Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable  
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 938 times:

Below I have copied two articles discussing the recent UN summit on small-arms. The articles accurately express my opinion on the matter... let's hear yours. I know its a lot of text (it'll probably take a few minutes to read) but try to read it all if you're going to reply.

Bypassing U.S. Voters
Rejected by the American electorate, antigun groups find themselves at home at the U.N.

Mr. Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute.
August 3, 2001 9:10 a.m.



Rejected by the electorate last November, American gun prohibition found the United Nations Conference on Small Arms to be the friendliest of venues.

Appalled by the Bush administration's insistence that the U.N. conference not become a springboard for the destruction of Second Amendment rights, a coalition of antigun groups organized a demonstration outside the U.N. during the conference. In conjunction the demonstration, the groups released a joint letter stating that the conference proved the necessity of additional antigun laws in the U.S. The groups included the Children's Defense Fund (an anti-welfare reform group), the Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc., formerly known as the National Council to Control Handguns), Physicians for Social Responsibility, "Million" Mom March chapters, and various other local groups. The letter read: "The Cold War is over, but the international community is suffering from a new source of terror: the glut of small arms and 'civilian' weapons that are seeping from many industrialized nations, through channels both legal and illegal, to virtually all four corners of the globe."

Note that the very idea of "civilians" owning weapons had to be put in quotation marks.

The "Million" Mom March, hadn't been doing very well before the UN met. The group had trouble getting attendance into three digits at its last Washington rally, turned out to be a political liability for Al Gore and many other candidates, had to lay off 30 of its 35 staff, was kicked out of its free office space in San Francisco General Hospital when it was discovered that the space was obtained by fraud, and finally ended up being absorbed into the Brady Campaign, unable to exist as a viable separate organization. But at the U.N., the group's leader, pretending that she represented and strong, independent grassroots organization, won a standing ovation from the delegates.

And if the group could claim that 850,000 people showed up at its Washington rally in May 2000 (when the true size, based on D.C. transit figures and crowd photos, was 100,000 or less) why not increase the mathematical fiction? So the "Million" Mom March now claims to be an organization representing a "Billion" mothers worldwide. As if a billion women have even heard of this failed US group.

But the U.N. made its support for the "Billion" prohibitionist movement clear. The press conference announcing the new group was run by U.N. Under-Secretary-General Jayantha Dhanapala, head of the U.N. Department of Disarmament. Dhanapala called the group "vital" to global disarmament, and urged the billion/million members to act "through their legislatures and governments to ensure that the program of action is in fact implemented."

The anti-Bush demonstration featured five huge ugly puppets representing the United Kingdom, US, Russia, China, and France, created by the U.S. gun-prohibition group Silent March. (Apparently the fact that the U.K. and France were working hard for Silent March's agenda wasn't enough to get in the way of some mean-spirited street theater.) The U.S. puppet, resembling President Bush, wore a gaudy Uncle Sam hat and a necklace of bullets, and was smoking a cigar that on closer inspection was also a bullet. The puppet sported an "NRA" sticker, and the sign worn by the person holding this puppet read: "US: Puppet of Gun Lobby?"

Silent March revealed a lot about its overall political orientation when it decided that dressing somebody up like Uncle Sam was an insult.

The conference provided an opportunity for several international groups have come out of the closet on their antigun stance. For years Amnesty International has organized and coordinated international antigun work, but has insisted that it is doing nothing to promote gun control. But at the Conference, Amnesty International USA Executive Director William F. Schulz said, "Gun trafficking is a critical human rights issue around the world, but the problem begins at home." He blamed "Loose gun regulation — in [countries such as] the USA, Russia or Liberia."

"Should human rights abusers be given arms?" asked Amnesty International, although the group had nothing to say about arms for people resisting human-rights abuses.

The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global consortium of antigun non-government organizations (NGOs). The IANSA site happens to be hosted on the website of Oxfam, a world hunger group with wide-ranging hard left agenda. Save the Children and World Vision also complained about the U.S. position at the conference — revealing the strong leftist tilt that careful observers have seen in these organizations in recent years — but which has, discretely, not been publicized to the organizations' American donor base.

July 16 of the conference featured two hours of speeches by anti-gun groups, plus a half-hour for pro-rights organizations. The gun prohibition forces claimed to be motivated by saving innocent lives, but their rhetoric showed much more interest in stopping guns than in saving lives. In case of a conflict, they clearly preferred the former to the latter.

Neil Arya of Physicians for Global Survival in Canada asserted that physicians don't care where a shooting was the result of a suicide, accident or homicide, or whether the shooter was a gangster, a soldier, or a law-abiding gun owner. In other words, his group sees no distinction between a gangster murdering a robbery victim, a victim saving her life by shooting the gangster, a Nazi soldier shooting a Jew, and an American soldier shooting a Nazi soldier.

A press release from Silent March complained that the U.S. had "rejected a call for states to stop arming guerrillas in other countries." The press release came after Undersecretary Bolton had explained that the U.S. objected to the provision because it would prevent aid to groups which were resisting genocide. Silent March promotes itself as a humanitarian group concerned about gun death, but this concern apparently vanishes when the victims are being murdered by governments.

This is the moral upside-down world of the United Nations culture, in which victims who resist genocide, and governments which help the victims resist, are condemned as immoral.

The gun prohibition groups also talked a lot about the need to keep guns out of the hands of "children." These demands who not limited to keep guns out of the hands of child soldiers. Rather, the groups were following Hillary Clinton's position that children and guns shouldn't even be in the same sentence. U.S. gun-prohibition groups have been long at work to frighten parents into not allowing children to participate in the shooting sports, and to enact gun licensing laws that prohibit young people from hunting or target shooting, even under immediate parental supervision. (For example, in New Jersey, it's a felony to take your ten-year-old to a target range and let the child use a Red Ryder BB gun while you supervise.)

Stymied in free elections in the United States, the gun-prohibition lobbies in 1998 turned to the courts, filing meritless suits against gun manufacturers, with the hope of imposing de facto prohibition through bankruptcy. As the lawsuit strategy falls apart, gun-prohibition groups now seek their victory through international law. The further that the locus of decision moves from democratic, American control, the better the chances for success of the prohibition movement.



Gunning Against Guns
Transparency at the United Nations.

Mr. Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute.
July 31, 2001 8:30 a.m.


At the Small Arms Conference, one of the buzzwords of gun-prohibition advocates was the need for "transparency" in small arms. This was shorthand for saying that there should be no privacy regarding gun ownership. Every government ought to have a list of every gun owner and every gun in the country. Registration has been used to facilitate gun confiscation in the United Kingdom, Australia, Jamaica, California, New York City, Nazi-occupied Europe, Soviet-occupied Europe, the Philippines, Bermuda, and many other places. Registration as an important preliminary step to total handgun prohibition.

Pete Shields, the founder of America's largest gun-prohibition movement (originally called the National Council to Control Handguns; later, Handgun Control, Inc.; currently, the Brady Campaign) explained his three-step program for handgun prohibition in the July 26, 1976 New Yorker:

"The first problem," Shields explained, "is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country." Solving this "problem" was high on the U.N. agenda, with many concerns expressed about "excessive" accumulations of small arms.

"The second problem," said Shields, "is to get handguns registered." This was Secretary General Kofi Annan's prime hope for the conference, to create a worldwide system of gun registration.

"Our ultimate goal," Shields continued, "is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition--except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal."

As the U.N. pushed for global gun registration, the Washington Post and many other newspapers fumed that there was nothing on the U.N. agenda which would infringe anyone's Second Amendment rights. To the Washington Post editorial page, this statement was plainly correct, since the Post believes that individual Americans have no Second Amendment rights.

Other newspapers, appeared to recognize an individual Second Amendment right, but insisted that nobody's hunting guns were in danger. If a U.N. treaty were to require governments to register the ownership of every book (or every political book) in a country, would these same newspapers insist that there was no danger to freedom of the press?

A United Nations press release touted mandatory gun registration for every (non-government) firearm anywhere in the world, but said that a U.N.-controlled registry was "premature" — not that a U.N. registry was a bad idea, just "premature" in light of current political realities.

The Canadian government, having sunk almost three-quarters of a billion (Canadian) dollars into domestic gun registry — at the expense of police on the streets and the health-care system — pushed hard for international registration mandates. Apparently the Canadian government's failed registration scheme would look less foolish if other governments followed suit.

"Transparency for thee, but not for me" could be the U.N. motto. While pushing to abolish privacy for gun owners, the U.N. barred the press from the debate and deliberation on the official program of action. Americans would be appalled if Congress threw the press out of the Capitol while debating a gun law. But that is precisely what the U.N. did.

"Transparency" for small arms also requires, in the U.N.'s view, abolition of Internet privacy. The U.N. complains that part of the small arms trade conducted by e-commerce "is frequently encoded or encrypted, thus placing an extra burden on the law enforcement institutions to detect it."

To the extent that gun "transparency" can actual help track down how criminals and terrorists get their guns, the world's responsible firearms manufacturers already provide it. Since the Gun Control Act of 1968, all guns manufactured in or imported into the United States must have serial numbers, and markings indicated the identity of the manufacturer and place of manufacture. In conjunction with the U.N. Conference, the world's firearms manufacturers, working through their World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, signed an agreement with the Eminent Persons Group (a collection of 23 anti-gun politicians) to provide similar markings on all their firearms.

Such identification has never been objectionable to the manufacturers. At a previous international conference, the only reason that a binding agreement on markings was not achieved was that China objected.

At the U.N. Small Arms Conference, the U.S. again supported firearms identification — provided that the language clearly did not open the door for registration of gun owners. That's good enough for legitimate investigations — but not good enough for prohibition groups who wanted to use the trade in illicit arms as a pretext for destroying the privacy of every (non-government) gun owner in the world.
-------------------------

This is sickening! I, for one, will never register any of my guns if the United States buys into this anti-liberty crap. I think we should get out of the UN before it is too late, but that probably won't happen.


God help us all.

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 803 times:

"Independence Institute"

Am I right in assuming that this is in fact a ultra-nationalistic, far right sect of mad men?

Interesting how these sort of people never dovetail the right to bear arms with the right to not get shot by some punk with a handgun.


User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 797 times:

I've never heard of the Independence Institute. I have heard of the author, and he is right-on.

Interesting how some people never see how the essential right to bear arms is more important than any temporary feeling of security. Our war of independence would never have been fought without an armed citizenry.

"They that would give up essential liberty for some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

And that quote pretty much sums it up.


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 795 times:

I'm so tired of you....


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 796 times:

Good.

User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 791 times:

Glad you approve, Charlston-Rush-Ronald-Jesus.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 790 times:

But then again, what do I expect. You're a John Carlson fan, you'll believe EVERY lie that's fed to you... so long as it is done under the Conservative banner.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 788 times:

"Our war of independence would never have been fought without an armed citizenry."

And you see this being a requirement when??????

Why can't the US copy the example of Switzerland, where (I'm told) the level of security is so high that if you wanted to invade the country you would have to do it street-by-street...but they seem to avoid the gun-related crime that is in evidence in the US.

For some reason, people don't relate guns with gun-related crime.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 784 times:

Again, the kid on the block equates guns with "freedom". I see it as the exact opposite. Guns are enslaving us more by the day. I don't need snotty-nosed kid telling me otherwise.

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 783 times:

Just GLANCING throught that article, it's just a PR pieces for hack has-beens like Chuckie "I Am Moses" Heston, and the wacko gun crowd.

User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 781 times:

We're Nuts, no comment on the articles? Did you even read them?


"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 780 times:

The issue of guns aside, the whole notion of the U.N. trumping our own Legislation should give anyone pause, even if it for a cause they believe in. That is just damn scary. Talk about a slippery-slope!!!!!!


"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineDELL_dude From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 774 times:

Kick the UN out of the US !!!

User currently offlineNicolaki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 769 times:

Just one question, why is it that every (or almost every) gun maniacs (including the Nauseatic Riffle Assoc.) are pro cop killer bullets. Why do you need that for security? To protect you from corupt cops uh?

This "security" BS is just a cover for your need to have a gun to feel yourself "more like a man" because without it your "manhood" is equal or near 0. That had to be said.

Nicolas,


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13195 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 776 times:

This stuff was in the press outside the US weeks ago.
The UN wants to reduce the amount of guns available to non-govermental groups in the third world. These various warlords and bandits have killed 2 million civilians since 1990.
These victims live lives the average westerner could not imagine, so it's a bit galling to the rest of the world when the gun nuts in the USA try to scupper these plans.
If US citizens want to keep offing each other in numbers unimaginable in any other western country-and that's taking account of relative population sizes, that's their business. Go crazy! Make every mall, school and workplace a free-fire zone, that's your right supposodly.
But why make other's already miserable lives worse? Just because a few Americans, with that Dodo in the White House they financed backing them, have this odd Roy Roger's/John 'Marion' Wayne fixation, and see plots to take away their 'sacred' rights in the most unlikely places.
The rest of the world sees this stuff with the same jaundiced eye that views all the other crankiness like mass belief in UFO's, creationism as science, conspiracy theory mania etc.
But this time the crankiness is blighting millions of lives in places that are not on the main tourist routes.


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6287 posts, RR: 33
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 764 times:

I'm a person who N400QX would probably label as a liberal. I think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. The NRA tends to be dominated by wackos. And, I do not understand people who actually like guns. This being said, what right do a bunch of foreign countries have to try to influence US law?

BTW, I do own a gun. I do NOT consider it what makes me a man, and when I am forced to use it (very rarely) it is most certainly not enjoyable. And , no, I have never been forced to shoot a human.

Steve



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 747 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 762 times:



Do you all remember those two towns in Utah that declared themselves "UN-Free Zones?" Now do you know why?


But seriously, I'm all for getting along, and being friends with other countries, but not at the expense of the security of our own. And to be quite honest, I don't think gun legislation has anything to do with security. It does no good to ban guns, because the poeple using them to harm innocent people are criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws - especially gun laws. It does nothing to punish the law-abiding citizen. It won't help our situation at all.

And one tendency of the Liberals that sort of annoys me is that they think that they have changed the world for the better because they have merely done something, when the legislation is largely ineffective. I think the gun laws are a great example: Banning guns won't do anything to reduce gun-related deaths, because those who are doing the killing don't follow laws. But the democrats are viewed as "the party that cares," because they have done "something." But hey! Why not tell the American people what they want to hear? It keeps them in office, right?

If we are to maintain our freedoms, it is the responsibility of each individual citizen to live their lives in a moral way.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13195 posts, RR: 77
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 766 times:

But the point is the UN didn't seek to alter your gun laws, they might have dented profits at Colt and Smith & Wesson etc, as the US was identified as the main western supplier of arms to the Third World.
Pole position has to be all those millions of Kalasnikovs out there, but some of them come through US based arms merchants.
Of course there's a knee-jerk response by Bush and his NRA friends to the words 'arms control', even if it only has bearing in places they know nothing of, or even know exsist.


User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 753 times:

GDB, if the UN wants to put mandates on gun importing (not US exporting) on certain countries, then I don't have a problem with that. But the languauge of the article indicated that the mandates would be enforcable in the US. THAT I have a problem with. Perhaps I missed something. I will reread and see. As for the cop-killer bullets, did you know that no cop has ever been killed by one. Not sure why they are called that. I suspect only because they pierce armor. Also, you imply that our right to bear arms is the crux of the gun deaths in the country. Actually, this right prevents deaths, but obviously not all of them. Even if guns were outlawed in the USA, those same people that criminally shoot others would still have their black-market weapons. The only thing a ban would do would gaurantee that their victims would be defenseless. I didn't want to disgress this thread into a gun debate since the original poster's message was more about the UN influencing US legislation. So back on topic, my main issue isn't so much the gun issue but foreign entities making laws in the US. Not good!


"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13195 posts, RR: 77
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 757 times:

The rest of the world did not interperet this UN plan as anything to do with the US gun laws. The focus was entirely on the wholesale slaughter in the third world, and we are talking about military-style weapons here.
I think that certain politicians want to make the UN some kind of new bogeyman. Soviets are no more, Japan didn't really convince many-and their problems with the ecomony undermined any attempt to present them as a threat.
It reminds me of that 'flag-burning' debate the US had about 10 years ago, once the Supreme Court (I think), ruled that locking people up for flag burning was a bit excessive, you get all those numbskulls saying 'what? does that mean I HAVE to burn my flag?'
Very much a Rush Limbaugh audience, but when the Chief Executive thinks the same way, (or is told to), you are going to get misunderstanding, ignorance and plain mischief-making.
Given all the terrible suffering small-arms are causing to the least fortunate people in the world, isn't it a bit self-centered for the world's richest country to see the UN proposals as some kind of threat to them?


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 744 times:

JetService, you know how I stand on handgun control. Charlston Heston's private diaries, as told by N400QX, are not going to change my mind.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 740 times:

GDB, well this is the first of heard of anything on the matter. I will certainly look further, as I admit that I'm not up to speed on this issue. I was basing my opinions merely on the posted articles, assuming they were accurate, complete and truthful. My interest is this is high and I will seek further information.

We're Nuts, no problem, I wouldn't expect you to change your mind. You just posted a comment on Zach and not his topic. Thought that was kind of wierd. I couldn't figure out why you bothered to go in a thread of his that you had no apparent interest in just to say you were tired of him. It just seemed counterproductive. No big deal.



"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 740 times:

I agree with GDB-the gun crazies in this country are protecting their "rights" to have any gun made on the earth available to them at the expense of these third world nations where bandits roam the streets, killing anything in sight. I seriously doubt that ownership of guns in the U.S. would be threatened at all with this. It would help the rest of the world if they could get guns away from these armies of thugs that roam around the world, though. But I guess Zach identifies much more closely with the thugs who rule these streets than he does those that these thugs brutally murder every day.

User currently offlineEnthusiast From France, joined Jun 2013, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 734 times:

I don't care what Thomas Jefferson said, it is not 1780 anymore. It's ridiculous to try to relate an antequated quote from 200 years ago to a totally different, namely industrialized, society. Eg777er is right. Also, nowhere in the constitution OR bill of rights does it say citizens have the right to bear arms. It says trained militia can. That ends that argument as far as I'm concerned. So unless you belong to the police or Army in some way, you shouldn't even be allowed to own a gun. In England, private citizens aren't allowed to own handguns. Their deathrate by gun last year?- 2. America's?- try a few hundred thousand. Forget your paranoid need for security, the more guns, the more deaths. Period. BTW, statistically, 70% of handguns bought in the U.S. each year wind up in the hands of a criminal or used against a loved one. As for the U.N., with Bush in the White House, they're the only ones that'll even listen to anything that's not right wing.

User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 747 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 731 times:

So unless you belong to the police or Army in some way, you shouldn't even be allowed to own a gun.

While I would agree that no person outside of the Armed Services or Law Enforcement has any business owning an assault weapon, I do not feel that the realm of illicit firearms should be expanded to include all firearms. Believe it or not, guns are actually used for legitimate purposes.

Personally, I would most likely not ever buy a firearm. That's my preference - I'm not into guns. But who am I to tell someone else that they can't use their firearms in legitimate ways? They assume the risk, and the responsibility for proper use.

And I don't think the "X amount of people get accidentally killed by guns" argument is valid. People get accidentally killed by doing a lot of things, but we don't go trying to ban them all.



Jack @ AUS
25 JetService : Enthusiast, I don't think its fair to compare US to UK. There are just way too many factors. I suspect their stabbing, rape, domestic abuse, etc. rate
26 Delta-flyer : I don't see what all the fuss is about the UN and gun control. The US is only bound by laws passed by US federal, state and local legislatures. Please
27 Post contains images NoUFO : N400QX wrote: I think we should get out of the UN before it is too late, but that probably won't happen. God help us all. I'll say. NoUFO
28 N400QX : >Why can't the US copy the example of Switzerland I wish! A gun in every home would all but bring crime down to zero. >The issue of guns aside, the wh
29 Alpha 1 : Thank God your wishes aren't facts, Zach. Many of us-many, many, many of us, DON'T WANT GUNS! Can't you get that through your thin little brain? More
30 Post contains images N400QX : You tried to say something nice to me, Alpha?! lol >And don't get so damned worked up about the U.N. Were you trying to say that you agree with me, ex
31 Alpha 1 : Yeah, I said something if not nice, than halfway civil, and you jumped down my throat with a technicality. The point is simple. All these people in th
32 DeltaRNOmd-80 : one question, why do liberals get so worked up when we say they are all in PETA and are a bunch of tree-hugging envirowackos but they turn around and
33 We're Nuts : one question, why do conservatives get so worked up when we say they all wield assualt weapons and are right wing militia freaks who barracade themsel
34 TWAneedsNOhelp : UN sucks..... blatantly anti-Israel and UNfair.
35 JetService : We're Nuts, because its convenient to make sweeping generalizations; something you are very good at. I am one of those people that do not own a gun, m
36 Enthusiast : Guns used for legitimate purposes? in the U.S.A.? in 2001? Um...no. Maybe 200 years ago, yes. Not today. Need food? go to the market. Need target prac
37 Twotterwrench : This one is just too easy....~bites tongue~.. .I am going to just sit back and watch this time...but, I will say, thanks for the laughs nuts and alpha
38 We're Nuts : Real mature, Twit.
39 Post contains images Alpha 1 : Hey JetService, when you expecting #3? Congrats. I've got an 11, 8 and 2 year old. #3 was kind of an "oops" And theyr'll be no response to that child
40 JetService : Alpha, THANKS!! #3 is due in December. Our #3 is 'oops' also! LOL!!! My boy is 7 and my girl is 4. We're not sure the gender of this baby yet, but wil
41 Mx5_boy : The UN wants to keep assault weapons from 3rd world countries and all of a sudden the gun crazies at the NRA and others assume that the UN are imposin
42 JetService : Mx5_boy, what do you consider a 'gun-nut'. Please be specific. Thx
43 Post contains images Alpha 1 : JetService, I've got a 11 year old "pre-teen" girl (The Lord help me!!), and 2 boys. The girl is a pixie, and the 2 boys are built like linebackers. I
44 Twotterwrench : That's Mr. Twot to you,nuts.
45 Post contains images Alpha 1 : I'd prefer Mr. Twit myself.
46 Mx5_boy : Jetservice, OK, a gun nut to me is anyone who would advocate 'guns' in a domestic setting. ie:- the right to bear a firearm or have one in the home, o
47 Twotterwrench : Alright.. Mr. Alpha and Mr. Nuts: I do believe we got off on the wrong foot on a number of issues. While I do enjoy a political debate, what is going
48 Tupolev154B2 : Twotterwrench: These political debates are based solely on one's opinions and do nothing but split us all. We are all here because of our interest in
49 Twotterwrench : tup - that wasn't addressed to you. I have seen you participate in the political arguments and make snide comments just the same as any of the rest of
50 Alpha 1 : I was taught to always graciously accept the apologies of others, because you would wish the same for yourself. Twotterwrench, that was manly of you.
51 IMissPiedmont : The last time I had to use my gun was March of this year. A beautiful Labrador Retriever got away from the little girl walking him and got it's hindqu
52 JetService : Alpha 1, you're lucky that your boys are meaty lads so they can keep the other boys in check! I've already been preparing my 7 year old boy for protec
53 Post contains images We're Nuts : Hmmmm... no. None of my posts are drivel.
54 Mx5_boy : Jetservice, Mate - yes I do believe that. The problem is you are looking at the issue from within the wall and guidelines of your own country. The iss
55 Twotterwrench : Alpha - thank you for your graciousness. Nuts - I guess your true colors come shining through. Well, just because you want to act childishly doesn't m
56 Post contains images We're Nuts : Twotterwrench, the thing is, everyone is here to have fun. Well, not everyone... Matt's kind of got a stick up his ass, and I think we all know the pr
57 Twotterwrench : You seem to get pretty emotional when the attacks get personal. I too have admitted to saying things in here for the pure enjoyment of getting a rise
58 Tupolev154B2 : I apologize for my comments in the past, too. Peace.
59 Post contains images Superfly : THANK GOD FOR THE U.N.!
60 GDB : Was the Port Arthur incident the one when that failed Army recruit went mad with a bloody great M-14? That was in 1987 wasn't it? Same year as Michael
61 Twotterwrench : Was that some kind of fat joke? Cuz fat people have feelings too, ya know. Christ, you call me a biggot!
62 Tupolev154B2 : Admin, this is degenerating into a threat of name-calling. Please lock it.
63 Twotterwrench : tupolev- relax.. this has nothing to do with you... dont' like? don't read!!!
64 Post contains links Western727 : Um...many more people die because of gun "accidents" than any other...so I think it's safe to say there is a heightened risk there. http://webapp.cdc.
65 Hairyass : Thanks for that link Western 727. Those liberls can read those numbers and weep. Who are they going to blame then. I am with Twotterwrench, Western727
66 Twotterwrench : Gotta love you hairy...
67 We're Nuts : Twot, are you aware that by allying yourself with Hairyass, you actually lose credability? Just letting you know. Tupolev154B2, Twotterwrench and I ar
68 Hairyass : You listen here you little Nut's. You lose credibility by speaking out against me! I have done more for this country than you ever will! All you do is
69 We're Nuts : Bite my tongue, bite my tongue....
70 Mx5_boy : Hey! Big Nuts, ***You are the only person I know who has two eye-holes cut in their pillow cases!*** What credibility? (Gosh you make me laugh!!!!) lo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
'Grey's' Star's Anti-Gay Slurs 'Unacceptable' posted Fri Jan 19 2007 19:19:14 by Luv2fly
I'm Sick Of This Anti-American Crap! posted Tue Jul 16 2002 13:48:56 by Flyboy36y
More Anti-virus Advice Needed posted Wed Nov 21 2007 21:07:03 by Bok269
Give People More Freedom, This Is What They Do posted Sun Nov 27 2005 23:00:08 by Derico
Question For Anti-UN People posted Fri Dec 31 2004 01:54:42 by Aloges
One More Terrorist Act Till The End Of Freedom? posted Sat Dec 27 2003 08:43:38 by VS340
What Country Has Done More For Freedom . . . posted Fri Oct 3 2003 20:20:28 by N6376m
More Crazyness From The UN posted Wed Jan 29 2003 09:16:40 by L-188
Anti-Virus Software Suggestions posted Mon Oct 20 2008 14:18:07 by Dw747400
ABQ Ride Orders 38 More New Flyer Hybrid Buses... posted Wed Oct 15 2008 18:14:48 by 1337Delta764