GAINING GROUND - UN GUN BAN POLL


PDA






cxm
June 24, 2006, 07:43 AM
The Libs are still winning, but we are closing the gap...

The anti gun, pro UN vote is still stalled... it is almost like they were started out with a bunch of votes in the poll.. any way they are not increasing and we are gaining. The poll is now 45% to 55% in their favor... but we have closed from 41%.

There is still time to vote.... or vote some more as democRATs do. The url is:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/21/un.us.small.arms.ap/index.html


Chuck

If you enjoyed reading about "GAINING GROUND - UN GUN BAN POLL" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Serendipity
June 24, 2006, 08:35 AM
What's the point in voting? The UN has absolutely no significance, relative to domestic U.S. laws. I wouldn't give legitimacy to them by participating in the poll.

DougW
June 24, 2006, 12:25 PM
So if there is a global "ban", does that mean that there will be an open season on blue helmits here in the US?

No_Brakes23
June 24, 2006, 12:41 PM
To Hell with the U.N. Anyway, I thought this stuff about the July 4th conferance was all LaPierre running his mouth, (Really, who works in New York on the 4th?)

Oh and point of contention. No one who is genuinely liberal is behind removing firearms liberties. Some of us who love our liberites and swore an Oath to the Constitution bristle at the accusation that we are anti-gun.

As for the UN and it's pro-genocide tendencies towards fascism, they may do their best to muck up Africa, Asia and Europe, but they'll find a different sort of person on this soil. If you really want to hamper UN efforts, support Euro firearms groups like proTELL in Switzerland and similar organizations in the few Euro countries that have some rights left.

armedandsafe
June 24, 2006, 01:10 PM
Liberals, Democrats, Socialists. There is a world of difference among these belief systems, if you happen to know the American brand of the English language. However, if you have been taught your language by listening to and reading the mainstream media, you will have a skewed understanding of the true meaning of those labels. If the bulk of your knowledge of these terms comes from listening to and reading the offstream "consertive" media, you will have a skewed understanding of the true meaning of those labels. If you happen to read a little history, written before 1960, you will come to realize that Liberals ain't liberal, Democrats have fallen far below their original ideals, and Socialists are dreamy-eyed, idealistic killers of civilization.

(Dons flamesuit, ducks for cover.. :D )

Pops

rangerruck
June 24, 2006, 01:35 PM
the heck you say! the un has no influence... ask gisnberg and kennedy on the big court if they have ever based decisions on international law and even worse, on just desired written about treaties that are not even treaties and still beign debated in the u.n. and in Europe, or just ideas for treaties,floated by the globalists. Those two idiots do it all the time. The last one was as a matter of fact having to do with gun law, if im remember right, and it got shot down here , thank god. There was an open forum debate on this between Scalia and Suiter, and Su. made a big deal about some law that should be established here, looking at world WISHES, DESIRES, FOR US! Scalia very curtly retorted," how is it that you can use world law to interpret certain new laws you want here, but when it comes to Abortion, ALmost all developed countries in the e.u. and in the rest of the world for that matter, have much tougher restriction? No you won't use examples of that international law, because in the end, it conflicst with your own desires, and what you want to see happen here. So the International law you agree with, is still the laws that you like, and what you want to happen here. it has nothing to do with what you actually think is good law."
I paraphrased that as best I could, but Scalia actually publicly scolded him like that , in an open audio and video recorded debate, I think at a college.

espanola
June 24, 2006, 02:35 PM
The UN has as much say and influence in the US as we allow it to have. And these days, that doesn't make me too comfortable...

FedGunner
June 25, 2006, 11:52 PM
Do you believe the U.N. is trying to outlaw gun ownership in the U.S.?
Yes


46%

33850 votes
No


54%

39306 votes
Total: 73156 votes

pdowg881
June 25, 2006, 11:58 PM
a global arms ban would real FSU. Oh wait, maybe evryone will peacefully stroll to UN hq in their hybrids and drop of their guns. (No offense to hybrid owners, lol) Or maybe crazy people will take adavtage of people who can't defend themselves.

Zundfolge
June 25, 2006, 11:58 PM
The UN has absolutely no significance, relative to domestic U.S. laws.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but all we need is a UN friendly president and UN friendly majorities in the house and senate and we could see our sovereignty handed over quite easily to the UN.


Of course there would be bloodshed soon after, but the point is that the UN still has some relevance to US law. :fire:

Hayward Juhbuzzoff
June 26, 2006, 12:21 AM
The UN has absolutely no significance, relative to domestic U.S. laws.

that's the truth... in my opinion, this is a non-issue. If they have such a hard time getting us to sign on to banning landmines, or to global warming, does anyone really think the UN can exert the kind of influence over the American populace to ban our firearms?... it's silliness, and not gonna happen, not in a million years...

roscoe
June 26, 2006, 03:14 AM
People are so paranoid about the UN. Let me tell you something you should already know: the US controls the UN. Occasionally someone spouts off something in the general assembly, but look at the security council: the biggest arms dealers in teh world.

So the UN will make an occasional noise, to no effect. Look at the good job they have done preventing genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda and the Sudan. Imagine them trying to take on a real country.

Baba Louie
June 26, 2006, 10:46 AM
but all we need is a UN friendly president and UN friendly majorities in the house and senate and we could see our sovereignty handed over quite easily to the UN.

Let me tell you something you should already know: the US controls the UN.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-25-Sun-2006/opinion/8118779.html
...from the link above... (and note that the LV Review Journal is a conservative paper... typically)
I do miss Bill. Lots of us do. Frat boy antics and a few other miscues notwithstanding, Clinton will go down as one of the all-time great U.S. presidents. The reasons to hate Bill Clinton -- propagated by tools such as Rush Limbaugh and cynical GOP strategists -- are as real as WMD in Iraq. I'd love to see him back in the White House, working to clean up Bush's ballooning messes.

That won't happen. But I'm glad Clinton is busy with important things in his post-presidential life, from raising funds for tsunami and hurricane victims to expanding AIDS treatment around the globe. And maybe someday he will be offered another big-time gig, such as secretary-general of the United Nations.

Keep hope alive.
2 + 2 = ? I would bet that 40% of the American population would agree with all of the above. Few gun owners perhaps... then again, I know quite a few Dem's who own firearms who're somewhat "put off" by the antics of the present admin.

Can never happen? Hillary at 1600 Penn. Ave., Dems back in control of both houses of Congress, BJ taking Kofi's place... One big happy family I tell ya. Baby blue would become the national colors and the next generation would be brought up learning and knowing that it was their DUTY to support the US backed UN... to make the world a safer place... for the children.

Naaaaah. :uhoh:

PATH
June 26, 2006, 09:14 PM
The good guys are up to 47%. I encourage everyone to go and vote!

If you enjoyed reading about "GAINING GROUND - UN GUN BAN POLL" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!