United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

[Oldgrunt]

You want me to do your research for you as well? I'm not surprised.

Is that an admission that you can't produce the material, only make reference to it?

[S&W645]

Show me a draft and we'll discuss it.

What kwimby squirm on this one Rhino. snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty A leftist site that says no such treaty has been produced.

[kwimby]

What kwimby squirm on this one Rhino. snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty A leftist site that says no such treaty has been produced.

Thanks! Good going there S&W 645. Just FYI since you are not paying attention, we have already established the treaty is still under negotiation.

From Snopes:

"Claim: FALSE - A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment'?"

The fact I have unsuccessfully attempted to pound through some very thick skulls here.

"The putative United Nations arms treaty referenced in the Reuters article linked at the end of the example reproduced above has nothing to do with restricting the sale or ownership of guns within the United States."

Now where have I heard that before? hmmmm...

"There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied."

Now go back and do some more research instead of parroting this nonsense you see on the infotainment web sites!

[whitefeather]

"There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied."[/I]

You seem to be an intelligent person. Is it not reasonable that the 2nd amendment could be diluted to such a form that yes we have it, but it does not resemble what the framers intended? A president, so disposed, could drastically change the 2nd amendment with the stroke of a pen.

If you are a gun owner, why would you want to take a chance. Why would you want to risk the United Nations ever having a say on what weapons we could freely own. I can see nothing good for us in this treaty.

[S&W645]

Thanks! Good going there S&W 645. Just FYI since you are not paying attention, we have already established the treaty is still under negotiation.

From Snopes:

"Claim: FALSE - A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment'?"

The fact I have unsuccessfully attempted to pound through some very thick skulls here.

"The putative United Nations arms treaty referenced in the Reuters article linked at the end of the example reproduced above has nothing to do with restricting the sale or ownership of guns within the United States."

Now where have I heard that before? hmmmm...

"There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied."

Now go back and do some more research instead of parroting this nonsense you see on the infotainment web sites!

WRT Rino's fanciful speculation on the treaty which BTW, apparently DOES exist:

It wasn't me that said you had read a copy of it or could provide it, it was you. And when challenged by Rhino to provide a link to it, your reply was as usual.

Show me a draft and we'll discuss it.

You want me to do your research for you as well? I'm not surprised.

Now you can either provide a link to a draft copy of the ATT or you can admit that you can't. Which is all Rhino asked for. Seems you are the one not paying attention.
I believe his quotes were from http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/pdf/N0150720.pdf which is known as "Report of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light. Weapons in All Its Aspects. New York, 9-20 July 2001". Which is not a Draft Copy of the ATT but does give some hints as to where they are going. Just like the Dems on Healthcare, sign it then read it.

[Rhino]

Thanks! Good going there S&W 645. Just FYI since you are not paying attention, we have already established the treaty is still under negotiation.

You get more entertaining all the time. You established nothing of the sort. I and others here established that the treaty didn't exist. You've been denying it all along, but now you've actually got the gall to try and take credit for it! You are pitiful!

From Snopes:

"Claim: FALSE - A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment'?"

The fact I have unsuccessfully attempted to pound through some very thick skulls here.

Except that nobody here made that claim because nobody here was saying what was in the email that snopes was debunking.

[I]"The putative United Nations arms treaty referenced in the Reuters article linked at the end of the example reproduced above has nothing to do with restricting the sale or ownership of guns within the United States."

Now where have I heard that before? hmmmm...

From me. The word putative means supposed. They were saying supposed because there is no treaty yet, which I've been telling you all along and which you've been vigorously denying. Well, up until this last post anyway. Now you're actually trying to take credit for the fact. Next thing we know you're gonna tell us your first name is Al and you invented the internet.

"There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied."

And yet our history is replete with with examples of all manner of draconian gun control measures. And as has been pointed out, they don't have to alter the 2nd amendment to stop the manufacture or distribution of firearms.

Now go back and do some more research instead of parroting this nonsense you see on the infotainment web sites!

God, how we wish you would really do that! But on the other hand, we would be missing out on a lot of laughs. Most people stop posting after making such a fool of themselves, but you seem to have no problem parading your ignorance. So much the better for our entertainment.

[kwimby]

I can see nothing good for us in this treaty.

Typically selfish response: Nothing in it for me.

[Rhino]

I believe his quotes were from http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/pdf/N0150720.pdf which is known as "Report of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light. Weapons in All Its Aspects. New York, 9-20 July 2001".

Yes. What I quoted begins on page 10.

If you want an idea of what they're up against, they discussed the hurdles, in general, back in 2008.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UND...F/N0849110.pdf

Sections IV, V and VI discuss the difficulties in crafting a workable treaty that would be agreeable to all parties.

[kwimby]

I can see nothing good for us in this treaty.

Typically selfish response: Nothing in it for me!

They were saying supposed because there is no treaty yet, which I've been telling you all along and which you've been vigorously denying.

Willful ignorance is a sad thing. We have clearly established the treaty is presently under negotiation. Drafts have been circulating in diplomatic channels and other places all over the world for a long time. Are you really that dense?

Hello?!! McFly!!??

Now you can either provide a link to a draft copy of the ATT or you can admit that you can't.

Can you admit that you were stupid enough to use the Snopes article as support?

I knew somebody would go for that sooner or later, trying to twist obvious facts to their own personal agenda just like this whole thread.

That is really rich!! I haven't laughed so hard at a bunch of web forum weenies in a long time! Thanks!!!

[S&W645]

Typically selfish response: Nothing in it for me!

Willful ignorance is a sad thing. We have clearly established the treaty is presently under negotiation. Drafts have been circulating in diplomatic channels and other places all over the world for a long time. Are you really that dense?

Hello?!! McFly!!??

Can you admit that you were stupid enough to use the Snopes article as support?

I knew somebody would go for that sooner or later, trying to twist obvious facts to their own personal agenda just like this whole thread.

That is really rich!! I haven't laughed so hard at a bunch of web forum weenies in a long time! Thanks!!!

Whitefeather was stating a belief that many here share. It bodes ill for the US gun owners and would violate our Constitution.

There was a very good reason for using the snopes article. They claim to know what isn't in the ATT while admitting that it doesn't exist yet. Same as you have been doing. You claimed to have read a Draft Copy of the ATT and didn't want to link it for others to read. So everyone is calling BS on you. Rhino quoted the report on what they want in it though and it is as bad as those who oppose it think.

Remember the old adage kwimby, it is better to have people think you a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. You have IMO.