Oh, hate to dash your hopes, but that treaty has zero chance at actually being ratified within the US, and without that it has no effect on anything the US does. For that matter, from what I understand its somewhat doubtful the UN itself can pass it either.

Basic rule of thumb, for better of worse assume the UN is impotent.

i dont want it ratified i want it to be torn to sheds speshaly the part that effects our gun rights so i hope that when they do look at it they find it unconstitutional and fix it or get rid of it in all before or after that ass hole gets out of office. for if it dus go thru it will be one step closer to a Silv war and trust me there has been a lot of talk on only on the internet but on the streets as well. so they need to tred lightly on this

Ah, I misunderstood your original tone.

Yeah, I want the whole treaty to go up in smoke. Heck, I'd like the whole UN to go away, but I'm not holding my breath just yet.

i'm with you there but at least someone as some common cents

Shameful. Bowing to a group of terrorist enablers over lies... No treaty can ever supercede the US Constitution. Even if what you are upset about were actually in the treaty (It isn't; that's a right wing lie), the second amendment would still trump it. So the gun toting nutjobs are upset over a complete and total lie.

think what you want about me but i carry a gun for one resin and one resin only "It's better to have a gun and not need it then to, not have a gun and need it" [/u]
[i]states with strict gun right have a higher rate of crime the states that dont. look it up
There are ppl that use there guns for hunting and thats like 1 to 1.5 a years supply of food. thats a lot for ppl that cant afforded much

[b] I like my guns and i will fight to the death to keep my family safe. and if that makes me a terrorist then you have a lot to lurn about life. after all if you take the guns away from the common ppl it still wont take the guns away from the criminals and thats why its our second amendment its so we can protect our self [i][u]That's just common cents.

Errr.. Sorry about not posting the reply here. My mistake.

I have no problem with people carrying guns. I've handled a rifle before (prefer the bow. I know, it makes me weird!)

The point is, there is nothing in that treaty that endangers the second amendment. Even if there were, the second amendment would supercede the treaty. There is nothing in the arms treaty you, as a private citizen, should worry about.

you should look again on the new over seas treatys that has been suspended and the one that was replied last month and the wording of the treatys leaves it up to interpretation to turn not only on the military but use commoners its a loop hole that they have found to over step the second amendment
and a bow isn't going to do much you only have one shot before you have to reload but they are fun to shut o3o

And where did you you get this information? What are your sources? Because I've looked over the summary of the proposed treaty and have seen none of what you describe.

http://www.wvlkam.com/index.php <- talk radio is one
Facebook "anonymous"
youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4z.....eature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vouPsyszV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv3.....eature=related
and this one is really sad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHewqfzN4U
and fox news cnn msn
and the web like http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/ http://www.saveourguns.com/

http://gunowners.org/