Kerry signs UN small arms treaty.

So now you're very ignorantly arguing that the Supreme Court doesn't rule on constitutionality, CBJ7?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

nope, youre an idiot

nope, youre an idiot Originally Posted by CJ7

You're the idiot arguing that the Supreme Court doesn't rule on constitutionality, CBJ7.

You're the idiot arguing that the Supreme Court doesn't rule on constitutionality, CBJ7. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

tell ya what shitbreath, I'll stay home polish up my conceal carry permit, clean my 52 guns act like a man, and not sweat an international treaty having a effect on my constitutional rights, and you pull you dress over your head and squeal like a little girl about the treaty any way you want, as long as you want


hows that ?

tell ya what shitbreath, I'll stay home polish up my conceal carry permit, clean my 52 guns act like a man, and not sweat an international treaty having a effect on my constitutional rights, and you pull you dress over your head and squeal like a little girl about the treaty any way you want, as long as you want


hows that ? Originally Posted by CJ7

You're ignorantly deflecting CBJ7. Evidently you realized your POV regarding the role the Supreme Court plays in government is as fucked up as the rest of your lib-retard notions, CBJ7.

You're ignorantly deflecting CBJ7. Evidently you realized your POV regarding the role the Supreme Court plays in government is as fucked up as the rest of your lib-retard notions, CBJ7. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

deflecting my Texas ass, thats EXACTLY what I PLAN to do

then show me where the treaty infringes on ANY of your constitutional rights Originally Posted by CJ7

The treaty itself may not, I have not read it verbatim. As I stated, if it gets twisted and contorted into law as congress has done with other treaties in the past (such as the CSA), then it will. I seriously doubt if they won't ban an AK-47, the treaty will never be ratified.

The treaty itself may not, I have not read it verbatim. As I stated, if it gets twisted and contorted into law as congress has done with other treaties in the past (such as the CSA), then it will. I seriously doubt if they won't ban an AK-47, the treaty will never be ratified. Originally Posted by nwarounder

IF

if it does then call me


its a n international trade treaty not a ban you guns treaty

Iran, North Korea, and Syria are the only countries that didn't sign the treaty ... do you want to join them Comrade Abdulla?

deflecting my Texas ass, thats EXACTLY what I PLAN to do Originally Posted by CJ7

So, CBJ7, you are running away from your ignorant-ass contention that the Supreme Court does not rule on constitutionality.

IF

if it does then call me


its a n international trade treaty not a ban you guns treaty

Iran, North Korea, and Syria are the only countries that didn't sign the treaty ... do you want to join them Comrade Abdulla? Originally Posted by CJ7

As a country I don't think we should be joining anyone in anything except commerce. We already sided with Iran and against Israel in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as Iran so graciously points out to the UN and the world every chance they get. So I guess by your logic we have already joined Iran and are against Israel?

Sometimes I'm not sure if you just don't know our history or just arguing to be arguing and not to make valid points.

The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.


wouldn't want you to be unable to have a warship and missile launchers in your garage, or an attack helo to run to the liquor store whenever you needed extra protection now would we Comrade Abdulla?

think N Korea selling AK 47's to a rogue country and those weapons wind up in a school in Bosnia killing kids, or in a mall killing Christians ... swell idea huh?

think N Korea selling AK 47's to a rogue country and those weapons wind up in a school in Bosnia killing kids, or in a mall killing Christians ... swell idea huh? Originally Posted by CJ7

Sounds like an Eric Holder program.

It's only the anonymity that makes it seem like that here, or at least in my experience people don't behave in this manner when their is the possibility of an ass whooping coming their way. Originally Posted by nwarounder

Good point

Sounds like an Eric Holder program. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+1


The ATT (U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution) is a "Trojan Horse" that will infringe on U.S. citizens' right to own firearms, and it will eventually force the U.S. to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...rs-up-in-arms/

The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.


wouldn't want you to be unable to have a warship and missile launchers in your garage, or an attack helo to run to the liquor store whenever you needed extra protection now would we Comrade Abdulla?

think N Korea selling AK 47's to a rogue country and those weapons wind up in a school in Bosnia killing kids, or in a mall killing Christians ... swell idea huh? Originally Posted by CJ7

You'd have a valid point if they didn't put in small arms and light weapons. Why do you think they put those in there? So parrots could talk about warships, tanks and helos. It helps if you actually read your copy/pastes.

I have no problem with any country selling AK 47's. I don't think we should be in the business of telling other countries what they can manufacture or who they can sell it to, we should not be the world police. The guns made it to the schools in Bosnia via the hands of evil people which their government failed by letting them in, or letting them live their in the first place. Much like we do when we let the terrorists into our country and they bomb us. Of course it is easy to blame a piece of metal, rather than solve the actual problem.

You'd have a valid point if they didn't put in small arms and light weapons. Why do you think they put those in there? So parrots could talk about warships, tanks and helos. It helps if you actually read your copy/pastes.

I have no problem with any country selling AK 47's to anyone. The guns made it to the schools in Bosnia via the hands of evil people which their government failed by letting them in, or letting them live their in the first place. Much like we do when we let the terrorists into our country and they bomb us. Of course it is easy to blame a piece of metal, rather than solve the actual problem. Originally Posted by nwarounder

hell son, I read the entire article. It all boils down to exactly what you point out... small arms

did you read the part that says

"if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes."

so you're telling me you're worried they'll come get your AK ?

good to know.

an aside,

the reason I voted for Obama the last election was because Romney placed a ban on automatic weapons when he was a Governor... trouncing all over the 2nd amendment then run for President worries me FAAAAAARRRR more than an international ban that goes after the aforementioned groups of thug bastards ...