United Nations IANSA today's "new draft"


PDA






Ira Aten
July 5, 2006, 12:24 PM
Here is a site:http://www.iansa.org/ showing "progress" on the United Nations attempt to help all the innocent folks in the world stamp out danger.

It contains a link to a "new draft" document they call an "outcome document" which shows the next moves they are plotting (that I cannot seem to cut and paste here) but you can get to it off the site shown above.

It says some "problems" have to be overcome, one being that the old one (yesterdays) did not contain language about taking all your guns from you, so they have fixed it apparantly.

I am not real computer savvy. Can some of you guys go to that site shown above and see if you can get the language of the new draft document put on a new thread (and they can close mine) so more people can see what they are up to?

If you enjoyed reading about "United Nations IANSA today's "new draft"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Justin
July 5, 2006, 12:47 PM
It is becoming more and more self-evident that the fight for the individual right to bear arms will increasingly be an international effort.

Ira Aten
July 5, 2006, 12:57 PM
But they will get it done by our own "representatatives" working for them from within our current so-called "system of government".

They need to be deported, and we need to resign from membership today.

North Korea, is launching missiles, and they are worried about me having a deer rife?

We should impeach any Senator or President which chooses to continue allowing them to plot the subversion of our system of government, on our very shores, and under our very own noses.

xd9fan
July 5, 2006, 02:37 PM
yup and the neocons will run full steam helping them do it

mountainclmbr
July 5, 2006, 02:42 PM
What needs to be done to prevent an international treaty from taking precedent over the Bill of Rights? Can Congress pass a law or does the Constitution need to be ammended?

the naked prophet
July 5, 2006, 02:57 PM
What needs to be done to prevent an international treaty from taking precedent over the Bill of Rights? Can Congress pass a law or does the Constitution need to be ammended?

The Constitution already has a ban on international treaties that conflict with itself - of course, the US government has ignored the rest of that document, why not toss out that part as well?

ken grant
July 5, 2006, 03:02 PM
The CONGRESS needs to be ammended by the people!!!!!!!!!!

orangelo
July 5, 2006, 03:05 PM
Section 5.56 impeachment hearings. :scrutiny:

Creeping Incrementalism
July 5, 2006, 03:14 PM
I hate to be the spelling police, but this word gets misspelled over and over again, and it doesn't help when pro-gun people can't spell the word right: Amendment. There are only two "m"s.

1911Tuner
July 5, 2006, 03:48 PM
Quote:

>What needs to be done to prevent an international treaty from taking precedent over the Bill of Rights?<
*******************

As far as I'm concerned, none is needed. My oath was and is to the Constitution. Any treaty or agreement that usurps that and the Bill of Rights
is illegitimate and therefore void before the ink is dry...and the drafters of any such treaty can go suck air and sunshine for supper.

Justin
July 5, 2006, 04:07 PM
They need to be deported, and we need to resign from membership today.

You might have a point if not for the fact that as a founding member of the Security Council, the United States, along with four other nations, have the ability to veto any resolution, regardless of whether they are in the majority or not.

The power to say "no" in a situation like that is an exceedingly good thing.

stevelyn
July 5, 2006, 10:47 PM
Section 5.56 impeachment hearings.:scrutiny:

:D :D :D

Diomed
July 6, 2006, 01:03 AM
The power to say "no" in a situation like that is an exceedingly good thing.

What happens when "no" becomes "yes"?

ArmedBear
July 6, 2006, 01:23 AM
What happens when "no" becomes "yes"?

Well, for the first thing, we can all congratulate ourselves for "voting our hopes, not our fears," for some ideologically pure Libertarian, not those oh-so-imperfect Republicans, and helping Hillary get into office.

You know, just as I do, that neither she nor her appointee would be good for a veto here.

xd9fan
July 7, 2006, 12:46 PM
I no longer see the "worth" of the UN.
Darfor is a bloody mess.

IANSA clearly has it in for My "protected Right"

and UN is just an advancing tool for socialism(and all the other ism's but Capitalism)

all the money energy and time spent stroking this group is a joke.

Nickotym
July 7, 2006, 01:08 PM
Can't these people get the idea into their heads that most of America does not want their beloved socialism?

HankB
July 7, 2006, 01:15 PM
The power to say "no" in a situation like that is an exceedingly good thing.Agreed . . . but what if we, at some dark time in the future, get another Jimmy Carter ( :barf: ) appointing another Andrew Young ( :eek: ) as U.N. Ambassador?

Erebus
July 7, 2006, 01:33 PM
Agreed . . . but what if we, at some dark time in the future, get another Jimmy Carter ( ) appointing another Andrew Young ( ) as U.N. Ambassador?

It isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when. It will happen. And there are far too many americans that will line up to give their freedoms away to the UN thinking they are gaining some measure of security. They have no clue it has nothing to do with security of the people and everything to do with security of the governments.

gopguy
July 7, 2006, 02:57 PM
xd9fan wroteyup and the neocons will run full steam helping them do it:scrutiny:

You are kidding, right? The anti gun movement in this country is pushed by the left not the right. Other than the stupid 1989 semi auto ban engineered by Bill Bennett and stupidly agreed to by George H.W. Bush, the President's father all other antigun measures have not come from conservatives........

1934 National Firearms act, President was Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

1968 Gun Control Act, This measure was pushed by the Kennedy family, Senator Thomas Dodd was the main author....his son Chris is in the Senate today also anti gun. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed it.

The 1986 Machine gun ban was attached to the Firearm Owners protection act by Democrats. The Reagan administration thought the courts would throw it out and the NRA endorsed signing the FOPA with the ban anyway.

The Clinton 1994 semi auto ban, 10 round magazine limit, declaration of street sweepers and other magazine fed shotguns as destructive devices, banning so called assault pistols from import and banning import of guns from certain countries was not pushed by conservatives.........

You got to pay more attention..Libs are pushing this agenda, it is obvious to all..:rolleyes:

orangelo
July 7, 2006, 03:09 PM
If liberals really believed the BS they spew about GW Bush and the neocons they would be the most ardent supporters of the 2A. With all the stories about drafts and concentration camps for gays and suspension of national elections and their other conspiracy theories.

Of course they still despise the 2A. Tells you a little about the strength of their convictions doesn't it ? They're full of crap and even in their tiny little minds they know it.

TIZReporter
July 7, 2006, 06:44 PM
I have the document at

http://www.theinfozone.net/SALW/UnitedNations.html

When those amoungst us express that the real fight for gun ownership will be at the international level, they are expressing exactly where this fight will be fought, and won.

If you do not yet know about the WFSA (http://www.wfsa.net) and if your particular shooting sport/gun rights group is not represented, then your voice is not been hear fully at the UN.

The international fight is one which is far different than most, it requires a lot more than mere rhetoric to win.

TIZ

If you enjoyed reading about "United Nations IANSA today's "new draft"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!