Hours after election U.S. agrees to bringing Small arms treaty before General Assembly

page: 3
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by rival
 


I forgot to add, I believe the banning of all guns would be a GREAT thing!

Ban them all! No military weapons, no police weapons, no Trident subs, Apache helicopters
or aircraft carriers. Ban them all from the biggest nuclear devices down to the smallest derringer
one-shot .22 calibers.

And then when you've rounded all of them up....EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM,

Stop by my house, and I'll give you mine as well...
edit on 8-11-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)


Banning all guns? Are you kidding? That is the next step after this treaty. And like I said the bad guys will always have guns and trade them in secret. Do you not understand how this works? Black market for guns instantly.
Would you also support a UN Door to Door seizing of guns to enforce that? Think again what you are supporting, because govt will never give up weapons, nor should they. Socialist Utopias do not work and are not realistic, neither is your desire to rid the planet of all weapons.




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Economy first on agenda? No
Volatile geopolitical issues first on agenda? No
Saying yes to letting the UN intrude on our rights to obtain small arms and ammunition first on the agenda? Apparently so.


Economy is no because this limits exports of weapons to other countries?

Volatile geopolitical issues would be a yes if this prevents exports to countries in which others might want to...um...steer a revolution, say.

How does limiting exports intrude on your rights exactly?


An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed. "We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.




Also, this was covered already here.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by rival
 


I forgot to add, I believe the banning of all guns would be a GREAT thing!

Ban them all! No military weapons, no police weapons, no Trident subs, Apache helicopters
or aircraft carriers. Ban them all from the biggest nuclear devices down to the smallest derringer
one-shot .22 calibers.

And then when you've rounded all of them up....EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM,

Stop by my house, and I'll give you mine as well...
edit on 8-11-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)


Banning all guns? Are you kidding? That is the next step after this treaty. And like I said the bad guys will always have guns and trade them in secret. Do you not understand how this works? Black market for guns instantly.
Would you also support a UN Door to Door seizing of guns to enforce that? Think again what you are supporting, because govt will never give up weapons, nor should they. Socialist Utopias do not work and are not realistic, neither is your desire to rid the planet of all weapons.


I thought my post was pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek. The argument is: Ban and destroy every
weapon on the planet, military and police combined ALL WEAPONS....and then when you're done,
come get mine.

The point was I will not give up my weapons to someone who still possesses them: You can't have mine
until you give up yours first....at least i thought my point was clear.





 
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join