[LaoTzu]

This narrative is just to reinforce the drama that the GOP has been pushing about Holder and Obama using Fast and Furious to promote gun violence in the USA so the cowed public acquiesces on 2nd amendment rights.
Sadly, this tripe is being spoken aloud in the halls of power. (Where's that jobs-bill again?)

It's fabrication.

Kind of like me saying Alex Jones is working for the NRA in order to help scare Hillbillies into thinking two black guys are looking to disarm them.
The GOP does this to scare up a few extra votes.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[newtome]

All the conspiracy theories all coming together but no-one connecting the dots.

Arab Spring
Occupy Wall Street
Re-Education Camps
Gun Control

All of these things are related. George Soros is well documented as being part of most of them in various forms.

The Arab Spring and OWS movement are both heavily supported by the Union Movements and many of the organisers are funded through a myriad of organisations that ultimately are funded by Soros.

Unarmed citizens are much easier to control and as stated earlier many regimes have histories of disarming the citizens as they crack down. Re-education camps to help them see the light. Much easier to get people to the camps if they don't have guns

Just saying, for what it's worth.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just saying, for what it's worth.

It's worth the time to read it. For the shits n' giggles.

But not to take it seriously.

One should be prudent, and watchful of the potential for power grabs, obviously.
But not in fear, and not prone to believing in ghosts/aliens/or similar conspiracies.

I don't like or trust Alex Jones, and I think He'd have been better off as an investigative journalist with real credentials, and a real job.
I think we'd be better off too.
It's a shame He took a dive off the deep end. He could have been great.

Then maybe he could inform us on folks like Murdoch and the Koch brothers...
I see them at work constantly for nefarious gain; yet very little press...
That must be Soros' fault too...

[AaronSheffield]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are assuming tomorrow will have the same parameters as yesterday. The US is waning in power. When it falls below the power curve it will be at the mercy of those countries who have risen above the power curve. The countries, or wealthy people who run those countries will have controlling interest in the UN.

I think you're unclear about what the word "permanent" means. It's not possible to remove the US's veto power from the UN without disbanding the UN entirely. That's kind of the point of being a permanent member of the Security Counsel and having irrevocable veto power.

The existence or non existence of the UN won't matter to countries that want to force the US into something; if they'd use the UN's military force, they'd use their own military force without the UN.

The UN functions as nothing more than a scapegoat. It's just a way for everyone to do what they were going to do anyway while pretending that there's some sort of consensus about it.

[Autumnleaf]

Originally Posted by Doggzilla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, we have an insane gun violence problem compared to any other country. The main problem is that its really easy to steal guns from people who wont shut the hell up about how they have so many guns and they are unlocked, ect. For instance, My favorite trucking instructor has two unlocked guns, one in his kitchen and one in his nightstand. Im not the only one who knows, and he is out of the house 5 days a week. Grand opportunity for someone to pick up two high powered handguns. If someone has a firearm stolen, they should be charged with negligence of some kind, and an even larger crime if they dont report it. When it comes to the bill itself, nobody believes America would ever go along with this. The reason for this to exist is to reinforce the idea that America is full of gun toting assholes, which would then make people in Europe want to distance themselves. Its like how democrats try to pass bills to make republicans look like monsters, which is almost always successful.

The US has a history of taking things from its citizens.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The Supreme Court has already upheld imminent domain laws so they can take your house away from you to build a mini mall.

Eventually I think a crisis will happen where people are coerced into turning in their guns.

[LaoTzu]

You are conflating different things.

But to be fair,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
; just in time to scare NRA honks into voting against common sense... and Obama.

My issue is the doom and gloom BS that coincides with public debate on the issues, and the use of hand crafted statistical analysis to promote a faulty conclusion.

Talking about gun control is not itself gun control.
This is how democracy works. Both sides present an argument, and the People vote.

As a "gun-hating Canadian"; I have no illusions that US gun laws will ever be reformed. The 2nd amendment is important to folks from both sides of the aisle; and is considered an essential freedom.
And as a citizen of another country; I really don't care what y'all do.

What bothers me, is that the GOP has been desperately trying to paint the Obama admin as anti-gun; when in the last 4 years Obama's made ZERO moves against the 2nd amendment.
It's a bogus debate, at a time when there are more pressing issues.

[Subtle]

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is one of the funniest things I have ever read.

Your sense of humor must be pretty lame, but I'm glad to be of assistance. Ha-ha!

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Firstly, governments add "reservations" to treaties all the time. /---/ Secondly, almost all modern treaties are not self-executing. /---/ Finally, states ignore treaties all the time.

What has this got to do with anything? A treaty is a written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves. I said nothing else. Know what? I majored in political science, international relations. Hilarious, aren't I? Ha-ha!

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think it's naive to think that the UN could force the US to do anything.

The UN cannot force the USA to do anything. No external entity can do that. But American politicians can. If a treaty is ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate, it will take effect. That's why the UN Arms Trade Treaty meets fierce opposition from many Americans and the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[Aronnax]

Originally Posted by Subtle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What has this got to do with anything? A treaty is a written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves. I said nothing else. Know what? I majored in political science, international relations. Hilarious, aren't I? Ha-ha! The UN cannot force the USA to do anything. No external entity can do that. But American politicians can. If a treaty is ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate, it will take effect. That's why the UN Arms Trade Treaty meets fierce opposition from many Americans and the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

And you honestly believe that 2/3's of the current congress will ratify a treaty that violates the second amendment, the supreme court won't strike it down and the public will accept it?

You are indeed hilarious.

[Sk8ordude]

Yeah I'm sure everybody is going to go along with that, considering most of those who enforce our laws are NRA members.

[Subtle]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And you honestly believe that 2/3's of the current congress will ratify a treaty that violates the second amendment, the supreme court won't strike it down and the public will accept it?

No.

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are indeed hilarious.

Let me guess, you and AaronSheffield tour the same comedy club?

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by Subtle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No.

Then why the excitement?

	Let me guess, you and AaronSheffield tour the same comedy club?

INTJ forum.

On certain days it's a bag of laughs.

[Subtle]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then why the excitement?

Those who oppose said plans are winning the battle this time. If they become complacent they will lose in the future.

I can't say that I have a personal stake in this fight. You should ask your question to concerned Americans, on both sides of this issue, instead.

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	INTJ forum. On certain days it's a bag of laughs.

!

[AaronSheffield]

	Originally Posted by Subtle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If a treaty is ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate, it will take effect. That's why the UN Arms Trade Treaty meets fierce opposition from many Americans and the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

No, it will not. The ATT is non-self-executing. This means that even if the US adopts the treaty, none of its provisions will be US law unless and until the House and Senate both pass changes to US domestic statutory law in addition to the approval of the treaty itself.

Even if that were not the case, if the US filed reservations to parts of the treaty, those portions of the treaty would not apply to the US. All the US would need to do is file a reservation stating that we will not read the treaty in such a way as to run counter to the 2nd Amendment or current US law and that would be enough.

The difference between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties as well as the process for reservations should have been covered in the first week of any course on International Law. I guess my J.D. courses in International Law covered things in a bit more detail than the undergraduate classes you had.

Also, FYI, I am a licensed Concealed Carry permit holder as well as a card-carrying member of the NRA. I'm aware of the NRA's worry over the issue and I find it overblown. The NRA has a vested interest in creating crises because it helps them raise money.

[Ytterbium]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can't see obese America rising up. Sorry.

Spill a box of push pin on the ground and their motorised scooters, will get flat tyres! Bwahaha!
Then slap them with salmons.

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Unarmed citizens are much easier to control and as stated earlier many regimes have histories of disarming the citizens as they crack down.

Gullable, busy and entertained people are the easiest to control. Why bother Americas funniest home videos is on the telly?

[Subtle]

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, it will not. The ATT is non-self-executing. This means that even if the US adopts the treaty, none of its provisions will be US law unless and until the House and Senate both pass changes to US domestic statutory law in addition to the approval of the treaty itself.

The USA has a restrictive way of handling treaties. I stand corrected. Thank you.

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Even if that were not the case, if the US filed reservations to parts of the treaty, those portions of the treaty would not apply to the US. All the US would need to do is file a reservation stating that we will not read the treaty in such a way as to run counter to the 2nd Amendment or current US law and that would be enough.

This is pretty obvious, don't you think? At least if the reservations were made before the treaty was signed.

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The difference between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties as well as the process for reservations should have been covered in the first week of any course on International Law. I guess my J.D. courses in International Law covered things in a bit more detail than the undergraduate classes you had.

Well, I presume that your courses covered International Law from your country's perspective, whereas my courses were aimed at the relations between countries and other entities on the international arena.

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also, FYI, I am a licensed Concealed Carry permit holder as well as a card-carrying member of the NRA.

Respect.

Now, right to the important stuff:

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm aware of the NRA's worry over the issue and I find it overblown. The NRA has a vested interest in creating crises because it helps them raise money.

The difference between scaremongering and vigilance can be minute sometimes, no doubt about it. But how do you think that the NRA, and others, should deal with this issue, considering how the enemies of the Second Amendment think this particular battlefield is interesting and worthwhile?

What's your opinion?

[thod]

Gun control is too emotive. Instead they should go for ammo control. When it becomes impossible to buy bullets, a gun is just a metal stick.

[AaronSheffield]

	Originally Posted by Subtle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The USA has a restrictive way of handling treaties. I stand corrected. Thank you.

This is not limited to the US. Self-executing vs non-self-executing is a common consideration in all treaties. Whether other countries are as willing to determine a treaty to be self-executing or not is open for debate, but the concept is certainly not exclusive to the US.

	Originally Posted by Subtle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, I presume that your courses covered International Law from your countries perspective, whereas my courses were aimed at the relations between countries and other entities on the international arena.

Actually, the core classes I took were taught by a professor who is currently on leave of absence from the university as a judge for the High Court of Kenya. The courses did not present the US perspective on international law but rather described International Law from an independent, non-sectarian perspective.

	Originally Posted by Subtle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The difference between scaremongering and vigilance can be minute sometimes, no doubt about it. But how do you think that the NRA, and others, should deal with this issue, considering how the enemies of the Second Amendment think this particular battlefield is interesting and worthwhile? What's your opinion?

In terms of what the NRA and others are actually doing, that is, the concrete and verifiable steps that they are taking from a lobbying standpoint, I am comfortable. The lobbying so far is pretty much simply calling and mailing members of Congress and expressing opposition to the ATT.

However, I feel that these organizations are greatly overstating the risk in order to coerce members into donating. The text of the resolution authorizing the treaty drafting provides that the treaty shall not have any affect on, “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” From this basis, any of the claims predicting that the ATT would be an end-run around the 2nd Amendment strike me as ridiculous at best and tinfoil hat insanity at worst.

[Mayu]

When people need guns to feel safe, isn't there something gravely wrong with the national security?

[Autumnleaf]

Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think you're unclear about what the word "permanent" means. It's not possible to remove the US's veto power from the UN without disbanding the UN entirely. That's kind of the point of being a permanent member of the Security Counsel and having irrevocable veto power. The existence or non existence of the UN won't matter to countries that want to force the US into something; if they'd use the UN's military force, they'd use their own military force without the UN. The UN functions as nothing more than a scapegoat. It's just a way for everyone to do what they were going to do anyway while pretending that there's some sort of consensus about it.

Permanent is one of those words akin to never and always. Most of the time when it is used its untrue.

---------- Post added 07-09-2012 at 10:49 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Mayu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When people need guns to feel safe, isn't there something gravely wrong with the national security?

When people feel safe without the right to own guns, isn't there something gravely wrong with national security?

At the end of the day guns are used to protect or take away freedom, depending on who has them.

---------- Post added 07-09-2012 at 10:51 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My issue is the doom and gloom BS that coincides with public debate on the issues, and the use of hand crafted statistical analysis to promote a faulty conclusion.

The point I'm concerned about is how unarmed societies tend to get treated poorly by governments. Please share some statistics you are comfortable with to put my mind at ease on this issue so that I may find myself in agreement with your perspective.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The point I'm concerned about is how unarmed societies tend to get treated poorly by governments. Please share some statistics you are comfortable with to put my mind at ease on this issue so that I may find myself in agreement with your perspective.

Weird. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Probably because the words are coming from your derrière.


The NRA, and by extension the GOP are drumming up November support by scaring naive and idealistic young freedom fighters like yourself into thinking the USA has any chance of truly becoming a totalitarian nightmare; first by removing your weapons... then... whatever....


I had a vivid imagination once too. I think I get where you're coming from.
One day, you'll realize that not everything is meant as a personal affront to you; Not every action is an insidious plot to put you under a boot.


I can't blame you on this conspiracy theory... because like I said before; it's been parroted by GOP honks in meetings and committee's at the highest levels of Gov't.
But see it for what it is... Political chicanery.

You obviously have issue with power as it is currently wielded, concern for your freedom....But you voluntarily give up your freedoms by your unwarranted interest in stories and drama's that have been crafted for you to respond in a specific fashion. You're wasting valuable brain-time thinking about these issues... as if you're the only one on the front line of defending 'Freedom'.

You may CHOOSE to respond to this tripe... but it plays into what someone else wants. (hence the giving away of your freedom)

Don't be a tool of the power elite.

[Ytterbium]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Gun control is too emotive. Instead they should go for ammo control. When it becomes impossible to buy bullets, a gun is just a metal stick.

Isn't that the same thing? Also same type of ammunition can be used in different types of weapons. It's common to hand load own ammunition aswell, reusing old shells. So I don't think that would help really.
Here in Sweden the amount of ammunition (or gunpowder) legally to be kept home. Is measured by weight, simple because it's a fire department legislation rather than gun issue. So technically if you have a full spare petrol container at home, lessens the amount of bullets.