You sure he doesn't want to take our guns?

[dethbylt]

Yeah but on an interstate though?

<FACEPALM> There are interstates all over the world.

Did you know that the US interstate system was originally conceived to support rapid port deployments by the military?

[ColonelSteve]

With all due respect Steve, that is the most shortsighted, misinformed, tin foil on the head thing I have read on this forum. I have been in numerous training events like this over the last 25 year. This type of vehicle is well suited for multiple types of operations.

The reason MP's drive stuff like this is 1. Nearly every contemporary battle scenario (counter-insurgency and force on force) involves urban scenarios that require this type of vehicle, 2. these vehicles are developed to address the needs and safety of troops in any type of combat and have evolved to meet the current threat, and 3. wouldnt you feel safer knowing that the MP's trained stateside in vehicles like this if the US were ever invaded?

Oh really? You need to look into FEMA camps...something is about to happen that is gonna require martial law...and that is evidence speaking...not a tin foil hat

[ColonelSteve]

<FACEPALM> There are interstates all over the world.

Did you know that the US interstate system was originally conceived to support rapid port deployments by the military?

It was conceived for a mass evacuation in case of a nuclear attack from the Soviets...actually it mixture of both

[suncat05]

Yeah but on an interstate though?

The thing is.......when and if the fighting starts, you never know where it is going to go. Fighting on an interstate(or an autobahn)is all part of the training scenario.
And not to toot our own horn here, but this kind of training and what it represents is exactly why an American soldier is the best trained and most well-disciplined soldier in the world. American soldiers adapt well because they're well trained and allowed to improvise as needed on the battlefield.

[KeithKSR]

If one looks at the trends the best way to decrease gun violence is to pass shall issue CCW laws, pass Castle Doctrine and stand your ground laws, and enforce existing laws preventing felons from purchasing firearms.

More restrictions on firearms result in higher crime rates, and more crimes committed with firearms.

It is stupid to think that passing more laws will make criminals obey laws they are currently breaking.

[suncat05]

If one looks at the trends the best way to decrease gun violence is to pass shall issue CCW laws, pass Castle Doctrine and stand your ground laws, and enforce existing laws preventing felons from purchasing firearms.

More restrictions on firearms result in higher crime rates, and more crimes committed with firearms.

It is stupid to think that passing more laws will make criminals obey laws they are currently breaking.

All assertions that I, and many, many others with good sense have been making for many, many years now.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...est=latestnews

The administration task force led by Vice President Joe Biden is considering such measures as universal background checks for gun buyers, a national gun database, strengthening mental-health checks and tougher penalties for people carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, sources told the newspaper.

[CattyWampus]

http://markamerica.com/2013/01/06/co...ce-about-guns/

fta:

If this doesn’t make plain the truth of the matter, I don’t think you’re willing to be convinced of the truth. Some people choose ignorance because it’s more comforting than actual knowledge, or because it permits them to take up the support of evil while pretending not to have known better. Either way, readers should understand that there can be no rational argument for stripping the hundreds of millions of guns from the American people for the purposes of crime prevention. The truth is that guns are simply an instrument like any other, and as long as there is man, there will be senseless violent murders, whether guns are available or not. The only thing achieved by banning firearms is to leave millions of Americans virtually defenseless, and that’s immoral. Instead of going after the crazies, the politicians are using this as an opportunity to go after the rights of law-abiding citizens, and for all the reasons you can already guess, you have every reason and right to resist it. Ignorance should no longer be an excuse. Those who advocate the banning of firearms are simply damning many more innocent Americans to deaths from which they might have protected themselves. So much then for “good intentions.”

[Darrell KSR]

Somebody smarter than me (ok, that eliminates nobody) and better tuned to the issues here, let me know what, if any, of these measures would be helpful in the proposal Dan linked. I have separated each of the 4 proposals in bold in the quote, and have my puny questions in italics.

Please help inform the ignorant (me).

The administration task force led by Vice President Joe Biden is considering such measures as


1. universal background checks for gun buyers,


I'm not a real big fan of "big brother" type measures for law-abiding citizens, but if this is a better measure for keeping guns out of the hands of felons and "bad guys," I guess this would be ok. How would this work, my friends?

2- a national gun database,

This is the one that sounds big brother-ish to me; I jumped the gun earlier, but leaving it in case there are elements in it, too. Would this one help? How?


3-strengthening mental-health checks


A noble idea. How does it work? Why don't we say we'll just "outlaw bad people having guns?" Seriously, how does this work--will a psychiatrist have to certify you are ok to own a gun? Will the Walmart clerk have to give you a test? What does this mean?

(Remember, I confess-I'm ignorant on how these issues work. You'll have to educate me.)


4- and tougher penalties for people carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors,



Well, ok. I'm not really aware of any instances where that would have helped. If they're carrying guns *to* schools and using them, I'm not sure that some big, bad, tougher law against carrying it "close" to the school will help. But again, I'm uneducated on the issue, and I do have an open mind--CBBN and I have talked about this several times, and I do not have a problem with something that will work being implemented, even if it impinges on my idea of ideal. Just tell me what it will accomplish, and how it will do so.

sources told the newspaper.

[badrose]

It is not the criminals they fear, it's law-abiding citizens whose arms keep them from ripping the Constitution to shreds. I hope Walmart doesn't take the bait.

[CitizenBBN]

Somebody smarter than me (ok, that eliminates nobody) and better tuned to the issues here, let me know what, if any, of these measures would be helpful in the proposal Dan linked. I have separated each of the 4 proposals in bold in the quote, and have my puny questions in italics.

Please help inform the ignorant (me).

I'm a long way from smarter than you, as are 99% of the American people (you're a tough act to beat), but I am versed in the topic and I'm far more opinionated, so I'll take a crack:

1. universal background checks for gun buyers,


This SOUNDS like a good idea, and as long as the rule stays in place (see #2) that checks have to be wiped so you can't track gun purchases, it's probably the least horrible of all the very Big Brother suggestions out there.

That being said, don't expect it to help prevent guns going to criminals and SURE don't expect it to do anything about these mass shootings.

Re mass shootings, the guns used in Aurora and Newtown were obtained with proper background checks being done. It's easy to find a felon breaking the law, you have a hard criminal record, but what about someone with no record like Aurora or Newtown? That's where improving the mental health system would help, but in Newtown the mother bought them and would have passed anything currently proposed.

Second, while I've proposed prosecuting felons trying to buy guns when they're found out through the background check (NICS - far shorter to type) system, as a percentage of the guns obtained illegally it's not a whole lot of them that are sold from law abiding citizens to criminals.

Criminals get them primarily by stealing them and by straw purchase, getting someone to buy them for them who would clear the check process. Since the straw purchase would work equally well under this proposal ans will stealing them, the impact on criminals getting guns would be relatively small.

Then there is the thing politicians, and sadly most Americans, either don't understand or don't think about: the principle of substitution.

Simply put: people react to changes in their playing field. they don't remain constant. Can't buy them privately without a check? Go to more straw purchases and more theft. Like economic policies, you have to look not at the impact based on current behavior but impact based on the outcome once people adjust to the policy.

So if 30% (way high IMO) Of guns going to criminals come from private sales with unwary sellers, NICS checks won't stop 30% of guns going to criminals. It will stop some lower percentage adjusted for an increase in straw buying and theft. so maybe it's 10% not 30%, maybe 2%.

So it may have some impact, but don't expect it to be anything like what it sounds like it may be.

The huge negative is it's one more step to option #2, which is an incredibly grave risk to the heart of the 2nd Amendment.


2- a national gun database,


This is the nightmare scenario for gun rights. Do we need more proof than what just happened in Connecticut with the names and addresses of gun owners released to the public? That happened purely b/c Connecticut has a gun database. It was easily twisted to become a violation of privacy rights and to create a chilling effect on gun ownership and a serious risk to the safety of everyone in that community, gun owner or not.

We now have empirical evidence of what can happen. It happened again in Carolina with printing of CCDW permit holder's information. How many incidents do we need before we conclude from the data this is a serious risk?

Beyond that, it destroys the 2nd Amendment b/c now the government knows exactly who is a threat to them and who isn't.

Feinstein et al have said flat out they'd CONFISCATE every gun if they could. Yes she sadi that, I'm not exaggerating.

Now imagine if she had a database of those guns. Right now how do you confiscate guns you can't find? The database makes that all the easier. Maybe you don't get them all at once, but you do like Britain and what they're trying here, to chip away one kind of gun at a time.

That's how it's been done elsewhere. They don't say "give us all the guns." they say "give us these dangerous guns, but we're all for 2nd amendment rights." So they take "assault weapons", but then there's a mass shooting with something else so they take that, then finally handguns, leaving hunting rifles and shotguns at most. Then they license those.

Britain and Australia followed exactly that model. Small wonder why anyone educated on the topic, learning the lessons of governmental history in general and on guns in particularly, is terrified of the government knowing the location of every gun.

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment is to create a final, last defense against tyranny. The point at which the US government becomes the enemy. How effectively can you stand against a tyrant who knows where all your arms are kept? How do you win a war when you just gave the enemy the location of your supplies? You can't, which is why they want that list.

Supposedly it's for tracing guns for criminals. Think about it folks. Most guns used in crimes are STOLEN. They'll trace back to the owner from which they were stolen. How does this get them any closer to stopping the criminal or recovering the gun? It doesn't. You may get some straw buyers like they did in Fast and Furious, who get probation, but even the big criminals get a walk 95% of the time. It's useless as a tool against criminal gun use.

So it does almost NOTHING to prevent the use of guns in crimes.

We've had a NICS system for dealer gun sales for almost 30 years. Are we happy with the level of gun crime in the country? How many criminals has the system caught? b/c the guns are stolen or straw bought. The database - tracking system has exactly the same gaping hole.

It's a tired statement, but the law would almost exclusively impact law abiding citizens and not criminals, which makes it a horrible tool for law enforcement but a great tool for tyranny.

Why on earth would we vote for a law that makes tyranny easier and leaves criminals untouched? Even if you see the risk of tyranny as 0.00001% why vote for something that helps it and does nothing useful otherwise?

Of course the answer is the "if it saves one life" argument, which is one of the most dangerous approaches to policy of any kind. If we ban parachuting we can save that one life. If we ban bungee jumping we can save that one life. Ban golfing, that kills dozens. If it "saves one life" it's worth it right?

But no, we think golfing is not the government's business, but what the Founder's saw as a critical check on the tyranny of the government and the majority is no big deal. I just don't get it other than "I like to golf but I'm afraid of guns", a purely personal view that is irresponsible to the whole of the nation and the Great Experiment.

No, it's not worth destroying a Constitutional right and eliminating the final stop against tyranny for one life. Esp. since it won't save that life anyway.



Parts 3 and 4 in next post. No surprise, I've maxed out the limit on characters in a post. My first time.

[CitizenBBN]

3-strengthening mental-health checks


As you said, a noble idea, sounds great, but how does that work? We already limit ownership so those who are declared mentally incompetent can't buy a gun. Do we just raise that threshold? Does the doctor/shrink have to report you if you are depressed, bi-polar, on meds? What's the line there? I'm betting a fair number of folks on here have seen a therapist at one time or another or have been short term or long term on behavioral medications. They aren't a threat to anyone, just people trying to get through their lives. Do they not get guns? What else don't they get?

Nice idea, but another layer of government bureaucrat run health care, and not at all clear how it works. Not saying I'm against it, just saying it's the equivalent of "pass a law to keep criminals from having guns" until we see how it works.

4- and tougher penalties for people carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors,

While not dangerous to the 2nd Amendment per se, this has GOT to be the surest
"feel good" proposal of all on this subject. The logical equivalent of saying "put bigger 'gun free zone' signs out front so the lunatic is sure to see them."

As you said, what does this do to help? Nothing. I'm so sick of "feel good" legislation I could puke. Politicians do it so they can say they did something, people feel like "something was done" so they can go back to watching their sitcoms without the nasty interruption of having to actually think or pay attention or take action.





You'll notice the one thing not in Biden's proposal, or Feinstein's proposal, or the Illinois bill to ban semi-auto guns altogether:

a bill to address actual criminal behavior. A discussion of drug driven violence, a discussion of why the gun charges are dropped routinely when crimes are prosecuted, initiatives to reduce crime through better law enforcement techniques, nada.

Not a SINGLE THING on the causes of 99.5% of gun violence in this country, crime. Nada.

If crime is the problem, and clearly crime is the problem, why not national outrage at the fact we have the highest crime and the highest incarceration rate in the developed world? Clearly what we're doing wrong goes WAY beyond the existence of the 2nd Amendment.

How can I believe this is really about protecting the innocent, and not some conspiracy sounding desire to simply get rid of guns and our ability to defend ourselves (either to create tyranny or more likely to create the need for more government b/c now we have only them to protect us), when no one and I mean no one pushing for action is trying to address what is obviously a modern day plague on our nation?

At least the mental health part is going in that direction, so I'm withholding judgment and hope it comes up with some good ideas, but that still only addresses less than 0.05% of gun violence in the US. Why are we ignoring the 99.5% in every way possible?

Have we given up? Do we think American's can no longer solve any problem to which they dedicate themselves? Kennedy called for us to get to the moon and we did it. FDR called on us to fight a global war on dozens of fronts and we won.

Where is the leader calling on us to deal a death blow to crime in this country? They call for gun bans on people who aren't criminals, they call for money for free cell phones, but they don't call for action on the thing that is the cause of this suffering about which they supposedly care so much.

I'll say it again, and honestly I can't believe it's the case even as a member, but the only proposal on the table to directly address the Newtown situation and preventing another one has been put there by the NRA.

Say you're not a NRA fan. I wasn't and am still not on board with them on a lot of issues. How sad is it that the best proposal out there is from a group you think are gun nuts and obstructionists who don't want to address the problem?

IMO if you don't like the NRA you shouldn't be mad at them on this issue, they're trying to help for a change. You should be mad at Obama and Feinstein trotting out the same failed policies from 20 years ago that we already know don't work.

If you really care about Newtown, demand better than going after laws that impact law abiding Americans 99% and the criminals and lunatics 1%. Don't succumb to feel good laws trotted out by politicians who just want you to SEE them as doing something and not focusing on ACTUALLY doing something.

Demand better. Demand we stop trying the same anti-gun "solution" that hasn't worked to prevent crime or lunatics for our entire lifetimes and focus on the criminals and lunatics.

Educate yourself on the issue. Put yourself in the position of a criminal and try to think about what these laws do for you. Think about how the career burglars interviewed by Fox said how much that gun owner info helped criminals. How they called it "reprehensible." See how these proposals are just more of that approach, an approach the criminals are telling you is only good for them and bad for us.

Go past the easy "guns were used, ban guns" to "people were killed, how do we stop it?". Demand solutions that actually stop the deaths, that actually target the bad guys.

The NRA, despite it's history of being at times very obstructionist, has at least started the discussion. Don't dismiss that opportunity and come to the table already settled on the "solution."

#1 is useless. #2 is a nightmare that makes the Founders shutter in their graves. #3 has possibility but we have to be careful. #4 is as useless as tits on a bull.

Demand better and don't throw your fellow American's rights and choices under the bus out of fear or b/c our leaders refuse to take real action.

[CitizenBBN]

PS -- Don't EVER assume anyone, you, me, our politicians, NO ONE, is wiser than the Founders. They were one of a handful of unique assemblages of wisdom and vision in all of human history. They created something unique in all of human history: a nation dedicated to the principle that liberty resides with each person, that we are all created equal and endowed with inalienable rights that come from God and Man and not from a King or State.

It was earth shattering, visionary, and they managed to create a government that was beset against itself in so many ways as to not be a danger to the People.

When facing an issue like this, follow their vision. Of all the visions, of all the policies, theirs is one that comes from men of true wisdom. No politician, GOP or Democrat, has ever had the wisdom or timeless understanding of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, nor will they if this nation survives a thousand years.

Heed their warnings, share their fears, understand their reasons for doing what they did. If you do, this issue becomes clear, as does how we now act to address these deaths. No change in the nature of guns will ever transcend their minds. WWFD. What Would the Founders Do. On every issue, not just guns.

[dan_bgblue]

I doubt the MSM gives this much air time. Might have been different if the perp had killed everyone in the house with an "assault" weapon.

Note to self, buy something bigger than a .38.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/06...-con-intruder/

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...trol-measures/

[dan_bgblue]

Unilateral Action by the White House?

[CitizenBBN]

The NRA is going to be proven right, moreover so are predictions Obama will try to use executive fiat to get what he wants whether it is the legislative will of the nation or not.

The NRA, evil doers as they are, have every year made sure certain points are passed every year as part of budget or other bills. Specifically they prevent creation of a national database among other things. Many scoffed and dismissed those actions. Not looking so dumb to have legal standing against what Obama could claim is "executive action".

Cannot believe we reelected this anti-democratic ivory tower ideologue. He knows it will be tough to get much through the House, so he'll just do it on his own. The only good news is if the GOP can retake the White House those things are easily rolled back and they are subject to court cases.

So yes, he's going to come after the guns, and he's blinded by his anti-gun beliefs to look at other solutions to the problem of violence in this country.

The saddest part is it will mean not just another reduction in our liberties as government expands but we will have missed the chance to have a real focus on addressing crime and yes gun violence in America. Our crime problem is beyond out of control and we pay no attention to it politically, and this is just another side stepping of the root of this suffering.

[CitizenBBN]

Oh, and the polls still show most Americans think these steps will do little or nothing to address the problem.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW I find this all depressing as heck, and not just as a gun issue. Americans hand over their liberties not as the last possible option but as the first thing to try, esp. when they are taking away rights they don't particularly value or exercise. They never think "why were these put here, shouldn't we be beyond careful about doing this?"

Don't think privacy (not even in the Constitution) and the rest of them aren't going to have their turn. When they do, the final protection of those, the 2nd Amendment, will already be gone.

I don't even think it's a grand conspiracy. It's a grand stupidity, a grand hubris of the intellectuals that they know more than the founders and that their thinking is dated and outmoded for the sophisticated world only they really understand. Men like Franklin knew it was the tradeoff between liberty and safety that was so key, and here we are giving up our liberties to the desire for safety be it from terrorists or lunatics.

Even sadder, we do it not for things that are real risks like being robbed or destroyed by drugs but for things that are infinitesimal risks to our safety like a mass shooting or terror attack.

They're selling us down the river of history and we're rowing the boat for them as hard as we can and the reasons we're motivated to do it don't even make sense.

[jazyd]

What these tragedies did was play right into the Democrat Party play book, never let a crisis or tragedy go to waste.
It has been the agendy for years of the DNC and those like Obama to take away all guns from law abiding citizens claiming that will somehow end violence and of course protect the animals from us nasty blood thirsty hunters.
So they propose raising the tax on ammo, best way to cut out hunters as they can't afford the price so the gun is useless. Raise all these other 'alarms' to scare the population that does not own a gun of any type, and based on that link for the counties i NY more own a gun that I realized.
No where do they talk of actually enforcing current laws, making judges more accountable for enforcing laws on the books that come before them.
No where do they talk of getting guns out of the hands of criminals, drug dealers. The cops know who has them, know who has illegal ones but do we ever hear of a raid on these groups, nope.
No where as there been any uprising about Fast and Furious, we all here know what that was.
Nor do they talk about actually helping the mentally ill even at chidlhood age. I read after the Ct shooting that the budgets for mental health at the state and federal levels have been cut by $1 billion dollars, but we have increased food stamp recipients by over 50% under Obama. The last 3 shootings and most of the school type shootings are done by someone mentally ill and always by males...I think many if not all those males did not have a father in their lives. We all read that thread here about the mom who wrote the blog the night of the shooting bascially crying out for help with her mentally ill 12 yr old son who probably will be the next Adam Lanza. Why can we give away billions in fraud for medicaid so the lowlifes can go to strip clubs but we can't help parents with mentally hurt children, we give away billions in foreign aid to countries who hate us but we can't help our own children and parents.
Many of the proposals Darrell listed are nothing more than a way for this current administration and democrat party to get as much info on each of us as they can. Took longer than 1984 but it ir right around the corner if we don't stop it. Little by little, piece by piece government is intruding totally in our lives.
Most of us here can debate against these gun laws and if we put Citizen up against them they would give up before they died from lack of sleep...love ya guy, keep it up....but he is more informed than any congressmen or women in DC and can whip them any day of the week with information and stats. Most of us here can. It is those that refuse to look up information on their own, refuse to listen to reality, refuse to listen to facts that are huring us in this fight.

And one last question, if the shooter in Ct had been a terrorist and killed the same people, would there be a big national debate on gun control or would all the fingers be pointed at a school dist that did not protect its children and a federal government for hte same reason?

[CitizenBBN]

Rambling, but there is a term for this kind of thinking, except in the old days it wasn't seen as a national elective thing b/c communications were so much more limited. It was called "mobocracy", when a collective thinking overruns reasonable individual thinking and the group stops questioning the reasons or realities and simply acts for the sake of taking action. it's almost always ignited by a single event that is an outlier and represents little if any real risk to people or to the community.

These things used to happen at the local level, from the Salem witch trials to lynchings and the KKK.

Even the Boston Massacre, an incendiary event on the path to the revolution, was propagandized heavily just as Newtown is today. So mobocracy can be used to affect good or bad change, but that's what we're seeing on this issue, not reasoned discussion or thought. Men like Paul Revere used it to further the Colonial cause just as Obama and Feinstein use this to further their agenda.

Stir up emotions with a shocking incident and get change before anyone can calm down and reflect on it. At least in the case of the Colonial cause it was 5 more years till war erupted so there was plenty of time to think objectively. That's why Obama doesn't want this legislation pushed off till past the debt issues. People will calm down, start to question if these are good ideas and if they will work.

[KeithKSR]

What these tragedies did was play right into the Democrat Party play book, never let a crisis or tragedy go to waste.

The ideologues are not beyond manipulating circumstances in order to take gain an advantage. What concerns me is the father of the Newtown child who was jovial as he was interviewed after the slayings. This was the father of the same child who mysteriously did not appear in any photos of her class, and was later videoed sitting on Obama's lap.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=eHv_RhVgfUQ

It also appeared strange to me that new reporters reported that Lanza used a Bushmaster, then police on the scene reported that Lanza used four pistols. Magically the weapon used became a Bushmaster once again when the coroner gave his jocularity filled news conference after he said he had done autopsies of the victims.

[UKHistory]

The Second Amendment is sacred. We have the right to freedom of speech, and relgion #1. To help ensure #1 we have #2. A well regulated militia was to be composed of the citizens. Standing armies and police forces like we have were very troubling to the founders.

A fear of government power and its abuses were at the heart of the revolution. We need the guns.

I toured the holocaust museum a couple of years ago. A volunteer of the museum who had once prosecuted nazis was gracious enough to show a handful of us around. After leaving the tour, I was very moved and the first comment to my guide was the following:

"There is no greater example of why we have and must maintain the second amendment than this museum".

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01...control-plans/

[CitizenBBN]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01...control-plans/

It's beyond any doubt. The entire angle Feinstein was taking in her last round of legislative gun control was based on guns going to Mexico. Fast and Furious happened when the US joined these talks, and that's when Feinstein developed her next round of "reports" behind her introduction of legislation. The Mexican President began calling for US gun control including the assault weapons ban and a national gun registry.

I'm not a conspiracy guy, but this isn't a conspiracy. It's blatant. We have written documents from Feinstien justifying gun control on the basis of sales to Mexico, where she worked with ATF who started F&F by their own statements to document gun running to Mexico. Forget the illegal parts, they were trying to make a case for US gun control based on gun running to Mexico. They have SAID it right up front. That's not a conspiracy.

The Small Arms Treaty demands the US government control such things as guns crossing the border to Mexico. Now who here thinks Feinstein will argue that to comply with the treaty and control those guns we need to have a national registry and ban certain weapons and license everything? She already SUBMITTED a report arguing for those things based on guns going to Mexico. Again, that's not predicting anything. She's already done it. It just didn't resonate to get the votes, but clearly she'd be happy to get gun control based on international gun running.

With the treaty Mexico, which is calling for the same controls, can appeal to the UN claiming the US is in violation of the treaty b/c of these guns crossing the border. The perfect justification Feinstein was already trying, but this one with force of law and not dependent on Americans voting for it.

FWIW the nations pushing it don't really care about US civilian gun ownership. They want to make it illegal for the US to supply rebels and other groups, including Israel.

It's the anti-gun zealots like Feinstein and Schumer and Obama who want to use it to turn against our own citizens. They can't win politically, as Feinstein says she can't get the votes. They are currently at least losing in the courts. Their best remaining hope is to win in the UN where Americans don't get a vote and then force it on us.

Anyone who doesn't see this coming is being naive. That's b/c it's already been tried, but ATF agents blew the whistle and it undermined the Mexican issue as a salable reason.

This treaty would be a nightmare for the 2nd Amendment but also for our foreign policy. Israel will be an early target. Notice how little Obama thinks of Israel?