Live and Let Die

Mr. T

Mr. T

Verified User
Evil007.jpg


In January of this year reports began surfacing that members of the United Nations were conspiring with American politicians to further erode the Second Amendment rights of the people of these United States:

“In New York, right here on our own shores, we’ve got a Trojan horse. They won’t accept U.S. firearms policy. They want to take the decision away from the U.S. electorate and undermine our Constitution.”
Ambassador Faith Whittlesey
US Delegate to UN Small Arms Conference
January 2012
Click to expand...

While actions at the UN posed a serious threat to our right to bear arms, few acknowledged the legitimacy of the issue and fewer still had even heard anything about it.

The Obama administration is now just a matter of weeks away from joining other foreign powers in the signing of the Arms Trade Treaty at United Nations.

While many will argue that the new treaty will not restrict gun ownership in America, 2nd Amendment proponents disagree and maintain that the new treaty could pave the way for an eventual nationwide gun grab.

$$$$ Morris, who is spearheading a petition to stop Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the United States from signing the treaty, explains the inherent dangers within:
Read More HERE


We have five words for the United Nations and those who would supplant the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution through international treaties and backdoor political machinations:

 
I read an interesting article discussing this issue. What the treaty is all about is regulating the sale and international transfer of arms. The biggest threat to the US is to our economy, since we are one of the largest arms exporters in the world.

The article went on to say, "If we were to believe everything we are being told about this matter, I would expect U.N. blue helmets to be kicking down my door at any moment. Carefully peering out of my bunker though, it appears to be a beautiful sunny day outside with not even an ATF entry team in sight. What gives?

Is it possible perhaps that the NRA is doing what the NRA does best: raising money? As a Life Member of the NRA, I am well aware of the good they do. I have long supported them with my hard-earned blue collar paychecks. But they are a political organization, and everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. The same can be said for every politician. In the age we live in, none are to be trusted no matter if there’s an “R,” “D” or “I” after the name. Listen to what they say, then verify for yourself. Don’t be anyone’s patsy."


The main part that needs to be repeated is "In the age we live in, none are to be trusted no matter if there’s an “R,” “D” or “I” after the name. Listen to what they say, then verify for yourself. Don’t be anyone’s patsy."
 
WinterBorn said:
I read an interesting article discussing this issue. What the treaty is all about is regulating the sale and international transfer of arms. The biggest threat to the US is to our economy, since we are one of the largest arms exporters in the world.

The article went on to say, "If we were to believe everything we are being told about this matter, I would expect U.N. blue helmets to be kicking down my door at any moment. Carefully peering out of my bunker though, it appears to be a beautiful sunny day outside with not even an ATF entry team in sight. What gives?

Is it possible perhaps that the NRA is doing what the NRA does best: raising money? As a Life Member of the NRA, I am well aware of the good they do. I have long supported them with my hard-earned blue collar paychecks. But they are a political organization, and everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. The same can be said for every politician. In the age we live in, none are to be trusted no matter if there’s an “R,” “D” or “I” after the name. Listen to what they say, then verify for yourself. Don’t be anyone’s patsy."


The main part that needs to be repeated is "In the age we live in, none are to be trusted no matter if there’s an “R,” “D” or “I” after the name. Listen to what they say, then verify for yourself. Don’t be anyone’s patsy."
Click to expand...

You do realise that is far too sophisticated for people like him to understand.
 
Mr. T said:
Winter what are the details you want to know about?
Click to expand...

Like the quotes I posted from the article on this resolution said, is it actually something that will effect gun ownership in the US? Is it more hoopla than is needed?

And mainly I am wondering whether the reactions are from people who read the resolution for themselves.
 
WinterBorn said:
Has no one read the actual proposal? Come on, folks. Do we really need someone else to read stuff and tell us what we should think?
Click to expand...

i think that the u s of a arms manufacturers are behind the smoke screen, that and with the help of the nra
 
WinterBorn said:
So whether it effects our right to own firearms or not is irrelevant to you? Hmmm.
Click to expand...
I did not say that. I don't pay alot of attention to hyperbole, but if my closer circle of gun rights people say anything, i'll listen. At this point, the only thing that concerns me is the 'ammunition' area, but i'll catch up on that over the weekend.

and I should add, whether a treaty is actually signed or not, even if the treaty says citizens may no longer own weapons, that will not change the fact that I have a right to weapons. It just means that they will have to accept possible death when they try to take mine.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I did not say that. I don't pay alot of attention to hyperbole, but if my closer circle of gun rights people say anything, i'll listen. At this point, the only thing that concerns me is the 'ammunition' area, but i'll catch up on that over the weekend.

and I should add, whether a treaty is actually signed or not, even if the treaty says citizens may no longer own weapons, that will not change the fact that I have a right to weapons. It just means that they will have to accept possible death when they try to take mine.
Click to expand...

I think what I have been saying is to ignore the hyperbole and look at the actual resolution. The article I quoted sorta said the same thing.

It certainly makes sense to me.
 
Mr. T said:
Evil007.jpg


In January of this year reports began surfacing that members of the United Nations were conspiring with American politicians to further erode the Second Amendment rights of the people of these United States:



While actions at the UN posed a serious threat to our right to bear arms, few acknowledged the legitimacy of the issue and fewer still had even heard anything about it.

The Obama administration is now just a matter of weeks away from joining other foreign powers in the signing of the Arms Trade Treaty at United Nations.

While many will argue that the new treaty will not restrict gun ownership in America, 2nd Amendment proponents disagree and maintain that the new treaty could pave the way for an eventual nationwide gun grab.

$$$$ Morris, who is spearheading a petition to stop Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the United States from signing the treaty, explains the inherent dangers within:
Read More HERE


We have five words for the United Nations and those who would supplant the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution through international treaties and backdoor political machinations:

Click to expand...

It really bothers me when the ending is missing. :)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top