All UN small arms/reloading treaty threads

[my-rifle]

I don't know how you know her, but I know her as a criminal I have dealt with in the past. I let her go because I couldn't afford the shitstorm it would have generated if I had arrested a U.S. Senator. I also know her as the traitorous bitch who took a $300,000 bribe from Obama to swing his health care plan.

So you're saying you know nothing about her 2nd Amendment position. Got it.

 

[mADWAND]

So you're saying you know nothing about her 2nd Amendment position. Got it.

I did not say that at all. Why are you attributing things to me that are not true?

Her stated position is that she is pro gun. She has voted pro gun. It's not at all hard to vote yes for something if you know it's going to pass anyway. She has proven her vote is for sale. I have personal knowledge that she is a criminal. She is a Democrat. I take all that in toto when I make a decision about her. I feel that she is not to be trusted with matters Constitutional because the Constitution means nothing to Democrats.

A budget has not been passed or even presented by libs in the past 4 years, so you can defend her if you like. She just voted against an amendment, not a budget.

 

[my-rifle]

I did not say that at all. Why are you attributing things to me that are not true?

Her stated position is that she is pro gun. She has voted pro gun. It's not at all hard to vote yes for something if you know it's going to pass anyway. She has proven her vote is for sale. I have personal knowledge that she is a criminal. She is a Democrat. I take all that in toto when I make a decision about her. I feel that she is not to be trusted with matters Constitutional because the Constitution means nothing to Democrats.

A budget has not been passed or even presented by libs in the past 4 years, so you can defend her if you like. She just voted against an amendment, not a budget.

"Constitution" means nothing to any politician. If you think it does you are naive. All the rest of your statement is irrelevant to the conversation. Is she pro-gun or not? That's the only thing that is germane.

 

[Vermiform]

"Constitution" means nothing to any politician. If you think it does you are naive. All the rest of your statement is irrelevant to the conversation. Is she pro-gun or not? That's the only thing that is germane.

I'd like to hear more about her illegal activities........

 

[mADWAND]

"Constitution" means nothing to any politician. If you think it does you are naive. All the rest of your statement is irrelevant to the conversation. Is she pro-gun or not? That's the only thing that is germane.

Just because she has voted pro gun does not mean she is pro gun. The same naivete applies there. She is a democrat who is for sale to the highest bidder. We'll see how she votes on Schumer's criminalization of law abiding citizens next week.

I'd like to hear more about her illegal activities........

Public intimidation. Over a parking violation. The woman has no class. It was early in my career and I would not have been supported so I let it go.

 

[Emperor]

Public intimidation. Over a parking violation.

I would be publically intimidated if I were next to her in a buffet line!

 

[Captain_Morgan]

So how did we get to a place, or allow these idiots to water down important issues with nonsense ammendments and add-ons?

It's akin to tying a "yea" vote for the Ahfgan War to the yearly budget for the USDA. We're not getting these scam artists on record for anything; because no one they serve (including themselves), understands what they are actually voting for when they do.

Really pathetic!

If something is important enough to pass as a law, it should pass in its singular form. Not with a bunch of crap appended to it.

 

[my-rifle]

If something is important enough to pass as a law, it should pass in its singular form. Not with a bunch of crap appended to it.

Amen!

 

[Bayoupiper]

Dear Senator Landrieu,

I noticed that you voted in favor of the UN and against the Bill of Rights and Constitution even though the oath you swore requires that you support and defend the Constituion.
This is extremely concerning as it seems to me that you have chosen not to represent the country and your state.
I have sent several messages to you, as have most of my fellow citizens reminding you of your role and the need to defend the Constitution.
You have replied with a very safe and canned response.
I can no longer support you if you choose to turn your back on the Bill of Rights.
It is my hope that you will vote against all gun control measures going forward.
Otherwise I will make sure that myself, and everyone I know, work to make sure you are not re-elected and that a pro-Bill of Rights candidate sits in your seat next term.
I am truly disheartened by your actions.





.

 

[Robhic]

EXCELLENT!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why should I vote for a pro-UN candidate that turns her back on the very people who elected her and she swore to protect?!?! WTF?!?! Did I wake up in RUSSIA this morning?!?!?!

I'm gonna send her a paraphrased version of parts of this excellent message. Mary, Mary has turned into UN Mary? Commie Mary? GTFO!!!!

 

[Trachito]

If something is important enough to pass as a law, it should pass in its singular form. Not with a bunch of crap appended to it.

i agree. then when one politician votes against/for something because of the strings attached, they are marked as pro/anti something. i think this is a deceptive, slanderous practice. i remember seeing ads about politicians who i was considering voting for that stated they supported/didn't support certain issues because they voted against/for those issues, but it turned out they voted for/against those issues because it had strings attached that had nothing to do with the issue.

because of so much deception in the campaign and gov't practices, i'm thinking of just not voting for ANYONE anymore. it's all just a damn circus. I'd only vote for law and tax issues.

 

[Armnhammer]

This isn't the first time she has done this. I would never trade out 2A rights for a proposed budget. Not like they're gonna cut spending anyways, so anything proposed is bullsh*t. If you make $50,000 a year and spend $750,000 a year. does it really matter if cut that down to $725,000?


MOΛΩN ΛABE

 

[Bayoupiper]

EXCELLENT!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why should I vote for a pro-UN candidate that turns her back on the very people who elected her and she swore to protect?!?! WTF?!?! Did I wake up in RUSSIA this morning?!?!?!

I'm gonna send her a paraphrased version of parts of this excellent message. Mary, Mary has turned into UN Mary? Commie Mary? GTFO!!!!

Please do!


And send it to anyone else who will send her something similar.





.

 

[my-rifle]

*sigh*

 

[Emperor]

So look closely at the vote count. How is it that ALMOST EVERY democrat voted against it for strictly budgetary concerns?

They are garbage! ALL OF THEM!

 

[Hitman]

UN Adobts Treaty to regulate Global arms trade

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...obal-arms-trade.html?comp=700001075741&rank=4
http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA5DIRVO0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...867b2e-9bb7-11e2-9bda-edd1a7fb557d_story.html

Meaning!?!? .........

...

The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it will require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers.

It 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. A phrase stating that this list was "at a minimum" was dropped, according to diplomats, at the insistence of the United States. Supporters complained that this limited the treaty's scope.

Ammunition was been a key issue in negotiations, with some countries pressing for the same controls on ammunition sales as arms, but the U.S. and others opposed such tough restrictions.

The United Nations by long tradition has required treaties and final documents for major conferences to be adopted by consensus, though there have been exceptions. The United States insisted on consensus approval for an Arms Trade Treaty.

Hopes of reaching agreement were dashed last July when the U.S. said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord - a move quickly backed by Russia and China.

This time, the United States supported the final text, but Iran, North Korea and Syria used the U.S. consensus requirement to block adoption of the treaty

 

[JNieman]

egardless of whether or not Obama signs the treaty, the Senate will not sign it unless it is amended to protect our sovereignty and our 2A rights.

No one in a sovereign country cares what the General Assembly of the U.N. writes unless it's domestically ratified.

The /only/ thing this /could/ affect, depending on the enforcement of the rules, is guns we import from countries that adopt the treaty.

So yea... *yawn* is right, unless it starts to restrict importation of cheap surplus ammo and other such guns...

Though I bet Izhmash would open up a US located factory considering the percentage of Saigas that go to us.

 

[Emperor]

Enough already with this international circus of idiots. God what a worthless organization.

I was watching the documentary by "Vice" about Liberia; and the whores were saying the UN soldiers are worse and commit more crimes than their own barbarians.

Great documentary's BTW!

 

[oleheat]

Yawn.

But still:

 

[Hitman]

Yes, yes, and yes.

I just wanted to be sure we share the proper info that this Treaty really is just a Dog and Pony Show
not some back door to Obamacare in which we all lost our gun rights.