U.S. Senate Stands with NRA in Strongly Opposing U.N Gun Control Efforts

For nearly 20 years, the NRA has worked tirelessly to oppose any United Nations effort to undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners. The latest attempt by the U.N. and global gun banners to eliminate our Second Amendment freedoms is to include civilian arms in the current Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which will be finalized next year. In order for any treaty to take effect, however, it must be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. To ensure that any ATT that includes civilian arms is dead on arrival in the Senate, the NRA has been working to get as many U.S. Senators as possible to publicly oppose any ATT that includes restrictions on civilian arms. As of this morning, 51 members-- a majority--of the U.S. Senate have signed letters to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton saying they will oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms ownership.

NRA

Well, I wondered how hard the NRA would push this issue with the weight they pull, and it looks like they pushed rather hard. I am glad to see that this is pretty much a non issue, and we can now put to rest all the "They are coming for our guns" threads, at least for the moment. I know that some gun grabbing factions will continue to relentlessly push for more gun control legislation, but as long as the gun owners stand together and let their voice be heard, it will make it harder for them to do so. It is when we stand idly by and hope for someone else to speak for us that we will end up losing our rights.
I commend the NRA on their action in this, and the members who have helped them keep their numbers strong. Without the members the NRA would not have the clout to sway opinion in washington the way they do.

too bad executive orders don't involve the senate. they seem to be popular these days.

I wish we had the rights to bare arms where i live,but we dont.
Make sure you guys over there hang onto your gun rights,make sure they dont take it away from you.
Thats seems like exactly what your doing as well,keep it up.

Cheers

Originally posted by johnsmith88
too bad executive orders don't involve the senate. they seem to be popular these days.

Yeah for some reason I don't think that would go over well. I can see doing it for less touchy subjects, but the 2nd amendment is a very taboo thing to mess with. Look at the last president that passed restricting firearm legislation, one term and out.

reply to post by BillyBoBBizWorth


Want me to send you one? Everyone should have the right to bear arms. No one has to know

Nice hand cannon OP.
.44 Cal?

When do you think the NRA will go from National Rifle Association to National Rebel Army?

reply to post by johnsmith88


I hear you on that. It would seem if this administration wants something badly enough, they will find some legal gymnastics to make it happen. Of course they have also been known to just ignore reality entirely and act as if something is in effect anyway. (Deem and Pass on the first two years of budget come to mind). I don't think the fight to greatly restrict or take our guns is over by a long shot. They're just getting warmed up on the attempts, IMHO.

Originally posted by StratosFear
reply to post by BillyBoBBizWorth

 

Nice hand cannon OP.
.44 Cal?

edit on 22-7-2011 by StratosFear because: (no reason given)

No, it's the 454 casull. Nice hand gun, but not what I wanted. Next I'm going for the big dog, the 500 S&W! I actually like my 44mag better than the 454 even though you can shoot 45lc through the 454.

They can try, but they won't take the guns from America.

Maybe in 20 years when the true hardliners are dead and the minority is outnumbered both financially and politically. But until that day, the NRA will hold too much power in the lobby.

Come to 'Bama and try, TRY, to take the guns from some of the people here. They open carry and are damn proud of it.

reply to post by SpaDe_


How loud can you say OVERKILL!
All i got right now is a Ruger .22 (first gun and surv. rifle)
and a .40cal Taurus that was to good of a deal to pass up.(going to my GF)
but tomorrow ive got an AK lined up.

But I thought this was it...Obama was gonna take the guns awaaaaay.
Just like Clinton
Get over it
The NRA is one of the largest LOBBYING groups.
Gasp, I used a bad word.
And you can't tell me gun manufacturers didn't know about the whole give away to the Mexican cartels.30,000 arms "sold"
There is your conspiracy.

while some americans may surrender their guns, many will kill those that come to collect. think about it. just because you can legally undermine the second amendment doesn't mean that people lose their natural born rights. no matter what laws they come up with, its a right, and we will keep our guns.

it would take a huge amount of manpower to even begin seizing guns, and an even more to carry away the bodies. if they do this, there will literally be war in the streets.

reply to post by SpaDe_


no american on this site or in this country answers to the un and any congressman who votes for that trash will get

a highly deserved 1 finger salute from me.

the un needs to be kicked out and the funds need to stop.

the funny part here is the un didnt stop all those guns going to mexico and hasnt stop war famine and disease in the world.

if you stop and think about it the un is a socialists dream spread the wealth and the power but a small elite pull all the strings.

meh.

reply to post by SpaDe_


I don't know how to say this without Mods blocking me, but..
You seem to be on the side of the NRA one of the largest LOBBYING groups in Washington, yet your signature is all Ron Paul. From all the Paulites on this site and elsewhere, I thought that LOBBYISTS were vile. And I've read some of your other posts that you like to shoot your guns, and I'm with you. I think that if someone has the money they should be able to buy a fully loaded f-18 bombs and all due to the second amendment.
What's my point? Quit complaining about EVIL LOBBYISTS out to get you when you support one of the largest ones.

reply to post by the owlbear


Who else is going to stand up in numbers for american gun owners? You point me in the direction of another group that is behind the 2nd amendment like the NRA and does all it can to keep it alive, and I just might become a member.

Originally posted by StratosFear
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

How loud can you say OVERKILL!
All i got right now is a Ruger .22 (first gun and surv. rifle)
and a .40cal Taurus that was to good of a deal to pass up.(going to my GF)
but tomorrow ive got an AK lined up.

I will call it overkill when I can no longer manage the recoil, until then it's just enough.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
reply to post by the owlbear

 

Who else is going to stand up in numbers for american gun owners? You point me in the direction of another group that is behind the 2nd amendment like the NRA and does all it can to keep it alive, and I just might become a member.

Here's the thing...NO ONE has come for your guns. How much do you pay a LOBBYIST group (who also gets millions from weapons manufacturers) to "protect your interests" and send you a newsletter scaring you about how "Clinton to take guns away!"...passage of time...."Obama to take guns away!"
And how much do you scream about the power of other LOBBYIST groups?

reply to post by SpaDe_


This is just one battle with many more to be fought.

I agree with isthisreallife. Those who like this type of legislation will never stop trying to take away our rights.

And yes, we do need to kick the UN out of America and stop funding them.

Originally posted by the owlbear

Originally posted by SpaDe_
reply to post by the owlbear

 

Who else is going to stand up in numbers for american gun owners? You point me in the direction of another group that is behind the 2nd amendment like the NRA and does all it can to keep it alive, and I just might become a member.

Here's the thing...NO ONE has come for your guns. How much do you pay a LOBBYIST group (who also gets millions from weapons manufacturers) to "protect your interests" and send you a newsletter scaring you about how "Clinton to take guns away!"...passage of time...."Obama to take guns away!"
And how much do you scream about the power of other LOBBYIST groups?

Sorry, but I gave up on the government looking out for my best interest. I will join the others and look out for my own. Boy scout motto "always be prepared".

reply to post by the owlbear


Dude it isn't about whether they are a lobbyist group or not. It is about doing anything we can to keep our natural rights. Any lobbying group that is pro-personal rights is our ally. Most lobbying groups have nothing to do with a citizen's rights. This one does.

reply to post by SpaDe_

Look at the last president that passed restricting firearm legislation, one term and out.

The last time I checked Bill Clinton served two terms. Don't forget the garbage AWB law. He also signed the Brady Law. A law that included a five day waiting period when purchasing a gun. Clinton also used execuive orders to ban the importation of several types of rifles and pistols. His administration was also behind federal law suits directed at Smith and Wesson.

The last anti-gun president served more than one term.


ETA:
Don't forget George W. Bush was no saint when it came to gun control.

I’m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun.

So we should make gun's unusable for defense. Oh, and tell me when 18 or 21 became juvenile ages.

I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban

So, we should keep a law on the books despite congress issuing a study that said it had no determinable effect on crime. That was his basic stance. No guns for you if we don't like the cosmetics. No magazine with more than 10 rounds. Criminals have never been known to bring an extra gun.

Bush has said he would sign a law requiring trigger locks with handgun sales but wouldn’t push such legislation. Bush has endorsed outlawing the import of certain high-capacity ammunition clips. Source: Judy Holland, Hearst Newspapers Apr 14, 2000

He wasn't going to push for legislation. If it came across his desk he would have signed it without hesitation.

George Bush - On The Issues