International Arms Control Treaty
 

Some may think I am paranoid for worrying about gun control but given the current administration, I admit I am a little more than casually concerned. Today I received an email with this link and thought I would share with my fellow gun enthusiasts. For me, this coming from a sitting U.S. Senator has more weight, and cause to listen, than if it came from the N.R.A..

http://sm2.responsebeacon.com/track?...rg/viewbrowser

Sorry about the begging for money part, ignore that if you want but the message seems to be something we should be concerned about right now. I know it will not do much good in one case here in my state, but I will contact both my Senators and express my views against this today.

I thought you might like to be aware of how this is progressing too.

This has been rattling around for a year or two. According to Snopes, it's false.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Nevertheless, keep paying your NRA dues.

John, interesting link.

I know who Rand Paul is but I have no idea who is behind the curtain at snopes.com and can't understand how they became the end all authority on the internet. :confused:

You have made a good point and I'm not going to believe either link for the moment.

I just sent off an email to Senator Rand Paul asking him if the link with his signature is truly representing his views and included the link to snopes.com asking why there seems to be a discrepancy.

I'll post his reply when I get it.:corn:

Snopes is an organization that looks into rumors and tells the truth. Unfortunately, they have stepped on the toes of those who generate the unending rumor mill, so now, THEY are attacked as being "left wing."
You can print or say anything on the internet, and a portion of the populace will believe you. Whether it is radical left-wing crap or radical right-wing crap.

And.....so it goes.

Sam Ogle

Snopes
 

Hi Sam, I have an article about Snopes I would like to send you. If you are interested send me your emial on a PM. Cheers, Tom

Sam,

I never said snopes.com was "left wing" or "right wing". All I said was I don't know who they are and I will not take what they say as the final word on anything. I don't trust the evening news to be accurate, why should I think scopes.com will be any better? Because of the snopes.com post I can not assume the link I first posted to be true either.

So, I asked Senator Paul for clarification. I will believe him on this topic, when it comes directly from him, because it is his job as a Senator to vote to ratify any treaty. He should be more informed than snopes.com on the state of this topic.

I'm sorry I started this thread, I should have contacted Senator Paul first. I apologize for the noise generated here but I will be interested in reading his reply. I just hope it isn't some nondescript form letter that doesn't answer my question, that happens "sometimes" you know.

I did some research on the concept of "small arms" at the international level once. What I found (can't recall where) made perfect sense. Small arms are defined as military weapons like machine guns, hand grenades, mortars, land mines, etc., Essentially, any military weapon that isn't a tank, ICBM, fighter jet, heavy ordinance, etc. The concept of "small arms" is supposedly distinct from civilian "sporting arms" like shotguns, rifles, pistols, etc. I doubt that any international treaty will impact shooters or collectors within the U.S., except maybe the class 3 folks, and I'm even dubious of that, as they are already so heavily regulated. Clearly, the statement that all semiautos will be banned is false. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Heller vs. DC case that we have a constitutional right to possess a semi-auto handgun. So I suspect this is mostly hype...but we should still remain vigilant just the same.

Gentlemen,google the official UN website and read their own words on small arms in civilian hands. I think you will find it enlightening.

Thanks Robert,

I searched around and I found

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

which is what you were referring to? Interesting that it is listed under disarmament! I saw the link on that page to UNICEF and clicked it, also interesting;

I always thought that UNICEF was a joint collection of humanitarian organizations similar to United Way but focused on children of the world. I guess not just that; this is turning out to be a real learning experience.

I heard that if you send Mr. Paul your money and you'll get a free hat made of tin foil. The Obama Administration has been in place for over three years and people are still worried about him taking guns. In the meantime, the current Republican front runner (of the week) wants to "overrule" the Supreme Court and generally re-write the Constitution to comply with his view of religion. Pick your poison.

I think it is apparent that the UN, and our membership in it,poses the most likely threat to our firearms ownership.They mention the criminal use of guns and as we know,our should,all types of guns have been used in crime.Yes, that includes our beloved Parkers, I have seen the sawn off BH in a evidence locker in a small Iowa town as well as a medium grade Lefever.They are wanting to limit civilian use of all small arms both civilian sporting and military arms.There is a lot more on the internet in the words of the UN officials themselves and not any US politician trying to scare us.

When the government has all the guns you can have a stable government like 1937 Germany.
Small arms in the hands of the people can destabilize a government; just look at Lexington and Concord
If the people have the guns then liberty prevails!

I will always remember the sight of Fidel Castro, and his scope sighted mauser type sporting rifle, on tv after the fall of Batista. Those who think you need automatic weapons to be an effective fighting force aren't paying attention.I can assure you that the powers that be in the UN are paying attention.

Setter Man....319 posts over 4 years and still not a dues paying PGCA member....hmmmm...did you send ALL your money to the Obama campaign? :whistle:

Sadly, we will always have to fight for our gun rights, If you think the present group in power in Washington is not looking for a way to come in the back door with new gun restrictions you are wrong! They have a hidden agenda, that is to infringe on your rights!

Wow, Justin. 65 posts and I guess you told me. Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut else when you open it people will realize you have no idea about what you speak.

Right because conservatives have never done anything to infringe on your rights. (i.e. the "Patriot" Act). Better watch out for the current Republikan front runner. As I recall, Nixon had little regard for the constitution as well.

Don't get me wrong, this is a potential problem with all of our elected officials. Anyone who assumes the only risk is from the left is delusional.

OK, play nice boys...... Lets leave the politics at home, OK? This can only get ugly and that's not good.

And this is exactly why I want gun rights discussiions to stay in the Misfires section.

Ooops! Wrong BBS.

Best,

Mike

It would be nice if those who like to post frequently would "pay their fair share" to support this great website and organization by joining. I think we can all agree on that, can't we?

Isn't that up to the BOD that we elect?

Ok Justin, I'll play: first of all, I have been a dues paying member of the PGCA off/on for over 10-years. Perhaps if you had been around before 2010 you might know that (you would also know that the PGCA launched this current version of the this forum in 2008 and most of us have been around here since way before then. Second, my membership lapsed in November and the reason I haven't yet paid them is none of your business but I can assure you that it has nothing to do with my political beliefs.

Now you go ahead and try to find folks to back up your pay your dues or shut-up position but am willing to bet that there are a number of members of this board besides me who: 1) don't give a rats-azz about what you think; and/or 2) think that you are way out of line.

You want to call me out because you don't like my politics (although you are making an ass-umption), that's fine but that's about where the runway ends.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I couldn't care less about your politics. It just struck me as odd that such a frequent poster isn't a member. Hopefully you will decide to rejoin. We need to support this great association and website, and we can only do that by paying dues.

Perhaps this is getting too personal and maybe we should shutdown this thread....