UN arms treaty

R

rt3

Senior Member
Suprized non of the anti gun people haven't brought up Obamas meeting in Mexico this last week. The purpose of which is to build a gun registration in the U.S. via the UN. Tied to this will be an executive attempt to go around congress. Geez hope it doesn't backfire (pun intended) on the old boy.
 

rt3 said:
Suprized non of the anti gun people haven't brought up Obamas meeting in Mexico this last week. The purpose of which is to build a gun registration in the U.S. via the UN. Tied to this will be an executive attempt to go around congress. Geez hope it doesn't backfire (pun intended) on the old boy.
Click to expand...

Seem to remember something about Mexico wanting information on US gun owners over the last year or two. Various treaties, 'agreements' and/or organizations/proxies will be used to usurp US law and constitution on several fronts. The UN will become a proxy for various agendas. The UN already wants to visit US prisons. A goal might be one day during riots like we saw in Ferguson or Baltimore there will blue helmets marching down the street.
 
This thread is already indicative of the paranoia that surrounds the word guns.
 

AZ Jim said:
This thread is already indicative of the paranoia that surrounds the word guns.
Click to expand...

Not 'guns' but the UN. The current batch of trade treaties in progress such as the TPP are perfect examples of how international treaties will be used to usurp or get around US law. Several US court systems lawsuits that were sent to NAFTA arbitration are actual examples of this.
 
WhatInThe said:
Not 'guns' but the UN. The current batch of trade treaties in progress such as the TPP are perfect examples of how international treaties will be used to usurp or get around US law. Several US court systems lawsuits that were sent to NAFTA arbitration are actual examples of this.
Click to expand...


Paranoia.
 
Backfire comment I guess (speaking of paranoia) No. I wouldn't want to be a candidate going into a presidential race associated with a party that had sold out to the UN. The turn around that occurred in last nov. elections would be nothing compared to what this could do. His attempt to get something done on gun control could backfire.
 
Not acceptable , that's funny (not doing some deed, but deciding non active role is somehow action). When in danger when in doubt run in circles scream and shout.
 
Butterfly, I think it is just another let's criticise President Obama thing. If we disagree, apparently we are reduced to something hysterical? I vote we all come together, clasp hands, and dance! At least that is an "action" I can get behind. Join me?
 
rt3 said:
Backfire comment I guess (speaking of paranoia) No. I wouldn't want to be a candidate going into a presidential race associated with a party that had sold out to the UN. The turn around that occurred in last nov. elections would be nothing compared to what this could do. His attempt to get something done on gun control could backfire.
Click to expand...

But, what is he to gain from it, personally? Assuming, of course, his own paranoia does not exceed that of his electorate. Most political moves are made with background intent to further enrich themselves. imp
 
Beats me, only that he made the statement he was disappointed he hadn't done enough on gun control and was going to use executive alternatives. The UN stuff comes after the ITAR arms shipping stuff. It would be interesting to find out the promises/deals he will have to make with Mexico to get them to go along it.
 
Would Canada want some group of folks in the UN take over your laws and decide how you folks would live? Probably not and that seems to be the concern of some here in the US too.
 
Not wishful thinking, imp.
IMO the only agencies that intervene when the lawful government does not approve are Russia (Crimea)
and the United States (Syria and somewhere in Sth America that I cannot remember).

The UN operates in accordance with international law.
Prove me wrong with an example if you have one.
 
In this case the current administration is in agreement with the UN treaty, and therefore under the current "law" needs there help. It's a violation of the 2nd. Amend. That's the point. Obama can avoid the need to get congressional approval for a gun registration program.
 
What part aren't you getting or does your anti gun stance make this (tsk) acceptable?
 
I don't know Arty but my BS detector is going off very loudly on this one and it has nothing to do with guns.
It's about international realpolitik. The scenario that you paint is quite absurd IMO.
 
And the voice of paranoia is heard in the land.....time for a cooler. Salut! PS, I apologise to the "turtle," for replacing it in the original quote. Lol.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top