It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Donald Trump tells NRA gun lobby he's withdrawing from UN arms trade treaty

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.


Number 1 Baby.


Well, it reduces the size of the target.



edit on 27/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:31 AM
link   


Donald Trump tells NRA gun lobby he's withdrawing from UN arms trade treaty

Dang , wish that had read

Donald Trump tells NRA gun lobby he's withdrawing from the UN and kicking their worthless ______ out of the US



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.




Surely you also protect your most valuable assets...


How does exporting arms to terrorists so they can kill with no harm or care relates to having a gun in your house to protect your family or yourself?

Are we into a backwards universe reality now?



You should probably direct that question towards those that need guns to get on with their day to day activities.


I am partial about guns, there is an use for them actually, as i posted some time ago

My cousin, which is like my sister, is only alive because of having access to a gun when she was 13. The only reason she's alive is that gun and that she knew how to use it


But a revolver gun at home to protect yourself as a last resort is not the same as sending 10,000 assault rifles to another country when you know how those are going to be used...




I like guns, I also am an advocate for people to protect themselves from criminals and other unsavory elements , what gets me is that fine line between who should be allowed guns and those that should not... It's quite the conundrum.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lysergic

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.


Number 1 Baby.


Well, it reduces the size of the target.






You have to practice to get good



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:40 AM
link   


We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedoms


Given the current geopolitical order, a saying like this could resonate for centuries.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Mr. Flip-flopper himself



In 2005 Trump said, “I have to start by saying that I’m a big fan, a very big fan, of the United Nations and all it stands for.”



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.




Surely you also protect your most valuable assets...


How does exporting arms to terrorists so they can kill with no harm or care relates to having a gun in your house to protect your family or yourself?

Are we into a backwards universe reality now?



You should probably direct that question towards those that need guns to get on with their day to day activities.


I am partial about guns, there is an use for them actually, as i posted some time ago

My cousin, which is like my sister, is only alive because of having access to a gun when she was 13. The only reason she's alive is that gun and that she knew how to use it


But a revolver gun at home to protect yourself as a last resort is not the same as sending 10,000 assault rifles to another country when you know how those are going to be used...




I like guns, I also am an advocate for people to protect themselves from criminals and other unsavory elements , what gets me is that fine line between who should be allowed guns and those that should not... It's quite the conundrum.


I understand that, but sending a gun out there, to a country that you know is f*ckd up and the guy asks you to send 1,000 AK rifles? That's just not a "to protect my home" reason, and for example, in Mexico where you can't sell legally those guns, then we are clearly looking at an illegal sell of guns and we know who are buying them and why

Is that a good reason to allow it? The entire treaty was to prevent that, you don't sell a gun to someone that tells you i'm going to buy it to go kill some kids i don't like because their father did not sell the drugs i expected and he doesn't want to pay me my share

There has to be some criteria

As it looks right now, this is about selling the guns away regardless of how they will be used, outside of US territory. So completely ignoring international laws and that country's own laws, as it happened in Mexico before

I still don't see how this relates to the second amendment as Trump tried to used as an excuse



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Mr. Flip-flopper himself



In 2005 Trump said, “I have to start by saying that I’m a big fan, a very big fan, of the United Nations and all it stands for.”



Now you have to prove that neither Trump nor the UN changed in 15 years.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Malisa

Allowed! I guessed first thing to address is what is allowed and by whom?

Guns are weapons of destruction, no amount of arguing they are for defensive reasons will ever cut it, it is what it is.

The USA make more money selling weapons of war than they do any other product, the country is in the business of war and business is good.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Mr. Flip-flopper himself



In 2005 Trump said, “I have to start by saying that I’m a big fan, a very big fan, of the United Nations and all it stands for.”



Now you have to prove that neither Trump nor the UN changed in 15 years.




Hi Les, trump is and always has been aligned with the UN, they are after all our owners... Right?
edit on 27-4-2019 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Malisa

Allowed! I guessed first thing to address is what is allowed and by whom?

Guns are weapons of destruction, no amount of arguing they are for defensive reasons will ever cut it, it is what it is.

The USA make more money selling weapons of war than they do any other product, the country is in the business of war and business is good.


So there's no direct sell of guns from China/Russia to Mexico, but there can be to the US

Us buyers get their thousands of AK rifles from said countries, store them away and since there is no law to prevent it, they sell it to Mexico

China/Russia can't sell directly to Mexico, and the law was meant to prevent big sales of the same guns from the US to Mexico

So now it has made easy to just ship to the US, then send to Mexico.. I mean is just a few more dollars and everything is legal, correct?

I get it now
edit on 27-4-2019 by Malisa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Mr. Flip-flopper himself



In 2005 Trump said, “I have to start by saying that I’m a big fan, a very big fan, of the United Nations and all it stands for.”



Now you have to prove that neither Trump nor the UN changed in 15 years.




Hi Les, trump is and always has been aligned with the UN, they are after all our owners... Right?


I’m not sure I understand. But if English is your second language I suppose it wasn’t too bad.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Obviously a move made with one eye on the coming election , shoring up his NRA base by pandering to their powerful lobby.
From what I've read the US signed the treaty but hasn't ratified it so the move seems a symbolic one rather than scrapping something that's in effect.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Mr. Flip-flopper himself



In 2005 Trump said, “I have to start by saying that I’m a big fan, a very big fan, of the United Nations and all it stands for.”



Now you have to prove that neither Trump nor the UN changed in 15 years.




Hi Les, trump is and always has been aligned with the UN, they are after all our owners... Right?


I’m not sure I understand. But if English is your second language I suppose it wasn’t too bad.




Yep I suppose we would agree if this was your first account on ATS eh...



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Malisa

Allowed! I guessed first thing to address is what is allowed and by whom?

Guns are weapons of destruction, no amount of arguing they are for defensive reasons will ever cut it, it is what it is.

The USA make more money selling weapons of war than they do any other product, the country is in the business of war and business is good.


So there's no direct sell of guns from China/Russia to Mexico, but there can be to the US

Us buyers get their thousands of AK rifles from said countries, store them away and since there is no law to prevent it, they sell it to Mexico

China/Russia can't sell directly to Mexico, and the law was meant to prevent big sales of the same guns from the US to Mexico

So now it has made easy to just ship to the US, then send to Mexico.. I mean is just a few more dollars and everything is legal, correct?

I get it now




As far as I understand it more guns do not equal more freedom...

Perhaps it's only an educational issue, however I'm not convinced fewer guns leads to fewer gun crime regardless if how its sold.
edit on 27-4-2019 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Mr. Flip-flopper himself



In 2005 Trump said, “I have to start by saying that I’m a big fan, a very big fan, of the United Nations and all it stands for.”



Now you have to prove that neither Trump nor the UN changed in 15 years.


Thi



Hi Les, trump is and always has been aligned with the UN, they are after all our owners... Right?


I’m not sure I understand. But if English is your second language I suppose it wasn’t too bad.


This has to be the lamest excuse I've seen in ATS in all the time I've been here.

If you can't bring something into the discussion you insult the person in a very weak way? Reeks around here

LMFAO!



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Malisa

Allowed! I guessed first thing to address is what is allowed and by whom?

Guns are weapons of destruction, no amount of arguing they are for defensive reasons will ever cut it, it is what it is.

The USA make more money selling weapons of war than they do any other product, the country is in the business of war and business is good.


So there's no direct sell of guns from China/Russia to Mexico, but there can be to the US

Us buyers get their thousands of AK rifles from said countries, store them away and since there is no law to prevent it, they sell it to Mexico

China/Russia can't sell directly to Mexico, and the law was meant to prevent big sales of the same guns from the US to Mexico

So now it has made easy to just ship to the US, then send to Mexico.. I mean is just a few more dollars and everything is legal, correct?

I get it now




As far as I understand it more guns do not equal more freedom...

Perhaps it's only an educational issue, however I'm not convinced fewer guns leads to fewer gun crime regardless if how its sold.


Education has a lot to do with it, but giving them freedom to get all the guns they need to kill while knowing they won't get beyond grade school is not how you turn around a broken, violent society. Can we agree on that?

edit on 27-4-2019 by Malisa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Malisa

Allowed! I guessed first thing to address is what is allowed and by whom?

Guns are weapons of destruction, no amount of arguing they are for defensive reasons will ever cut it, it is what it is.

The USA make more money selling weapons of war than they do any other product, the country is in the business of war and business is good.


So there's no direct sell of guns from China/Russia to Mexico, but there can be to the US

Us buyers get their thousands of AK rifles from said countries, store them away and since there is no law to prevent it, they sell it to Mexico

China/Russia can't sell directly to Mexico, and the law was meant to prevent big sales of the same guns from the US to Mexico

So now it has made easy to just ship to the US, then send to Mexico.. I mean is just a few more dollars and everything is legal, correct?

I get it now




As far as I understand it more guns do not equal more freedom...

Perhaps it's only an educational issue, however I'm not convinced fewer guns leads to fewer gun crime regardless if how its sold.


Education has a lot to do with it, but giving them freedom to get all the guns they need to kill while knowing they won't get beyond grade school is not how you turn around a broken, violent society. Can we agree on that?




Well yes absolutely, I just have given up on being so crass about the reality of the world we live in.

The only western civilizated nation on earth that thinks guns are the answer to solutions are in the USA, that should set the alarm bells ringing.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.




Surely you also protect your most valuable assets...


How does exporting arms to terrorists so they can kill with no harm or care relates to having a gun in your house to protect your family or yourself?

Are we into a backwards universe reality now?



You should probably direct that question towards those that need guns to get on with their day to day activities.


I am partial about guns, there is an use for them actually, as i posted some time ago

My cousin, which is like my sister, is only alive because of having access to a gun when she was 13. The only reason she's alive is that gun and that she knew how to use it


But a revolver gun at home to protect yourself as a last resort is not the same as sending 10,000 assault rifles to another country when you know how those are going to be used...




I like guns, I also am an advocate for people to protect themselves from criminals and other unsavory elements , what gets me is that fine line between who should be allowed guns and those that should not... It's quite the conundrum.


I understand that, but sending a gun out there, to a country that you know is f*ckd up and the guy asks you to send 1,000 AK rifles? That's just not a "to protect my home" reason, and for example, in Mexico where you can't sell legally those guns, then we are clearly looking at an illegal sell of guns and we know who are buying them and why

Is that a good reason to allow it? The entire treaty was to prevent that, you don't sell a gun to someone that tells you i'm going to buy it to go kill some kids i don't like because their father did not sell the drugs i expected and he doesn't want to pay me my share

There has to be some criteria

As it looks right now, this is about selling the guns away regardless of how they will be used, outside of US territory. So completely ignoring international laws and that country's own laws, as it happened in Mexico before

I still don't see how this relates to the second amendment as Trump tried to used as an excuse


Well put. It has nothing to do with domestic gun ownership it's part of neo-con policy and once again giving the green light for CIA to arm terrorist groups like the IRA to destabilise countries.

The regulations are to avoid arming both sides of conflicts and keeping perpetual war going as has happened in the African World War the last 30 years that has seen nearly 100m killed in a war over minerals.

They ban the sale of arms to terrorists, organised crime groups, countries and regions with arms embargoes and the flooding of arms into active warzones. I don't see any reason to be opposed to the treaty.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.




Surely you also protect your most valuable assets...


How does exporting arms to terrorists so they can kill with no harm or care relates to having a gun in your house to protect your family or yourself?

Are we into a backwards universe reality now?



You should probably direct that question towards those that need guns to get on with their day to day activities.


I am partial about guns, there is an use for them actually, as i posted some time ago

My cousin, which is like my sister, is only alive because of having access to a gun when she was 13. The only reason she's alive is that gun and that she knew how to use it


But a revolver gun at home to protect yourself as a last resort is not the same as sending 10,000 assault rifles to another country when you know how those are going to be used...




I like guns, I also am an advocate for people to protect themselves from criminals and other unsavory elements , what gets me is that fine line between who should be allowed guns and those that should not... It's quite the conundrum.


I understand that, but sending a gun out there, to a country that you know is f*ckd up and the guy asks you to send 1,000 AK rifles? That's just not a "to protect my home" reason, and for example, in Mexico where you can't sell legally those guns, then we are clearly looking at an illegal sell of guns and we know who are buying them and why

Is that a good reason to allow it? The entire treaty was to prevent that, you don't sell a gun to someone that tells you i'm going to buy it to go kill some kids i don't like because their father did not sell the drugs i expected and he doesn't want to pay me my share

There has to be some criteria

As it looks right now, this is about selling the guns away regardless of how they will be used, outside of US territory. So completely ignoring international laws and that country's own laws, as it happened in Mexico before

I still don't see how this relates to the second amendment as Trump tried to used as an excuse


Well put. It has nothing to do with domestic gun ownership it's part of neo-con policy and once again giving the green light for CIA to arm terrorist groups like the IRA to destabilise countries.

The regulations are to avoid arming both sides of conflicts and keeping perpetual war going as has happened in the African World War the last 30 years that has seen nearly 100m killed in a war over minerals.

They ban the sale of arms to terrorists, organised crime groups, countries and regions with arms embargoes and the flooding of arms into active warzones. I don't see any reason to be opposed to the treaty.




On the upside at least agencies are learning from their mistakes.




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join