UN standing army bill before house

Status
Not open for further replies.
May Sen. Helms serve 'till he's 120 !!! We need 20 more like him.


------------------
Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 1 Peter 2:16.
 
This must not pass; there are too many wayward directions this could take. We can easily assume who would pay for it, where they would be 'stationed', and who would be responisble for sending its 'volunteers'.

Gag me with a jackhammer.
 
For you Christians.

Signs of the times....

Many people are now saying that the "hedge is down" and His "hand is lifted" when they discuss the state of America. The persecution of Christians is already beginning. We are probably the only group that does not warrant the protections of political correctness. It's not going to get any better. Our national sovereignty is slipping away bit by bit in favor of globalism. It's surreal to watch the play by play happen before my eyes.

If you don't believe this stuff, please don't bother commenting. I don't have the energy for a flame war. Let's just agree about guns and not blast each other about our differences. I just wanted to vent to those who are like minded.

Moderator. Feel free to cap the thread. From past experience, I know it won't hold up too long. I'll take responses by email.

------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
Here’s what Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had to say on the subject:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"In response, we must recognize that old models of peacekeeping don't always meet current challenges," Albright said. "Peace operations today often require skills that are neither strictly military nor strictly police, but rather, a combination of the two.

"The international community needs to identify and train units that are able to control crowds, deter vigilante actions, prevent looting and disarm civilian agitators while, at the same time, winning the trust of the communities in which they are deployed," concluded Albright.[/quote]

I believe that an early draft of what is now the Second Amendment stated something to the effect that: "A standing army is dangerous to Liberty." I couldn't agree more.



------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Even more disturbing is the related article "Hillary, Cronkite call for world government" at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_lamb/19991109_xchla_hillary_cr.shtml

Here's an excerpt:
"Under the world government scheme embodied in the Charter for Global Democracy, any individual nation could wield only the power assigned to it by the U.N. National armies would be disarmed to the level of a national police force. The U.N. would maintain a 'directly recruited' standing army under the direct authority of the U.N. Secretary-General. Private citizens would be disarmed, and the U.N. would control the manufacture, sale, licensing and distribution of all firearms."

And yes, it gets worse....

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
Defintely a sign of the times. Very scary.

Our freedoms would be at the mercy of those who ridicule our constitution and Bill of Rights.

This resolution must not pass. Call your legislators!
 
As we complain, write your Reps. and Senators.

Wonder if that means they would be deployed to Arizona to keep the Ranchers from protecting their property as was called for by one Mexican official?

madison46

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by seronac:
Defintely a sign of the times. Very scary.

Our freedoms would be at the mercy of those who ridicule our constitution and Bill of Rights.

This resolution must not pass. Call your legislators![/quote]
 
...and it's that little pissant McGovern that sponsored the bill. I'm two towns away from being in his district. :mad:

Time to start calling again..

in the words of Homer J Simpson:
"Go back to Massachusetts, Pinko!!"
 
Hmmm...sounds eerily like Albright is describing the Gestapo (re: "require skills that are neither strictly military nor strictly police,
but rather, a combination of the two")
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DC:
Hmmm...sounds eerily like Albright is describing the Gestapo (re: "require skills that are neither strictly military nor strictly police, but rather, a combination of the two")[/quote]

Anybody read the Cato Institute publication about the Warrior Cops? We ain't seen nothin' yet... If the UN has its way, the Posse Comitatus Act must go away (not that it's been all that effective), so the military can become national policemen.

It'll be interesting (in a "gallows humor" kind of way) to see the UN try to disarm private citizens in the US. Gee, they might kick us out of the UN. I'd be crushed.

I see where Connie Morella, the Democrats' favorite Republican, is one of the co-sponsors of the bill to put American soldiers under the command of Kofi Annan. That'll fly.


------------------
Scott

When A annoys or injures B on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel. - H. L. Mencken
 
Laugh it up. A lot of what "UN troops", even when welcomed by a government in a rebellion, is that "rebels"/anti-government do not have to be fought by their own countrymen (along with all the problems that entails).

Battler.
 
You guys keep making jokes, but this is really serious. This world government that is a outgrowth of the U.N. is nothing short of a tyrranical regime based on force, not freedom. And if they must use force, then they will try their best to remove every possible means of resistance (YOUR GUNS!) and every opposing organization - including the NRA, GOA, Libertarian Party, Southern Baptist Convention, or anyone else.

Throughout time innumerable men and women have fought and died for FREEDOM. Are we going to just let them take it away now? Write, call or fax your Congressional representatives today!

After that's done answer this for me: What can be done to help save the USA?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Battler:
Laugh it up. A lot of what "UN troops", even when welcomed by a government in a rebellion, is that "rebels"/anti-government do not have to be fought by their own countrymen (along with all the problems that entails).

Battler.[/quote]

Huh? Nobody is laughing. However, it seems unlikely that the UN will support a resolution to send in a force to separate 80 million Americans from their firearms. Who would comprise such a force? Probably not the British; they've been here, tried that. The French? They're already working out the terms of their own surrender. The Canadians, as much as they like to badmouth us, have too much to lose. (Most of their market for Molson's beer, for example.) The Russians nor the Chinese (nor anyone else) have the capability to transport large numbers of troops to a staging area (Mexico?) in a timely fashion.

The UN needs us a damn sight more than we need them, and they know it; even if they won't admit it publicly. They might huff and puff, but this little pig's house is going nowhere.

OK, so maybe I am chuckling a little bit...



------------------
Scott

When A annoys or injures B on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel. - H. L. Mencken
 
I was not talking about an invasion without the support of government.

To understand the situation, put yourself in the shoes of other countries where you see peacekeeping forces go in - often with the blessing/request of the government.

I'm not saying they'd come after the guns - there would have to be some first (sorry to break this to you but since NFA etc. has made combat-capable rifles so expensive/rare, most people who post to this board aren't armed worth a s**t).


Battler.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Battler:


I'm not saying they'd come after the guns - there would have to be some first (sorry to break this to you but since NFA etc. has made combat-capable rifles so expensive/rare, most people who post to this board aren't armed worth a s**t).[/quote]

You are likely aware of this (as I was of the NFA), but in WWII, the US manufactured and dropped over Europe thousands of "Liberator" pistols; cheap, stamped-out, sheet metal single-shot guns designed to kill an enemy soldier and allow the resistor to take his gun. Most of us are armed at least that well; at 80 million strong, even our not "worth a s**t" weapons are likely to give pause, either to any US or UN attempt to disarm.

------------------
Scott

When A annoys or injures B on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel. - H. L. Mencken

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited July 06, 2000).]
 
People taking pot-shots out of windows with their deer rifles is annoying - Nato troops are facing that now in the Balkans - it's an annoyance/impediment, it does not prohibit occupation.

And that's with a largely hostile population, not a despised minority.

80 million gun owners - not 0.01% of them would aim a gun at a human being and give up their cosy home - gun owners may be painted as nasty and tough; but we really aren't.

Those liberators made knives look good - was anyone killed with one? How many? What did they change?

Admittedly, they make the deer hunting rifle/skeet gun look good.


Battler.
 
Hank: You'll need a 50BMG, and have it be as powerful as those who wish to ban them say they are.

I.e. punch through an armored car from far enough away that you can run and not get blown up.

This is all academic - most people will submit to anything - the media/powers that be always have a good reason for whatever they do that satisfied most.


Battler.

[This message has been edited by Battler (edited July 06, 2000).]
 
Originally posted by Battler:


"80 million gun owners - not 0.01% of them would aim a gun at a human being and give up their cosy home - gun owners may be painted as nasty and tough; but we really aren't."

I think we would be if we needed to be. Let's do the math here. One percent of 80,000,000 is 800,000. One-hundredth of that is 8,000. So, given the 6,000-man limitation on the NATO force, home-field advantage, and the liklihood that your prediction is unduly pessimistic, we've still got 'em beat.

"Those liberators made knives look good - was anyone killed with one? How many? What did they change?"

You may have heard; we won the war.

"Admittedly, they make the deer hunting rifle/skeet gun look good."

Let's allow Emerson (Ralph Waldo, not Timothy) to speak:

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
their flag to April's breeze unfurl'd,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world."

Now don't get technical on me about deer rifles vs combat weapons now and then. But farmers with deer rifles served our purpose once. If needed, they will again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top