What The Un Wants To Do With Your Guns

Handy, I did not say that the UN controls our actions - you need to let go of that. What I said was
The antigun bigots in the UN and the antigun bigots in our own Senate and House are singing the same song. They all want the same thing - a disarmed citizenry.
Click to expand...
 
Stop the polarization of America
Click to expand...
Which means, "conservatives should stop fighting against leftist/liberalism/socialism and give the leftist minority what it wants."

The polarization in America exsists only because the leftist minority created it in their attempt to force their socialist views and policies on the majority.
 
Just to maintain perspective:

bigot

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Source: WordNet ? 2.0, ? 2003 Princeton University
Click to expand...

I see this flying around a lot, and it seems that the word could cut both ways. Could we possibly try to have this debate without all of the name-calling? It doesn't add to the quality of the conversation.
This is becoming less and less a debate about the probabilities/possibilities of a gun ban than it is respective attacks against various political parties and views.
 
My point was that one should not choose a weapon unless they are prepared to have it used against them. :)

Let's keep it civil.


Like Capt. Charlie says: "What kind of ambassador does your post make you?"
 
Pickpocket, I see what you are saying. I always try to be civil in my posts, although I may not always be successful at it.

The fact is, sometimes the truth is abrasive to some; I will attempt to be civil, but I will not shrink from calling a spade a spade just because it might rub someone the wrong way.

Fair enough?:)

Facts should always trump political correctness; otherwise, what's the point of saying anything?
 
Hey, it's a sensitive subject!

You make a lot of good points, steelheart - I would just hate for those to get lost in all the noise :)

Indeed, facts SHOULD always trump political correctness. Well said.
 
Sorry but for the life of me I can not grasp some of the people on this board. it's the same problem i've had trying to reconcile some people on "conservative" boards lately. Defenders of a national ID, excuses for the UN and why "it can't happen here"...

It can happen here. We're a heart beat away from it happening here. the only pleasant thing about it when it does will be sitting back, pointing at some folks who should have known better and laughing at them...
 
I am neither making excuses for the UN nor suggesting that we are somehow magically protected from gun bans. I don't think anyone is saying either, 2A, which makes me wonder why you say that.


All I'm looking for is some sort of connection between the UN's proclamations and even the probability of a gun ban because of them. No one seems to be able to state a direct link that doesn't involve the same politicians that already hate guns.


My 'support' for the UN goes no further than liking our veto power on the security council. We still hold enormous power within the UN, and that should not be discounted.


The UN can go ahead and disarm the rest of the world - they aren't covered by our Constitution and seem to want that anyway.
 
All I'm looking for is some sort of connection between the UN's proclamations and even the probability of a gun ban because of them. No one seems to be able to state a direct link that doesn't involve the same politicians that already hate guns.
Click to expand...
I have offered evidence over and over and over again, yet you refuse to acknowledge the facts of the situation, such as -
The antigun bigots in the UN and the antigun bigots in our own Senate and House are singing the same song. They all want the same thing - a disarmed citizenry.
Click to expand...
These people have the same goals and will take the same actions - regardless of whether they are members of the UN, the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate.

Your refusal to see the obvious does not in fact make the obvious nonexsistant.
 
I see the obvious, I just don't understand the chain of events that actually makes the UN at all important in this.


How will the UN doing ____ cause ______ to happen in the US. Force? Bribes? The power of collective thought? The American people's love of the UN?


I realize you don't have an answer, so we can leave it at that.
 
Oh, but I do have an answer - you just choose to ignore it, hoping that it will go away (it won't). As I said above
The antigun bigots in the UN and the antigun bigots in our own Senate and House are singing the same song. They all want the same thing - a disarmed citizenry.

These people have the same goals and will take the same actions - regardless of whether they are members of the UN, the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, there's your answer. I can't make it any more plain than that.
 
How will the UN doing ____ cause ______ to happen in the US. Force? Bribes? The power of collective thought? The American people's love of the UN?
Click to expand...

In the Constitution it says that treaties that are signed with other countries become the law of the land here. If the UN signed a treaty with (Hillary) about gun bans, they might have a quasi legal leg to stand on.

I know the UN is not a country, but since when have the powers that be stayed literal and not twisted phrasings to their advantage? They could sure try it.
 
As Wayne LaPierre said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is not so much a treaty - which requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to ratify. The problem is the agreement - which can be put into effect with a one vote majority in both the House and Senate.
 
Sorry but for the life of me I can not grasp some of the people on this board. it's the same problem i've had trying to reconcile some people on "conservative" boards lately. Defenders of a national ID, excuses for the UN and why "it can't happen here"...
Click to expand...
Why? Because not everyone jumps onto the burning boat and screams their heads off?
We're merely trying to offer a logical counterpoint to all of the rhetoric. I need more to go on than "U.N., BAD".

It can happen here. We're a heart beat away from it happening here. the only pleasant thing about it when it does will be sitting back, pointing at some folks who should have known better and laughing at them...
Click to expand...
"It CAN happen here" is not the same as "We're a heartbeat away"... that is misleading.
As I've tried to explain (and JayCee as well) in previous posts, any attempt to amend the Constitution would require a TWO-THIRDS majority in BOTH houses of Congress, and then a TWO-THIRDS majority across all 50 State Senates. That's 38 State Senates voting to ban civilian ownership of small arms.

The back door is that someone stacks the Supreme Court with enough anti's to make a difference. Anyone know which Justices are likely pro and which are not? Which ones would have to RETIRE and then have a replacement make it through the appointment process in order for that to happen? Not only that, but there are enough rulings based on 2d precedents to ensure that if the Supreme Court has to make the decision that it's not going to be a slam-dunk in the anti's favor.
What are the possibilities???

Nobody is saying sit back and let things happen. I think we're just saying that the sky isnt falling. This is neither a new issue nor a new threat. Why are we treating it like it just reared it's ugly head out of nowhere?? I feel that some here are over-reacting a bit with the whole chicken-little bit.

Yes, TAKE action. Yes, WRITE your congressmen and women. Yes, VOICE your opinions. But come on, people - spare us the doomsday prophecies.
 
It's been presented and explained to you, Handy. As Steel says, it appears you have chosen to ignore it. THAT is why I say some people seem determined to pretend it can't happen here...

But, I'll do it as simple as possible one more time:

The UN passes a resolution. The US signs on to it, thx to President Clinton and her Dem Senate. The ATF then chooses to apply it in the most Draconian fashion possible. The SCOTUS either refuses to hear it, just as they have avoided other 2A cases before, or worse, upholds it based on the established premise that international law in the modern world must at times be honored as superior to the US Constitution.

There is no where to appeal this to at such a point. A single case such as this IS all that is needed to establish the law of the land regardless of past precedents. You disagree? You don't like it? Really? You think society or our "social structure" will do something about it? What are you going to do about it now? It'll already be the way things are...

This is how things happen in the "Global Community". This is how our future can go. If it does we won't do a thing about it. Give up and submit or go to jail, branded as extremist nuts by "society" more than likely. So NOW is the time to get excited and wound up and take a stand and raise hell. And if it turns out to be nothing, or never happens? I'd remind you of Y2K, which was NOT a non-event that we didn't need to worry about. It was a nightmare waiting to happen, which we avoided because of a lot of dedicated people and a lot money invested. The fact some people wound up with generators they didn't need and 10 years worth of canned goods is beside the point...
 
As I've tried to explain (and JayCee as well) in previous posts, any attempt to amend the Constitution would require a TWO-THIRDS majority in BOTH houses of Congress, and then a TWO-THIRDS majority across all 50 State Senates.
Click to expand...

Forget this. This is a false and baseless premise. there is zero need to amend the Constitution. Nobody is even going to try. And if you don't like that then tell us what you will do about it? That's not being snappish or mean-spirited, it's a serious question. My scenerio IS what they hope to accomplish. What's your method of opposing it after the fact? "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!" ? They don't care, and most of the nation, our nation, will look at you like you are nuts.

That's the way it is, and it is coming. But go ahead and tell me about that piece of paper called the Constitution(and the BoR) and how they will protect us.
 
Jeez. Once again -
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.
Click to expand...

This is FACT - ignoring it will not make it go away. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, THE THREAT IS REAL.
I need more to go on than "U.N., BAD".
Click to expand...
ATTN. Pickpocket:
See above. Read. Reread. Reread. Reread. Reread. reread again -as many times as it takes to sink in.

The UN threat to our right to arms is real. All the denial in the world will not change that fact.
 
What's your method of opposing it after the fact? "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!" ? They don't care, and most of the nation, our nation, will look at you like you are nuts.
Click to expand...

Likewise - what's your method of opposing it NOW? You are screaming "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" - and do "they" care, or do people think you're nuts?

You're telling me that the Constitution is meaningless? And yet your moniker is "2nd Amendment" and you are up in arms about your Constitutional right to the freedoms protected therein. You expect the government to uphold the freedoms granted to you by the very Constitution you claim to be a worthless document.
There is disparity in your consistency.

How is quoting Constitutional Law a "false and baseless premise"? Quite the contrary, it is established Law - which is as far from "presumption" that we can get.
Even if they "go around" amending the Constitution, do you realize the pieces that have to fall into place in order to have the Supreme Court backdoor the whole thing?

My point?

You are over-reacting to a hypothetical, much like the prophets preaching armaggeddon on the streets of downtown Manhatten.
Is it POSSIBLE the world will end tomorrow? Yes.
Is it PROBABLE? No.

Our energies are better spent elsewhere.
If it turns out next year that I have to turn in my guns, then I'll come back to TFL and say you were right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top