Skip to comments.UN Arms Treaty Could Put U.S. Gun Owners in Foreign Sights, say Critics
Posted on 07/11/2012 6:54:00 PM PDT by EagleUSA
UNITED NATIONS A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations -- with Iran playing a key role -- could expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments -- and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.
International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Associations Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitutions Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.
Americans just dont want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not, LaPierre said. It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty, he warned in an exclusive interview with FoxNews.com
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/#ixzz20Mx1sFKV
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
2/3 of the senate will not vote for this treason. They would be hunted down like rabid dogs. They would not want to live in hiding for the rest of their short, treasonous lives.
No matter how much they would LIKE to vote for this treason, their own self-preservation instincts are too strong.
They wear those blue helmets right? They’ve never played Patriot and UN before I guess.
“...2/3 of the senate will not vote for this treason.”
I know, but it just infuriates me when these obvious enemies of our country pull this crap.
COME AND TAKE IT!....motherfeckers
It only takes 2/3 of The Senate present at the time it’s voted on. That’s my understanding.
By the end of the century, people will be hunting Democrats with dogs, -- U.S. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, in 1993, in Bill Clintons first year in office.
Senator Gramm was a little off on the timing is all.
Yes this (appears) set to be somewhat troublesome for at while if passed.
It must become a constant thing, if passed.
No delays or loopholes. Ever until it gets turned back down.
Now now..be a good dawg (- ;
I paint blue helmets on my targets for practice.... you know, just to keep sharp!
If they called a midnight vote with 2/3 plus one of 50 ‘rats voting, they would be hunted down like dogs. There are not enough ‘rats with a death wish in the senate.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
Exactly! This author is a little confused about just who is going to be in whose sights.
” could expose the records of America’s gun owners to foreign governments..”
Who would actually obey the order to disarm? Certainly nobody I know. It would be the proverbial Last Straw for millions.
Well I for one don’t just have a handgun. If ever, ever, some UN troops from the Congo should ever land in the US, they’d wished they were back in the savannah running from lions and tigers and such.
I would not be so certain about that.
If this gets voted in, we need a new procedure, until it gets voted out once again.
No screw ups.
I will repost here what I said in the other thread:
Removal of the right to bear arms via treaty would represent to me, and many others, the Federal Government unilaterally abrogating their compact with the People to have the power that they do.
I do not say this lightly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.