The UN, always causing trouble...

[weaver]

They are scared that those (they think) they rule with rebel and reclaim liberty. Disarm us and enslave us. They should be moved off US territory, I'm thinking somewhere in France. Their ideals fit with them pretty good.

[TimtheDestroy]

if a government can't be run while allowing its citizens the right to bear arms then who are they answering to, not their countrymen.

And next on the UN's agenda we would like to notify all countries that we have replaced the translator who kept inaccurately translating "NRA" as "NWA" this should clear up the confusion

[das]

You know it really pisses me off that some of you guys think this is a joke. Im not a conspiry theorist but its right there on video for all to see. If you have read messages like this before just pull the bag over youre head and shut up. Dont give every person who posts something that may or may not have been posted before all the smart ass remarks. Im starting to think this site is only for people who are know it all wise asses. das

[das]

Everyone on this forum should watch that video. das

[S&W M&P40c]

The UN is a joke. No one I know takes is seriously. The US is not alone. There are plenty of countries around the world that allow gun ownership, Switzerland for example.

Americans will not bow to the UN.

[Falcon118]

The American Government may bow, but the American People will not

[rikilii]

Whatever the UN does is irrelevant. Obama can sign a stack of "treaties" (executive agreements, really) a mile high, but they will immediately be broken unless Congress passes laws that are consistent with the treaties and those laws are upheld by the SCOTUS.

[nlcrsn]

I don not know what political info rmation people follow. If any one thinks for a second that our gov't is not trying to find a way to remove our firearms you should be put out to pasture with the sheep! Look at the info being brought out. Pelosi saying we need to find an answer to guns. What after the health care being forced on us with a large outcry against it;you think they will start listening. O is talking about UN treaties, in complete disregard to the constitution. Tin foil? More like take off your blinders!

[nlcrsn]

Whatever the UN does is irrelevant. Obama can sign a stack of "treaties" (executive agreements, really) a mile high, but they will immediately be broken unless Congress passes laws that are consistent with the treaties and those laws are upheld by the SCOTUS.

Do you believe with the current administration that this is impossible?

[rikilii]

Do you believe with the current administration that this is impossible?

It's not up to the administration.

Our Supreme Court has already decided that the Federal Government cannot ban handguns ownership.

It is already apparent that there is not enough support in Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban.

I guess the answer all depends on what you mean by "this". If you mean any kind of a gun regulation at all, the sure, it's quite possible that the President could sign an executive agreement and then get some kind of gun restrictions passed by Congress.

But that's not what the UN is pushing for.