List of Trators..........


Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2003
Central , Florida

Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. 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 bill read:
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 in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators (all but one was a democrat, one was an independent) were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to be voted out of office. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Kayak Jack

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2003
Okemos / East Lansing Michigan
Re: List of Traitors..........

I'm embarrassed to say that Sen Carl Levin, democrat (THERE'S a word that leaves a bad taste in ones mouth!) of Michigan, is one of the traitors. I've called and emailed his office several times. His responses always include remarks about how proud he is to work against guns.
Guns provoke violence like roads provoke drunken driving.

When liberals bemoan using fossil fuels, ask for a show of hands of all in the room who arrived afoot. Then ask for a show of hands for all who arrived in a motor vehicle. That settles the question rather quickly, right on the spot.


Well-Known Member
The tinfoil hat brigade people say President Pop Culture secretly wants to bring to life the New World Order and wants to be the guy running it. That might be a little far fetched but things like this make you wonder just a little.


Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2003
It is no surprise that Karl Marx Levin supported the treaty. He and the Stablecow have always been supporters of enslavement of our citizens. Note that they all are D for dim except Sanders who is N for national socialist.


Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2012
Kayak Jack said:
He has a simple, two-step agenda. 1. Break America. 2. Install sharia law.
So Obama wants to support the treaty like 154 nations around the world.

You want him to oppose the treaty like the 3 nations that voted against the treaty - Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Who's trying to install sharia law?

Most countries that have digital transaction records of firearms, essentially have a gun registry. Just a matter of finding and linking to the right database and the authorities are linked into most of them. Its the cash transactions held in the parking lot of the 7-11 that won't be captured.

The challenge I see, as an outsider, with the Second Amendment is it's generalization. It will take some serious and creative arguments to convince me that an 18 year old gang banger in the ghettos of (pick your city) needs a 9mm Glock. Although we have gun control in Canada, I can and do own hunting rifles and shotguns. I can own a pistol, there just more hoops to jump through in order to buy one and what I can do with it. There are big restrictions on automatic weapons, however I can see no need for a civilian to own one.


Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2007
Spring Hill, FL
I very seldom get involved in this sort of discussion, on-line. But, I have to say that the perception of "need" does not figure into the 2nd Amendment. To carry the concept of "need" to an extreme, and believe me, sooner or later all governments do, who really "needs" a car that can go faster than any national posted speed limit? A number of cars can drive significantly faster than than the posted speed limits, so maybe is should be illegal to produce, sell, or own them. Might save some lives, don't you think?

Add to that, what about when "they" decide how much money you need to earn, or what you should be able to say, or think? Who should be able to tell you what your needs are? Politicians? Really? Can't think of anyone less qualified.

I simply do NOT want Congress, who largely do not seem to live in the same world that I live in, decide what I do, or do not need. It's about a Right, one guaranteed by the Constitution, that many of us feel exist outside of the Constitution. And it is one so fundamental, it is one of several were thought to be so important that it was listed in the document so it would be guaranteed continued existence, despite the efforts of those who want to increase their control over us.

Just looking at the history of the UN, the successor to the previously failed experiment known as the League of Nations, I will in no way accept subjugating our Laws or our Liberty to any outside control, especially to the United Nations.

I know I really should not have replied to such an old thread, especially on this subject. But it was late and when I read it, I thought my poor little head was going to explode.

Oh well. . .

Mike S.
Spring Hill, FL

Kayak Jack

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2003
Okemos / East Lansing Michigan
More people are killed with knives than guns. Also, more are killed with cars than guns. Also, more people are killed by medical malpractice than with guns.

Big difference is, we don't do self defense with cars or medical malpractice. And, a gun trumps a knife. Governments are corrupt, not stupid.


Well-Known Member
Nov 7, 2008
Hoschton, GA
We already have laws to keep 18 year old gang bangers from getting guns. If the administration would like to do something to control gun violence, they could push for better enforcement.

It has been in the news recently that the feds prosecute hardly any of the people who try to buy guns despite disqualifying characteristics such as felony convictions. The feds do not consider that a priority.

Our right to keep and bear arms does not depend upon the government or anyone else deciding whether we "need" a particular gun. It is a right, not a privilege granted by the government. And this right has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. Historical reading establishes that the intention was self defense, and defense against tyranny. Many of us firmly believe in those two concepts today.

If you feel that the concept of gun ownership as a defense against tyranny is outdated or impractical, then you are free to push for a constitutional amendment to repeal the right. What should NOT happen is a court deciding that it is out of date, and thus neutering it. The constitution and it's various ratified amendments say what they say, and mean what they mean. It is up to the people to amend them as needed. The difficulty of the amendment process is intentional. A constitutional right should not be subject to the whims of small majorities. It should require a STRONG majority to change it.

The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute in the USA, any more than the right to vote or the right to live free.

-People under the age of majority can't own guns, or vote, or engage in legal contracts.

-Convicted felons can't own guns, or vote, and may have their personal freedom taken away.

-People who have been judged mentally incompetent can't own guns, and can have their personal freedom taken away if necessary.

-Certain classes of weapons (machine guns, artillery, explosives) can be, and ARE, subject to strict licensing requirements.

Again, I feel that we have plenty of sensible gun laws in our country, and if our government would competently enforce those laws, we would do more actual good than we would by passing laws that inconvenience no one other than law abiding citizens.

Why in heaven's name should we allow more laws when we do not see our government enforcing the laws we already have? And why in GOD's name would we allow an organization as corrupt and ineffective as the United Nations to have any say whatsoever in what we consider to be a human right?

Every human being has the fundamental right to defend himself against aggression and tyranny. Firearms are a tool for self defense. Bolt action deer rifles and bird guns are certainly not the best variety of gun for the purpose.



Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2003
Central , Florida
A gun is nothing more then a tool and how the person uses it is what counts.
For 27 years it was a tool for me just like my Citation / Summons book or even the Handcuffs and Patrol Car. What determined how it was used was up to me and not the handgun , shotgun or rifle.

As far as the registration of them , that has been on the books forever and it has nothing to do with a thief when he breaks into someplace and steals them. The registration is an effective tool to locate stolen weapons. I always advised a gun owner to take a picture of his weapon , copy down the serial number , caliber and description of it and place the picture in a safe place or even a safe deposit box so it is there for identification if it is needed. Lately ( in this area ) due to the scarey of guns in gun shops there have been a increase in residential burglaries where nothing but firearms and ammunition was taken.

In Florida if I sell ( or give ) you one of my guns I have to wright down the information about it and who purchased /received it , then make a copy and give one to the buyer after both of us sign the information. That is for my protection along with the buyers , for him to show it was not stolen from me , for me to show he has it and I no longer have it.

We do not need the UN looking over our shoulders and even determining what we can do and how we do it , it is nothing more then a underhanded action by the UN , Obama and Hillery Clinton to disarm us in the long run.
The UN approached Bush about the same thing and he told them to go to hell. :D