily signed)? Or banning "multiple gun sales" completely, rather than just requiring reporting of them?

 

[DMax]

They still aren't laws. If Obama is the gun grabber that his detractors claim he is, why hasn't he then issued a "proclimation" [sic] banning and confiscating all guns? Or at least banning "assault rifles" (like the bill Mitt happily signed)? Or banning "multiple gun sales" completely, rather than just requiring reporting of them?

bho is a coward he does not do anyting on his own. He works and community organizes others to work in the background so he can blame others for is lack of truthful leadership. If relected he will get done in the 2nd 4yrs what he could not in the 1st 4 yrs and gun control will be on his to do list along with many other disfunctional lib polices inacted. Enjoy your future.

 

[BSG 75]

The 2nd A doesn't say what kind of firearms are allowed and I could see both R and D administrations banning them. The SCOTUS could easily agree.

Read the Heller decision. The Supreme Court already has that covered.

b. "Keep and bear Arms." We move now from the holder of the right—"the people"—to the substance of the right: "to keep and bear Arms."

Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham's legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: "Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms." See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing "arms"). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited "arms" (as opposed to "weapons") to "instruments of offence generally made use of in war," even that source stated that all firearms constituted "arms." 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Many of us don't trust the government to defend our rights. Or trust that they will do much of anything competently. Some of you do and that's fine. I respect your views. Can you understand or at least respect ours?

I can respect views that are based on facts, logic, reason, statistics, the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and even personal experience. It is hard for me to understand or respect views based on fear, hysteria, paranoia, rumors, propaganda, partisanship, and misinformation. That doesn't mean I don't respect the person, but their views have to have some substance backing them up for me to respect them.

There is an informal group of pro-gun rights people - of which I am a member - that debate the anti-gun nuts at Huffington Post. We post there because if you want to confront anti-gun rights nuts there are more of them there than anywhere else. It is a target-rich environment. It isn't easy because we pro-gun people are completely outnumbered by hysterical anti-gun nuts, and the comments are usually in response to some sensational mass shooting story, which brings the anti-gun rights nuts out to comment by the thousands about the evils of guns.

But we are able to calmly cut them to shreds because we have facts, logic, reason, statistics, polls, the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and personal experience with firearms on our side, while they have nothing but emotion, hysteria, fallacies, misconceptions, misinformation, and hatred of firearms on their side. So it is a little discouraging to see the mirror image of the anti-gun nuts there in the anti-Obama people here, with the same lack of logic, reason, or facts to back up their opinions.

I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 precisely because of one sentence he said during his acceptance speech in Denver:

The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

Just because Obama hinted at an "assault weapon" ban he lost my vote in 2008. It would be pretty silly for me to then turn around in 2012 and vote for someone who actually signed an "assault weapon" ban in 2004, and seemed pretty proud of himself as he did it.

 

[deen_ad]

They still aren't laws. If Obama is the gun grabber that his detractors claim he is, why hasn't he then issued a "proclimation" [sic] banning and confiscating all guns? Or at least banning "assault rifles" (like the bill Mitt happily signed)? Or banning "multiple gun sales" completely, rather than just requiring reporting of them?

But they have the same effect as laws, making them one and the same.

 

[BSG 75]

But they have the same effect as laws, making them one and the same.

The powers that the President can exercise with Executive Orders are far more limited than the law-making powers of the Congress. You claimed earlier that Obama "will write what ever laws he wants" and that simply isn't true.

 

[Grunwald]

• The next Supreme Court justice to retire will be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an anti-gun liberal, who is old and in poor health. Replacing her with another liberal won't change the balance of the court. The Heller/McDonald Five are very unlikely to retire while Obama is president.
• Even if the balance of the Supreme Court changed the Court doesn't wake up one morning aind say "hey, let's overturn DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago for no reason". That's not the way the Court works. A case regarding the Second Amendment would have to work its way up to the Supreme Court for there to be a chance to render another judgement on the Second Amendment. Even then, the Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedents because of the principle of stare decisis. So your scenario of the Supreme Court suddenly deciding "that militias are not the people like you and me so you and me cant own guns only militias who ever they are" is extremely unlikely. Even if that unlikely event happened, it wouldn't change anything. There is no political will nationally for a total gun ban, neither the American people nor a majority of politicians want it, so nothing is going to happen at a Federal level. For gosh sakes, a member of Congress was shot in the head, and what new gun laws did Congress pass? *crickets*
  
  At the state level, most states - including Oregon and Washington - have a right to keep and bear arms in their Constitutions State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions. So statewide total gun bans are unlikely in most states.
  
  There is no city or state in this country where it is impossible to own most types of firearms. Even the worst of them, like NYC, Chicago, Washington, DC, California, and New Jersey, don't have total gun bans.
  
  
  

You have way too much faith in the jackases in black robes. How many idiotic and illogical decisions must they put out before you realise that you'd be better off letting the graduates of clown college decide what is constitutional and what is not.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

If it comes true, what consolation will we get from you PBP? Will you say "I was wrong"? Would it matter? I don't think so. What harm, on the other hand, will it do to throw a flaming fit every time those anti-American marxists start talking about it? Do you think they don't notice when people get scared? I think they do and need to!

When it is wrong this time, just like last time, I think the real question is will the fear mongering journalists and bloggers capitalizing on this ridiculous story admit to their part in the whole thing and admit their error. They didn't the last few times.