Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
Then why not put that in your reply. You left it out because it went against your point that Obama was not anti-gun.
Thanks for telling me why I did or did not say something. I wasn't clear. In reality, I don't feel the need to respond to every element of an argument with self-evident failings like this one in particular.

MY argument was not that the President was pro-gun, because he isn't and I never even suggested that he was. My argument was that the President has done virtually nothing MEANINGFUL on gun control, which he hasn't.

Barely. AS Houston pointed out imported weapons would become very expensive, perhaps too expensive to buy. In order to bear arms, you have to first buy it... don't you?
Yes, you do, but as usual the connections you both want to draw are tenuous. The cost of guns has nothing to do with your right to have them. And moreover, what one person can't afford, another can. If you think that this treaty will price American gun clingers out of the market, you don't understand the treaty nor the market in the first place.

As long as you do so within the murky confines of American law, you will continue to be able to buy weapons to stockpile for Armageddon, the inevitable institution of Sharia, and/or dinner. Your 2nd amendment right to bear arms remains ENTIRELY unaffected by the potential signing of this treaty.

Now maybe Mitt will amend the constitution to guarantee the right to bear arms at a discount. That would get the base fired up...