U.N. Global gun ban


PDA






Gun_nut
June 13, 2006, 11:34 PM
This is making me edgey and angry:mad: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/130646.shtml

The nra website on this is here http://www.stopungunban.org/

If you enjoyed reading about "U.N. Global gun ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mongo the Mutterer
June 13, 2006, 11:48 PM
Gun Nut .. Get ready for the Socialist Mainstream Media (if you don't know that is CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, The ASSociated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, The LA Times, and thousands of socialist and statist leaning media).

What you are going to see is rernuns of Columbine, etc., ad nauseum...

Then after this "Conference" adjourns, there will be revelations in the press that the Wondrous pedophiles at the UN have come up with an "answer".

IANSA, Rebecca Peters, and the UN are your enemies... get used to it.

Joey2
June 14, 2006, 12:13 AM
This is in the making , as far as I remember, for about 4 yrs. The guys with the tinfoil hats have be talking about it. What made it all of a sudden a credible issue now when before nobody believed it?

Don't Tread On Me
June 14, 2006, 12:29 AM
Choosing July 4th is just as bad as the FBI/BATFE choosing April 19th to burn down the Branch Davidian Church. The FBI/BATFE chose that date because that was the day the British met resistance by people in response to an ordered firearm confiscation (Lexington/Concord). They too, were on a firearm confiscation mission, and met resistance. Thus, that day was a deliberate, planned, in-your-face statement to every American that THEY are in charge, and they RULE. This is them clearly and blatantly accepting the role as authority in the eternal authority vs. citizen struggle that humanity has dealth with since the beginning of history.


Having this conference during our Independence day is two fold. 1] most people will be totally distracted by the holiday, traveling, partying, thinking about other things while the media drowns out UN politics with a flood of patriotic stories. Thus, the UN can have this very unpopular conference without catching much attention or flak 2] for those in-the-know..aka gun owners, or those who follow and are concerned with such politics, they know this is a direct in-your-face feces smearing notice that our independence, sovereignty, rights, law means NOTHING, and that they are in charge, and you are not. A direct statement to us.


People who don't shoot, don't own guns, don't even know the name of a single supreme court justice, don't even know the name of the vice president, those who think "rights" are "given" to us by the "gubmint"...you know, 90% of Americans drinking coke while being mezmerized by American Idol, will never, ever, ever pick up on the significance of any of this, the politics, what is at stake, or the dates that have been chosen.


The UN knows this. So I am forced to conclude that this is intentional, and is the UN's way of firing a shot across our bow.


This will not be a gun-ban treaty. Treaties are too difficult to pass, and way too visible and attract attention. AGREEMENTS are treated by the government as the equivalent of treaties, and they are much, much easier to pass.

K-Romulus
June 14, 2006, 01:38 AM
Over at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the home page has a whole section denying that the UN conference will discuss private firearms ownership.

CSGV tries to slice hairs by claiming ownership won't be "banned," just tweaked to prevent "illegal transfers" (read: UK/AUS-style "needs based" licensing and registration)

Too bad that CSGV is a member of IANSA, the coalition that sets the UN conference agenda by default. The same coalition that wants the conference to get a binding international agreement (like NAFTA) to implement UK/AUS-style domestic gun laws that do indeed call for bans. So much for the denial.

(Earlier thread on IANSA and the conference here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=201080)

CSGV also says that the conference will not be in session on July 4th, and the UN building will be closed . . .

DoubleTapDrew
June 14, 2006, 02:07 AM
Did the brits forget what happened the last time they tried this 230 years ago this July 4th?
I haven't.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it- George Santayana

Wastemore
June 14, 2006, 02:33 AM
Meh... bring it.

Jeff
June 14, 2006, 03:17 AM
The UN's posturing on gun control is like stepping in a pile of dog crap. It is unctuous and offensive, but harmless. I suppoort the UN's global agenda no more than I do stepping in dog poop, but I also fear the UN's global agenda no more than I do stepping in dog poop.

Let them throw their impotent temper tantrum, be it July 4th or any other day.

Autolycus
June 14, 2006, 04:44 AM
You probably dont wear sandles.

I do only because some lawyers use international law as a guidance tool for US law.

Don't Tread On Me
June 14, 2006, 07:13 AM
I do only because some lawyers use international law as a guidance tool for US law.


You mean Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg?

LAK
June 14, 2006, 08:53 AM
It is not only lawyers using international law as guidence; it is our leadership pushing their mutual global socialist agenda - building their global plantation.
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land". - George W Bush, United Nations General Assembly, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Gun_nut
June 14, 2006, 10:06 AM
http://http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/3452/swarningtoevil0bh.th.jpg (http://img50.imageshack.us/my.php?image=swarningtoevil0bh.jpg) hehehe

got it from http://www.a-human-right.com/fight-flight.html

boofus
June 14, 2006, 10:47 AM
Do the math. 100,000,000 killed in the 20th century by UN member governments = 1,000,000 deaths a year.
10,000 firearms deaths in the US per year.

UN members in 'good standing' kill 100 times more people per year than Americans die from firearms (including accidents, justifiable shoots by citizens/police and suicides)

Which is the greater threat to security and freedom? The 1 or 100???

Ira Aten
June 14, 2006, 11:08 AM
Quote:
"This is in the making , as far as I remember, for about 4 yrs. The guys with the tinfoil hats have be talking about it. What made it all of a sudden a credible issue now when before nobody believed it?"



Oh there is no problem. The U.N. is not trying to do anything to take your guns. That is just those idiot tin foil hat guys claiming the United Nations is attempting to create a one world government. Aw Pshaww! Why would they want that? What evidence is there to support the charge that the United Nations would want to garner ruling power over individual nations?

They are just a great group of guys and gals whose only goal is to "Save the Children" like they have done in so many places all over the world.

After all, hasn't every single penny of funds gathered through charitable donations over the years for U.N. programs such as "United Way" "Save the Children Fund" and the U.N. "Oil for Food Program" gone to the stated goals?
Certainly all U.N. programs result in the "planned goals".

That is why we have no hungry children in the world, no impovershed nations, no traffic in human slavery, and ZERO violent acts from use of guns by the member nations pushing this newest "Small Weapons Treaty".

They have made the world safe for all of the "Global Village" inhabitants, and are simply no threat at all to individual countries losing their freedoms.

The United States could be violence free also if it weren't for those darned "Tin Foil Hat" wearers always coming up with their ludicrous claims and causing delays in the inevitable "Treaty" signing!

All the U.N. is saying, is give their worldwide gun registration program a chance. There is no effort to actually halt your owning one, it is just to be sure only the good citizens in the Global Village have access to them.

After all, what factual historical data could possibly support claims from these Tin Foil Hat wearers that allowing a governing body to require registration of certain weapons could lead to some type of confiscation?

The darn Tin Foil Hat crowd will be the ruin of us all if they don't stop their silly rumor mongering!

Carl N. Brown
June 14, 2006, 11:23 AM
The agenda of IANSA appears unchanged from Rebecca Peters' position in
the Kings College Library Great Gun Debate of 2004: restriction of civilian
legal ownership within nations: her proudest accomplishnebt--the
confiscation and destruction of 640,000 legally registered firearms
from law abiding Australians: her view is that Americans should be
subject to the same rules (i.e, her rules) as everyone else (ie, the Aussies).

IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms) UN Conferences
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon 26 Jun 06 1:15-2:45 pm Conference Room 6 IANSA intro meeting
Tue 27 Jun 06 1:15-2:45 pm Conference Room 4 IANSA Women's Network
Tue 27 Jun 06 1:15-2:45 pm Conference Room 6 IANSA Victim Assistance
Wed 28 Jun 06 n/a
Thu 29 Jun 06 1:15-2:45 pm Conference Room 4 IANSA Public Health Network
Fri 30 Jun 06 1:15-2:45 pm Conference Room 4 IANSA National Gun Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that IANSA is fairly important in the U.N. Conference on Small
Arms and Light Weapons.

Zedicus
June 14, 2006, 11:49 AM
Rifle, Amunition, Some Minor labour Involved...

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6153/sameenemy9vd.jpg

Marshall
June 14, 2006, 12:32 PM
Call me an optimist, I don't see it happening in this country. Although, 4-8 years of a "leftist anti" in the Whitehouse wouldn't do us any favors.

Ira Aten
June 14, 2006, 01:22 PM
Marshall:

Just curious, but what reason would make you possibly think that the United States Congress, after giving in to 12 Million Illegal Invaders, would not consider handing the power to register weapons to the United Nations?

Already, the first amendment has been stamped void by numerous laws passed by not only Congress, but signed by the President, and upheld by lefitst members on the Supreme Court of the United States.

What fact makes you doubt these clowns are not willing to void the Second Amendment by enacting this upcoming treaty with the U.N? Specifically, I am curious. What makes you say "I don't believe this will happen in our country" when year after year, our representatives claim we must "act in consensus with our "U.N. Partners"??????

Marshall
June 14, 2006, 01:33 PM
I'm optimistic because of the trends of gun laws and rights in the US. More and more states are going to CCW. More and more states are passing laws making it harder for retribution against anyone feeling threatened for their life and using deadly force. I see us being on an upswing in this area nationally. Also, the negative sentiment against the UN is becoming larger than ever within the US. I don't believe our citizens will put up with it and I don't believe our states will allow it to happen. I believe the internal pressure will be feared more than the external pressure.

Ira Aten
June 14, 2006, 01:43 PM
Well I appreciate your response.

I believe personally that even though approval of the U.N. is about ZERO with the citizens of the U.S., our approval of Amnesty for Illegal Aliens was at the same level, and it was totally diregarded anyway by the Senate and by our President. We will get an Amnesty program, no matter what we "approve" of.

Although State laws are being passed, when the Feds decide to change our wishes on the local level, they do it in any number of ways. There is growing sentiment for concealed carry being expanded within the U.S., I grant you that. But that is due to our local laws reflecting what we want. Unfortunately a Treaty is a Federal issue, and it will supercede any State laws.

So with that in mind, being that the Federal Government Representatives consistantly defy our wishes, is there anyting you see on a Federal level that would give on any reason to believe the Feds woudn't do that?

Zero_DgZ
June 14, 2006, 02:19 PM
Sorry, but an all-or-nothing overnight ban (UK style for sake of argument) would never fly in the USA. Even if we are in the tiny minority there are still a whole crowd of us shooters and I don't think a single one of us would stand for it in the least.

Doing the county-by-county, state-by-state, law-by-law thing to slowly erode away our rights to bear arms might work eventually, if there's enough apathy on our part to go around. But if the UN announced a ban one day (and the US federal government followed suit) there'd be enough of us out in the streets burning effigies to make the government worry.

The feds know that they can't just pass a law like that all at once because after the riots were over we'd totally slam dunk them in the supreme court (even if it is loaded with neo-nazis) which in turn would draw massive attention from shooters and nonshooters alike.

If such a countrywide ban went into law like that it could just as well be the second civil war - I wonder just how many states (New York and California excluded...) would take that lying down. I can think of a couple that certainly wouldn't off the top of my head: Vermont, Wyoming, Florida, Texas, et. all.

So no, it won't hapen. The Europeans can keep on whittling themselves down to nothing and turing their continent into an Orwellian theme park, but I don't think (and I sincerely hope) that there are anywhere near enough bleeding hearts, soccer moms, and hysterical ne'er-do-wells on the face of the earth to make it happen here.

Instead, it will be the "military style" firearms that will be the first to go. Magazine capacity restrictions will probably come first, of course. Big bores will get reasoned away. Then it'll be military calibers - Say goodbye to 9x19 and .223, for a start. Then it'll be handguns. After that it'll be anything "non sporting" like tactical shotguns. Then it'll be licensing requirements and "need to own" restrictions.

And it'll take decades to accomplish, and if they do it slowly enough they might just get away with it. But that's why we have to be vigilant. Frothing at the mouth over the alleged boogeymen on the other side of the pond in the UN is entertaining, but it doesn't accoplish much. What we need to do is improve things here and now, and send the message that we're a part of this country and we're not going to be stepped on.

1911Tuner
June 14, 2006, 02:52 PM
This is indeed a dangerous time, and our enemies are truly approaching the gate. An overnight, blanket gun ban and turn-in order positively won't fly here...and they know it. They may take a bite here and there, but they know that there would be a battle in the courts that would bog the system down and grind it to a halt.

BUT...Our founding fathers failed to include ammunition along with the RKBA amendment...even though it was probably assumed that "Arms" meant viable arms, which would be useless without powder and shot.

So, they know that they can't get the guns, because they're protected by the Bill of Rights/2A and because there are just too many out there to get'em all. Ammunition is a completely different problem for the enemies of our Constitution and our way of life. That, they can get. Not through confiscation, nor even legislation. The American people are much too resourceful to allow little issues get in their way. Witness Prohibition, and even the "War on Drugs" for indication of the failures there.

There will be no Lexington and Concord. There will be no uprising. The problem will not come from the JBTs nor from the ATF, nor the FBI, nor the
Department of Homeland Security....nor even from the UN's Multinational Peacekeeping Force. It will come from state and federal excise taxes...maybe even directly from the IRS itself. A "use tax" on every round of ammunition sold can range from a few cents to a few dollars...all the way to requiring a tax stamp for the purchase of a box...or a single round of ammo.
Requirements to return all fired brass would lay waste to the reloading solution...and tax imposed on every tray of primers would slow what was left of it to a crawl.

Likely a "Needs-Based" or use tax on each firearm that you own, with an amnesty period to give you time to complete the paperwork....which of course would include a percentage of denials for the proper licensing.
"You can keep your artifact, sir. You just have to silver-solder a plug in the chamber so that it can't be fired. Documentation of the modification from a licensed gunsmith required within 90 days. Thank you for your cooperation, sir and have a nice day."

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Therein lies the clue to what the future holds.

M67
June 14, 2006, 03:13 PM
Just give it up, guys. You're too late. Way too late.

Am I the only one who noticed the dateline on that "news"-story?

Friday, April 27, 2001

Ira Aten
June 14, 2006, 03:18 PM
Zero DGZ:

You wrote: "Sorry, but an all-or-nothing overnight ban (UK style for sake of argument) would never fly in the USA. Even if we are in the tiny minority there are still a whole crowd of us shooters and I don't think a single one of us would stand for it in the least."



Thinking about New Orleans, as a test case, what you are saying certainly didn't happen then.

One Government Employee made an edict that "Only Law Enforcement will be allowed to have guns" and they went about a wholesale confiscation of weapons, right in front of the television reporters of residents being de-gunned inside their own homes, with out of State Cops body slamming a little old lady, and EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IN THE UNITED STATES STOOD BY AND WATCHED IT HAPPEN.

Even now, under a court order to return those weapons which they have failed to comply with, the head LEO in New Orleans said they would do it again if they wanted to.

I hate to say this, but unless we vote out every incument currently in the U.S. Senate, if a Left Wing gun banner like McCain, Clinton, Guliani, or Schumer, or Liebermann, (or basically anyone currently in the Senate) any of them win the oval office while a left wing majority is in the Senate, we as a nation will more than likely be sold out by our "leaders" who will sign on to that by 2012. Heck, we have a majority in the Senate now, that couldn't even pass repeal of the DEATH TAX, which not a single American agrees with, and they couldn't even pass that with a majority, because they did not want to be looked at as being "Partisan".

Their reason will be, we MUST act in accordance with the consensus of countries "around the world" which means doing what the U.N. tells us. We waited on the U.N. an entire year to get Saddam to let inspectors in, but this same body of Senators says we "rushed" in without consulting the U.N. by getting it's "blessing".

We are constantly hearing statements that we are "shaping policy with a goal to work within the confines of the guidelines set by our U.N. partners." Now a goal of our U.N. partners is that we be a signator to this gun ban.

John Bolton will not be our U.N. Ambassador after 2008. Can anyone seriously claim that a U.N. Ambassador with the type of political leftist leanings of a Madelane Albright would not push constantly for us to "join with our partners in the world body" by signing on to this agreement? AFter all, it is only to protect the innocent.

You hear these kinds of statements all the time coming from the Senate. If I told you fifteen years ago that the U.S. Government itself would claim it has a right to monitor every single bit of electronic communication you ever have, you would have claimed the U.S. Constitution said they could not.

It in fact does say they can't. However, that does not seem to make a tinkers damn of difference. The Federal Government constantly goes against what we the people want in open defiance of the Constitution. I don't see how Constituitional protections will suddenly enter in to this to save us from "joining with our U.N. partners" in "standing firm against gun violence".

The Feds have had our military train for it by performing mock gun confiscation drills with people instructed to say "I have a right to keep my guns", and train the guys to ignore these statements. People point these factual occurances out, and they are called "Tin Foil Hat Brigade" memebers.

Then when the doubters find out it has happened on numerous occasions they accept it by saying "it is only a drill, it is not real". Then, when guns are blatantly illegally confiscated in New Orleans, they each and every one, stood by and let it happen. It's happened in England, Austrailia, Germany, Poland, Russia, China. Almost every country so far. Their thinking is, what makes the U.S. any different? Eveyone else has allowed it. In fact, we did last summer.

Can you give an actual example of a single person who didn't "stand for it" in New Orleans when it happened. That wasn't even the U.N. That was one Cop telling them that his sole word was law.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2006, 03:26 PM
RKBA is already doing better than it has in 40 years. I think we have a lot of reasons to be optimistic overall. Nothing the UN does is going to have any affect on the United States unless our legislators agree to it.

Whether or not our legislators agree to it (and the current crop is certainly not going to) depends entirely on the efforts of gun owners. If even half of the people who post "SHTF/What I'm going to do when the revolution comes" threads would get involved with their local politics and work consistently to push pro-RKBA legislators at the local level, the pool of talent for the antis would dry up in 30 years.

We will win this battle with the UN; but there are going to be more and the issue will not go away.

The Feds have had our military train for it by performing mock gun confiscation drills with people instructed to say "I have a right to keep my guns", and train the guys to ignore these statements.

Could you point me toward the information describing these drills?

K-Romulus
June 14, 2006, 03:29 PM
(To paraphrase MrBenchley)

All it will take to get AUS/UK-style laws is for the current media drumbeat on "gun violence," "the powerful gun lobby," "bleeding cities," etc., with the accompanying current anti-gun-owner political wave fostered by Bloomberg, et al., to continue for the rest of the year.

The fed elections in November are too close to call, and the realistically potential "worst case downside" is a fed legislature eager to implement the proposed permanent tougher AWB II, along with the previously proposed needs-based Brady II handgun owner licensing & registration scheme, not to mention the previously proposed needs-based "arsenal licensing."

Maybe it's because I live in the DC area, have relatives in NYC and Phila, and follow the gun control issue like some sort of OCD sufferer, but between the politicians I see falling all over themselves to "ban guns," the nationwide breadth of local law enforcement heads who back them up, the fed legislators on the same bandwagon, the CCW-encounter-with-LEO horror stories posted here at THR and Packing.org (to give a snapshot of rank-and-file LEO attitudes), and the breathtakingly overwhelming number of people I meet (both in and out of this area) who believe that all firearms ownership should be banned at the federal level, I do not have the same optimism you guys have.

And to top it off, if there is such a UK/AUS-style ban, I am "more confident than not" that the USSC will (1) decisively rule in favor of the "collective rights" interpretation, before (2) approving the ban, anyway, in a hypothetical discussion of the individual rights view, as a "reasonable, narrowly tailored" restriction on the Second Amendment, and it will do so based on looking at the fact that 99% of the other countries in the world have adopted those or more restrictive laws.

I dunno, maybe I need a vacation or something to get away and some perspective. I hope I'm wrong and you guys are right . . .:confused:

M67: The article is about the 2001 conference, but they are supposed to be periodic. The next conference is scheduled to begin in two weeks. Here is the leading anti-gun NGO's page on the conference: http://www.iansa.org/un/index.htm

IANSA is the defacto agenda-setter for the conference. This year, they want an agreement on domestic gun laws passed by majority vote (somethat that was rejected through veto power during the 2001 conference), and hold up Australia as the model for those domestic laws.

Tommygunn
June 14, 2006, 03:33 PM
Hello. This will be my first post here on "The High Road."
I am as concerned as anyone here about this United Nations business -- the possiblity of registering guns, then confiscating some of them, or all, has been in existance for quite awhile.
What would people here do if such a treaty -- or "agreement" -- was enabled? Would you register your guns? Refuse? What if they did pass an outright ban?
Is there any consensus on what the reaction of the citizens should be?

Let me say that as a member of both Gun Owners of America, and the National Rifle Association, and other pro-second amendment organizations, I regularly contribute to them as a means of helping them defend our freedoms and to help keep myself "up to speed" via their bulletins.

Ira Aten
June 14, 2006, 03:42 PM
Quote:
"If even half of the people who post "SHTF/What I'm going to do when the revolution comes" threads would get involved with their local politics and work consistently to push pro-RKBA legislators at the local level, the pool of talent for the antis would dry up in 30 years."



I don't personally post "SHTF/What I'm going to do when the revolution comes" threads myself. I do however, point out facts each time I see "Don't worry be Happy" posts.

Personally I have been very active as a volunteer, and used to make regular donations to my old party recently enough in fact, to have been asked to act as a delegate in our recent state convention.

But I decided against even trying any more after not one single member of the group I have supported so long, will act in a Partisan manner. They are all afraid of the media and of the left.

That is why we need to unelect the current crop. When you have a majority in the U.S. Senate that cannot pass a measure to REPEAL THE TAXING OF A MAN BECAUSE HE DIES, then it is time for a whole new party. The Democrats are left wing, and the Republicans all want to be seen as "Moderates". This results, in a Minority Party Majority.

Why donate and volunteer for folks that do what the left tells them anyway?

M67
June 14, 2006, 04:03 PM
K-Romulus, yes I know this is a periodic thing. But I still think I have a point...

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2006, 04:36 PM
Personally I have been very active as a volunteer, and used to make regular donations to my old party recently enough in fact, to have been asked to act as a delegate in our recent state convention.

Then you should know better than anyone that what you need is MORE involvement in the party from like-minded people, not less.

Of course it is difficult to get things done, you've got 30 years worth of leftist hippies and they are now all ensconced and have senior positions in both parties. Despite that, they still aren't advancing their agenda near as well as they like. They are being stopped cold in a lot of areas.

Whether or not they will ulimately succeed depends on the next generation that will be replacing them - that needs to be us, not them. Taking ourselves out of the system voluntarily makes the job that much easier for them. You can't win a game you don't play and even if the odds on this game aren't great, they are a lot better than any other odds we are going to get.

1911Tuner
June 14, 2006, 04:40 PM
Ida Allen wrote:

>Can you give an actual example of a single person who didn't "stand for it" in New Orleans when it happened. That wasn't even the U.N. That was one Cop telling them that his sole word was law.< (And many other good points)

Very true, Ida...but a cry did go up everywhere. Aside from 100,000 armed-to-the-teeth gun owners mustering and marching on New Orleans, that's about all that could be done under the circumstances. The positive that came out of it was that it tipped the hands of the people who would do the same...either again in The Big Easy, or in other places. They gave evidence of their true agenda a bit prematurely.

We are thus forewarned, and that's a big advantage. The decent, law-abiding property owners in N.O. didn't have that, and believed that because they were at home minding the property, that they'd be given a pass. When it didn't happen that way, eyes were slammed wide open to the fact that it's not about safety. It's about control, and absolute power...and we all know what that does to too many people.

How much book ya wanna lay that...in the event of another situation like the Katrina debacle...that it'll be different next time?

Ira Aten
June 14, 2006, 05:23 PM
1911

I appreciate your response, and regarding how much book I want to lay on it not happening again, unfortunately I am of limited financial means at present.

(Ninety dollar words for saying "Broke as a church mouse")

But had I the funds, I wouldn't bet a dime on it being any different. In fact, I would bet everything I had on it reoccuring exactly as it happened last time.

I am sorry but there is not one single fact to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Our schools have taught two generations to believe in U.N. "oversight" of all countries and their governments.

And unfortunately, that is what the U.N. and Chuck Schumer, Rudolph Guliani (who believes in gun registration) John McCain, Hillary Clinton, et al, are betting on. Us just standing for it once more.

After that, they will be sure. (Why do you think the New Orleans Police said they would do it again, regardless of the court finding?)

And after one more demonstration, they will move even closer to signing it. The only way, is to vote out every Democrat, and every Republican Incumbant, and vote in some true Americans.

Ira Aten
June 14, 2006, 05:28 PM
Quote from Bart Roberts:

"You can't win a game you don't play"



Bart:

I've played enough downs with this particular team.

I finally figured out after thirty years of knocking heads, you can't win a game with a bought-off coach.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2006, 05:55 PM
I finally figured out after thirty years of knocking heads, you can't win a game with a bought-off coach.

Sure you can; the coach is only one part of the game. He can be replaced by the team.

Wastemore
June 14, 2006, 06:35 PM
I don't even see why this is a concern if you understand the meaning of inalienable.

gc70
June 14, 2006, 07:09 PM
Can you give an actual example of a single person who didn't "stand for it" in New Orleans when it happened.Excellent question.

We all saw the videos of individual confiscations and read news reports about other confiscations. At the same time, we all saw photos and read news reports about people banding together and providing armed protection for their neighborhoods.

I do not remember reading any accounts of guns being confiscated from an armed and organized neighborhood, or even of a confrontation between the police and an armed and organized neighborhood. Maybe it was just coincidence, but I think it should tell us something about strength in numbers.

1911Tuner
June 14, 2006, 07:42 PM
gc70 wrote:

>Maybe it was just coincidence, but I think it should tell us something about strength in numbers.<
*******************

Exactly. Easy for a 240-pound athletic 30 year-old to manhandle a little old lady who trusted him enough to let him into her kitchen. Different story when it's 12-15 men with rifles declaring: "We're fine here. Go about your business." Now that everybody has seen what they're willing to do on the authority of one man, they won't be so easily misled.

So, let the standard answer become: "We're fine here." And say it in unison. The response may well be:

"I didn't see any guns. You guys see any guns?"
"Nope. Not a one. Wanna go downtown to see if there are any guns?"
"Yep."
"Let's roll!"

:D

If you enjoyed reading about "U.N. Global gun ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!