# Scary,Scary,Scary!!!!



## wolfkiller (Mar 23, 2010)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp


----------



## MACHXKING (Jul 27, 2006)

Nothing new, this has been around since 1999. GWB told the Socialist UN "NO" he would not go for this treaty. Obama has said yes to it "Big Suprise there". The Senate must pass by 2/3 majority for it and they don't have the *Bal_'_* to do it. The Dems would lose all Power for Decads to come and they know it. We know you are Raum Emanuel or howerver you spell you name.


----------



## DeathByCactus (May 26, 2010)

I agree. The second amendment is ingrained deep within the constitution. To attempt to pass such a measure would almost certainly spell doom for the democratic party.


----------



## DBLlungIT (Jan 1, 2009)

*so - having a good day? feeling very safe?*

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-...date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0

OK - HOW BOUT NOW? A Muslim President appointing Muslims in high security offices? We're gonna need more than bows and arrows folks.


----------



## JMH1969 (Dec 21, 2009)

DeathByCactus said:


> I agree. The second amendment is ingrained deep within the constitution. To attempt to pass such a measure would almost certainly spell doom for the democratic party.


This is true, however people need to understand that the Founding Fathers, nor the Constitution give us the right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers understood that certain rights belong to each individual solely because they are a creation of God. The Constitution only puts these rights into writing as a visible declaration and notice to all. These right are a "self-evident" truth, that all men are endowed by our *Creator* with certain *unalienable Rights*. These rights are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. No treaty can over ride these rights.

I am not saying that we should not fight the UN small arms treaty. Im just trying to point out the importance and source of our unalienable Rights.


----------



## camoman73 (Jul 7, 2007)

Here in real people who dont understand nor wish to understand political bull crap terms. No you will not nor will you ever take our second amendment rights away.
Dont play the politician games with me, i among most wont listen nor do we give a rats you know what.


----------



## Soaker (Jun 27, 2008)

Um, I may have missed something in your posts....but you guys do realize this is a bunch of BS right? There is no such treaty under consideration by the Obama admin. and there will not be. Quit being so paranoid. The link above is from Snopes which is an urban myth busting website. Says right there on the link/page "False". Sheesh.


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

Soaker said:


> Um, I may have missed something in your posts....but you guys do realize this is a bunch of BS right? There is no such treaty under consideration by the Obama admin. and there will not be. Quit being so paranoid. The link above is from Snopes which is an urban myth busting website. Says right there on the link/page "False". Sheesh.


Actually, last time I checked the UN is working on a treaty planned to be drafted by 2012.


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

JMH1969 said:


> This is true, however people need to understand that the Founding Fathers, nor the Constitution give us the right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers understood that certain rights belong to each individual solely because they are a creation of God. The Constitution only puts these rights into writing as a visible declaration and notice to all. These right are a "self-evident" truth, that all men are endowed by our *Creator* with certain *unalienable Rights*. These rights are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. No treaty can over ride these rights.
> 
> I am not saying that we should not fight the UN small arms treaty. Im just trying to point out the importance and source of our unalienable Rights.



Now there's a man that knows what a lot of politicians dont know.....or dont care about.
We dont need the consent of the politicians when it comes to our rights that the Constitution _clearly already gives us._
But, this hasn't happened overnight......it started way back, the 16th Amendment [Federal Income Tax Amendment]. ECCT


----------



## Soaker (Jun 27, 2008)

Who cares what the UN does. There is no way that will affect the US constitution no matter what anyone says Obamao or H. Clinton will do. Go back to the link and read towards the bottom of the page "Origins". It plainly states that not only is this back-door deal assertion completely bogus, but that the *only* way to affect change to the constitution is to amend it (rendering the second amendment ineffective) or by a reinterpretation by the supreme court of what the second amendment means. The only way. Doesn't matter how afraid you are of Obama's motives or whatever e-mail shows up in your box, this is simply not true, nor will it be true. With that information, you may want to spend time and energy in other avenues to increase awareness of our second amendment and educate those who think "all guns are bad". I do my part often. Talk to people who are afraid of guns and invite them to see what gun safety, recreational shooting, and hunting are all about. The best ways to introduce them to the second amendment. Show 'em yer big arms cache after they feel more comfortable with the whole thing.:wink:


----------



## badomen (Jan 7, 2010)

Soaker you are definitely on the right path with educating people about the 2nd amendment and introducing more people into the shooting sports, and I thank you for that. But to ignore the importance of the U.N. is simply giving too much faith in a government that has been pushing further and further towards a one wold government for the past 100 years. Just sweeping it under the carpet as a non factor is not the right path to take. We are only but one vote in the U.N., we did not work as hard as we did to become the greatest nation in the world to then relinquish our freedoms to the will of other countries.


----------



## 90 meter 120 (May 7, 2007)

the UN.. Libya in charge of human right... China in charge of workers right.... Iran in charge of humanitarian rights...... we should drop from the UN all together all it is a group that wines about and bash the US.... Obama's far left following want guns banned we all know it....what I dont like is how they lie... before the election in 2008 I was driving through Kansas City Mo with the radio on and a political add came on with a former football player claiming Obama had an Aplus rating with the NRA a bold face lie...... past predicts the future...


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

I really doubt guns will ever be banned or heavely restricted in the US

Not because someone wouldn't try, but because so many of us feel so strongly about it -- politicians fear the gun lobby and those who support it.

:beer:


----------



## grnxlt (Dec 19, 2006)

"I really doubt guns will ever be banned or heavely restricted in the US"

They already are,any gun law is unconstitutional:wink:


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

grnxlt said:


> "I really doubt guns will ever be banned or heavely restricted in the US"
> 
> They already are,any gun law is unconstitutional:wink:


SO TRUE..........dont know why the majority of folks in America [ it seems] dont get that. Our founders meant exactly what they put down on paper.


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

Curve1 said:


> SO TRUE..........dont know why the majority of folks in America [ it seems] dont get that. Our founders meant exactly what they put down on paper.


Because most people are dummed down by media and having a product for this and that, make er all easy and hire someone to do this or that.

What ever happened to doing, fixing, or building something on your own?


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

grnxlt said:


> "I really doubt guns will ever be banned or heavely restricted in the US"
> *
> They already are,any gun law is unconstitutional:wink:*




If only the supreme court would rule as such


----------

