UN declares arms trade treaty to go into effect Dec 24

Exactly my point as harmless as it seems and with all the great intentions it leaves alot of open ended words that can go many ways..a reply to: queenofswords

originally posted by: ATF1886
Lol seems you are not to keen on reading mate i listed my concerns after reading the full treaty but it seems someone was to busy powdering his wig this argument excludes you in the sense that this is happening in a state where we actually stand up for our rights and dont allow our government to step on us like roaches you remind me of piers snot morgan your just another brit sticking his nose were it doesnt belong sir good day!!! ,a reply to: stumason

You sound like the cliché of a intellectually lazy, moronic "USA USA" chanting boob.

You're an embarrassment to your country.

No go shovel some more pork rinds into your fat face while watching Honey Boo Boo and STFU

As long as you go drink some English coffe "snot nose tone" and have some butta with your crumpets lol I love it would you like some vinega I could go on and on and on not really I love my country it's great but is sliding down and endless hole and I'll admit it my country has done alot of wrong granted but yours has as well you BOOB lol I don't watch honey boo boo not MERICAN enough for me boy I'm actually watch 007 pierce bunghole another great to the crown...a reply to: duaneology

a reply to: ATF1886

The treaty has not been ratified in the US senate so it has no effect on the USA.

Could they vote it into effect before the deadline or can obama's mighty pen take action??? a reply to: guitarplayer

Don't ruin your species for me I quite enjoy the crown my hostility is towards you and your mate are this is a problem in our country we have that right and privilege and honor and enjoy it..a reply to: duaneology

a reply to: ATF1886

The Preamble alone is quite informative

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial interests of States in the international trade in conventional arms

Legitimate trade - recognised = access to guns

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system ,

No constitutional issue there.

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law

emphasis added*
The Arms Trade Treaty

That covers just about everything

a reply to: ATF1886

Triple post = gotten to

At all at all i do it on all majority of my posts its called enthusiastic intellect sorry your not as enthusiastic about this subject....a reply to: duaneology

a reply to: ATF1886

Haha, righto - clearly you haven't got a clue what you're talking about in the slightest. I'm not sure why you think this is a US only topic...

Piers Morgan? Is that genuinely the best you can do? Sounds like you might have this new virus going around

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: ATF1886

Haha, righto - clearly you haven't got a clue what you're talking about in the slightest.

Piers Morgan? Is that genuinely the best you can do? Sounds like you might have this new virus going around

And you just proved your lack of intelligence and comeback that you had to use someone else's post Mate...

a reply to: ATF1886

Weak effort, mate and only showing up your intellectual deficiencies as your OP contains the ramblings of someone about a Treaty they clearly did not read and you're posting their conclusions as fact without so much as doing your own research. People in glass houses and all that.

a reply to: duaneology

People like you are why we love our guns. You are a toilet.

FYI - this might be a shock to you as clearly you're not that well versed in anything outside the US - but guns aren't illegal here, so you can the whole "taking god given rights" thing.

Your still arguing wow musta upset you a bit im goin now to enjoy my guns would you like to come join...o a reply to: stumason

a reply to: ATF1886

And you've given up, because you know that your getting your panties in a bunch over an international arms treaty that has no affect on you in the slightest, because you didn't do you're own research and believed some right-wing nut blog that says the treaty states things it does not.

So, go and enjoy your guns, it doesn't bother me in the slightest and it won't change with the passage of this treaty, so what exactly was the point of this thread apart from showing you up to be a somewhat foolish and gullible person?

a reply to: ATF1886

They could but it would be certain death politically for those who voted for it since everyone would see it as a crime against the US sovereignty and it would go to the SC in that case since they all took an oath to uphold the sovereignty and laws of the land.

a reply to: TWort

Oh I'm sure there are non violent gun users. I know a few personally but those aren't the ones screaming "just come and take them, I dare you". Like with any hot button issue the people who are the loudest and most radical ruin it for the moderates. My best friend's family are responsible gun users except the youngest son. He is rather unattractive and nerdy (ie not popular growing up) and he has some serious issues feeling powerless and having low self esteem. He would always go on about " if that fa**ot tried anything I'd blow his head off. He's a cop now

Like any generalization or stereotype I know full well it didn't apply to everyone but it does apply to many. Just look at the issues of police brutality. Almost every case is related to ego/self esteem/power issues in my opinion. As I've heard said before many times (and believe), the worst crime in America is disrespecting or questioning the authority of a cop. Can I back that up? No. But I'm sure it's a huge factor. Feel free to disagree, not that anyone needs permission here :p

a reply to: guitarplayer

And why would passage of this Treaty be "certain death politically" should it go before Congress?

Why would it be a "crime against US sovereignty"? (an ironic question in itself, as the US rarely respects other countries sovereignty)

In your own words, explain.......