DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9422--------------------------------------------------
Guns
DIR By: Runner
Date: October 25, 2014, 5:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N.
resolution.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will
stop the United States from entering into the United Nations
Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate
Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the
United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade
Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed
by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a
global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban
would have affected all private gun owners
46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give
away Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give the rights to the
U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
What? No Republicans??
#Post#: 9424--------------------------------------------------
Re: Guns
DIR By: Brad
Date: October 25, 2014, 6:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not only did no republicans vote yes, but some democrats voted
no, and really angered the the bulk of the left. It was mostly
a democrat ideal, to give more control over to the UN. But
more and more democrats are beginning to fear the direction
their party has taken. Perhaps its not too late, but the time
grows short.
#Post#: 9425--------------------------------------------------
Re: Guns
DIR By: James
Date: October 26, 2014, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how that would have effected all private gun owners
since they would have been able to have any gun they like as
long as it was made in the USA and not imported.
Whereas it would have effected all big arms companies who make a
lot of money from the arms trade because they would now not be
able to export arms under the new treaty.
Or am I reading this wrong as I no nothing of USA politics?
#Post#: 9426--------------------------------------------------
Re: Guns
DIR By: Kerry
Date: October 26, 2014, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think it's more about other things. I don't think the kind of
guns most citizens have would be affected that much,
especially here in the USA where we have lots of gun makers.
It would affect shipments of automatic weapons though across
international borders.
I also see China and Russia didn't sign on -- two of the biggest
exporters of weapons. I guess that means the flow of cheap
automatic rifles and other things would still go on.
Ha! The United Kingdom signed. Does that mean they can't send
more chemicals to other countries lke Syria where they can be
turned into poison gas weapons? Will Canada have to stop
exporting uranium to places where it could fall into the wrong
hands? Hmmm.
#Post#: 9427--------------------------------------------------
Re: Guns
DIR By: Brad
Date: October 26, 2014, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Its truly not about the brand of manufacturers. Its about
control, once you start letting the UN control your gun rights,
any of them, more control will follow. Until a one world govt
begins, I would oppose any control they have to the utmost.
#Post#: 9428--------------------------------------------------
Re: Guns
DIR By: Kerry
Date: October 26, 2014, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brad link ---
>
> Its truly not about the brand of manufacturers. Its about
control, once you start letting the UN control your gun rights,
any of them, more control will follow. Until a one world govt
begins, I would oppose any control they have to the utmost.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think that treaty was meant to stop countries like the USA and
Russia manufacturing weapons and then selling them to other
countries like the people in Syria. America sells stuff too but
not on the same scale. It would certainly cut down on sales of
missiles. I believe the missiles the Palestinians were using
came from Libya -- and I think Libya had gotten them from
Russia.
I am opposed to that treaty myself unless Russia and China
signed it too. If they don't sign and we did, that means they
could arm rebels or terrorists where they wanted and we couldn't
arm the other side.
Remember all the fuss over Saddam's aluminum tubes? People
here were sure Saddam was buying them to make centrifuges out
of them so he could enrich uranium. It turned out they were
going to be used to make missiles; and that too was banned by
the agreement we had reached. It helped provoke a war.
China made money on the deal since China had manufactured them
and sold them.
#Post#: 9429--------------------------------------------------
Re: Guns
DIR By: Brad
Date: October 26, 2014, 10:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And that doesnt even count the hidden sales, where the guns show
up and the country of origin says, "We didnt sell them that!"
I like the solution in the book of Enoch. It says when Jesus
comes back and begins His 1000 year reign, God will take all the
metals that can be used for war and completely take them off the
earth. Then it will be sticks and rocks. You can still do
stuff with sticks and rocks though and after the 1000 year reign
ends, another war happens, wonder what weapons they will use
then?
#Post#: 9431--------------------------------------------------
Re: Guns
DIR By: Kerry
Date: October 27, 2014, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brad link ---
>
> And that doesnt even count the hidden sales, where the guns
show up and the country of origin says, "We didnt sell them
that!" I like the solution in the book of Enoch. It says
when Jesus comes back and begins His 1000 year reign, God will
take all the metals that can be used for war and completely take
them off the earth. Then it will be sticks and rocks. You
can still do stuff with sticks and rocks though and after the
1000 year reign ends, another war happens, wonder what weapons
they will use then?
>
--- End Quote ---
I could easily be wrong but I think of the battle after the
thousand year reign as spiritual rather than physical.
I found this in the news just now at the New York Times
HTML http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/world/middleeast/missiles-of-isis-may-pose-peril-for-aircrews.html?_r=0:
Sunni militants in Iraq have long maintained a limited, aging
stock of SA-7 Manpads, a ubiquitous Soviet-designed system that
they periodically used during the American occupation from 2003
to 2011, said Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings
Doha Center in Qatar.
Since at least late 2013, however, the Islamic State’s forces in
Iraq appear to have acquired more sophisticated antiaircraft
missile systems, including the Chinese-made FN-6, originally
provided by Qatar and possibly also Saudi Arabia to Syrian
rebels.
In the images purporting to show the shooting down of the Iraqi
attack helicopter, on Oct. 3 in Baiji, the militant, a scarf
wrapped around his face, is wielding a Chinese-made FN-6 missile
system — apparently the first documented use of the weapon by
Islamic State jihadists in Iraq, analysts said.
The militants claimed to have shot down several other Iraqi
military helicopters this year, most recently a Bell 407 on a
surveillance mission near Baiji on Oct. 8.
“Judging by reports from Iraq, and in particular Anbar Province,
over the last three to four months, it would seem ISIL have been
using Manpads far more frequently and more successfully than
Syrian rebels have ever done,” Mr. Lister added.
An even greater potential concern is that militants might get
their hands on SA-24’s, a more sophisticated system that Russia
recently sold to Iraq, and first showed up in militant videos in
September, said Matthew Schroeder, a missile proliferation
analyst at Small Arms Survey, an independent research project
based in Geneva.
The SA-24’s have a longer range than older models and use faster
and more maneuverable missiles, Mr. Schroeder said.
I ask what good would our signing this UN treaty do if China and
Russia don't sign so they could be held accountable for selling
weapons to dubious parties who sell them to others or to
governments who can't protect them and let them fall into the
hands of terrorists. We know the weapons came from China and
Russia; but they would just say, "We don't know how the ISIS
terrorists got weapons made in our countries. You're right --
they would say they didn't do it.
Think about how the US also left weapons in Iraq, saying it
would cost too much to bring them back to the US. The Iraqis
didn't protect them. They fell into the hands of terrorists.
Who's responsible? I think both the US and Iraq are.
I'd also love to know where the terrorists in the Philippines
get their weapons.
There is a growing problem with China and arms going into Saudi
Arabia and Iran. They get oil from them and in exchange they
sell them arms. I know some of the arms sold to Iran wound up
in terrorists hands elsewhere -- Yemen for one where Shia are
trying to carve out another Shia state. I do not know if the
Saudis sell anything to other parties; but as the Times articles
points out, it is a possibility.
#Post#: 9433--------------------------------------------------
Re: Guns
DIR By: Brad
Date: October 27, 2014, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking as well, that it might be a spiritual battle at
the end of the 1000 year reign.
#Post#: 9450--------------------------------------------------
Re: Guns
DIR By: Kerry
Date: October 30, 2014, 7:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm still waiting to find out how the shooter at the Canadian
Parliament got a gun. Do I have my facts straight? He had a
criminal history and couldn't get a permit to have a gun? Is
that right? Yet he had one.
Who gave or sold it to him? What should be done to that person?
I think Zehaf-Bibeau was probably mentally ill. He needed
help; but he's dead now along with his victim, and it's too late
to much about that. The person who gave him the gun is still
alive however. Odds are he won't be caught or punished anymore
than the countries that ship weapons to terrorists will be
punished.
Right now, Yemen has no real government. Its government is in
name only. People on both sides are dying, and why? Part of
it surely has to be because China didn't care if the weapons
they make wound up in Yemen. It's interesting to me how these
things work. We tend to see the obvious sources of problems but
seem unable to grapple with the underlying causes. I frankly
expect some people if mentally ill to use weapons if they could
get them; and I also expect angry people would; but what about
people who are sane and calm when they give weapons to people
like that?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page