TexasCHLforum.com

Just got a mail piece from Rand Paul. Seems he thinks that Hillary will be working "hand in glove" with the UN to pass the new "Small Arms Treaty". He is working with the National Association for Gun Rights, and wants me to answer a 4-question survey, and of course, send in money.

sounds like a scam

sjfcontrol wrote:Just got a mail piece from Rand Paul. Seems he thinks that Hillary will be working "hand in glove" with the UN to pass the new "Small Arms Treaty". He is working with the National Association for Gun Rights, and wants me to answer a 4-question survey, and of course, send in money.

The resolution would first of all be non-binding and would never stand a chance in the senate and if it somehow did it wouldn't have a snowflakes chance in august in court.

If Rand really is working with NAGR, then that says a lot, and it isn't good.

Chas.

I could post the letter, if interested.

Here's a website that echos the survey. http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If Rand really is working with NAGR, then that says a lot, and it isn't good.

Chas.

OK - having just arrived on your planet - can someone tell me what the NAGR is and why is it not 'good'? I really had not heard about them till this post.

couzin wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If Rand really is working with NAGR, then that says a lot, and it isn't good.

Chas.

OK - having just arrived on your planet - can someone tell me what the NAGR is and why is it not 'good'? I really had not heard about them till this post.

I'm glad to see that someone else is puzzled by Charles' somewhat cryptic comment -- puzzled, but not surprised!

couzin wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If Rand really is working with NAGR, then that says a lot, and it isn't good.

Chas.

OK - having just arrived on your planet - can someone tell me what the NAGR is and why is it not 'good'? I really had not heard about them till this post.

I suspect that it's another one of those "gun rights" organizations that tries to ride the NRA's coat tails, claim credit for what isn't theirs, and throw bombs at anyone who disagrees on how best to expand the RKBA.

I got one today too. I don't mind getting stuff from Rand Paul, but I'm annoyed it's coming from NAGR, who I think are a buncha chicken littles.

couzin wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If Rand really is working with NAGR, then that says a lot, and it isn't good.

Chas.

OK - having just arrived on your planet - can someone tell me what the NAGR is and why is it not 'good'? I really had not heard about them till this post.

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/about-us-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just another wanna-be (rich) IMO. Send money and we'll fight for your 2A rights (if we have enough money and can find someone that knows how to do it, and my cat isn't sick, and......) Well, sorry, my money will go to the established, well-known and proven NRA that already has lobbyists and people that are working for my rights in full swing.

The business plan for NGRA is to do absolutely nothing, bash the NRA, and ask for donations to do it. Here is one of their absurd claims.

NGRA wrote:Our accomplishments: On the federal level, areas in which NAGR has led the charge include the fight against the UN Small Arms Treaty and the derailment of H.R.45 (which has largely been defeated due to the groundswell response from members).

What a joke.

I agree with Rand's letter, but I hope he isn't really working with NGRA.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The business plan for NGRA is to do absolutely nothing, bash the NRA, and ask for donations to do it.

I'd think GOA would have issues with them honing in on their turf.

acorn...tree..?

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I agree with Rand's letter, but I hope he isn't really working with NGRA.

Does that mean you believe the Small Arms Treaty is a viable threat to our rights? A brief search seemed to indicate it was leftist wishful thinking. I presume the NRA is on top of it anyway?

sjfcontrol wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I agree with Rand's letter, but I hope he isn't really working with NGRA.

Does that mean you believe the Small Arms Treaty is a viable threat to our rights? A brief search seemed to indicate it was leftist wishful thinking. I presume the NRA is on top of it anyway?

It's less of a threat than it was pre-Heller (since we have a clear statement that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and treaties can't override the Constitution), but it could still be an issue. For example, the Treaty requires signatories to keep track of all firearms, requiring a national gun registry. It also requires all ammunition manufacturers to be registered; it's unclear if that would impact reloaders as well.

I don't think it is a big threat at present, but it is something to be aware of. Even if this administration wanted to ratify it, there's no way it would get past the current Senate (requires 2/3rds majority).