http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

OOOOBAAAAMMMMAAAA!!!

Point 4 seems a little paranoid.

if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate

How is this attributed to Obama?

Lol.

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

So, make it harder for convicted felons or those with diagnosed psychological disorders that would make it dangerous to possess a firearm? Fine by me.

2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Given that any unauthorized firearms will, under this law/set of laws, be owned by the people mentioned above in 1, this is again fine by me. Plus it'll punish people who do dumb gak like convert flare guns for shotgun shells or try and home-build their guns.

3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Fine by me personally, although I appreciate that people are upset that it bans any and all magazine-based semi-automatics (Especially since I can't think of a one-shot pistol that doesn't use black powder and a firing cap or flint :/ ). However, given the difficulty in regulating magazine sizes to all hold X bullets or less, and given the ability to import or illegally obtain larger magazines to circumvent this limit, this is a logical step.

Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

This does seem a bit paranoid. But even if accurate, this only helps police internationally.

For example, if Johnny Nutjob has holed up in his house with hostages, right now the SWAT has to go in with no idea of what to expect. If they were able to simply pull up Mr. Nutjob's gun owner profile on the registry, they might be able to see he has purchased and owns a hunting rifle, three shotguns, and a pair of pistols, and they can plan accordingly in light of this knowledge.

Similarly, an international registry would tie in with point 1, making it harder for Bob Schmoe to sell his shotgun to Joe Nutjob, as it would have to go through the registry to avoid legal issues. This would remove a lot of the current issues with the ability to acquire firearms without background checks at gun shows, as doing so would incur a huge financial penalty (And given that their name would have been on the registry, they know that Bob sold it to Joe since the gun serial # 123456 was last in Bob's possession and he didn't report a theft of the gun)

Ahtman wrote:

if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate

How is this attributed to Obama?

you have that backwards
How is this NOT attributed to Obama?

Point 2 is effectively impossible to enforce.

I have to say I agree the first 2 points.

You can get a gun in America way too easy, no background checks, nothing.

But the third one isn't really necessary as the first 2 points would help manage the criminals and mentally unstable and it is no point punishing people who abide by the law.

4th point is just as silly it just punishes honest people and won't stop the illegal trafficking of guns.

This is nothing more than hot air.

Not sure if Obama would actually signed it or the Senate would pass it. We opted out the Landmine Agreement the UN press for awhile back

Jihadin wrote:Not sure if Obama would actually signed it or the Senate would pass it. We opted out the Landmine Agreement the UN press for awhile back

He would sign it in his second term. If he signed before then, it would amount to an auto-loss.

Hell if does signed it we might as well pay our UN dues we stopped paying a long long time ago. I see this going to SCOTUS

I like this part:

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

He may as well have said "I'm trying to scare you, here's how:"

Even if this is ratified by the Senate, multinational treaties of this scale are always so incredibly vague (and completely unenforceable against first-world nations) that its essentially impossible to know how signatory states will actually attempt to put them into effect domestically. Then, of course, there's always the ability to challenge any law made to bring the US into compliance with the treaty (whatever that may mean) in court.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Point 4 seems a little paranoid.

Except its accurate.

They're making it harder to buy guns =/= They're trampling over the 2nd amendment.

Seriously, it's like every time something gets changed everybody gets up in arms and is prepared to revolt against the government. Obama might not be a 2nd Amendment enthusiast but it doesn't necessarily mean he'll opt into it.

The gaps in the logic are entertaining. Nation Gun Registry =/= Full Scale Gun Confiscation.

Haha..

IF passed by the UN, AND ratified by the senate...

So who gives a flying feth then?!

They could at least wait until it IS passed by the UN, and actually looks like being somewhere close to even being considered to be ratified by the senate, before they write all this gak.

Frazzled wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Point 4 seems a little paranoid.

Except its accurate.

Oh no, I'm not going to fight over that point with you Frazz, you'll beat me down with Weiner logic and I'll be out of the discussion before I can blink. Going to prempt such tactics.

Look at Sigs eyes... how can you not agree.

mattyrm wrote:Haha..

IF passed by the UN, AND ratified by the senate...

So who gives a flying feth then?!

They could at least wait until it IS passed by the UN, and actually looks like being somewhere close to even being considered to be ratified by the senate, before they write all this gak.

People always need a scapegoat when they can't deal with their own problems, or having a scapegoat helps them.

I've seen people try to blame the fact they can't get a job on obama, yet all they do is sit on their ass at home as if a job is going to just come to them.

Frazzled wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Point 4 seems a little paranoid.

Except its accurate.

The only portions of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects that could even be construed to mean that are:

7. To ensure that henceforth licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process. This marking should be unique and should identify the country of manufacture and also provide information that enables the national authorities of that country to identify the manufacturer and serial number so that the authorities concerned can identify and trace each weapon.

...and...

9. To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities.

...and...

5. States and international and regional organizations should, where appropriate, cooperate, develop and strengthen partnerships to share resources and information on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.

All of which are already done by the US.

As far as what the UN itself will do:

33. To request the Secretary-General of the United Nations, within existing resources, through the Department for Disarmament Affairs, to collate and circulate data and information provided by States on a voluntary basis and including national reports, on implementation by those States of the Programme of Action.

Which, again, it already does via ECOSOC.

Frazz...look away from the eyes....it is not your friend....yet

I think everyone fails to see what's going on...the world governments are in on the zombie apocalypse. They regulate guns, take them away, and we have no defense to the walking dead. Then when the population is low enough, and a few people are safely underground, they virus bomb the surface and wipe out the zombies. Clever...almost too clever...but I caught on.

This is probably the fault of Agenda 21. According to everybody on Facebook they are responsible for everything.

Also found this:

LOL UN troops

Jihadin wrote:Hell if does signed it we might as well pay our UN dues we stopped paying a long long time ago. I see this going to SCOTUS

Internaitonal treaties do not abbrograte our rights under the Constitution, much to politician's chagrin.

d-usa wrote:This is probably the fault of Agenda 21. According to everybody on Facebook they are responsible for everything.

Also found this:

I feel like that's meant to be a joke/troll. Because of :
"and your bibles" and "Jesus didn't need to vote and neither do you"

And after searching ERAFN I'm now certain.

Whats shameful about it...people believe it

I was hoping the joke was obvious. Sad thing is that I could see some of the people that this is making fun of actually thinking this is real..

d-usa wrote:I was hoping the joke was obvious. Sad thing is that I could see some of the people that this is making fun of actually thinking this is real..

The sad thing is in this day and age it could have been legit, which says a lot.

......

I had the NRA already call me about this in a 8 minute long scare tactic speech that was poorly written and full of bad logic like above. It was targeting people who don't have knowledge of how things really work or who just want to be angry about a non issue. At the end of the speech they had a poll with more scare tactic BS. I am sure most callers not wanting to hear this BS hung up long before the end further skewing their poll, I just wanted to be removed from their list.


And no this will not happen in our day and age due to reality.

I'm with Jihadin on this one. UN troops? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha x 10000 to the power of infinity (If that's possible)

HonorHarrington wrote:The sad thing is in this day and age it could have been legit, which says a lot.

Tbh I'd see that image like some sort of intelligence test.
And considering that the poster urges people to stay home* it'd be a win-win for Obama either way.

*: only at this point I realized the picture for what it was - damn shame, the "[...] take away your guns. And your bibles." line had me cracking.

Alas, as much as the US need this, I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too many idiots in politics, too much gun lobby influence, and too many voters not fact-checking what they are told by sources like OP's website. Maybe in another decade or two.

That be an interesting day. UN to emplace UN Troops to enforce this weapon issue......what UN country willing to gamble their um...contingent of their troops under UN command to deploy in the USA?

Its not UN trops that are the issue. Its enacting laws to enforce the treaty that is an issue.

Obviously it's Canada.

They have been preparing, making sure we think that they are weak, when in truth they have been developing a secret weapon to ensure their dominance!

Gah...I've been victim of Canada psychological warfare.....Many hours spent in Kanadahar rooting them on in their hockey game and drinking Tim Horton coffee...even when they moved the stand to their compound....

No he's not. Articles like this are the media version of trolling. I am so sick of everyone thinking that every non-conservative president is going to take away the guns. They haven't yet....

It's funny how this kind of story seems to pop up whenever there is a Democrat in the white house. Anybody reading the proposals would wonder if there is an election in November

I remember the Bill Clinton days and the claims of the Republicans that citizens would only be allowed to arm themselves with water pistols or be limited to buying three bullets a year or something like that (can't remember the exact details ) It was scare stories then, and it's scare stories now.
The only thing funnier than UN troops in America is the idea of taking guns away from Americans. You'll see Frazz claiming British citizenship and burning the flag of Texas before the above happens.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:No he's not. Articles like this are the media version of trolling. I am so sick of everyone thinking that every non-conservative president is going to take away the guns. They haven't yet....

cough ***Gunrunner followed by Clinton standing there saying 70% of id'd guns were from America LIES **cough.

I heard that Obama gave the deficit to the Chinese to let them buy all the Lead reserves, so that bullets would be too expensive for ordinary citizens.

Think we are gearing away from lead in the bullets due to its toxity...not just in a human body but land

Jihadin wrote:Think we are gearing away from lead in the bullets due to its toxity...not just in a human body but land

\

But then the "died of acute lead poisoning" joke won't work anymore...

FORBES editorials are impressively yellow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:That be an interesting day. UN to emplace UN Troops to enforce this weapon issue......what UN country willing to gamble their um...contingent of their troops under UN command to deploy in the USA?

I doubt the UN would be willing to act against a NATO state militaristically.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I doubt the UN would be willing to act against a NATO state militaristically.

They couldn't even they wanted to, not on a procedural level. The US, at the very least, would veto.

Shuma...don't derail a possible fun pokes at the UN pls

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
I doubt the UN would be willing to act against a NATO state militaristically.

They couldn't even they wanted to, not on a procedural level. The US, at the very least, would veto.

Presumably action against the US would follow our loss of security council status.

We do have NATO troops that are in the UN that do train in the US.

Jihadin wrote:We do have NATO troops that are in the UN that do train in the US.

Don't tell people that. We have people up in arms saying that every time a military truck is driving to training the military is taking up arms against the citizenry (at least in Oklahoma).

Yak9UT wrote:You can get a gun in America way too easy, no background checks, nothing.

This is patently false, btw.

d-usa wrote:This is probably the fault of Agenda 21. According to everybody on Facebook they are responsible for everything.
Also found this:
>snip image<

d-usa wrote:I was hoping the joke was obvious. Sad thing is that I could see some of the people that this is making fun of actually thinking this is real..

Heh, it's like that "Due to expected record turn out, all republicans will vote on normal election day and all democrats will vote on the next day" (and vice versa, depending on version) email that goes out every year.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:No he's not. Articles like this are the media version of trolling. I am so sick of everyone thinking that every non-conservative president is going to take away the guns. They haven't yet....

Read that as "neo-conservative" president and was horribly confused...

I thought the USA provided about 80-90% of the troops for any UN mission. Maybe this is why the president seemed to eager to get all our troops home from abroad?

Besides all that, the Senate would need a 2/3 majority of votes to give consent for ratification. I doubt they could get that many votes, though it may be closer than I want to imagine.

There is some pretty interesting reading out there. I once found a list of all the UN treaties the USA has never ratified. Seems to be the majority of them.

streamdragon wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:You can get a gun in America way too easy, no background checks, nothing.

This is patently false, btw

not really.

The proliferation of guns is such that I can get my hands on any number of firearms quickly and with little hassle. One does not need to walk into a gun store to get a gun.

CT GAMER wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:You can get a gun in America way too easy, no background checks, nothing.

This is patently false, btw

not really.

The proliferation of guns is such that I can get my hands on any number of firearms quickly and with little hassle. One does not need to walk into a gun store to get a gun.

Those are already illegal, so no new laws needed.

Frazzled wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:You can get a gun in America way too easy, no background checks, nothing.

This is patently false, btw

not really.

The proliferation of guns is such that I can get my hands on any number of firearms quickly and with little hassle. One does not need to walk into a gun store to get a gun.

Those are already illegal, so no new laws needed.

I was simplyspeaking to the ease with which guns can be obtained which the person I quoted was refuting.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I thought the USA provided about 80-90% of the troops for any UN mission

lolno

I don't think this has ever been the case. With few exceptions such as Ireland, First World countries contribute primarily with money, whereas Third World countries send the human resources (and in turn receive money for it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping#Participation

The US is the chief contributor to finances, however, covering about 27.14% of the peacekeeper budget - followed by Japan with 12.53%.

Oh thats right.. we provide the money for the UN.

The guy has no idea what the treaty proposes, but he's certain it'll include all his worst nightmares.

I mean, shooting guns is great fun, and I think the impact of gun controls has been fairly minimal, so I'm not really in favour of more gun controls (in the US, certainly, you should just better enforce the controls you've already got), but the gun rights lobby in the US is completely nuts. They're so tightly wrapped up in their fantasies about all their guns being taken away, no-one has noticed that isn't happening, and no meaningful increase on gun control has been even slightly politically viable since the Assault Weapons debacle, but they're going to be terrified of it anyway. I suspect this is because for a lot of people, actually dealing with politics is hard and confusing, but playing make believe games about buying guns means they're defenders of freedom who are constantly protecting their ability to protect themselves from evil government encroachment is a lot of fun, so they believe that instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yak9UT wrote:4th point is just as silly it just punishes honest people and won't stop the illegal trafficking of guns.

It needs to be understood that most of the black market guns hitting Africa and South America were produced from licensed, legal gun manufacturers, with a significant portion produced by apparently respectful producers in Germany and the USA, who know full well where those guns are going.

A registry, or some other form of control, would be used as a check on these manufacturers, to show the weapons they export are going to legal market only. Right now they ship weapons off the South America, knowing full well they're going straight to narcotics gangs. That really isn't an acceptable situation.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I thought the USA provided about 80-90% of the troops for any UN mission. Maybe this is why the president seemed to eager to get all our troops home from abroad?

Besides all that, the Senate would need a 2/3 majority of votes to give consent for ratification. I doubt they could get that many votes, though it may be closer than I want to imagine.

There is some pretty interesting reading out there. I once found a list of all the UN treaties the USA has never ratified. Seems to be the majority of them.

You're thinking of NATO.

The only real thing Obama has done concerning guns was pass a bill making it LEGAL to carry guns in a National Park. Yup, Obama helped pass along a pro-gun law.

Hey Conservatives, us Liberals don't want your dang guns. In fact, I don't actually personally know any Liberals that don't own at least one gun. I my self own several, though mainly for their historical value, as well as plinkin'.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Oh thats right.. we provide the money for the UN.

Not even that, really. Thing is, every country pays in to the UN according in proportion to its GDP. The US, being the richest country in the world, pays in the most, but there is a ceiling on payments to the UN, no country is required to pay more more than 22% of the total UN budget. The only country this applies to is the US, because until very recently they were something closer to 25% of world GDP.

So, basically, while me and everyone else in the world other than the US would end up paying about 7 cents for every $1,000 we earned, because of the special condition the US was able to extract for itself, you and other Americans would each pay about 6 cents for every $1,000 you earned.

In other news, US citizens continue to misunderstand the UN.

Its the stigma that for every major UN mission that happens the USA provides the bulk

Jihadin wrote:Its the stigma that for every major UN mission that happens the USA provides the bulk

That's not really particularly true. The U.S. acts unilaterally pretty often and we provide the bulk of all NATO missions. Our actual contribution to UN operations isn't particularly big but then actual UN operations aren't particularly big as a generality.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Its the stigma that for every major UN mission that happens the USA provides the bulk

That's not really particularly true. The U.S. acts unilaterally pretty often and we provide the bulk of all NATO missions. Our actual contribution to UN operations isn't particularly big but then actual UN operations aren't particularly big as a generality.

As long as our percentage contributed outstrips our percentage of contribution to sex scandals and what have you, I think we are winning the game.

dogma wrote:In other news, US citizens continue to misunderstand the UN.

To be fair, citizens of most every country continue to fail to understand the UN. It's just that people in the US are probably the most hostile to the organisation, and this sticks out as very strange, given the US is far and away the country most able to bend the US to its POV.

I mean, having a funding amendment created that says 'our country and only our country gets to pay less than everyone else'... and then complaining that you still pay the most money is really quite incredible.

It's the same as with the foreign aid budget.

Both allocations are tiny compared to overall US government spending, and get completely disproportionate attention from critics.

Jihadin wrote:Its the stigma that for every major UN mission that happens the USA provides the bulk

Right now there's 10,000 Pakistani, and about the same Bangladeshi soldiers in peacekeeping actions around the world. India have another 9,000. All up there's about 100,000 peacekeepers in actions around the world. To that total the US has contributed less than 100.

So, no, peacekeeping operations do not need US to provide the bulk. I suspect you'll try and weasel out of that by saying 'major', but right now those operations include Southern Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and will hopefully see a major deployment in Syria.

I know most Americans are only aware of UN operations involving US troops, and that is understandable to a large extent, but that doesn't mean the operations you aren't aware of aren't happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's the same as with the foreign aid budget.

Both allocations are tiny compared to overall US government spending, and get completely disproportionate attention from critics.

Yeah, and the critics in both cases tend to be the same people.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:In other news, US citizens continue to misunderstand the UN.

To be fair, citizens of most every country continue to fail to understand the UN. It's just that people in the US are probably the most hostile to the organisation, and this sticks out as very strange, given the US is far and away the country most able to bend the US to its POV.

I mean, having a funding amendment created that says 'our country and only our country gets to pay less than everyone else'... and then complaining that you still pay the most money is really quite incredible.

Remember that discussion I had the other day about a fundamental lack of respect for reality in American politics? This is one of those.

GalacticDefender wrote:The only real thing Obama has done concerning guns was pass a bill making it LEGAL to carry guns in a National Park. Yup, Obama helped pass along a pro-gun law.

Hey Conservatives, us Liberals don't want your dang guns. In fact, I don't actually personally know any Liberals that don't own at least one gun. I my self own several, though mainly for their historical value, as well as plinkin'.

No . There's the matter of an AG who supports gun control and bans. There's the matter of forced reporting for multiple purchases along the border, the matter of shipping thousands of firearms off to cartels and then shortly thereafter claiming 70% of all identified firearms were from the US, and that6 we need more regulation and control on the US side

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Its the stigma that for every major UN mission that happens the USA provides the bulk

That's not really particularly true. The U.S. acts unilaterally pretty often and we provide the bulk of all NATO missions. Our actual contribution to UN operations isn't particularly big but then actual UN operations aren't particularly big as a generality.

WEll for one, that would require the UN to be relevant in most cases.

Which it isn't.

I may be wrong, but didn't Clinton pull the plug on US troops in the UN after the whole black hawk down thing?

Wow, its election time and someone claims that the Democratic candidate wants to take away everyone's guns!

I never saw THAT coming.

I may be wrong, but didn't Clinton pull the plug on US troops in the UN after the whole black hawk down thing?

Yes. US Forces will not fall under UN command

Frazzled wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:The only real thing Obama has done concerning guns was pass a bill making it LEGAL to carry guns in a National Park. Yup, Obama helped pass along a pro-gun law.

Hey Conservatives, us Liberals don't want your dang guns. In fact, I don't actually personally know any Liberals that don't own at least one gun. I my self own several, though mainly for their historical value, as well as plinkin'.

No . There's the matter of an AG who supports gun control and bans. There's the matter of forced reporting for multiple purchases along the border, the matter of shipping thousands of firearms off to cartels and then shortly thereafter claiming 70% of all identified firearms were from the US, and that6 we need more regulation and control on the US side

Obama didn't really have that much to do with Fast and Furious. The reason he isn't releasing the documents is because the Romney'ers will jump all over the stupid ideas that will be revealed and say Obama was the one who wrote it. It was a horrendously dumb idea, but definitely not some sort of conspiracy against the 2nd amendment. I'll not be fearing for my guns any time soon. It's the constant push to ban violent video games that worries me more (it's a fething art form!), and that is something both parties try to push.

Also, why can't the two parties agree on anything? I mean seriously, it's gotten to the point where both parties care more about taking stabs at each other than they care about the actual American public.

Would it be the same if the situation was reverse?

Are you going to try to suggest, for example, that Bush did not hide things from the US electorate, nevermind from the US populace?

I didn't think you were allowed to do that, Jihadin.

Wel if your refering to he lied to get us into Iraq...well...he wasn't impeach was he and Demo didn't press the issue on it did they since they voted for military operations looking at the same evidence he looked at. Still though things like Delta Force...Area 51...are not confirmed. Holder has no one to blame but himself. He screwed up the hearing by not being prepared for it. Did he not?

Jihadin wrote:Wel if your refering to he lied to get us into Iraq...well...he wasn't impeach was he and Demo didn't press the issue on it

You're talking as if that is relevant. The incompetence of the Democratic party is well established.

Melissia wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Wel if your refering to he lied to get us into Iraq...well...he wasn't impeach was he and Demo didn't press the issue on it

You're talking as if that is relevant. The incompetence of the Democratic party is well established.

Something being well-established doesn't make it irrelevant. Sometimes it makes it even more relevant.

Just because the Democratic party didn't object doesn't mean that somehow Bush wasn't hiding things from people.

It just means that their game was off, like it has been for ages...

And we all have our off days. Like this morning I lost my bearing due to Frazz and the roman candle armed weiner

Jihadin wrote:Would it be the same if the situation was reverse?

Replace guns with weed or gays and it's the same gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Wel if your refering to he lied to get us into Iraq...well...he wasn't impeach was he and Demo didn't press the issue on it did they since they voted for military operations looking at the same evidence he looked at. Still though things like Delta Force...Area 51...are not confirmed. Holder has no one to blame but himself. He screwed up the hearing by not being prepared for it. Did he not?

The hearing shouldn't of existed. It was a purely political dog and pony show to rouse up sheep in the conservative base who will froth at the mouth form any mention of gun laws. The whole things an idiotic waste of time and money (something the conservatives are kings at).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Wel if your refering to he lied to get us into Iraq...well...he wasn't impeach was he and Demo didn't press the issue on it

You're talking as if that is relevant. The incompetence of the Democratic party is well established.

The effort to impeach would of been a clusterfeth failure and it would of made them look terrible and unpatriotic. They made the right call.

I was more talking about them not pressing the issue. The impeachment thing was ridiculous, as you said.

Melissia wrote:I was more talking about them not pressing the issue. The impeachment thing was ridiculous, as you said.

Whats the point of pressing an outgoing presidency on things that they can't really be charged for? The public wasn't going to react the way you want them to Mellissa, most didn't and don't care. Most can't find the countries we invaded on a map and think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The justification for the wars has never been a particularly strong issue. Just the financial cost and loss of prestige. People rarely base their vote on human rights issues and with the economy tanking they had all they needed to sail into the White House.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:I was more talking about them not pressing the issue. The impeachment thing was ridiculous, as you said.

Whats the point of pressing an outgoing presidency on things that they can't really be charged for? The public wasn't going to react the way you want them to Mellissa, most didn't and don't care. Most can't find the countries we invaded on a map and think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The justification for the wars has never been a particularly strong issue. Just the financial cost and loss of prestige. People rarely base their vote on human rights issues and with the economy tanking they had all they needed to sail into the White House.

But we won. So check, and mate.

Bromsy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:I was more talking about them not pressing the issue. The impeachment thing was ridiculous, as you said.

Whats the point of pressing an outgoing presidency on things that they can't really be charged for? The public wasn't going to react the way you want them to Mellissa, most didn't and don't care. Most can't find the countries we invaded on a map and think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The justification for the wars has never been a particularly strong issue. Just the financial cost and loss of prestige. People rarely base their vote on human rights issues and with the economy tanking they had all they needed to sail into the White House.

But we won. So check, and mate.

During bushes re-election we were still looking for WMDs.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:I was more talking about them not pressing the issue. The impeachment thing was ridiculous, as you said.

Whats the point of pressing an outgoing presidency on things that they can't really be charged for? The public wasn't going to react the way you want them to Mellissa, most didn't and don't care. Most can't find the countries we invaded on a map and think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The justification for the wars has never been a particularly strong issue. Just the financial cost and loss of prestige. People rarely base their vote on human rights issues and with the economy tanking they had all they needed to sail into the White House.

But we won. So check, and mate.

During bushes re-election we were still looking for WMDs.

Check and Mate

Oh god, they are following the same route as Australia....

Jihadin wrote:And we all have our off days. Like this morning I lost my bearing due to Frazz and the roman candle armed weiner

It is but a taste of the Dashshundskrieg to come. We're now testing cherry bomb assault wieners.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I may be wrong, but didn't Clinton pull the plug on US troops in the UN after the whole black hawk down thing?

US deployment in UN operations has always been under the strict condition that US troops will not operate under the command of a foreign general. So if US troops are deployed then there can't be any non-US senior rank above them.

Mogadishu basically showed that the possible negative fall out of US troops getting killed for the sake of peacekeeping is a bad political risk, so while there was no formal decision to never, ever commit US troops to a peacekeeping operation in serious numbers again, the political reality is that no president will do it.

Add those two things together, and you see that the US being willing to send maybe some troops in a low risk, low profile situation, but have no senior official telling them what to do, and US involvement in UN operations becomes more hassle than its worth. Especially when you just send Bangladeshi troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Remember that discussion I had the other day about a fundamental lack of respect for reality in American politics? This is one of those.

The US has it pretty bad, but it's by no means a purely US issue. I mean, rockerbikie is Australian, and he just posted this;
"Oh god, they are following the same route as Australia...."

Indifference to reality affects us all.

darkPrince010 wrote:Lol.

2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Given that any unauthorized firearms will, under this law/set of laws, be owned by the people mentioned above in 1, this is again fine by me. Plus it'll punish people who do dumb gak like convert flare guns for shotgun shells or try and home-build their guns.

Lol indeed. It is not now nor has it ever been illegal to home build a gun.

3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Fine by me personally, although I appreciate that people are upset that it bans any and all magazine-based semi-automatics (Especially since I can't think of a one-shot pistol that doesn't use black powder and a firing cap or flint :/ ).

Really? Without dipping too deep into the well I can think of one extremely popular single shot pistol available in virtually any modern caliber imaginable. There's fearmongering about the gun ignorant left and actually exemplifying it for all to see.

AustonT wrote:

darkPrince010 wrote:Lol.

2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Given that any unauthorized firearms will, under this law/set of laws, be owned by the people mentioned above in 1, this is again fine by me. Plus it'll punish people who do dumb gak like convert flare guns for shotgun shells or try and home-build their guns.

Lol indeed. It is not now nor has it ever been illegal to home build a gun.

Selling a gun is when the vast majority of regulations come into play isn't it?

I assume you mean selling a home built gun?
If so then: No.
There are somethings you can do to protect yourself as the builder like serialzing but as long as you are not manufacturing on any scale for profit without appropriate licenses. It cannot violate obvious regulation like say anything requiring a tax stamp. There are several books on home building fire arms and websites and forums devoted to it if you are interested I can PM you a couple. Maybe not like right away I'm about to pack it in.

I think building guns in my house might be a little bit to much for the Mrs. I got enough ways to blow money already...

d-usa wrote:I think building guns in my house might be a little bit to much for the Mrs. I got enough ways to blow money already...

Little plastic and or metal soldiers? I remember those...

And photography.

Ah, well since mine are guns and minis my wife doesn't particualrly cotton to either collection growing by any means. Manufacturing or otherwise. I had received a polite warning that BATF was reviewing the guidelines for assembling vice manufacturing and that they may (or are) require a manufacturing license for assembly over a certain volume (5 a year I think)

AustonT wrote:Ah, well since mine are guns and minis my wife doesn't particualrly cotton to either collection growing by any means. Manufacturing or otherwise. I had received a polite warning that BATF was reviewing the guidelines for assembling vice manufacturing and that they may (or are) require a manufacturing license for assembly over a certain volume (5 a year I think)

How difficult is it to actually get a manufacturing license.

Depends on what you want to build and who it's for.

Don't be daft! Just use yer choppaz!

This has me wondering about your gun laws:

Here in the UK, you have to demonstrate a good reason to own a gun (self-defense isn't, work is etc) and then have the fit and proper checks.

Does the second amendment mean any US citizen is entitled to own a gun, so long as they're not mental?

Davylove21 wrote:This has me wondering about your gun laws:

Here in the UK, you have to demonstrate a good reason to own a gun (self-defense isn't, work is etc) and then have the fit and proper checks.

Does the second amendment mean any US citizen is entitled to own a gun, so long as they're not mental?

Yeah, we are pretty much the opposite. The state has to demonstrate a good reason for you not to own a gun (mental instability, prior criminal conviction, etc..). Some states do have waiting periods (buy today, walk out of the store with it next week), but so far for me I just walk into the store, fill out the paperwork, get a quick call to the government, and a "thank you, here is your gun".

Davylove21 wrote:This has me wondering about your gun laws:

Here in the UK, you have to demonstrate a good reason to own a gun (self-defense isn't, work is etc) and then have the fit and proper checks.

Does the second amendment mean any US citizen is entitled to own a gun, so long as they're not mental?

It depends on the state. IN some states and cities, its a defacto ban and if you actually use a firearm to defend yourself you go to jail. Chicago is a good example. In other states, people are raised from near infants around rifles and shotguns.

In Texas (aka God's Country, Australia East, the Devil's donkey-cave, gateway to New Mexico) one may legally own if :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas#Firearms_purchase_and_possession
An applicant must be eligible to purchase a handgun under the State and Federal laws (including an age restriction of 21), however an exception is granted to active members of the military who are age 18 and over. Additionally, a number of factors may make a person ineligible (temporarily or permanently) to obtain a license, including:

felony convictions (permanent) and Class A or B misdemeanors (5 years, permanent in cases of domestic violence), including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication;
pending criminal charges (indefinite until resolved);
chemical or alcohol dependency (defined as 2 convictions for substance-related offenses in a 10-year period; 10-year ban from the date of the first conviction);
certain types of psychological diagnoses (indefinite until the condition is testified by a medical professional as being in remission);
protective or restraining orders (indefinite until rescinded); or
defaults on taxes, governmental fees, or child support (indefinite until resolved).[3]

Oh no, it's started!

Obama getting elected was a wonderful thing for firearms dealers. It seems like they would want to have him elected again, and stay quiet while the lobby bamboozles the masses. For months after he was elected some ammunition was really, really hard to find (at least in my region), and gun stores reported record sales.

As a 'liberal minded' pro-Obama person that also has a conceal carry permit, I can say that my gun owner rights have gotten 200% better while Obama has been in office. No complaints here.

I've received some phone calls from the NRA in the last couple years that are downright inaccurate and totally cater to fools that don't do their own research. One caller stated that "United Nations counties like North Korea and China are working to take away your rights to gun ownership." I chewed that guy a new one.

It was called the Obama Bullet Bubble. How come everyone else gets a bailout but me? Where's my Obama Bullet Bubble Bailout?

Lets not forot the 30 minute questioner/video of fire arms safety course you have to take unless military, law enforcement or firearms instructer

Frazz all you need is a hanger....dish detergent....

Jihadin wrote:Lets not forot the 30 minute questioner/video of fire arms safety course you have to take unless military, law enforcement or firearms instructer

Frazz all you need is a hanger....dish detergent....

Actually it's state dependent...or were you being sarcastic???

State dependent then lol. I didn't have to take it but watch a fellow take it. I found it amusing

Jihadin wrote:Lets not forot the 30 minute questioner/video of fire arms safety course you have to take unless military, law enforcement or firearms instructer

Frazz all you need is a hanger....dish detergent....

Are you talking CHL or just to legally purchase a firearm? In Texas nothing is required in that regard for purchase. The CHL is an all day class, something like 8 or 12 mandated hours (I forget).

I assume everyone had to have a fire arms safety course. That way the state can avoid an individual sueing it for not properly preparing them for owning a firearm....or did I just open a pandora box....

Nope, Washington State has no safety course requirement, You can walk into your local Sheriff's office with $50.00, pass the same checks you need to purchase a pistol, and about a week later you have a CHL...

Purchasing a long gun is even easier, on fathers day I walked into a gun shop with my wife, picked out a Colt M4 and 20 min later walked out the door with shiny new gun in tow.

I have had several hunters/gun safety classes bothe in the military, and as a kid living in Texas, but its optional here.

When I was a minor I had to take a firearm safety course to get my hunting permit off rez. It was all common sense stuff, how to cross fences with your guns, don't point at anything you do not intend to shoot, what to do if the gun jams etc. I do not think adults need to take a class in WA however.

Ninjad above.

Optional you say huh? Well my classes were over 20 years ago, foggy memories!

Yeah, the only places that require a safety course are some of the ranges, and its normally just a 15 minute course telling you about what the range master does and not to point your gun anywhere but down range. I was blown away when I purchased my first revolver in Washington, just a couple signatures and a 1 week wait and I was the proud owner of a .357


Edit: I don't know what the requirement is for a minor, I know in Texas we had to do a class to get our hunters permit, but haven't taken my kids hunting yet, they are a bit too young still, although they have fired, and know about the guns in the house.

Edit #2: I have to throw in a disclaimer, I think that everyone should go through gun safety courses, whether they own a gun or not, nothing says bad news like 2 kids who find their idiotic parents gun, who have no idea what a gun is capable of or how to handle it.

Here in Oregon there is absolutely no requirement for you to take a safety course of any kind. If you want a concealed carry permit, then yes you do take a course.

We can debate the constitutionality of needing a permit for conceal carry another time.

Of course, it is perfectly legal to open carry in Oregon, though a lot of the populace gets upset by this in the cities.

This state in its infinite wisdom, decided that the free Federal check via phone was not adequate when purchasing a fire arm. So, they mandated that they would handle it for a $10 fee when you purchase a firearm. Then the state agency gets a call, takes your $10, and makes the free call to the Feds instead. Brilliant.

Fortunately in the USA you can simply move state to avoid such tyranny, even without a passport.

Here in the UK I would have no choice but to move to France in order to find a different regime for buying a weapon.

Jihadin wrote:I assume everyone had to have a fire arms safety course. That way the state can avoid an individual sueing it for not properly preparing them for owning a firearm....or did I just open a pandora box....

The only thing required to buy a gun is filling out that 2 page form and having it called in. Anything else is state, county, or even municipal law.
Most ranges require you to watch a video or at least say you have. Unless something has changed in the last 15 years all or most states require a hunters safety course to be completed to buy tags, a lions share of who'd is firearms safety.

It should be mandatory but then it really doesn't matter.....cough cough Cheney cough cough

Yeah I mean in a country where guns are as prolific as they are we should probably have some sort if gun safety class, you could do it like sex ed, one day out of year kids get to lean about how properly respect, care for and handle a gun safely.

Yeah I mean in a country where guns are as prolific as they are we should probably have some sort if gun safety class, you could do it like sex ed, one day out of year kids get to lean about how properly respect, care for and handle a gun safely.

That used to be called the school rifle team, among other things.

Does the second amendment mean any US citizen is entitled to own a gun, so long as they're not mental?

Global Disqualifiers:

Felony convictions of any kind that have not been reduced to misdemeanor + expunged, or a restoration of firearms rights/pardon.
Being committed to a loony bin (As in, involuntarily. Voluntarily seeking mental help is not a DQ.)
Dishonorable discharge from the military
Misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence
Subject of a restraining order for as long as the RO is in effect (Vengeful girlfriend, anyone?)
<Insert spaghetti-on-wall maze of regulations for visitors to the US/people moving to the US here.> Trivia related to this: ITAR covers training, it is a <CENSORED> and yes, that is why I won't teach you how to use an M16/AR15, Mr. Foreigner.

There are other wonderful small details that can crop up too. Roommate/Love of your life a convict? What for? Is s/he a DQ? Better not have your stuff where he can get at it, or YOU are liable too!

I could go on about this crap all day.

One of the things that always makes me laugh on the 2 page form you have to fill out in Washington State to purchase a firearm is: Are you currently under the influence of an illegal narcotic?

I guess if you were and the counter guy couldn't tell and you really felt like being honest...

In response to the question of manufacturing firearms, I know its not easy to get the licence, and anther major factor is the cost. Once you start getting into that side of things it starts getting real expensive, really quickly. I'll try and look up some sources.


Edit: Well apparently cost isn't crazy, but the process of obtaining a FFL is. And its damned complicated due to all the different types etc, pretty much seems like any other Govt run licensing function, overly complicated.

Anyway I know its a Wikipedia link but its the best I can do on a tab ATM.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License#section_7

IronWarLeg wrote:One of the things that always makes me laugh on the 2 page form you have to fill out in Washington State to purchase a firearm is: Are you currently under the influence of an illegal narcotic?

I guess if you were and the counter guy couldn't tell and you really felt like being honest...

Somebody high on illegal narcotics might just be high enough to accidentally answer yes.

A few questions about gun laws in America:

Can you be jailed in Texas for NOT owning a gun, and are you allowed to shoot any citizen of the United Kingdom on July 4th if they approach your property

Back OT, if your not an American citizen, but you're living and working there on a green card? work permit, can you buy guns?

A few questions about gun laws in America:

Can you be jailed in Texas for NOT owning a gun

,
Its the law yes indeed. Google the old ad campaign "A 30-06 by Six or go to Jail. Its the Law."

and are you allowed to shoot any citizen of the United Kingdom on July 4th if they approach your property

Wrong country. Substitute 'anniversary of the Alamo' and citizen of Mexico and you're there. However, that law was changed as part of the Cinco de Mayo amnesty of 1974. Now both Mexicans and Texans can take an errant shot at any DamnYankee they find on those days. See, everybody wins!

Back OT, if your not an American citizen, but you're living and working there on a green card? work permit, can you buy guns?

Green card? We don't need no steenking green cards.
(yes I think you can)

Not sure on the laws for someone with a green card trying to purchase a firearm, but I know there a couple questions about it on the form, including if you are an illegal alien..

I think if you answer yes to the question about being in country on a work visa etc. theres another section that you fill out, but I dont know what the questions are or how it effects your ability to purchase the firearm, as I have always skipped that part.

From what I heard limits the selection an individual from certain types of firearms. Might not be able buy assualt rifles but an actual hunting rifle, shotgun, and maybe small caliber hand weapons related to hunting. This was a discussion I overheard a long long time ago.

IronWarLeg wrote:Not sure on the laws for someone with a green card trying to purchase a firearm, but I know there a couple questions about it on the form, including if you are an illegal alien..

I think if you answer yes to the question about being in country on a work visa etc. theres another section that you fill out, but I dont know what the questions are or how it effects your ability to purchase the firearm, as I have always skipped that part.

In Oregon a non-citizen can get a permit if they have been a legal resident for six months and declare their intention to naturalise.