Discussion in 'Current Events' started by stevethrower, Jul 17, 2012.
I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
So the deal needs 65 countries to ratify it, but only one to kill it. Why isn't Israel telling the UN to shove this shit in the trash?
Why are we still part of the UN, and why the fuck are countries like Iran allowed a say in anything?
Cuz he has a really cool Members Only jacket?
This. Fuck the U.N.
And yes, I completely understand why the U.S. is still part of the U.N. At least that still give us a say(somewhat) and lets us know what those fucks are thinking. VMS made a post a few years ago about why it is a good idea for us to be a part of it but I can't find it. As usual, it was one of VMS' walls of text.
this story has been around for years... ya know what hasnt been around? The text of the treaty.
its allllll speculation.
What the UN has said is that its about arms trade between member nations... not some restriction on private ownership.
of course the NRA is fear mongering about this, how else are they going to scare $ out of pockets.
(that being said, I'm a lifetime NRA member, but they've really gone around the bend with the conspiracy theories lately).
Should have figured that as the source was Faux News...
Anything that expands the scope of the UN in any way whatsoever should be immediately denounced and fought by everyone with respect for liberty. Or even just an ounce of common sense.
Oh a website owned by liberal propagandists say so, so it must be true.
Which is why they spent years debunking every anti-Bush chain email in existence? Come on, that's pretty weak even for you.
You mean they loved the guy that started wars and increased the size of government? Shocking.
Either way its a very low chance of a UN treaty taking guns away from people at this point in time. But this is just one of those foot in the door things.
How about a legal website, is that sufficiently unbiased? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html
There's no chance they would take away American guns. They MAY try an "assault weapon" ban like Clinton's but I seriously doubt they could get away with even that. Americans are adamant about gun ownership (rightfully so), and if you try to take them away I'm pretty certain you'd have a war on your hands.
I kinda agree. What they do is turn it into a privilege and not a right. Only in situations like Katrina will a incredibly corrupt police department actually go door to door and takes guns. But they did take them away in Chicago for 20 some years, and its a privilege in NYC to own a gun. A privilege that is reserved for the rich and famous, just the way the founders wanted it.
I agree that's fucked up, and too often those infringements are not righted quickly enough, if at all. Luckily the really bad regulations are somewhat isolated in our country. In California my largest complaint is the 10 round clip action-sm) limit.
See Kirk, if you don't get obnoxious with stuff like "the UN is absolutely going to take our guns" and make decent points, you'll find that a lot of people here would agree with you on certain things.
That ranks third beyond the 1-in-30 handgun rule and 10-day waiting period. The may-issue CCW rules suck too.
The may-issue rule is probably worse, you're absolutely right there, but I'd rather have higher magazine capacity than the ability to purchase more than one handgun in 30 days or having to wait 10 days. I think the magazine rule definitely wins if you include the configurations that are banned if a firearm has a removable magazine.
Of course ideally none of those regulations would exist. Also admittedly the above opinion is based somewhat on my personal situation, as I'm not wealthy enough to buy multiple guns in a single month.
At least there's some logic behind the 10-rd magazines. It sucks, but it also saves me a few bucks in ammo since I reach the point where I stop shooting rather than reload.
There's zero logic behind the 1-in-30 and the 10-day wait, especially if you already own a gun. Background checks are instantaneous.
There's absolutely NO logic behind a 10 round magazine limit.
Someone believes chain emails...
After Snopes reported that Obama was not a Muslim, Conservatives sent chain emails about Snopes, alleging the couple (the Mikkelsons) who own it are hard core Liberals (even though the guy was a registered Republican) You believed it. Most people didn't:
"Moreover, Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen, and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections or contribute to political campaigns. In a statement to FactCheck.org, David Mikkelson said his "sole involvement in politics" is voting on election day. In 2000 he registered as a Republican, documents provided to FactCheck.org show, and in 2008 Mikkelson didn't declare a party affiliation at all. Says Mikkelson: "I've never joined a party, worked for a campaign, or donated money to a candidate" (source: FactCheck.org).
Anyone who claims proof to the contrary needs to come out with it.
A NOTE ON GEORGE SOROS: A later variant of this rumor alleges, without evidence, that Snopes.com is financed by liberal philanthropist and hedge fund tycoon George Soros. This is false. The website is entirely self-supporting through advertising sales."
Read the whole thing here: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm
Having said that, I agree that There's absolutely NO logic behind a 10 round magazine limit.
It gives lawmakers something to feel good about accomplishing for the anti-gunners without diminishing any of the functionality of a given firearm.