In response to:

Will the Arms Trade Treaty Suppress Second Amendment Rights?

John147 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 5:07 PM
This administration is already going after anyone and everyone for antiobama comments. They give consideration to an firearms treaty that is in the best interests of a police state(Russia, Obamanistan[aka U.S.], Venezuela[Chavezstan]). This administration considers a sligshot an assault rifle so what do you think is going to happen? If you want to shoot/hunt you'll have to goto designated/licensed areas where the gov will rent you the firearm and sell you the ammo. Forget about keeping your own firearm or ammo because they'll want to know who has what so they can sweep in and confiscate it. Why the public doesn't see this is beyond me!
bd-gslo Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 7:56 PM
Because it is bull. There are plenty of Dems that own guns.
MudontheTires Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 9:04 PM
Because it is bull. There are plenty of Dems that own guns.

Thgere are also plenty of dems who dive big SUV's and truck, yet they constanly rail about glo-bull warming. Why? Is it because they think they aren't the problem because they are progs?
thom112 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 9:08 PM

The first round of UN Arms Trade Treaty talks may have fallen apart at the month-long conference held in NYC this past July, but as Ted Bromund over at Heritage noted at the time, “Now that the concept of the ATT has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. There are too many countries and too many left-wing nongovernmental organizations that want a treaty.” He was right and as Katie reported last week, it didn’t take very long to initiate another attempt. One question she raised in her post deserves more attention: “Is the argument from the U.N. that...

Monday, May 20 | 03:16 PM ET
Monday, May 20 | 03:16 PM ET
Monday, May 20 | 03:16 PM ET
Monday, May 20 | 03:16 PM ET