Kerry Set To Sign 'Gun-Grabbing' UN Treaty...

[BullKurtz]

This crap is refuted every single time some dingbat posts about it. There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, in that treaty that would restrict your ability to own a gun. In fact, the supreme court has already ruled that no treaty can over-rule the constitution or US law.

drip drip drip drip....until a democRAT Senate passes domestic law under the guise of "international standards" which is exactly what they have in mind to happen. It also would prohibit American firearms manufacturers from exporting their weapons. That's a big deal and one the Rats would love to see....hurt their sales, put them out of business if possible. Everything the Rats do has a political agenda behind it....they gave up trying to help the country in 1935.

 

[Spoonman]

This crap is refuted every single time some dingbat posts about it. There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, in that treaty that would restrict your ability to own a gun. In fact, the supreme court has already ruled that no treaty can over-rule the constitution or US law.

sorry, but we aren't drinking the same koolaid you are

 

[Wacky Quacky]

This crap is refuted every single time some dingbat posts about it. There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, in that treaty that would restrict your ability to own a gun. In fact, the supreme court has already ruled that no treaty can over-rule the constitution or US law.

sorry, but we aren't drinking the same koolaid you are

Then explain to me the flavor of your koolaid.

 

[Politico]

(Leftytoon sigh........)

 

[BlindBoo]

Upon what do "many" in the Senate base their belief that an agreement that "would regulate international trade in conventional weapons, including small arms" would infringe upon the 2nd amendment internally?

My guess is that check from the NRA!

The UN doesn't have the authority to do that here even if the treaty was ratified.

I have no doubt that it will not be ratified any time soon.

The UN hasn't the authority to intervene in our internal affairs? That's what Iraq, A-Stan, and Syria thought.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, so that was not an internal affair. President Bush(41) gets a UNSCR demanding they withdraw or face military action. There was no UN Resolution in 2003 authorizing the use of military action for President Bush (43). Libya was a NATO Action wasn't it? Afghanistan was giving al Qaeda aid. We didn't need the UN to defend ourselves against that threat.

 

[Pete7469]

This crap is refuted every single time some dingbat posts about it. There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, in that treaty that would restrict your ability to own a gun. In fact, the supreme court has already ruled that no treaty can over-rule the constitution or US law.

drip drip drip drip....until a democRAT Senate passes domestic law under the guise of "international standards" which is exactly what they have in mind to happen. It also would prohibit American firearms manufacturers from exporting their weapons. That's a big deal and one the Rats would love to see....hurt their sales, put them out of business if possible. Everything the Rats do has a political agenda behind it....they gave up trying to help the country in 1935.

I'm pretty sure the democrook party became the enemy of the state in 1860. I can't point to very many things that party has done that benefitted the country.

 

[Pete7469]

Upon what do "many" in the Senate base their belief that an agreement that "would regulate international trade in conventional weapons, including small arms" would infringe upon the 2nd amendment internally?

My guess is that check from the NRA!

The UN doesn't have the authority to do that here even if the treaty was ratified.

I have no doubt that it will not be ratified any time soon.

The UN hasn't the authority to intervene in our internal affairs? That's what Iraq, A-Stan, and Syria thought.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, so that was not an internal affair. President Bush(41) gets a UNSCR demanding they withdraw or face military action. There was no UN Resolution in 2003 authorizing the use of military action for President Bush (43). Libya was a NATO Action wasn't it? Afghanistan was giving al Qaeda aid. We didn't need the UN to defend ourselves against that threat.

We don't need UN "authority", and Bush 41 never should have bothered with them, they did nothing but interfere and eventually exploit the circumstance to enrich globalist pigs in the oil for food scam.

The UN is a malignancy, it should be nothing more than a meeting place for heads of state to adjudicate international issues.

 

[Moonglow]

But you can point to that monumental day that a GOP president was put into office to make sure that corporations were afforded the right to be defined as an individual so all protections that the Founding Fathers put in place to separate the govt. from coming under the control of corporations.

 

[Pete7469]

But you can point to that monumental day that a GOP president was put into office to make sure that corporations were afforded the right to be defined as an individual so all protections that the Founding Fathers put in place to separate the govt. from coming under the control of corporations.

Can you?

 

[Moonglow]

But you can point to that monumental day that a GOP president was put into office to make sure that corporations were afforded the right to be defined as an individual so all protections that the Founding Fathers put in place to separate the govt. from coming under the control of corporations.

Can you?

yes

 

[Pete7469]

But you can point to that monumental day that a GOP president was put into office to make sure that corporations were afforded the right to be defined as an individual so all protections that the Founding Fathers put in place to separate the govt. from coming under the control of corporations.

Can you?

yes

Well that was your queue bed wetter. Which Republicrat president was elected to establish corporations like the federal reserve?

Hint; Woodrow Wilson was a pinko democrook.

You are of course aware that government owned corporations have FAR MORE control over you, and take your money at gun point right? Have you ever heard of small townships and their "incorporated areas"?

No, that would compromise your programming. You're free to go and change your sheets.

 

[Pete7469]

Still waiting on a response moonbat...

Maybe the basement light burned out, so it's taking you longer to get that sheet pulled off.

 

[Pete7469]

Is that burning horseshit or is moonbat's head on fire trying to spin a response?

 

[Montecresto]

Upon what do "many" in the Senate base their belief that an agreement that "would regulate international trade in conventional weapons, including small arms" would infringe upon the 2nd amendment internally?

My guess is that check from the NRA!

The UN doesn't have the authority to do that here even if the treaty was ratified.

I have no doubt that it will not be ratified any time soon.

The UN hasn't the authority to intervene in our internal affairs? That's what Iraq, A-Stan, and Syria thought.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, so that was not an internal affair. President Bush(41) gets a UNSCR demanding they withdraw or face military action. There was no UN Resolution in 2003 authorizing the use of military action for President Bush (43). Libya was a NATO Action wasn't it? Afghanistan was giving al Qaeda aid. We didn't need the UN to defend ourselves against that threat.

Iraq invaded Kuwait because first Kuwait was cut off of Iraq during the redrawing of the map following WW1 and secondly because Kuwait was slant drilling under Iraq. It was Iraqi business not George Bush's. there was a UN resolution in Libya for use of force to protect civilians which was abused to overthrow the Libyan government which is why Russia and China vowed to not allow the US to do it again in Syria and why they blocked all attempts at the UN for use of force there. Afghanistan was giving al Qaida aid and now Obama is giving al Qaida aid.

 

[Pete7469]

Can you?

yes

Well that was your queue bed wetter. Which Republicrat president was elected to establish corporations like the federal reserve?

Hint; Woodrow Wilson was a pinko democrook.

You are of course aware that government owned corporations have FAR MORE control over you, and take your money at gun point right? Have you ever heard of small townships and their "incorporated areas"?

No, that would compromise your programming. You're free to go and change your sheets.

Still waiting for a response here moonbat.

You walk around with insipid shit like this in that incredibly dense skull, lets see if my Black Hole of Liberal Ignorance theory is true.

Can the density be penetrated with enough facts to create a single synapse of critical thinking or does the density of liberalism just absorb and dissipate it all?

 

[dilloduck]

It's wording essentially means that you will no longer be able to buy a foreign gun.

If the CIA is handing them out to overthrow a government or something can we accept them ?

 

[jon_berzerk]

It's wording essentially means that you will no longer be able to buy a foreign gun.

the prezbo by his own declared powers

made it illegal to buy an American firearm being returned to the United States

 

[jon_berzerk]

It's wording essentially means that you will no longer be able to buy a foreign gun.

If the CIA is handing them out to overthrow a government or something can we accept them ?

the media likes to play games

the news said the treaty was to prevent Russia from giving arms to Syria

this treaty has been in the works much longer then that

does this same treaty apply to obama giving alqeada weapons in the same country

 

[dilloduck]

It's wording essentially means that you will no longer be able to buy a foreign gun.

If the CIA is handing them out to overthrow a government or something can we accept them ?

the media likes to play games

the news said the treaty was to prevent Russia from giving arms to Syria

this treaty has been in the works much longer then that

does this same treaty apply to obama giving alqeada weapons in the same country

Apparently the news has no problems with the Saudi Arabia arming rebels either. I haven't read the treaty but seeing as though it's brokered by the UN and signed by Kerry it's a safe bet that there's a hidden agenda in it somewhere. How about the countries who make big bucks exporting weapons ?

 

[jon_berzerk]

If the CIA is handing them out to overthrow a government or something can we accept them ?

the media likes to play games

the news said the treaty was to prevent Russia from giving arms to Syria

this treaty has been in the works much longer then that

does this same treaty apply to obama giving alqeada weapons in the same country

Apparently the news has no problems with the Saudi Arabia arming rebels either. I haven't read the treaty but seeing as though it's brokered by the UN and signed by Kerry it's a safe bet that there's a hidden agenda in it somewhere. How about the countries who make big bucks exporting weapons ?

exactly