What The Un Wants To Do With Your Guns

Fire 3 shots on the 4th of July? I would love to, but I don't think we've got anywhere to do that which will mean a thing. Going to the range, or off into the woods/desert/middle of nowhere, no one is going to hear it, if the crack of the gunshot is supposed to stand as a message to others. And going to the park and getting arrested isn't a very appealing propositon to me.
 
A good and timely link. The LaPierre video is good and could inspire some non-NRA member prowling around here to join.
 
Re UN GUN BAN

Hi
I just printed up six letters from the link and my wife and I will send them off in the morning. I am taking my neighbors shooting for the first time on Monday. They want to purchase handguns for ccw I guess six more letters will be going out! Sound the Alarm on this one!
Here are copies of the letters that you can get from the above link in PDF format.
SEND A LETTER TO KOFI ANAN
The Honorable Kofi Annan
Secretary-General of the United Nations
United Nations Headquarters
First Avenue at 46th Street
New York, New York 10017

Dear Mr. Secretary-General:

The 4th of July is America?s most revered national holiday. Yet, you have nevertheless chosen that day to meet at the U.N., on American soil, in your drive to ban civilian firearm ownership worldwide. In doing so, you have placed the U.N. squarely on the side of freedom?s enemies.

Americans like me have over 230 years of experience in defeating the anti-freedom aims of petty tyrants and powerful dictators alike. And the American people will never let you take away the rights that our 4th of July holiday represents. Our freedoms are not to blame for the world?s problems, and this is a battle you can never win.

Sincerely, ______________________________

SEND A LETTER TO PRASAD KARIYAWASAM
Ambassador Prasad Kariyawasam
Representative of the Democratic Republic
of Sri Lanka to the United Nations
630 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10017

Dear Ambassador Kariyawasam:

The 4th of July is America?s most revered national holiday. Yet, you have nevertheless chosen that day to meet at the U.N., on American soil, in your drive to ban civilian firearm ownership worldwide.

As Chairman of this upcoming gun-ban conference, you should know Americans like me have over 230 years of experience in defeating the anti-freedom aims of petty tyrants and powerful dictators alike. And the American people will never let you take away the rights that our 4th of July holiday represents. Our freedoms are not to blame for the world?s problems, and this is a battle you can never win.

Sincerely, ______________________________

SEND A LETTER TO JOHN BOLTON
The Honorable John Bolton
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
799 United Nations Plaza
New York, New York 10017


Dear Ambassador Bolton:

I am outraged by the U.N.?s plan to hold their worldwide gun-ban conference on American soil on the 4th of July, our most revered national holiday.

I urge you to use every means at your disposal to ensure the defeat of this treaty, and make sure that not one single dollar of American tax money is used by the U.N. to advance this global gun-control scheme. I?m sick and tired of watching the U.N. attack our freedoms while ignoring slavery, genocide and mass murder in other countries. Please fight back against this threat and tell the U.N. that our freedoms are not to blame for the world?s problems. Thank you very much.

Sincerely, ______________________________
 
As posted in the other thread about the same damn thing, the UN has proved to be completely powerless in US affairs. They can just as well ban English and hamburgers while they're at it - it doesn't matter.
 
Ummm.. Unless you have not read the other thread in L&P about this, this "Meeting" was in 2001. I've still got my weapons.
 
Regarding the UN, Wayne LaPierre said:
FAIRFAX, Va. -- Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, tells NewsMax that the United Nations is dead set on writing a treaty that will curb domestic ownership of guns.


He also says his worst fear is that a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency would allow such a treaty to severely damage Second Amendment rights.



"She has never cast a pro-gun vote in the U.S. Senate," advises LaPierre, author of "The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the U.N. Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights."


"She will probably be the most anti-firearm Second Amendment candidate to ever run for President of the United States."


All this is not some vague future scenario, warns LaPierre. The world's governments will be attending the second world gun summit in New York City between June 27 and July 7, and the anti-gun factions are raring to go.



The 'Nightmare Scenario'

LaPierre says that while a formal treaty needs two-thirds of the Senate to get approved, the damage to gun ownership rights can be done with a simple agreement, which requires only a simple majority in the House and the Senate.

"That is how President Clinton passed NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement]. The U.N. can do it with a simple agreement - if someone like Hillary Clinton ever becomes president.


"Here is the nightmare scenario on that: Yes, our Supreme Court has said the U.S. Constitution trumps treaties. But say Hillary Clinton becomes President in 2008 and gets a couple of Supreme Court appointments. The policy of her husband when he was president is that the Second Amendment applies only to the government and not individuals. Individuals have no right to own guns - only the government.

"If the U.S. Supreme Court, stacked with Hillary Clinton appointments, were to decide that the Second Amendment is only a government right and not the individual right, there would be nothing in the Constitution then to prohibit this U.N. treaty from taking effect," LaPierre said.

Making matters worse, adds LaPierre, is that in his opinion, Supreme Court Justices are increasingly looking to international custom and international law a phenomenon the U.N. is counting on.

The chief NRA spokesman also warns that in yet another wave of attacks, the U.N. will be preparing international lawsuits against American firearms manufacturers.
Click to expand...
This is not simply NRA "fearmongering" to get cash from members - it is fact.
 
The M.O. of the UN (and most other agenda driven politicos) is spaced repetition. They propose policy or legislation. It rarely gets traction on the first proposal. Over a period of years they pump out bilge, statistics, anecdotes attempting to sway the target population. Eventually through propaganda they gain a contingent of supporters who also propagandize and eventually build enough support to begin to effect change. If you repeat a lie enough times you begin to believe it is fact.
 
Re Un

:mad: Hi
I read what some of you wrote about the UN being somewhat powerless when it comes to imposing its restrictions on our freedoms. But; we need to keep an eye on this. Consider some anti-gun future President along the lines of Hillary:barf: or Chuckie Schummer :barf: (God forbid) on this issue! Look what has already happened in San Francisco. The British people have had their freedom taken away and it can happen here. I will be posting updates as soon as I get them.
Steelheart is right. This issue is bigger than our firearms, it attacks the very foundation of what our Republic was founded on. Personal liberty and freedom. I urge you to encourage people you know to send in copies of the letters. Thanks.
 
People keep saying that, but gun control people already have a bunch of excuses. I just don't understand why another anti-gun lobby, in this case the UN, is going to make any difference or be any more motivating.


We'll change our laws when WE want to, and not a moment sooner. The UN has less ability to affect legislation in the US than illegal aliens do.
 
The probabilities of the number of things that would have to fall into place for this worst-case scenario to actually happen would be fairly remote, I'd say.
Let's say Hillary gets appointed.
Let's say she gets a couple of her people on the Supreme Court.
Let's say that Congress doesn't fight entering into such an "agreement" with the UN
Let's say that the UN attempts to impose its "law" on the US
Let's say that the question comes before the Supreme Court.

Now - who here thinks that the Supreme Court is going to be standing by - ready, willing, and able - to set the precedent that UN Regulations supercede the Constitution?
Beyond that, the Supreme Court would have to reverse precedents set forth in previous 2nd Amendment cases that define the 'militia' as being comprised of primarily citizens.


I think this is a real threat, I just don't think it's as "on our doorsteps" as everyone thinks. Just my .02
 
<If the U.S. Supreme Court...were to decide that the Second Amendment is only a government right and not the individual right>

Not likely hold up on appeal.:cool:
 
People always make a much larger deal about things and while I do agree that this disgusting UN plan could pose a problem, it would have to be a series of circumstances and luck on these fools part to ever seriously disarm the United States. England never had an NRA or serious organization like we do, and the English citizens didn't really fight it like US citizens would.

Besides, ignorance is a threat to human survival into the future. The people posing this bill seem to fit the description of ever ignorant, and I hope the citizens don't give them any more credit than that.
 
Let's say Hillary gets appointed. - Essentially guaranteed
Let's say she gets a couple of her people on the Supreme Court. - Very possible
Let's say that Congress doesn't fight entering into such an "agreement" with the UN - Entirely dependent on the make-up of that CONgress and the politics of the moment.
Let's say that the UN attempts to impose its "law" on the US - Doesn't need to impose anything. All we have to do is sign on...
Let's say that the question comes before the Supreme Court. - Possible, but what if the SCOTUS simply refuses to hear it...

Now - who here thinks that the Supreme Court is going to be standing by - ready, willing, and able - to set the precedent that UN Regulations supercede the Constitution? - They've already said treaties and international laws can influence or even supercede US law. That's a done deal.

Beyond that, the Supreme Court would have to reverse precedents set forth in previous 2nd Amendment cases that define the 'militia' as being comprised of primarily citizens. - Only takes a new SCOTUS decision to erase all that came before.

So, in short, most of your "remote" happenings are actually either already reality or very likely to become such soon. Why place so much trust in government? It has done nothing thoughout all history but demonstrate itself to be evil and unworthy of such, whatever the level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top