Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

President Obama Backs Inter-American Arms Treaty
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=12545		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  plblark [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:05 am ]
Post subject: 
This is going to get graphic.

One flushes an orifice thereby expelling repugnance and replacing it with freshness. Or that's how the ads I've seen work it out (in much better marketing speak)

Hmmm... sounds like a great description of the vitriol some people find necessary to make their point.
Author:  Fugitive74 [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:16 am ]
Post subject: 
SultanOfBrunei wrote:
Fugitive74 wrote:
<...> Clearer now? Or do I need to draw pictures?

Hey, no need to be a dick. I am glad you are here to voice your opinion and understandings of what this might mean. But to be honest with you, if you continue to act douchey for no apparent reason I am going to stop reading your posts, which I think will be bad for both of us because it is obvious you have some knowledge related to this topic.


You are correct sir, offending line in the post has been edited.
Author:  Traveler [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:50 am ]
Post subject: 
Fugitive74 wrote:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:td049.pdf

There's your link to the treaty, directly from your *cough* friends. The Letter of Submittal is part of the treaty.


Quote:
2. States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all
firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized,
confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking
do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction,
sale, or other disposal.



The federal government does not auction off arms or ammunition confiscated in violation of federal law. Not sure where you're getting that. This is requiring that other participating countries don't either. My guess is they don't already.

Quote:
States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake to
adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms, ammunition,
explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported from, or in
transit through their respective territories


Again, not sure where you're getting registration here. I fairly certain you undertake measures to keep your secure too, such as putting them in a safe or keeping you vehicle locked if they're in there. They are trying to prevent loss or diversion, aka theft of firearms in transit.


Quote:
1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their
respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on
matters such as:

a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible,
carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;


If you think you see anything here where mexico might have access to the carry permit database you are much more creative than I. Why on earth would mexico want that information, they can't do ANYTHING with it. Since producers, dealers, importers and exporters are already public information, I would have to assume you are looking at the word "carriers". In the shipping and transportation business, shippers are called carriers. So unless you're are a trucker that delivers firearms to mexico, you don't need to worry about this one.


Now I feel all warm and comforted. You have reassured me that you and your apparent Marxist friends have no designs on my firearms and ammunition.
Author:  plblark [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:33 am ]
Post subject: 
Attack the argument, not the poster please.
Author:  Scott Hughes [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Let me say this Fugitive74, there are many among us who are very concerned with this administration, in particular their past individual records on gun control. I believe that given the legislative and executive power they wield they believe they can push through their anti agenda. I also expect a full fledged assault on many fronts, the contrived Mexican problem being just one angle. The Heller decision gave them the opportunity to give lip service to 2A. But as I've said before, "If their lips are moving, THEIR LYING" :!: As far as the legal interpretation of the language in any treaty goes, just remember, it wasn't very long ago when we were all pondering on "DEPENDS UPON WHAT THE MEANING OF THE WORD IS, IS". :evil:
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
So, Fugitive, you're saying that there's no harm in signing a treaty that requires us to do what we're already doing?

I'd say if that were true (and it's not), there you also be no need.
Author:  Fugitive74 [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
No, I'm merely saying if you're going to stand against it, do so informed. Considering all the possible legislation there is out there, as far as your gun rights go, this one is harmless. If you don't think treaties are a good ides, speak out against it. If you don't like Mexico or think Belize sucks... speak out against it. Speak out against it though for what it is.

Forgive me, I'm not a marxist. I only refer we use informed intelligent arguments in our fight rather than tin foiled euphoric insanity.
Author:  QuiChenKane [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
And I think thats a great point right there.

To show solidarity with Mexico? Like they have shown so much solidarity with us when it comes to illegal immigration?


To pay lip service to the concerns they have about American guns coming into their country? Dont we all know what a bald-faced lie that is?


If they arent going to try and do something with it, why bother even bringing it up? Arent things a little on the negative side for them to be wasting time and resources trying to push this through finally?


I think they will try to make the same interpretations with this treaty that we are right now making in this thread. No need for additional Gun Control laws, we'll concentrate on enforcing the ones we have. And get all kinds of creative when it comes to definitions and interpretations. I bet theres a mad scramble to examine existing gun laws to see if they can be twisted to serve the antis.


What it comes down to is I no longer have any faith in the government, but its not just Obama and the Democrats I mistrust. Its anyone who seeks to have power and authority over others.

I think political office should be like jury duty. Nobody wants to do it, but you do the best you can while you are stuck with it. And then when you are done, you go back to a normal life, and bitch about it over beers with your buddies.

If you want power over others, you are the last one who should have it.
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Fugitive74 wrote:
Forgive me, I'm not a marxist. I only refer we use informed intelligent arguments in our fight rather than tin foiled euphoric insanity.


I think you are mistaken about where you are. Go read the rules and come back in a week.
Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
What about the very first paragraph...
Quote:
AWARE of the urgent need to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, due to the harmful effects of these activities on the security of each state and the region as a whole, endangering the well-being of peoples, their social and economic development, and their right to live in peace;

Am I reading this right? It says "trafficking." Not "illicit trafficking" (as compared to the phrase "illicit manufacturing"). Even if the intent was right, the wording could definitely be perverted to work against us.
Author:  peckerhead [ Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
I had an interesting discussion about this with my foaming-at-the-mouth Lib Kool-Aid drinking coworker the other day. He and his Communist buddies are just so clueless where gun rights are concerned. He regurgitated the same BS about how we need the extra restrictions to stem the flow of illegal guns and ammo across the border and into the hands of the Mexican gangsters. Though that in itself wouldn't sound too terribly outrageous if it weren't untrue, the guy actually thought all of these guns are being purchased off the books at GUN SHOWS (haha...I always seem to miss the full-auto M16, grenade, and RPG tables; I've gotta pay more attention from now on).

When I backed him into a corner on that one, he then claimed it was probably ATK that was selling to the Mexicans...and when I pressured him on how extra gun control measures on the citizenry would prevent a government contractor from illegally selling military weapons to Mexican drug lords, he tried to steer the debate to abortion issues.

It's terrifying that people like this actually vote.
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/