United Nations has BIG PLANS for your firearms!

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usndoc1964

Inactive
Attention fellow shooters! Please check out:
www.petitiononline.com/USHR1146/
This petition deserves your immediate attention!!!
Give it thoughtful consideration. You may have already received you GOA
newsletter about the United Nations intentions and GOA is poised and
working on these serious issues. If you're not a member of the GOA please
join so that their efforts do not go in vain. Again, join Ron Paul(R-TX) in
this fight and sign the petition.
Aside from signing the petition please contact your States Representatives, Congressmen and Senators to persuade them to become co-sponsers of
this very important piece of legislation.
THERE IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!
P.S. Thank you for your support of the nfaoa.org. Our numbers are growing daily!

Don Golobek
 
annnd signed.

Incidently, does anyone know of any unoccupied, unowned, unclaimed islands anywhere that i can move to and set up a nation..? I'm being serious o.O
 
Didn't look at all the signatures, but it seems a little depressing that I appear to be the only New Mexico signature on there. Sorry if I missed others but, man, noone seems to pay attention to the Land of Entrapment.:(
 
y'all do realize that online petitions are completely useless, right? all you've done is sign up for spam (assuming you used a real email address). they can't be verified, they can't be used in any legal venue, they hold no water with any government official or agency. why? because in about fifteen minutes I can write a small script that will sign it a couple million times.

I do agree that if y'all want this bill to go through the most important thing is to call your congressfolk and tell them your feelings on the matter. But I hate to see people fooled into thinking online petitions are good for anything but making soapbox comments about an issue. :(
 
Does anybody else out there think that all these "UN to take guns away from Americans!!!" claims by GOA, NRA and others amount to nothing more than fearmongering?

The UN has no authority to impose anything on US citizens on US soil without the consent of congress. IMO, we have more immediate, rights-threatening groups to worry about.

Agree or disagree?

-Dave
 
I don't know Blues Man, with the some of the spineless cowards in congress today, what's to say they won't cowtow to the UN and support it's fearmongering satements. Look how some in congress are surrendering to the terrorist threats these so called "protesters", are making on our economy and country, by supporting an economic boycott on May 1st.

Based on what I hear in the news, (mostly fox news) and what I see online, i'm not reassured. Admittedly you can't verify or believe everything displayed in either medium, there aren't many, if any at all, politicians in politics, that you can truly trust with your second amendment rights.

Everything from the actions of the white house, to the actions of hollywood stars, from issues of immigration to scientology crackpots,...there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of morality floating around the upper echelons of our government and influential individuals. Good news is hard to find these days, it's not surprising that people are perturbed, even frightened by the aparent looming and inevitable editing and censorship of our basic constitutionally guaranteed amendments and rights.:cool:
 
The UN threat is real

Does anybody else out there think that all these "UN to take guns away from Americans!!!" claims by GOA, NRA and others amount to nothing more than fearmongering?
Click to expand...
Have you not heard of IANSA? Rebecca Peters? Have you not seen the big statue in front of the UN - the revolver with the barrel tied in a knot?

The threat is real. The U.S. Senate can approve a treaty with 67 votes; once the President signs it, it carries the force of law. If the Senate were to approve a UN treaty calling for the confiscation of all small arms from the citizens of the United States and the President were to sign it, it would be a done deal, regardless of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

So let's say for the sake of discussion that the Democrats gain control of the Senate in Nov. of this year, and in 2008 a Democrat (presumably Clinton:barf: ) wins the Presidency - both these events may well come to pass.

Do you doubt that a Democrat controlled Senate would pass such a treaty? Do you doubt that Clinton would sign it into law in a New York minute? If you do, you are living on Fantasy Island.

This is not a joke, folks, nor is it fearmongering - the threat is real.

Don't want it to happen? The solution is simple - don't vote for antigun bigot politicians. Vote for whoever runs against them that has a viable chance of winning (that would not include Libertarians and other "ambassador from the planet Moonbeam" candidates). This may mean (horror of horrors) voting for some Republicans - especially in 2008.
 
Last edited:
The solution is simple - don't vote for antigun bigot politicians.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that plan is that in most locales your only choices are "antigun bigot politician A" or "antigun bigot politician B."
 
The only problem with that plan is that in most locales your only choices are "antigun bigot politician A" or "antigun bigot politician B."
Click to expand...

AKA Democrats and Republicans. :barf: That's why I almost never vote anymore except for some good less likely to win independent.
 
steelheart said:
Have you not heard of IANSA? Rebecca Peters? Have you not seen the big statue in front of the UN - the revolver with the barrel tied in a knot?
Click to expand...
I've heard of them and seen the revolver statue. Nevertheless, I have no UN imposed restrictions on me when I decide to buy a gun.


steelheart said:
The threat is real. The U.S. Senate can approve a treaty with 51 votes; once the President signs it, it carries the force of law.
Click to expand...
Please check your facts. According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, The senate must approve treaties by a 2/3 majority.


steelheart said:
If the Senate were to approve a UN treaty calling for the confiscation of all small arms from the citizens of the United States and the President were to sign it, it would be a done deal, regardless of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
It is very doubtful that a Senate of any political makeup would consent to a treaty that was abhorrent to the Constitution. Banning firearms is clearly against the Second Amendment. Article VI of the Constitution, the very same clause that states that properly ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land, requires treaties to be compatible with the Constitution.


steelheart said:
Do you doubt that a Democrat controlled Senate would pass such a treaty? Do you doubt that Clinton would sign it into law in a New York minute? If you do, you are living on Fantasy Island.
Click to expand...
Da plane! Da plane! :D Due to the 2/3 requirement, this is very unlikely.


steelheart said:
This is not a joke, folks, nor is it fearmongering - the threat is real.
Click to expand...
I remain, respectfully, unconvinced.

The most pressing threats to our rights are domestic, not foreign.

-Dave
 
U.N. wants global gun ban

And from NewsMax, via www.jpfo.org
U.N. Wants Global Gun Ban
NewsMax.com
Friday, April 27, 2001

The U.N. is after Americans' Second Amendment gun rights - it wants gun ownership banned in the U.S., and it's not going to stop until it gets its way.

That's the warning from the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre, who reveals that "for the first time in the history of the world, a United Nations conference has set its sights on global disarmament - disarming citizens worldwide - including you and me."

At an 11-day meeting beginning July 9 at U.N. headquarters in New York, every extremist anti-gun group in the world will show up at a summit on "small arms," where the delegates will attempt to create a global standard of gun control, banning civilian fire arms ownership worldwide.

Their aim, LaPierre warns, is "to bring the nightmare of England, Australia and Canada into our country and our homes."

Those nations, along with South Africa and others, have caved in to international pressure and severely restricted civilian gun ownership. Canada has gone so far as to make handgun ownership a felony. As a result, crime rates in England and Australia have skyrocketed since the gun limits went into effect, once again proving the truth of the old saying that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

While the U.N. has no power to force the U.S. to ban gun ownership, it can, with the enthusiastic help of the foreign and domestic anti-self-defense media, create a powerful international movement to shame the U.S. into junking the Second Amendment rights of private gun ownership.

"You and I won't go one day without hearing that the rest of the world is banning guns and it's time for the U.S. to get in line and do the same," LaPierre wrote.

As a prelude to this frightening gathering of anti-self-defense fanatics, a number of proposals have already been advanced at various U.N. forums. Among them:


Strategies to reduce the number of guns in private hands that include mandating a maximum one-gun-per-person rule;

A ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than government officials and target shooters who would be forced to store their weapons at shooting ranges;

Worldwide licensing of firearms registered in a vast U.N. computer bank.
"The bottom line is that international gun banners want every gun - every single gun worldwide - to be under U.N. and government control," warns LaPierre. "And that includes your rifle, your shotgun, your handgun, and even family heirlooms that have been handed down from generation to generation."

LaPierre urges Americans to`contact Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and express their outrage at this latest U.N. power grab.

Helms, he notes, is already on record as deploring the U.N.'s anti-gun project. He wrote a letter to the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1999 in which he described the U.N. gun ban project: nothing less that a brazen international expansion of the [Clinton-Gore] domestic gun control agenda."

(Reproduced with the permission of NewsMax.com. All rights reserved.)
Click to expand...
 
done!
but my Congress Critter is Katherine Harris and I don't have much hope of her doing a thing.
And she wants to be a Senator, yeah right.

AFS
 
Steelheart - Do you have a point to go along with that post? I can post a dozen articles from GOA, NRA, JPFO, SAF, etc. that say basically the same thing. I am a member of all those groups, but I still look at their bleatings as fearmongering.

There are only two states that don't allow citizens the right to carry a firearm and Wisconsin will be shall-issue soon. Look at this graphic and tell me that the tide will be turned and all guns will be banned. http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

We are making progress toward allowing more citizens to bear arms. The UN wanting to completely ban guns in the US just isn't a pressing problem.
 
Blues Man,

You're right about the 2/3 majority to ratify treaties - my mistake.
However - the Senate could pass a law with 51 votes that is a mirror imaage of the UN treaty. True, it would have to pass in the House, but it could do so with a one vote margin - just like Clinton's gun ban did in 1994.

As far as the improbability of the Senate ratifying a UN gun ban treaty, the threat is there. If the antigun zealots - regardless of party - get a 2/3 majority in the Senate, they will do it.

An antigun zealot in the White House would sign it into law. If they have the votes in the Senate and a rubber stamp waiting in the White House, why would they not do it? There would be no reason for them not to.

If you think NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF are "fearmongering" - which means basically they are lying about the UN threat - why would you be a member of such dishonest and dishonorable organizations?

If they are lying to their members - presumably just to get money -why would you give money to such morally bankrupt organizations?? Personally, I don't give money to people or organizations that lie to me.

"The bottom line is that international gun banners want every gun - every single gun worldwide - to be under U.N. and government control," warns LaPierre. "And that includes your rifle, your shotgun, your handgun, and even family heirlooms that have been handed down from generation to generation."
Click to expand...
You asked what was the point of my previous post - that's my point (above).
 
steelheart: what do you suggest should be done? aside from signing up for spam lists with some make-believe petition

and aside from voting for politicians that want to restrict every other freedom besides the rkba
 
As I said above:
Don't want it to happen? The solution is simple - don't vote for antigun bigot politicians. Vote for whoever runs against them that has a viable chance of winning (that would not include Libertarians and other "ambassador from the planet Moonbeam" candidates). This may mean (horror of horrors) voting for some Republicans - especially in 2008.
Click to expand...

Also -
Join the NRA.
Join JPFO.
Join GOA.
Give them money to fight for our right to arms.
Lean on your Senators and Congressmen.
Recruit new members for the NRA, JPFO and GOA.
 
sorry but I'm not going to vote for a politician that wants to limit other freedoms in exchange for guns. it's as antithetical to the idea of liberty as the concept of gun control

I'm also not joining the NRA because they've already stuffed my mailbox full of spam and sold my address to dozens of mailing lists. They don't respect the privacy of their members. I also despise the concept of lobbying; it's disguised bribery at its' worst.

I have, however, sent emails, letters, and made a few phone calls to my local, state, and federal politicians. It's not much but at least it's better than signing a fake petition. :p
 
The UN is a dismal orginization, and thats giving them alot of credit. They have a history of milking the USA for money and then giving it to warlords and other left wing nuts. America needs to cut funding the un down to about ten bucks a year.

The un has been blaming America for some kind of small arms crisis for years, they hate our constitution, and America.

America does far better without the clownish un getting under our feet.

That reminds me, I need to send the NRA a donation, which is also a far better orginization.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top