Obama first steps to take guns Part 2 "GobFather"

[Ghost]

Jason and a few others, I have to strongly disagree with you on this subject. This is why.

Please read:


The UN And International Treaties

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Over the last few weeks, we have received many inquiries regarding the UN and the impact of international treaties on our Second Amendment freedom.

The NRA has been engaged at the United Nations and elsewhere internationally in response to anti-small arms initiatives for over 14 years. In most cases, agendas for the elimination of private ownership of firearms are disguised as calls for international arms control to stem the flow of illicit military weapons. These instruments are generally promoted by a small group of nations and a large number of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working in conjunction with departmental bureaucracies in multi-national institutions such as the UN and European Union.

The new U.S. administration, to no one’s surprise, has changed direction in the UN with respect to international small arms control initiatives that were resisted by the previous administration.

The current issue under discussion, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is in the early stages of the negotiation process. There is no actual draft text at this time. Work on the ATT is scheduled to continue by a consensus process between now and 2012. It should be noted that any treaty must be approved by two thirds of the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Attempts to thwart our freedoms should be no surprise, given the anti-gun climate of the international community in general, and the current U.S. administration in particular.

More generally, the NRA does not concern itself with foreign policy or arms control initiatives—except to the extent they would directly or indirectly affect Second Amendment rights.

We have been actively opposing transnational efforts that would limit Second Amendment freedoms. For many years, NRA has been monitoring and actively fighting any credible attempts on the part of the UN to restrict our sovereignty and gun rights. As a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at the United Nations since 1997, NRA gives gun owners a strong voice in the UN’s debate over global “gun control.” As one of over 2,000 NGOs representing everyone from religious groups to the banking industry, NRA has access to UN meetings that are closed to the general public, and is able to distribute informational materials to participants in UN activities.

Most importantly, NRA’s status as an NGO allows us to monitor more closely the internal UN debate over firearm issues and report back to our members. The role NRA plays within the UN as an NGO is almost identical to the role our registered lobbyists play every day on Capitol Hill and in state capitals across the nation—educating and informing decision-makers of the facts behind the debate, and working to protect the interests of American gun owners and NRA members.

Due to our NGO status, NRA was able to take an active role in thwarting the absurdly titled “UN Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” in 2006, and the previous meeting, the “UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons” in the summer of 2001.

The UN Small Arms Conference ended in deadlock with no formal conclusions or recommendations, due in large part to the NRA. In the final analysis, the complexity of the issue and the concerns of hunters, sport shooters and firearm owners world-wide prevailed. The failure of the program was total; no recommendations on ammunition, civilian possession or future UN meetings, or for that matter any other subjects, were adopted.

In addition to its UN activities, NRA is a founding member of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA). The WFSA is an association of hunting, shooting, and industry organizations that was founded in 1996. The WFSA includes over 35 national and international organizations, and represents over 100 million sport shooters worldwide.

NRA members may rest assured that we are actively engaged in international matters. We have never hesitated, nor will we hesitate, to use the political and other resources available to us to resist any international agreement that could in any way affect our Second Amendment rights.

Ref:

NRA-ILA

[Ghost]

Quote From Gob Father:

Re: Obama Takes FIRST step to take all our firearm
« Reply #1 on Jan 13, 2010, 11:22am »
This is nothing more than propaganda b.s.

There will NEVER be a day to where the 2nd Amendment becomes non existent. We will always have the right to bare arms and will continue to have our guns in our own personal possession.

I read the link and didn't see anywhere whereas it stated that "Joe The Plumber" would not be able to pull out his .270 and shoot a deer in his bean field. All I read in that article was "foreign policy". Seems as if the extreme right political activists are yet again placing SPIN on issues to the American public to "cloak" their motives to regain power in office. Wake up people! The tool of "fear" is a great one, and whomever wrote this is obviously trying to insult our intelligence by putting a falsehood and spin on this topic while pushing a "fear campaign" within their political agenda. Don't fall into the nonsense that is targeted at specific "special interest groups" such as us sportsmen. It's nothing new, they've been doing this for YEARS.... same ol' story.

I'm not suggesting to ignore issues such as this, but rather give attention where it's got merit. Don't believe everything you read.


(Quote Stop)






I have to strongly disagree with you here GF. As you can read above by the reference of the NRA-ILA article this is a real threat and has been for several years. Although it has been stopped on several occasions it still remains a very strong and possible threat to our freedoms as an nation. The UN has, from quite some time, been after international gun control. Although, their success has been very limited when it comes to the United States and its 2nd Amendment.

When you say the extreme right uses tactics (fear) to instill fear in its people to regain their political position, I agree with you here. It does happen and I am sure it will continue to happen on both sides of the isle. But, in this case, ATT Arms Trade Treaty, it is not a fear tactic. This is a very real and legitimate threat to our freedoms as a nation.

As for the statement that stated that the 2nd Amendment will always be here and that it will always protect our right to bear arms. I have to strongly disagree here as well. I would guess that people in other countries who have already lost their guns probably felt the same way. I will agree with you on the fact that the 2nd Amendment makes it very difficult for an elected official to abolish our right to own and bear arms but be cautious to not be lulled into a sense of false security when it come to our right to own a gun. Groups like the NWTF, RMEF, NRA, NRA-ILA, etc. exist not only to protect our lands and our game, but to protect our right to bear arms. These groups are lobbyist or special interest groups that carry a very large member base. Members of these groups have one very deep tie that binds all these groups together and that is firearms. I ask you this question. If the 2nd Amendment will always be here, why do we have groups like the NRA-ILA? I ask you to please remember the 1996 ban on assault weapons. People might say, "Who needs an assault rifle to hunt deer?" Do we really need a weapon like this to hunt deer? Maybe not. But if this type of semi-automatic can be banned what stops them from banning other semi-autos. I believe in what the 2nd amendment says. That we have the right to bear arms. I am not willing to stand up and say what firearms are okay to ban and what gun is okay to bear. Because once we open this door we begin to erode our freedoms a little at a time and then we wake up one day and we cease to have any of our original freedoms. I will not tell "Joe The Plumber" he can own this gun but not that gun. Because if I do, I have taken a little of his freedom away. I am not willing to do this and I refuse to let someone else pass laws that would force me, by that law, to follow such a ban. Once this door is opened it then becomes very hard to shut.

I believe it is naive to think that what was, will always be. Please read on to the next post to see how real this threat is. I welcome any one to jump in and lets have a healthy debate about this.

[Ghost]

About the ATT

The best way to decrease tragic violence from occurring in the future is to establish a set of universal standards to guide the trade in arms. The global, regional and national scope of the arms trade means that existing regulations are not enough. The UN Charter, as well as international human rights and humanitarian law, already provide a number of important limitations on states' freedom to transfer weapons. However, some of these restrictions are only implied and their application to the trade in weapons is not altogether clear, therefore it is increasingly necessary to codify them in an explicit agreement that makes clear the international responsibilities of weapons transfers.

Drawing on existing international law, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a model for a legally binding international agreement establishing a set of basic rules to regulate the international transfer of conventional arms. It is based on the simple principle that arms exporters and importers have a responsibility to ensure that they do not provide weapons that would be used in serious violations of international law.

The aim of the draft treaty is to establish a precise, harmonized normative framework for state behavior in the international weapons market. The treaty would set out core, common minimum standards for international arms transfers, and a workable operative mechanism for the application of these standards. These basic standards would not, of course, preclude the establishment of stronger national or regional controls.

It is critical to note that the ATT would not impose a completely new normative framework on state behavior. Rather, it would affirm states' existing responsibilities under international law, clarify them, give them the force of renewed commitment, and provide a mechanism for their consistent and effective application to the trade in weapons.

There are several important mandates for the establishment of such an instrument, including the UN Programme of Action agreed at the July 2001 UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms. It is incumbent upon the international community to follow-up on existing mandates by moving towards an instrument that codifies these existing responsibilities and applies them to the trade in weapons.

REFF: www.armstradetreaty.org/att/aboutatt.php

[Ghost]

This is an actual letter that the ATT.org would like those that support the Arms Trade Treaty to send to their government.

I quote:
What you can do as an individual

Write your government representatives! Here is a sample letter for your convenience:

The Arms Trade Treaty initiative was originally launched by Dr. Oscar Arias and seven other Nobel Peace Laureates in 1997. Today, this initiative has gained the support of governments, civil society, and Peace Laureates worldwide. Please join our efforts.

I urge the government of __________________ to support the ATT principles, their development, promotion, and inclusion in the 2006 UN Program of Action, based on the following:

States should adopt and apply a requirement that all arms transfers be authorised by the issuing of licences;

States should not authorize arms transfers that violate existing obligations under international law in relation to the transfer of specific weapons or the transfer to specific end users;

States should not authorize arms transfers in circumstances in which they have, or ought reasonably to have, knowledge that transfers are likely to violate the UN Charter; commit serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law; commit genocide or crimes against humanity; or be diverted for these uses;

States should take into account the impact of arms transfers on regional security and sustainable development;

States should report on international arms transfers to an established inter- national authority.

ref: www.armstradetreaty.org/att/whatyouind.php

[Ghost]

U.S. Backs Arms Trade Treaty at UN, Abandoning Bush Opposition
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Bill Varner

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration voted today to support United Nations-sponsored talks on a treaty to regulate the $55 billion-a-year trade in conventional weapons, reversing prior U.S. opposition to negotiations begun in 2006.

The General Assembly, consisting of all 192 UN member governments, adopted a resolution setting out a timetable for talks during the next two years on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a UN conference to produce a final accord in 2012. The vote was 153-1, with 19 abstentions.

“This is massive in its impact because the U.S. is the largest conventional arms trader in the world,” Brian Wood, disarmament expert for London-based Amnesty International, said in an interview. “The Obama administration has decided to enter into the negotiations and do the diplomatic heavy lifting.”

The U.S. trade in conventional weapons amounts to 40 percent of the global total, according to Wood. The resolution says the unregulated trade in conventional arms “can fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism.”

The vote continues Obama administration moves to reverse the policies of President George W. Bush. Those actions have included joining the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, backing a General Assembly declaration urging the decriminalization of homosexuality and contributing government funds to a UN agency that offers abortion counseling.

The Bush administration was the only nation to oppose the 2006 resolution to create an international treaty on the sale of small arms and light weapons, and subsequent measures to continue the talks. The U.S. expressed concern about potential loopholes in a treaty and said national controls would be more effective.

Effect of U.S. Support

“Without U.S. support, the process may have been formally agreed in the sense of getting a majority vote, but negotiations would not have been conducted at a seriously high level,” Wood said.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement on Oct. 14 that the U.S. would support the negotiations on condition they are “under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation.”

Clinton said the consensus, in which every nation has an effective veto on agreements, was needed “to avoid loopholes in the treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”

The resolution says the 2012 conference will be conducted “on the basis of consensus.”

Zimbabwe cast the only vote against the resolution. China, Russia, Iran, Syria, India, Pakistan and Cuba were among the nations that abstained from the vote.

To contact the reporter on this story: Bill Varner at the United Nations at [e-mail]

Last Updated: October 30, 2009 13:46 EDT

ref : www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=abkyS4.975YM

[Ghost]

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT
Related News
Armed violence kills 2,000 a day worldwide: groups
Tue, Oct 6 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

BARACK OBAMA | CHINA | RUSSIA

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

(Editing by Eric Beech)

ref : www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

[Ghost]

What Oldog posted in the original "Obama Takes Steps to Take Our Guns Part One" is not very far from the truth. I have to stand on the side of OldDog here and say that this is a well and concise post. Although, it does have some speculation injected into the post, they are valid and very real concerns that any supporter of the 2nd Amendment would and should have. We should all, as citizens of the U.S. or any free country for that matter, be very concerned when a group of nations want to dictate how we trade and/or transfer small or light weapons. We should also be concerned when the countries, that are such staunch supporters of the Arms Trade Treaty who have already banned firearms in their own countries, want to tell a country with a 2nd amendment how to dictate the transfer and or trade of weapons.

[THE GOB-FATHER]

Brian, I understand your position and outlook and concerns... that of which I as a sportsman wholeheartedly stand beside you on! But... and here's the big but.... NOWHERE do I see ANYTHING that states ANY type of restriction on OUR "National" freedoms as individuals nor ANYTHING about how Obama is trying to do away with our 2nd Ammendment rights. All I'm reading is a bunch of propaganda that swirls over and over with hogwash that attempts to put a "spin" on what "could" happen but with no absolute backing. Furthermore, I feel it's our duty as sportsmen to be aware of potential threats to our 2nd Ammendment rights, civil rights and individual rights etc... but in this case, and again I'll repeat... I read nothing but "INTERNATIONAL" policy. I may have missed something while reading through all of that, but I can't say where I can see how it has anything to do with you or I being able to take our rifles out on the back forty and pop off a few rounds at a rutting buck chasing a hot doe??

My issue here, is that I don't want those (and excuse the language) bastards overseas to be capable of obtaining those "illicit" weapons that they continually refer to in this article and use them against us. If you disagree with the contention to support a policy whereas we limit who get's what type of weapons in a vastly poplated terrorist geographic region, then you probably don't support the Patriot Act either then? Because, now hear me out here, they both have their similarities when one takes a different approach and looks from a different angle.

Do you want our government to oblish the Patriot Act in which the "Previous Administration" pushed in it's political agenda whereas the bugging of telephone conversations and electronic communications can be tracked and recorded (even though technically speaking it's a violation of our personal rights as law abiding American citizens) "just in case" to protect ourselves from a terroristic threat? Or do you feel it's in the best interest of the American citizens to "accept" this "little" policy so that we can be a safer nation?

Same thing applies here. Again, I may be reading it wrong, but it sounds to me as if the "current adminstration" is taking proactive measures to curtail the opportunity for "illicit weapons" to get in the hands of the wong people to which can use them against us in a terroristic manner? And again... being a "foriegn policy" issue, not a "average Joe" in our own nation issue. Remember, right now it's a very dirty battle taking place politically speaking out there with all sorts of efforts from these NGO's that have more of a POLITICAL AGENDA in their motives rather than your's or my best interest. It's not about losing our rights... it's about trying to make people belive that OUR President is Evil.... whooooo.... scary!

I say this with the utmost respect because I fight the same fight as you my friend. We're on the same team here... we just can't allow the political activists and lobbyists who hide behind the mask of good intention to pull the wool over our eyes for their personal gain. It's just my opinion and I may be completely wrong, and if so I'm more than happy to find out how I am so that I can be on the right track here and understand fully how this affects you, me and anyone else who bears arms this great nation.

[Ghost]

Jason you are right. You do not read anything about the ATT infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. But when reading the ATT, I think you would agree there is a great deal of grey areas to it that would lead an American to speculate. Lets look at this one sentence for example:
Quote:
States should adopt and apply a requirement that all arms transfers be authorized by the issuing of licenses;

End Quote:

This was taken from the convenient letter that the www.armstradetreaty.org provided for those that support the ATT could send to their government to urge them to get behind the ATT.

What does the issuing of licenses for the transfer of firearms mean? Who gets these licenses?

As for Obama. It is no secret that he is in favor of more gun control. He has been on record in stating this and it is evident that as a Congressman he voted this way while in Illinois.

I quote:

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok:
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing:
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month:
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers:
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality:
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban:
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions:
NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers:

These are just a few. When I read things like this and see that he is in support of more gun control laws it leads me to believe only one thing when I see that he has reversed Americas position on the Arms Trade Treaty Agreement and has decided to re-open talks with the U.N. on this subject. That President Obama does not have the best interest of the the 2nd Amendment in mind.

Propaganda? I do not believe what was posted by Oldog was propaganda. There in lies why I have spoken out on this issue and have strongly disagreed with you on this. I agree that you and I stand on the same side of the coin when it comes to defending the 2nd Amendment but I feel we are standing on different ends. I am not attacking Obama but merely stating the facts. He is in support of more gun laws. His record proves this. Keeping this in mind. I ask you to look at the facts and ask this question: How would an American sportsman view President Obamas past voting record and his current support of the U.N. in the U.S. support of re-starting the Arms Trade Treaty talks?

To answer the question of the "Patriot Act". I am strongly against this act and believe it gives the government to much control over its people. Granted this act in responsible hands and used properly as it was intended to be used would be great in a perfect world. But, we do not nor will we ever live in a perfect world. This act has to much power if it ends up in the wrong hands. So to prevent the Patriot Act ending up in the wrong hands, one should never in-act such a policy. Now, did wire tapping occur before the Patriot act was made policy? Yes, and to think other wise would be naive. All the Patriot act did was to make what was already going on in this country legal.

[Ghost]

My biggest concern about your statement to Olddog was that the 2nd Amendment will always be. When ever I read things like this I get very worried. This is not just a 2nd amendment issue but a Bill of Rights issue. I think you would agree with me when I say that these freedoms and rights have, come at a very high price. American blood shed and American lives.

I am having a hard time finding the words to express the fear in my heart that I feel when I read statements, like the one you made, by fellow Americans. I scares the hell out of me when I think there are Americans who believe that the freedoms that we have grown up with will always be there. This thought process of, "These freedoms where there for my grandparents, my parents, myself, and will be there for my kids." These freedoms that Americans believe we will always have are bought and paid for everyday. Time and time again, through out all the generations, these freedoms are paid for with American Blood!! So, when I read the careless use of "We will always have these freedoms", it scares the living hell out of me.

I guess I did find some way to put it into words. Don't misunderstand me Jason. I am not nor will I ever be angry with you or any one else here about this issue. I am merely am trying to get people to understand what the weight of words like this carry. I dare to think what, beliefs like this could cause, if more Americans do not realize how fragile freedom is and how many people that are out there just waiting to tear it down.

I am not bashing Obama. I agree that there are a great deal of people praying that Obama fails and this two scares me. Do I want Obama to fail? No. But, that also depends on what he wants to succeed at. Do I like Obama? No. I do not trust him on issues such as gun control. I know what it could mean if we do loose our 2nd amendment rights. We then give complete control to the government. I agree that there is so much propaganda out there from Republicans and some Democrats that want to paint Obama as evil in all that he does or will do while in the White House, 2nd Amendment aside. This is the propaganda that all citizens need to look at with a microscope. This is the propaganda, all be it successful, that is putting so much fear in the American people. I will go on record with this statement: Any elected official who wishes to place more government control over his constituents, how ever small the control may be, scares me.

Where do we draw the line in government control in regards to the preservation of our freedoms? When does a small amount of control become to much?

[THE GOB-FATHER]

Jason you are right. You do not read anything about the ATT infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. But when reading the ATT, I think you would agree there is a great deal of grey areas to it that would lead an American to speculate.

You just summed up my exact point... speculation is just that... speculation. It is in my opinion that there is a VERY big difference in speculation vs. preparation. We as sportsmen HAVE to be very careful in our approach to how we react to "what is" and what "could be". Here's the situation...


You said what scares you, now let me tell you what scares me... What scares me is a fellow American who allows fear to control their abilities to understand diversity and see the the b.s. that political agendas put out there to play this "mind control" game with us all. Do you really think I or anyone else for that matter takes our "rights" for granted and/or doesn't understand how they have been sanctified within our history? If you think I take my rights for granted and that I'm foolish for believing in our American Made Bill Of Rights, then you have sorely mistaken my integrity as an American. I'm not scared of ANY political figure. I fear no man but God! I believe in our system albeit very flawed and deceitfully manipulated at times. But if I were to not stand by my thought in that I believe that the 2nd Ammendment will always be in tact... then the people you are scared of that "may" take it away from you... have already won. Do you think Ted Nugent is scared of his guns taken away from him? Hell no! And I am of the same mentality. Because as stated before... no government, no single man, will EVER keep me from MY rights as a natural born citizen of the United States of America. I fear nothing. I believe in God, and I believe in the spirit of the outdoor sportsman! I'm not scared... you may be, but don't worry buddy... I've got your back!

And on a final note... A Theme... "Strength In Numbers"....

Racks & Spurs, is a prime example in that we are a mass of one voice... and there are "strength in numbers". Thus, one of the main objectives behind this organization. BUT.... if we were to act, and speak, upon every opportunity that we could "speculate" on and continuously protest our emotional contemplative presumptions... we'd, more than likely, get nowhere. To speak and be heard, one must know when to act. If we rise to the challenge, so long as one is present, then we fight. But we must pick and choose our battles for if we don't... our voices to which have volume will soon fall upon deaf ears.

You make some very valid points of concern, that of which I'm very open to... but the opposite ends in which you refer to, I believe are closer than you think and as a nation of sportsmen, we must be calculated, we must remain educated (as I feel your statements and theology support), and we must choose when to "speak softly and carry a big stick" and when to "rise up in arms".

I think with what I've seen presented to me that we stay current with the topic, pay close attention to it's structural recourse, and determine if said topic is worthy of exhuding an effort to defend what we all feel is worth fighting for.

As the saying goes, my friend, "Wait for it". And... "Don't jump the gun".

My hat's off to you my friend. You are a great debater and have my respect. You have piqued my interest in this topic and therefor I believe you have made a solid point to which I will openly stay current with.

[Ghost]

It is not that I am scared of any one man but a belief of a generation in what it means to say we will always have our freedoms. My apologies to you. It is quite evident that you understand what it means to be an American. It is the statement in general and how freely I see it thrown about. No disrespect to you was intended nor was I trying to state that you did not understand the price paid. My apologies here. But I am afraid of no man taking my rights away. But I am more terrified of a thought process that seems to be more prevelant in a younger generation. I worry that "What it means to be an American" is not being taught to the children of America. I believe we have had a good and healthy debate about an issue I hope both of us have came away with some different ways of thinking about things that plauge our nation. After reading you last statement I am reminded of some great words of wisdom. Please forgive me if I get this wrong. We will fight as free Americans and we will die as free Americans. I can personally say that I trully understand where and why you made the statements that you did in part 1. I respect you for it and you conviction in your words

[grizz1]

I read the post from olddog and reply and now following this thread with conversation so far between Ghost and Gobfather.

I've not read and studied this long or well enough to jump into the middle just yet, but would prefere to stay on the outskirts and toss in a few comments for consideration and/or reflection.

A great debate that remains rational is one of the best traits on this forum and I believe it will remain so as we are all on the same side, but we can have different levels of concern, opinions and understanding.

One of the few advantages to growing older is the knowledge/memories/experience we seem to store in the back of our minds as we go through the journey of life.
This is where I begin throwing in my 2 cents worth or THOUGHTS for the day.

Just compare the rules of my school days with my Grandchildren for starters, years to reflect back on are 1962 to 2010.

In my first grade class every boy had a pocket knife, needed it for many things from cutting baling twine to peeling an apple at the lunch table, Grandsons are not allowed to have a knife, nail file,ect.

When I was in Junior High school I was expected to be absent until I killed my deer, teachers sent my homework home with my sister so I could keep my grades up. My Grandson, if he tells the truth, will receive an "unexcused" absence for deer hunting, if not excused they may take away from his grades. By the way it is OK to miss school for ball games, track meets or playing in the band.

When I was in High School, I , along with several other students belonged to the FFA trap shooting team. I rode the bus to save money even through my senior year, so took my shotgun onto the bus and upon arrival to school would let the Ag teacher keep until the end of the day when we made our way out to practice or a shooting event.
The boys that drove kept their guns in their truck in a back glass gun rack in plain view.
If my Grandsons were to take a gun onto school grounds, well lets just say school is over for them as they know it now. It is over for the parent as well, a major life changing event has started for the whole family. This just can not be tolerated,you will be punished swiftly as there will be a police officer on duty at the school to see that it begins, RIGHT NOW.

Now let's compare how the school systems has evolved.
I too could have got into trouble with my gun while on the bus or at school. If at any time it was handled incorrectly an older student would probably whip my a__, when the teachers heard of this mistreatment they too would whip my a__ and call my father. When I got home, he would be the last one to whip my a__ for the day. I never saw any one mishandle a gun or use it in a threatning manner in all of my school years.

In third grade we began the day by reading the 23rd psalm and saying the pledge of allegience to the flag, we prayed together before lunch break, no one objected, God seemed to be welcome at school!!

If one of my Grandsons (they have not so far) were to get into trouble, everyone hires a lawyer and no one gets their a__ whipped but a small fortune in time and money is spent trying to decide if he is a threat to society and if any ones rights were violated.
No prayers are said out loud to God as some one may be offended, for there are some that don't even believe in God so we should respect their wishes.
My children suffered many of the same rules as I did while growing up and passing through their years of schooling. There were a few minor differences between the 2 generations but now I'm seeing my Grandchildren entering junior high school and OH MY HOW THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
When did it happen? Seems like overnight!! So my comments are about an era that is roughly 45 years long but the major changes have taken place in the last 10 years and they seem to be snow balling faster and faster.
I'll end my redneck history lesson by saying this: Rights, they can and will change and can be abolished!! To your liking, don't know! Laws: they will change, to your liking don't know! Never quit school, keep learning by reading/watching the news, get involved, don't take anything for granted, never say never, when you wake up for the day and look in the mirror, the person you see and God are the only two you can trust.