If you like guns

[art leong]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

The whole treaty is to prevent countries from selling guns to other countries that have gross violations of human rights. Regardless of what regulations other countries agree to, the treaty only becomes law in the U.S. if it gets a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

And last month, more than 50 senators signed on to a letter to Secretary of State Clinton saying that they will not vote for any treaty that restricts civilian arms.

The NRA is confident that the treaty will not be ratified in the U.S.

The U.N. can pass it if they want it," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told FoxNews.com. But for it to have domestic effect, it needs to pass us senate by a two-thirds vote -- and clearly that will not happen in this make up of the U.S. senate, regardless of what the administration does.

If this is the case why is the US signing it?

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by art leong

If this is the case why is the US signing it?

Art, Maybe this will give you a little more insight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

[treessavoy]

For arguments sake let's say that somehow the UN gets the right to confiscate all the guns in the U.S. How many UN peace keepers will it take to go house to house to confiscate our guns: 100,000; 250,000; etc?

Let's say a million. Where will they get the men? Per treaty they use Military from other countries for peace keeping duties, do you think other nations will gut their military for such a purpose ? Lets say they get their million, how long do you think it will take those men to cover every house in the US? Our major metropolitan cities have as many as 13 million people in them then we have farmers and ranchers living well out of town sometimes in places that could easily be missed.

Who's going to feed these million men, where do they get their transportation, who cleans their uniforms, medical care, gas, tires, vehicle maintenance, transportation of millions of tons of confiscated weapons ( to where?), how do they destroy them, how many will it take just to do the research to find who has guns, etc?

When I was in the 2nd Armored Division at Ft. Hood, TX we took the entire division (approximately 25,000 soldiers and their vehicles) to the field for a month long exercise, at the end of the month when I brought my Company back to the Garrison they were still trying to get all the Division's supplies to the field. Working night and day for 30 days we had only moved 1/3 of the Division's supplies to the field (approximately 6 miles), how the Hell could you do it with one million over 2 thousand miles?

For those of you that will say that we would use our own military, National Guard, police, etc. you must remember that those people are the major owners of home weapons and will most probably not gives up their weapons much less look for ours!

How many peace keepers will they lose when they encounter street gangs, motorcycle gangs (Hells Angels, etc.) and civilians that fight for their guns (me and Jim Wahl). When that happens how long would it be before that country would pull it's troops out to avoid any more deaths?

Nope, my guns are safe simply because of the logistics of such an undertaking and because no Senator is stupid enough to go against the armed citizens of this country.

JimR

PS can you imagine being a foreign soldier going into Dallas/Ft. Worth and trying to get citizens guns?

[KRatcliff]

That would be interesting.

[Eddies66]

"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

[art leong]

Originally Posted by treessavoy

For arguments sake let's say that somehow the UN gets the right to confiscate all the guns in the U.S. How many UN peace keepers will it take to go house to house to confiscate our guns: 100,000; 250,000; etc?

Let's say a million. Where will they get the men? Per treaty they use Military from other countries for peace keeping duties, do you think other nations will gut their military for such a purpose ? Lets say they get their million, how long do you think it will take those men to cover every house in the US? Our major metropolitan cities have as many as 13 million people in them then we have farmers and ranchers living well out of town sometimes in places that could easily be missed.

Who's going to feed these million men, where do they get their transportation, who cleans their uniforms, medical care, gas, tires, vehicle maintenance, transportation of millions of tons of confiscated weapons ( to where?), how do they destroy them, how many will it take just to do the research to find who has guns, etc?

When I was in the 2nd Armored Division at Ft. Hood, TX we took the entire division (approximately 25,000 soldiers and their vehicles) to the field for a month long exercise, at the end of the month when I brought my Company back to the Garrison they were still trying to get all the Division's supplies to the field. Working night and day for 30 days we had only moved 1/3 of the Division's supplies to the field (approximately 6 miles), how the Hell could you do it with one million over 2 thousand miles?

For those of you that will say that we would use our own military, National Guard, police, etc. you must remember that those people are the major owners of home weapons and will most probably not gives up their weapons much less look for ours!

How many peace keepers will they lose when they encounter street gangs, motorcycle gangs (Hells Angels, etc.) and civilians that fight for their guns (me and Jim Wahl). When that happens how long would it be before that country would pull it's troops out to avoid any more deaths?

Nope, my guns are safe simply because of the logistics of such an undertaking and because no Senator is stupid enough to go against the armed citizens of this country.

JimR

PS can you imagine being a foreign soldier going into Dallas/Ft. Worth and trying to get citizens guns?

Jim you are missing the point. No un soldier or cop is going to kick your door in. This thing is very subtle. It will start with all guns of any kind being registered. Some states have that already. Then you will have to prove how and when you use them individually. They will make you turn in the excess (you won't need 20 guns to hunt for a deer etc.) Then little by little they will ban certain types of guns.(you don't need a Judge pistol to shoot targets.) Then there won't be that many legal guns, first they will tax the hell out of them then they will take the rest away. They will do this under the guise of complying with the un.
Anyone on here the fishes in saltwater will know about regulation creep. They start off with a bag and size limit everyone can live with. Then they reduce the numbers till you can't keep any.

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by art leong

Jim you are missing the point. No un soldier or cop is going to kick your door in. This thing is very subtle. It will start with all guns of any kind being registered. Some states have that already. Then you will have to prove how and when you use them individually. They will make you turn in the excess (you won't need 20 guns to hunt for a deer etc.) Then little by little they will ban certain types of guns.(you don't need a Judge pistol to shoot targets.) Then there won't be that many legal guns, first they will tax the hell out of them then they will take the rest away. They will do this under the guise of complying with the un.
Anyone on here the fishes in saltwater will know about regulation creep. They start off with a bag and size limit everyone can live with. Then they reduce the numbers till you can't keep any.

Art, Without starting a fire-storm, where are your getting this information?

[art leong]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

Art, Without starting a fire-storm, where are your getting this information?

An amazing thing called "common sense"
Nobody needs an assault rifle to hunt or shoot targets. I could care less if they banned them and stopped right there.
But if they get their foot in the door they will creep into every gun.
Why would they go through the bother of signing that treaty, knowing the Senate will kill it?
Answer me that one?

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by art leong

An amazing thing called "common sense"
Nobody needs an assault rifle to hunt or shoot targets. I could care less if they banned them and stopped right there.
But if they get their foot in the door they will creep into every gun.
Why would they go through the bother of signing that treaty, knowing the Senate will kill it?
Answer me that one?

Interms of the domestic use of the treaty in the United States, the United Nations cannot regulate what is done in any particular state’s borders, ATT would have no effect on Second Amendment rights, as it is meant to protect against international gun trade.

[art leong]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

Interms of the domestic use of the treaty in the United States, the United Nations cannot regulate what is done in any particular state’s borders, ATT would have no effect on Second Amendment rights, as it is meant to protect against international gun trade.

There are provisions in the treaty to document all guns.
If she signs it our only hope is that the president (whomever it is) denounces it. Or if the leader of the senate allows a vote, so it can be turned down.
Without either happening we are bound to follow the treaty. And register all guns.