Trump pulling U.S. out of U.N. arms treaty, heeding NRA

[Spidey]

8 minutes ago, Longcut said:

Again showing your ignorance. The British have their own cruise missiles. The Storm Shadow. Used by the UK and Italy.

But Trump doesn't have his finger on their button.

[Krataiboy]

Any President prepared to push back against the UN as a putative world government is worth voting for.

 

Even one as personally obnoxious as the present POTUS.

 

 

[tifino]

be good if the OP#1 could be pinned to repeat on top each page...

 

 

 

anyways, The US proved twice in history; that it is more profitable to fund the big wars started by other countries, than it is to actually fight in them...

[DoctorG]

The ignorance by some non-Americans about guns is overwhelming, but they still confidently sprout their nonsense.

[Morty T]

In Oxford, Massachusetts (USA) average police response time to a 911 emergency call was 4 minutes. With my secured handgun in the bedroom, that time was reduced to 10 seconds. Argue all they want, but I prefer taking responsibility for my own (family) safety if and when the need should arise. 

[bluesofa]

1 minute ago, Morty T said:

In Oxford, Massachusetts (USA) average police response time to a 911 emergency call was 4 minutes. With my secured handgun in the bedroom, that time was reduced to 10 seconds. Argue all they want, but I prefer taking responsibility for my own (family) safety if and when the need should arise. 

Is this a regular occurrence in the US, break-ins to homes and personal attacks, that require so many people to want to guns?

From what I read about the UK, crime is on the rise, but nowhere near what it seems to be in the US.

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

Red Dawn was not just a movie... 

Wow! I knew you had certain issues separating reality from fiction but that's like a whole different level.

[billd766]

50 minutes ago, Becker said:

Oh great, another tough-as-nails keyboard warrior

Be careful what you say. He could be an ex Navy Seal or an ex Green Beret and leap out of your computer and kill you. 

Edited April 28, 2019 by billd766
Edited for bad spelling after I had posted it

[Basil B]

6 hours ago, bluesofa said:

The often quoted second amendment about the 'right to bear arms', seems no more bizarre to me than the 'right to arm bears'.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

As a Brit, you are ingrained with a different mentality from childbirth on what the role of the government is supposed to play in your life, and how you view it.

 

A large percentage of the American electorate believes that no matter what, a person should always have a means available to fight back against said government, and to defend its sovereignty. 

 

It is a civil right, much like voting or freedom of press, and enshrined in great granddaddy laws of the nation. 

 

And as a brit, you should know that the entire basis of the Second Amendment is base largely on the actions of the British Crown during colonial times, so I guess in a way we can thank you for that, as without your oppression and tyrannical rule we wouldn't be what we are today. 

Well said.

Good on Trump for giving the finger to the UN. More countries need to wake up and smell the coffee on the UN. It has gone wildly away from what it was meant to be and IMO needs to be returned to that function.

[simple1]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well said.

Good on Trump for giving the finger to the UN. More countries need to wake up and smell the coffee on the UN. It has gone wildly away from what it was meant to be and IMO needs to be returned to that function.

Do you know the primary objection by the NRA? It was the requirement for gun registration and speculation it would led to a ban on the import of guns into the US (LOL)

 

In other words, if you bought a Beretta Shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S

 

[howbri]

6 hours ago, bluesofa said:

As a Brit who can't understand as what I see as an obsession with guns, I just don't get why there are even more guns needed?

The often quoted second amendment about the 'right to bear arms', seems no more bizarre to me than the 'right to arm bears'.

 

You don't understand because Brits are used to having their govt run their lives. We have a Constitution that gives the power TO THE PEOPLE. America is on the brink of civil war because the socialists/communists/elitists/democrats want to return us to pre-Constitution days when we had to bow before the king. Ain't gonna happen cupcake. THAT'S WHY we have guns.

[ThaiFelix]

6 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Every American should have the right to defend themselves against...…...other Americans! How sad is that! 

As time goes by and considering the historical actions of the US govts I am beginning to wonder if Americans feel the need to be heavily armed in order to protect themselves against their own government.

[howbri]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Do you know the primary objection by the NRA? It was the requirement for gun registration and speculation it would led to a ban on the import of guns into the US (LOL)

 

In other words, if you bought a Beretta Shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S

 

America has not intention of being governed by a bunch of Eurocentric, globalist bureaucrats.

[Rimmer]

Some off topic stuff has been removed also posts using a derogatory term for Americans

[4675636b596f75]

7 hours ago, rooster59 said:

So far 101 countries have formally joined onto the treaty. Another 29, including the United States, signed it, but have not yet formally joined.

Always a good reason to do something.  Not.

[simple1]

56 minutes ago, howbri said:

America has not intention of being governed by a bunch of Eurocentric, globalist bureaucrats.

Exactly how does a UN Treaty equate to the US being governed "by a bunch of Eurocentric, globalist bureaucrats". Your words really come across as ideology from Bannon - didn't  trump remove him as an adviser - please don.'t tell me Trump is still a disciple of Bannon - you know, arghhhh, actually a member of the dreaded Deep State.

Edited April 28, 2019 by simple1

[4675636b596f75]

Just now, simple1 said:

Exactly how does a UN Treaty equate to the US being governed "by a bunch of Eurocentric, globalist bureaucrats". Your words really come across as ideology from Bannon - didn't  trump removed him as an adviser - please don.'t tell me Trump is still a disciple of Bannon - you know, arghhhh, actually a member of the dreaded Deep State.

Treaties give up sovereignty.  Full stop.

[JAG]

30 minutes ago, howbri said:

You don't understand because Brits are used to having their govt run their lives. We have a Constitution that gives the power TO THE PEOPLE. America is on the brink of civil war because the socialists/communists/elitists/democrats want to return us to pre-Constitution days when we had to bow before the king. Ain't gonna happen cupcake. THAT'S WHY we have guns.

Gracious me, do you really believe that? And do you have a gun? That is really rather worrying!

 

Changing the subject, I have a rather splendid bridge for sale...

[4675636b596f75]

33 minutes ago, howbri said:

We have a Constitution that gives the power TO THE PEOPLE.

This is not right.  

 

The Constitution does not give you a right.  You have not one right given to you by law or by our Constitutions.  Notice I put an s at the end of the word.

[spidermike007]

The most important thing to understand about Trump, is that he is incapable of saying no to ANY lobbyist, much less the NRA. So, regardless of how reckless this position is, he has to support it. Alot of his base own 2-17 guns each. He has to please them. 

 

It is never about doing the right thing with Trump. It is always about pandering. 

 

Small Arms Survey reported that there are over one billion small arms distributed globally, of which 857 million (about 85 percent) are in civilian hands. U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms.

 

Like they really need more guns? Assault rifles for hunting deer? Right. 

[simple1]

 

7 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Treaties give up sovereignty.  Full stop.

What 'sovereignty' was the US about to lose? Under trump USA is rapidly moving to an isolationist country, whilst ripping up the Rule of Law for international relations - a bullying nationalist country - not a good look

Edited April 28, 2019 by simple1

[4675636b596f75]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

Assault rifles for hunting deer? Right. 

Wrong.  We don't own guns for hunting. Try again.

[CGW]

15 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Wrong.  We don't own guns for hunting. Try again.

Let me try, self protection? - its strange how the media Never reports when a armed citizen protects himself and others because he is carrying a firearm, I wonder why?

[4675636b596f75]

10 minutes ago, CGW said:

Let me try, self protection? - its strange how the media Never reports when a armed citizen protects himself and others because he is carrying a firearm, I wonder why?

The reason why the right to bear "arms" is a protected right, protected by the 2nd Amendment to the United States Federal Constitution, and protected by many State Constitutions, is there, is so we as The People can shoot politicians and other tyrants who might try to take over country and government.

 

Got that?  We own guns so we can shoot dishonest politicians.  Read the Federalist Papers.

Edited April 28, 2019 by 4675636b596f75

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

The reason why the right to bear "arms" is a protected right, protected by the 2nd Amendment to the United States Federal Constitution, and protected by many State Constitutions, is there, is so we as The People can shoot politicians and other tyrants who might try to take over country and government.

 

Got that?  We own guns so we can shoot dishonest politicians.  Read the Federalist Papers.

How many have you shot?

[4675636b596f75]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

How many have you shot?

Colonists shot quite a few tyrannical politicians but in my mind, they didn't shoot enough.  We almost got to that level but luckily Trump won the election.

[riclag]

3 hours ago, Morty T said:

In Oxford, Massachusetts (USA) average police response time to a 911 emergency call was 4 minutes. With my secured handgun in the bedroom, that time was reduced to 10 seconds. Argue all they want, but I prefer taking responsibility for my own (family) safety if and when the need should arise. 

I'm originally from Worcester,Ma.USA. Most people from other countries don't understand the need for the second amendment, the right to bare arms. You bring up a interesting point,one would think the police are there to protect you but

 -

When Seconds Count, Police Under No Legal Obligation To Act ...

 

https://amgreatness.com/2018/02/27/seconds-count-police-no-legal-obligation-act/

1.  

Feb 27, 2018 - U.S. courts have ruled repeatedly that police officers cannot be held liable for ... and ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect, even when a .... While many armed citizens successfully confronted an armed ...

Edited April 28, 2019 by riclag

[Spidey]

Just now, 4675636b596f75 said:

Colonists shot quite a few tyrannical politicians but in my mind, they didn't shoot enough.  We almost got to that level but luckily Trump won the election.

No come on, never mind 200 years ago, you assert that you carry a gun to shoot politicians, as is your constitutional right. How many politicians have you shot?

[4675636b596f75]

Just now, Spidey said:

No come on, never mind 200 years ago, you assert that you carry a gun to shoot politicians, as is your constitutional right. How many politicians have you shot?

Your question is invalid.  Point out where in this thread I said:

 

"you carry a gun to shoot politicians"