What if she didn't have a gun?

[mudwhistle]

Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.
« on: May 20, 2010, 09:28:15 AM »
While you were lulled away by oil spills and media directed news, look what you missed.

While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.
OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT
AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a
Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States

On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.

Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!
THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.
As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Here​

 

[JoeB131]

[
okay, guy, if you really think the UN is plotting to take our guns, you are officially a nut.

]

STFU.

Ignorant. That's what you are.

(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters

Okay, please point out where that treaty calls for taking any individual gun from an American Citizen.

Because you are really going into whacko land here, guy.

 

[mudwhistle]

As well she should be.

The first time a pizza delivery person shoots someone who makes them nervous, that's a nice big deep pocket for the lawyers of the deceased to tap into.

Just like innocent unborn babies, you want women to appear helpless in the face of their killers. Misogynist.

NO, i just don't want one of these chicks to peg me because I came around the corner and she was surprised.

And neither do most Pizza chains, who WILL FIRE YOU IF YOU ARE PACKING!!!

What's the difference if they peg you while driving and texting?

No difference, but guns makes it more dangerous to a wimp like you.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't feel like arguing all morning with some weirdo that probably thinks that we all have the right to health care and birth control but not the right to defend ourselves from violence or even death, or even thinks we don't have the right to be left alone by they government.

I know, you are getting your ass kicked, I'm soooo sorry for you.

But fact is, you don't need a gun and there's no good reason for you to have one.

And frankly, if you all aren't going to be responsible with them, we should take them away.

 

[JoeB131]

[

What's the difference if they peg you while driving and texting?

No difference, but guns makes it more dangerous to a wimp like you.

Umm, wow, guy that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Yeah, I htink they should not only fine folks who text and drive, those people should be regulated to only having rotary phones.

 

[mudwhistle]

[
okay, guy, if you really think the UN is plotting to take our guns, you are officially a nut.

]

STFU.

Ignorant. That's what you are.

(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters

Okay, please point out where that treaty calls for taking any individual gun from an American Citizen.

Because you are really going into whacko land here, guy.

Currently the ACA doesn't resemble what was passed by Congress.

This treaty is simply a starting point.

With this group of thugs all they need a is a toe in the door. Changes will be made to it.

 

[mudwhistle]

[

What's the difference if they peg you while driving and texting?

No difference, but guns makes it more dangerous to a wimp like you.

Umm, wow, guy that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Yeah, I htink they should not only fine folks who text and drive, those people should be regulated to only having rotary phones.

You're a fool. Death is death regardless of the cause.

Whether it's from somebody busting a cap or flattening your dumb ass with a GM product.

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't feel like arguing all morning with some weirdo that probably thinks that we all have the right to health care and birth control but not the right to defend ourselves from violence or even death, or even thinks we don't have the right to be left alone by they government.

I know, you are getting your ass kicked, I'm soooo sorry for you.

But fact is, you don't need a gun and there's no good reason for you to have one.

And frankly, if you all aren't going to be responsible with them, we should take them away.

Who's we?

You and the other libs?

That would be a neat trick when you're ducking for cover.

The law is still on our side. Until that changes you're not going to do shit.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Currently the ACA doesn't resemble what was passed by Congress.

This treaty is simply a starting point.

With this group of thugs all they need a is a toe in the door. Changes will be made to it.

Ah, so there isn't anything in there that restricts private citizens, but we all know that Obama guy, he's just sneaking around looking for a loophole...

 

[JoeB131]

I don't feel like arguing all morning with some weirdo that probably thinks that we all have the right to health care and birth control but not the right to defend ourselves from violence or even death, or even thinks we don't have the right to be left alone by they government.

I know, you are getting your ass kicked, I'm soooo sorry for you.

But fact is, you don't need a gun and there's no good reason for you to have one.

And frankly, if you all aren't going to be responsible with them, we should take them away.

Who's we?

You and the other libs?

That would be a neat trick when you're ducking for cover.

The law is still on our side. Until that changes you're not going to do shit.

Sorry, dude, decent Americans are tired of watching their children being wheeled out in body bag because you're compensating for a tiny pecker.

 

[mudwhistle]

[

Currently the ACA doesn't resemble what was passed by Congress.

This treaty is simply a starting point.

With this group of thugs all they need a is a toe in the door. Changes will be made to it.

Ah, so there isn't anything in there that restricts private citizens, but we all know that Obama guy, he's just sneaking around looking for a loophole...

He's already found it. He's just waiting to spring it on us.

 

[mudwhistle]

I know, you are getting your ass kicked, I'm soooo sorry for you.

But fact is, you don't need a gun and there's no good reason for you to have one.

And frankly, if you all aren't going to be responsible with them, we should take them away.

Who's we?

You and the other libs?

That would be a neat trick when you're ducking for cover.

The law is still on our side. Until that changes you're not going to do shit.

Sorry, dude, decent Americans are tired of watching their children being wheeled out in body bag because you're compensating for a tiny pecker.

Americans are more worried about an abusive government taking away our guns, so go cry to someone who's willing to listen to your nonsense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

I like to know the truth, and I don't expect to hear it from some body (the UN) that is working with progressives to take our guns. We already limit gun use, so you can shove that argument.

And I'm not a gun nut. I think you are an anti-gun nut. I'm a responsible gun owner who just happens to be have more expertise on the topic than you. I really don't care about your outdated cherry-picked statistics.

okay, guy, if you really think the UN is plotting to take our guns, you are officially a nut.

STFU.

Ignorant. That's what you are.

You’re an ironic and ignorant gun nut – well done.

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

FALSE

No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.

The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

 

[Jarlaxle]

As well she should be.

The first time a pizza delivery person shoots someone who makes them nervous, that's a nice big deep pocket for the lawyers of the deceased to tap into.

Just like innocent unborn babies, you want women to appear helpless in the face of their killers. Misogynist.

NO, i just don't want one of these chicks to peg me because I came around the corner and she was surprised.

And neither do most Pizza chains, who WILL FIRE YOU IF YOU ARE PACKING!!!

Just another reason to not get pizza from them. (The main reason being, of course, that the pizza SUCKS.)

 

[mudwhistle]

okay, guy, if you really think the UN is plotting to take our guns, you are officially a nut.

STFU.

Ignorant. That's what you are.

You’re an ironic and ignorant gun nut – well done.

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

FALSE

No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.

The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

Rules in the Senate can easily be changed. As with the filibuster rule already changed by Democrats. They only need 51 votes now to approve judicial appointments.

http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/11/21/reid-remarks-on-changing-the-senate-rules/#.UyYqOIVswZM

 

[eflatminor]

32,000 gun deaths in the US Last year.

How many of those were good guys defending themselves from "bad" guys?

How many of those were suicides? Over 60%

What disingenuous piece of shit you are.

 

[eflatminor]

Well, when we are all so scared of each other than we all pack heat, this is a good thing to you, how?

You would apparently prefer that only the bad guys are armed. How fucked up is that!

Or, I'm sorry, do you have some plan that will get the bad guys and crazies to begin obeying the law?

Didn't think so.

Hey, guess how many gun murders we had last year? 11,000!

Guess how many gun murders JAPAN had last year? 11.

Why are you focusing on "gun" murders? Is murder not murder? So what if when Americans choose to murder someone there weapon of choice is a firearm? Dead is dead. You'd feel better if people were hacked to death like we've seen in other countries?

LOTS of countries (over 100 in fact) with higher murder rates than the US. Who fucking cares how those murders were carried out?

 

[DriftingSand]

Liberals prefer dead unarmed victims instead of dead thugs.

Of course they do. Thugs had it tough as kids providing them good reason for killing unarmed, innocent folks. Have you no compassion? The thugs are the real victims here. Victims of their environment. They have every right to murder, rob, rape, and assault others and you conservative-types should shut up and like it.

Go Al Sharpton!!!!

 

[DriftingSand]

As well she should be.

The first time a pizza delivery person shoots someone who makes them nervous, that's a nice big deep pocket for the lawyers of the deceased to tap into.

^ point proven. Prefers unarmed victim to a woman explaining how some thug got that fatal bullet wound.

Well, when we are all so scared of each other than we all pack heat, this is a good thing to you, how?

Hey, guess how many gun murders we had last year? 11,000!

Guess how many gun murders JAPAN had last year? 11.

Guess how many vehicle deaths occurred in the USA in 2012? 33,808

Guess how many vehicle deaths occurred in Japan? 4914

List of countries by traffic-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let us ban all vehicles in the USA -- shall we? Of course, I'm using completely asinine logic but who cares about using common sense when some progressive's emotions are at stake.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

[

Shit happens.

I wonder why you give a shit how people die, not that they die in the first place.

Meaning, guns are a threat, but suicide-bombers, drunk drivers, people on cell phones, abortion, any number of ways to die a violent death doesn't bother you, except guns.

Gun-free zones are the primary cause of mass shootings you know.

Nobody dies in abortion because fetuses aren't people. Sorry, we have to keep explaining that to you guys and you never get that.

Now, if you want to enforce the gun laws the way we enforce drunk driving and talking on a cell phone while driving (the fine for doing that is now up to $500.00! in IL) I'm totally game on that one.

Point is, we don't need guns, and they are at the root of too many tragedies, from the little kid who shoots his sister with grandpa's gun to the depressed loaner who takes Mom's Zombie Apocolypse arsenal to school and shoots up a bunch of preschoolers.

"We" don't need guns. How about changing that to "I" don't need guns, and let the rest of us decide for ourselves.