N400QX
Topic Author
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:51 am

More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sat Aug 04, 2001 3:37 pm

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.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sat Aug 04, 2001 4:05 pm

"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.
 
N400QX
Topic Author
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:51 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sat Aug 04, 2001 4:19 pm

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.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sat Aug 04, 2001 4:31 pm

I'm so tired of you....
Dear moderators: No.
 
N400QX
Topic Author
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:51 am

RE: We're Nuts

Sat Aug 04, 2001 4:36 pm

Good.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: We're Nuts

Sat Aug 04, 2001 5:15 pm

Glad you approve, Charlston-Rush-Ronald-Jesus.
Dear moderators: No.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sat Aug 04, 2001 5:19 pm

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.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sat Aug 04, 2001 7:45 pm

"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.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sat Aug 04, 2001 10:27 pm

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.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sat Aug 04, 2001 10:29 pm

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.
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sat Aug 04, 2001 11:26 pm

We're Nuts, no comment on the articles? Did you even read them?
"Shaddap you!"
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sat Aug 04, 2001 11:50 pm

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!"
 
DELL_dude
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:58 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 12:53 am

Kick the UN out of the US !!!
 
Guest

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 1:05 am

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,
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 1:08 am

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.
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 1:38 am

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
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
Western727
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 1:55 am



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
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 2:21 am

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.
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 2:38 am

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!"
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 3:15 am

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?
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 5:11 am

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.
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 5:31 am

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!"
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 5:48 am

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.
 
Enthusiast
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:54 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 8:24 am

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.
 
Western727
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 8:53 am

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
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 9:41 am

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. rates are just as prorortionally lower than the US' as gun deaths. Besides, murder rates are used by both sides of the gun issue since some nations with no restrictions have lower rates than some with bans. So I would stay out of that arena. There's just too many variables to make a plausable argument either way.
"Shaddap you!"
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 10:06 am

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 stop perpetuating the notion that the UN will rule us.

On the subject of registering guns, I don't see the big deal. I have to register my car, register to vote, register to attend school, register with the MVB to be allowed to drive a car, what's one more?

One more thing about freedom and I will go -- When Eve came upon the earth, Adam lost half (if not more) of his freedom.

"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 10:13 am

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.  Innocent

NoUFO
I support the right to arm bears
 
N400QX
Topic Author
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:51 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 12:40 pm

>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 whole notion of the U.N. trumping our own Legislation should give anyone pause

That is my primary point, Jet... I'm glad someone sees it! Our government and our Constitution cannot be overridden by an un-elected body! If this is going to happen, we need to cut our losses and leave the UN.

>But the point is the UN didn't seek to alter your gun laws

Uh, in case you missed it-- the UN is for total disarmament worldwide. Scary.

>nowhere in the constitution OR bill of rights does it say citizens have the right to bear arms. It says trained militia can

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed...". And you mention the "militia". George Mason said "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people..." Richard Henry Lee (although you probably have no idea who he is) stated that "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." What did Samuel Adams say? "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." How about Patrick Henry? "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." Some of these men were the very armed men that fought against a tyrannical government, one that tried to disarm the people to supress a revolt.

>On the subject of registering guns, I don't see the big deal. I have to register my car, register to vote, register to attend school, register with the MVB to be allowed to drive a car, what's one more?

I'm sure that the government doesn't want to barge in your home and take away your car, does it? No. But registration of guns eases confiscation. It happened in Europe. It happened in Canada. God help us if it happens here.

But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! --Patrick Henry

They that forget history are doomed to repeat it. Or is being armed exempted from that? If we forget what happens when the citizens are disarmed, we will pay dearly.

And something we all need to remember, resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 12:51 pm

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 guns are NOT is what is needed.

IMissPiedmont impressed me earlier, with his post on guns, he has one, but really doesn't like the fact he has one. YOu, Zach, on the other hand, have almost a secual relationship with the things, it seems like. It's perverse that you get such open pleasure in something that is meant to kill.

And don't get so damned worked up about the U.N. You're listening to your nightmares. The U.S. is NOT going to give up it's soverignty to the U.N., so stop pretending that it will. If the U.S. doesn't like something the U.N. does, it will do what it has always done-ignore it. Let's see the UN try to come over here and enforce something the U.S. and it's people believe is a violation if it's soverignty.

So keep hiding behind your guns, Zach, my boy. You live in such fear of the world, that they must be of great comfort to you. I don't think the world has the same fear of someone like you.

And by the way, when someone tries to say something nice to you, as I tried to do on voting, either ignore it or at least have the human courtesy to say "thanks for the thought". Don't jump down their throats, ok? I would think you had better manners than that.
 
N400QX
Topic Author
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:51 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 1:15 pm

You tried to say something nice to me, Alpha?! lol  Big grin

>And don't get so damned worked up about the U.N.

Were you trying to say that you agree with me, except for the part about the US actually complying?  Big grin
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 1:22 pm

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 this country-these towns with Anti-UN declarations; all these folks wailing about the UN taking away American soverignty, they're wailing over nothing. The U.S. will cooperate with the U.N. when it suits its interests, and will ignore it when it doesn't. The U.N. needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs it, but neither will walk their separate ways anytime soon, if ever.

If the UN seriously tried to march into here to take away our soverignty, those young soldiers you mentioned earlier wouldn't stand for it, and neither would the overwhelming majority of our people. The UN can impose it's will on, say, Bosnia (to a degree), because Bosnia is a weak, fractured nation. It cannot impose it's will on the only remaining Superpower, because you don't want to piss off a Superpower, even one that is a free, basically peaceful nation such as ours. Such a superpower would get more than a little pissed off.
 
DeltaRNOmd-80
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 7:42 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 1:55 pm

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 say that all conservatives wield assualt weapons and are right wing militia freaks who barracade themselves in forest cabins and bomb public buildings?
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Sun Aug 05, 2001 5:34 pm

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 themselves in forest cabins and bomb public buildings, but they turn around and say we are all in PETA and are a bunch of tree-hugging envirowackos?
Dear moderators: No.
 
Guest

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 1:58 am

UN sucks..... blatantly anti-Israel and UNfair.
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 2:48 am

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, mostly because of have 2 very young children (and soon a third). If I am forced to defend my property, it will be with a 32 oz. Easton basebat or a Tour-select Triumph 3 iron. If that moment were to occur, I would prefer to have a handgun, but I have to make a judgement as to which I feel is more likely to happen; my kids finding the gun or a thief threatening my family. I feel the former is more likely, therefore I choose to not own one. However, I feel it is and should be everyone's right to make that decision.
"Shaddap you!"
 
Enthusiast
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:54 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 6:34 am

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 practice? throw darts. The PURPOSE of guns is to injure or kill...whether it be human or any other type of animal. So by definition they really can't be good. Some say: Who am I to tell a person whether they can own a gun? Well, I guess you could say, in other words: Who am I to tell a person with a gun I don't want to be put in danger by their deadly weapon? Here's a little story-it's true-happened Friday: my sister was driving home and beeped at a guy (in an SUV, no less) for almost causing a 3-car accident after failing to use his blinker. So he follows her home into her driveway and says, "I'll get you...you're lucky I didn't bring my gun or you'd pay"...and this is in a neighborhood of $500,000 homes. I swear, you can't escape these people. And if he had brought a gun?-my sister could be dead for beeping a horn because some punk thinks he has the right to possess a deadly weapon. No thanks! Some say the gunowners assume the risk for their guns. Well, don't I assume the risk, as well? If I get killed because of someone else's gun, I had to pay the price and assume the risk for THEIR weapon. And why should I? Some even say the stats. aren't valid because people get killed by lots of things. 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. Also, when people steal guns, those stats. are noteworthy as well- I don't think many baby cribs are stolen each year and used to hold up banks.

In all fairness, I will say that there are a lot of variables in comparing crime rates. However, in comparing the U.S. and U.K., for example, even with their lower population, they still beat the crap out of the U.S. in the amt. of gun-related deaths. So, even with 1/5 the population of the U.S., to equal the proportion of deaths, the U.S. would have to have only about 10 per year. And, yes, there are other ways to kill people...but...it's a lot easier to kill someone, from 2 feet away to 200 feet away, with a gun than with, say, a lead pipe.

Some even say a gun in each home would reduce crime to zero. I haven't had that good a laugh since Airplane! A gun in each home...great...so then we could have multitudes of deaths...people dying left and right...because of arguments, disputes, misunderstandings...hey, if it's there, it'll be used. And what about someone stealing all those guns?...or do gunowners never leave their homes; just stay inside forever lest someone come to take their guns away. Gunowners would say a solution to violence is (drum roll please) to own your OWN gun! Great, so instead of 1 person dead in a situation with a gun, there can be many more...heck, gunowners say- someone pulls a gun on you- then you pull one on them...briliant...2 people pointing a gun on each other...I'm sure no one will get hurt! That mentality is ridiculous...it's like fighting fire with fire...it won't put it out; it'll just make it worse. It's like saying, "the more knives I put in my kitchen, the more I get cut. So the solution must be...Add more knives!" Honestly, sometimes I think every gunowner should be able to live together on one big island and they can all defend their property from one another and kill themselves off. Some say that worldwide disarmament is scary. Oh yeah, real scary- no one with weapons...possible peace...maybe we would even have to (gasp) talk out our differences instead of acting like warring cavemen. N400QX says there is the "right of people to keep and bear arms," however, what he left out was that the constitution and bill of rights specifies that those people must be a TRAINED militia. George Mason may say the militia is the "whole people," but, again, the constitution and bill of rights says TRAINED militia. Richard Henry Lee (I have heard of him, thank you) stated his lines around 200 years ago; they simply don't apply today. Like I said in my last post, it is not 1780 anymore. Then, yes, there WAS a need for guns, but, I'm sorry, it's different today- there are many ways to obtain food and the British left over 225 years ago. N400QX also goes into the issue that gun restrictions were implemented in Europe and Canada...and they met with success there, so I really don't see the problem. And, I wish us Americans would see that not EVERYTHING is a right...many of these are actually privaledges (including driving), and, like little kids, if we abuse those privaledges (like, maybe, all those murders) they can be taken away from us. Anyway, what about my rights? Don't I have the right to life...If I'm killed by one of those guns, my rights have been taken away. Restricting guns at least gives me my rights back.

And above all, don't spout bible phrases to me...the only time a bible quote could be used as support or reasoning in something that could effect ALL people is if everyone in the entire country unanimously supported it or believed in it and its religion. But that's not the case...not everyone believes what you do, so your support doesn't apply to everyone. Why should something only certain people believe in be used to control what everybody does? And if you do believe that, as you say, "resistance to tyranny is obedience to 'god'," then I must be obedient to 'god' because I want to resist the tyranny of someone being able to wield a deadly weapon that could potentially harm me.
 
Twotterwrench
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2001 5:57 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 6:35 am

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 you friggin morons...
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 6:42 am

Real mature, Twit.
Dear moderators: No.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 6:59 am

Hey JetService, when you expecting #3? Congrats. I've got an 11, 8 and 2 year old. #3 was kind of an "oops"  Smile

And theyr'll be no response to that child in the back row who keeps sticking his tongue out at everyone.
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 8:00 am

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 will we find out when we can. We're looking forward to having another infant, but there goes my computer room! heh heh

"Shaddap you!"
 
Guest

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 8:51 am

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 imposing some sort of control of the USA's constitutional rights?

That article was more than likely copied from the "National Enquirer".

It never ends with the gun nuts, I'm certainly glad we managed to get rid of them here. If anyone is interested in some 'gun-nut' threads there is plenty of them archived here.

Cheers,

mb
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 10:46 am

Mx5_boy, what do you consider a 'gun-nut'. Please be specific. Thx
"Shaddap you!"
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 11:07 am

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 have no clue where they get that from-it doesn't run in either of our families. LOL.

As for a "gun-nut", I think of it as somene who has more than just a casual liking for guns. I think Zach falls in that category, since he seems to be almost physically in love with his  Smile I'd rather see more people like IMissPiedmont: someone who has one, but isn't too thrilled with the fact. I think someoene like that can have a more healthy respect for the Godforsaken things.
 
Twotterwrench
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2001 5:57 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 11:15 am

That's Mr. Twot to you,nuts.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 11:35 am

I'd prefer Mr. Twit myself.  Big grin
 
Guest

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 11:43 am

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, of a private citizen.

This is coming from an Australian, we have far different attitudes in this country regarding the issue of firearm ownership. We hear all these (what we would consider) weird reasons for wanting firearms in the home, from the constitution, to fear of civil war, and all of them sound ridiculous coming from a civilised society.

Do you need a gun to protect yourself when walking down the street? Do you feel you have to have a gun at home to protect your family from unknown assailants? Are you scared of aliens knocking on your door or car-jacking you?

If you need a gun to protect your home then obviously you haven't got much security have you? There are far more effective ways of reducing crime than arming citizens or allowing them to feel a seige mentality.

I am sure there are far more people in the USA who don't need or desire such a weapon than there are that do, it's just the NRA types and such that get all hot and bothered about it.

Guns were made to kill and maim other humans and animals, they have no place in a civilised society except to protect those who are innocent and are well trained in their use. Such as police / security / armed forces. Not Mr & Mrs Whitetrash who have been reading the National Enquirer too much and just can't wait for them Aliens to land and try and steal their krispy kreme donuts from the pantry.

mb

 
Twotterwrench
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2001 5:57 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 11:49 am

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 on between the 3 of us is not fun for anyone, including the other poor bastards who have to read our drivel as well. I would like to propose a truce... we bury the hatchet, wipe the slate... and start again. But, keep it light hearted and semi-friendly. I, for one, do apologize for the times I made it personal, with the names and especially the cracks at the kids. The issues we bring up are very polarizing, and obviously we all believe very strongly in our own opinions. But I would like to think that we can all remember that they are merely opinions, and no one is any less valid than the others. Anyway, that is about as humble as I can be....so, any takers?
 
tupolev154b2
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 9:01 am

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 11:51 am

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 aviation and not to argue to no point about our differences.

Mx5_boy: "Not Mr & Mrs Whitetrash who have been reading the National Enquirer too much and just can't wait for them Aliens to land and try and steal their krispy kreme donuts from the pantry."

LOL!
 
Twotterwrench
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2001 5:57 pm

RE: More UN Anti-Freedom Crap... Unacceptable

Mon Aug 06, 2001 11:54 am

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 us. So, if you are going to jump in to the discussion, don't bitch about the discussion. Now, you wanna be friends or you wanna fight?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fr8mech, jpetekyxmd80, Tugger, Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests