The UN is NOT going to take your Guns


PDA






NIGHTWATCH
August 29, 2006, 11:55 AM
This lady has much to say. Click the link "Additional Titles" for an archive of her work.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd198.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "The UN is NOT going to take your Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
orangelo
August 29, 2006, 11:59 AM
Tell that to the Australians. The UN, soros and his minion rebecca peters managed to take theirs.

Don't make light of the UN threat. The first thing a kerry or hitlary would do is bow to the UN and let them run roughshod over the entire bill of rights and US sovereignty. Constitutional or not.

antsi
August 29, 2006, 11:59 AM
(Edited after the link was posted).

This woman is confusing being right with winning. It is true that the UN has no legitimate authority to take away our guns, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

The most likely scenario is a multi-national treaty brokered by the UN that pretends to be targeted at the black market arms trade, but requires signatory nations to implement highly restrictive domestic gun control measures. President Hilary and a Democrat Congress would love to sign such a treaty.

I have heard Koffi Anan several times on the radio chanting the mantra that "peace requires a government monopoly on arms" (translation: disarmament of civilians). I know this is their agenda and it is utterly foolish to say "it can't happen here."

Art Eatman
August 29, 2006, 12:07 PM
I dunno, but from what some have said, it might be possible for the Senate and the President to enter into negotiations of some sort of treaty that negates the Bill of Rights and/or the Second Amendment.

I imagine the uproar from even the non-activist shooters would put "paid" to that notion, PDQ. Even the little old granny-ladies would get totally bent out of shape.

I worry a lot more about the creeping gun-control BS that we've been fighting for all these decades.

Art

Technosavant
August 29, 2006, 12:20 PM
Art, while I think a total gun bad by installment is the more likely tactic, those pushing such bans will do so in order to "make us better global citizens." Many people argue for various things based on how Europe, Canada, or others do things. While a total confiscation of private arms would be their endgame, they will hold up various "sensible gun control measures" :barf: from these other nations as models for our own nation.

Fight such sentiments wherever and whenever they show up. We scored a major victory in the UN for their little conference last month, and we can never let up. I've got no problem with kicking the anti-gun forces while they're down.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 29, 2006, 12:35 PM
I dunno, but from what some have said, it might be possible for the Senate and the President to enter into negotiations of some sort of treaty that negates the Bill of Rights and/or the Second Amendment.

What ever those someones have said does not take the restrictions in the Constitution into account.

First and foremost, the Second Amendment would prohibit the President the power to create, and the Senate to concur on the creation of, anything that would infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Secondly, any treaty made that didn't fall under the authority of the United States to make(ie: prohibited by the 2A) would not be the supreme law of the land, and would in fact be unconstitutional(Article VI, Clause (2)).

Nothing would prevent the President from entering into negotiations, but any such negotiations would be for naught other than for the President to tell whomever wanted such a treaty that he can't do it.

Woody

"I swear to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but I am not trigger-happy. I am merely prepared and determined in its defense. It's a comfortable place to be. I don't suffer doubt." B.E.Wood

K-Romulus
August 29, 2006, 12:36 PM
The most likely scenario is a multi-national treaty brokered by the UN that pretends to be targeted at the black market arms trade, but requires signatory nations to implement highly restrictive domestic gun control measures.

You wouldn't even need a treaty, just get squeezed under international pressure as a "pariah state."

I have to start a new thread on this . . .

Hawkmoon
August 29, 2006, 12:54 PM
I also fear the "stealth treaty" tactic, and I am certain Hillary or Kerry would not hesitate to use it.

What I find particularly galling is that the UN, the biggest organizational hypocrite in the known universe, wants to take guns away from Americans who aren't harming or threatenting anyone, but they REFUSE to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon. "Coffee" Annan says that's not their job.

("Dear Mr. Annan: If disarming Hezbollah isn't your job in Lebanon, what IS your job there?")

Tommygunn
August 29, 2006, 12:59 PM
I don't trust the U.N.; they are full of themselves and corrupt, many representatives there are socialistic and the majority despiuse America.
I don't think it's beyond possibility they will try to disarm us, someway somehow. How successful they'll be is problematic, but it is the attempt that poses the danger.
I do believe one of the greater dangers in this matter is not the U.N. per se, but who is in office, plus houses of legislature.
President Hitlery Klinton?
With a demonrat House & Senate?
"There's the rub."

rev214
August 29, 2006, 01:04 PM
I dunno, but from what some have said, it might be possible for the Senate and the President to enter into negotiations of some sort of treaty that negates the Bill of Rights and/or the Second Amendment.

yes it is possible and has happened before...look at the history of NAFTA for the agreement vs. treaty sham...

LAR-15
August 29, 2006, 01:06 PM
IANSA and many heads of states want a international ban on semi automatic and automatic firearms.

A number of African countries got together recently and signed a gun control treaty.

Igloodude
August 29, 2006, 01:16 PM
If the gun ban in DC continues to be law in the face of the Second Amendment, what's to say that a treaty mandating the same thing nationwide would be shot down on constitutionality grounds?

oldfart
August 29, 2006, 01:35 PM
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of hand guns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal." Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, page 53.


So, how are they doing? Well, after a flurry of lawsuits by gun-banners, most of which have failed, the gun manufacturing industry in the U.S. is on the ropes with Winchester recently selling out to Browning. The state of California has tentatively passed a bill to require some sort of "laser-etching" on gun parts that will identify the gun that bullets or casings come from and which will increase the cost of doing business so much that many manufacturers will simply fold their tents. Registration has been accomplished by hanging the carrot of CCW in front of gun owners and letting them stampede to the sheriff's office for the honor of putting their names on a list. So called "safety checks" have been turned into de facto registration in several states. Other states have toyed with the idea of requiring a picture ID before buying ammunition, and that will happen too - in time.

If it was a company traded on the NYSE, I think "The Brady Bunch" would be a pretty good investment. :banghead:

Creeping Incrementalism
August 29, 2006, 02:08 PM
The state of California has tentatively passed a bill to require some sort of "laser-etching" on gun parts that will identify the gun that bullets or casings come from and which

Actually AB357, the laser-etching, isn't the "two-year bill" coming back to life--AB352, microstamping, is what you're thinking of. (I think I got the bill numbers straight). The firing pin is supposed to pound a serial number into the primer. It passed the Assembly and is currently awaiting a vote in the Senate.

1911Tuner
August 29, 2006, 02:12 PM
I'll concur with Art on this one...though we both may be wrong if the elections go straight to Helen Gone.

Your rights aren't usually taken in one fell swoop. They're nibbled to death until nobody remembers exactly what they were originally.

longeyes
August 29, 2006, 02:22 PM
No, nothing to worry about--and the North American Union isn't happening either, any more than we are being inundated by illegal immigration from Central America. We're just imagining it all.

We already know what the Grand Plan is. What we don't know is when or if those of who get it are going to really do anything about it. So far the gun-grabbers have little reason to fear us.

Zundfolge
August 29, 2006, 02:27 PM
The UN is NOT going to take your Guns
100% true.

Of course the UN is not going to take your guns ... the'll just get the governments of their member states to do it.


It won't be "blue helmets" coming to confiscate grandpa's hunting rifle ... it will be the local Sheriff with some sort of order from the State government (which is written because the State.gov got an order from the fed.gov which is a requirement of some sort of "agreement" a Hillary type signs with the UN).


So she's not lyin' the UN isn't going to take your guns :neener:

Old Fuff
August 29, 2006, 03:08 PM
It should always be remembered that the folks who believe that gun control should be established at the U.N. level also don't believe that the Second Amendment has anything to do with individual rights to gun ownership, but rather the right of the government to equip the National Guard - although it was the stated position of the Clintion Administration (past) that even National Guard personel didn't have any business having arms as individuals.

And the Supreme Court hasn't said otherwise so far...

So anyone who thinks that they would have any protection from the Second Amendment during a Democrat administration had better do some serious thinking.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 29, 2006, 07:16 PM
yes it is possible and has happened before...look at the history of NAFTA for the agreement vs. treaty sham...

Be it a treaty or "agreement", it is still forbidden by the Second Amendment.

Woody

"If we don't elect honorable people to office, it will be beyond the bloodless will of man to set things back on the path to constitutionalism. We are duty bound morally and in the name of common sense to get it done. To wait is to condemn patriots to death." B.E.Wood

Old Fuff
August 29, 2006, 07:44 PM
Be it a treaty or "agreement", it is still forbidden by the Second Amendment.

But is it?

We would say so, but frankly our opinions don't matter in this instance. What does is opinions handed down by courts - the United States Supreme Court in particular.

If we found ourselves with a left-wing congress and administration - something that could happen as soon as 2008 - and such a treaty or agreement was enacted - the only thing that would upset it would be a ruling by the SCOTUS, and getting a favorable ruling for our side is by no means assured. Where are you at if the ruling from an activist court says that the 2nd. Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to own firearms?

beerslurpy
August 29, 2006, 07:48 PM
So if the UN only acts by proxy, everything is just peachy?

ConstitutionCowboy
August 29, 2006, 10:51 PM
Be it a treaty or "agreement", it is still forbidden by the Second Amendment.


But is it?

We would say so, but frankly our opinions don't matter in this instance. What does is opinions handed down by courts - the United States Supreme Court in particular.

If we found ourselves with a left-wing congress and administration - something that could happen as soon as 2008 - and such a treaty or agreement was enacted - the only thing that would upset it would be a ruling by the SCOTUS, and getting a favorable ruling for our side is by no means assured. Where are you at if the ruling from an activist court says that the 2nd. Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to own firearms?

I'm sittin' on my front porch, guns at the ready for when they come to get them. They're all sighted in, and ready to rock!

Don't forget, eliminating the Second Amendment does not cancel the right. It may no longer be protected on paper, but the metal, wood, and plastic projectile launching devises will suffice.

Woody

This is what the Second Amendment is for. Should any such amendment or treaty be ratified to cancel the Second Amendment, it shall compel forceful preservation and restoration of the protections of the right, for it would attempt to deprive us of the means to preserve freedom. B.E.Wood

Old Fuff
August 30, 2006, 02:48 AM
I'm sittin' on my front porch, guns at the ready for when they come to get them. They're all sighted in, and ready to rock!

The kind of people who are behind this enjoy folks like you. They'd never pass up a chance to make an example - like they did at Waco - to show the rest of us who is in charge... :uhoh: :banghead:

LAK
August 30, 2006, 08:14 AM
In a country where the magic words "national security" are seemingly attached to anything the WH deems might upset people if made public, I have no doubt that any agreement by treaty with the UN on this subject will probably (or has been) be tabled in a setting with no press access and very limited cabinet knowledge.

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

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

antsi
August 30, 2006, 09:59 AM
------quote---------
In a country where the magic words "national security" are seemingly attached to anything the WH deems might upset people if made public, I have no doubt that any agreement by treaty with the UN on this subject will probably (or has been) be tabled in a setting with no press access and very limited cabinet knowledge.
--------------------

For all the issues I do have with this administration, collaborating with UN shennanigans is not one of their faults.

Bolton (Bush's appointee to the UN) slammed them down publicly in no uncertain terms in the UN's recent small arms treaty meeting.

fedaykincmndr
August 30, 2006, 10:46 AM
I have to chime in on this one. First off, I cannot STAND this "guns kill people and are SO evil" mentality that is infecting our society. How far will these socialists go? Are we to become as Nazi Germany or any other nation that's been raped by the cancer that is fascism? That's all I see when I hear of things such as the UN talks and Democratic bitching on how guns are the reason for crime and that they should be illegal. I think that the next Civil War has begun already. To be frank, I'm scared. I'm only 23 and who's to say what I may see in the next 20 years of my life? Will I see this country ravaged by socialism (more so than it already is)? It's people like Hitlery (great term for her BTW), Kerry, and all the other leftists that will bring this country to war IMO. Not war on foriegn soil but war here in our own backyards. Whose to say that if a liberal/leftist administration was to come to power there wouldn't be another secession by those states who still believed in what the Framers started 230+ years ago? If I'm taking it to far by saying that then please correct me, but I fear these sheeple. I gave 3 years of my life defending this country and I will give whatever is necessary, my life if need be, to defend the rights that my forefathers and many others have laid down their life for. My rights as an American state that I have the right as a Human to keep and bear arms, thus I will do so until the day I die. Be it at the hands of those who would oppose those rights or the Hand of Almighty God.

SoiCowboy
August 30, 2006, 11:00 AM
The UN isn't going to take your guns, fellow Americans are.

Even if some magical law was passed, who do you thinks going to enforce it?

Nigerian and Moroccan troops?

Stupid laws being passed is more of a threat. Just look at Californias bullet ID bill.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 30, 2006, 11:18 AM
The kind of people who are behind this enjoy folks like you. They'd never pass up a chance to make an example - like they did at Waco - to show the rest of us who is in charge...

The kind of people who are in front of this don't cower and hide. Let them attempt to make an example - like they did in Waco - and I'll show them the true meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.

Do you honestly think that standing on my soapbox and speaking my mind about the ins and outs of violating the Constitution is going to turn those in government into raving lunatic power mad Janet Reno's? Those who would come for me and my guns are ALREADY raving lunatic power mad Janet Reno's.

I'm not a David Coresh. I'm not a Timothy McVeigh. Hell, I'm not even a Randy Weaver or a Miller(of US v. Miller). I'm just Woody. I vote. I espouse the virtues of the Constitution. I berate the actions of those who ignore and twist the Constitution. I also stand on my rights.

I'm not like someone like Mayor Bloomberg of New York City who takes the law into his own hands, operating outside the law like some self righteous vigilante. I'm merely standing my ground. I'm merely standing on the Constitution. If those raving lunatic power mad Janet Reno's in government don't like what I say, they'll have to come and shut me up.

So, when they come for me, hide in the bushes and watch if you like. Then run home and turn in all your weapons, wipe your hard drive, and put on your gray pants and shirt and maybe they'll let you live. Go ahead and pad your wrists and ankles for the chains that'll be heading your way, too.

Woody

"Freedom is good for the individual, good for the human condition, and good for society as well. It is the only way individual accountability can be valid, for a person who is not free to do as he sees fit cannot be blamed... or genuinely rewarded." K.L.Dimond

Phetro
August 30, 2006, 12:31 PM
We would say so, but frankly our opinions don't matter in this instance. What does is opinions handed down by courts - the United States Supreme Court in particular.

Oh yeah, WE don't matter. America itself doesn't matter. Only what the Supreme Court says matters! :rolleyes:

Supreme BS. Don't be a sheep. Defy tyranny.

If we found ourselves with a left-wing congress and administration - something that could happen as soon as 2008 - and such a treaty or agreement was enacted - the only thing that would upset it would be a ruling by the SCOTUS, and getting a favorable ruling for our side is by no means assured. Where are you at if the ruling from an activist court says that the 2nd. Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to own firearms?

Right where I am now, knowing that resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

Zundfolge
August 30, 2006, 12:57 PM
So if the UN only acts by proxy, everything is just peachy?
I didn't say everything would be peachy ... the original post took to task the legitimacy and honesty of the statement "The UN is NOT going to take your Guns"

Mine was only a discussion of semantics. ;)



On a side note, I think there are a lot in the RKBA community who expect blue helmeted thugs to come riding down their street some day, kicking in doors and taking guns. To many, the idea of shooting a bunch of blue helmeted foreigners in the head is not that bad, maybe even a somewhat romantic notion.

The thing to keep in mind is that if it ever gets to that point, you're going to have to shoot Americans ... your fellow citizens wearing badges and not necessarily on your front step because they agree with the confiscations. I don't know about you guys, but that thought saddens me ... and would certainly make it a much harder thing to do.


No sir "the Revolution" (if it ever comes to that) will not be romantic or glorious, its going to be messy, painful and sad.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 30, 2006, 02:05 PM
When someone says they have the one true way to fix things and then observes that no other pro-RKBA organization will support their effort, I think that says pretty much all that needs to be said.

I find it difficult to believe that the proposed solution is such a good one if she can't get a single pro-RKBA group to support it. Whatever else pro-RKBA groups may be, they certainly don't all march to the beat of the same drum.

beerslurpy
August 30, 2006, 03:04 PM
If the day ever comes, I think most gun owners will have trouble distinguishing what shade of blue the gun confiscators are wearing. That being said, I dont think that it will ever be attempted (by anyone, foreign or domestic) as long as any meaningful resistance could be expected. They are cowards and few in number and our generation has the advantage of already being armed. The real question will be what sort of people inherit the country from us.

OB-1
August 30, 2006, 04:12 PM
I came very close to facing the evil beast of gun confiscation last year during the Katrina aftermath. On day eight, I was supervising a crew installing additional backup power equipment in New Orleans East. We were all armed. One of our customerís guys returned to our jobsite after trying to make a trip to the North Shore. He told me that the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Office had a check point at the north end of the US-11 bridge and they were confiscating firearms from ALL northbound traffic. This guy was armed, in a marked company vehicle, and was authorized full access to the area. The sheriff deputy took his firearms, (pistol & rifle), allowed him to turn around, and then returned his firearms as long as he was headed back into New Orleans. As far as we knew at that time, US-11 was our only available route out of New Orleans. So, we could either give our guns to the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Office, leave them at the job site, (it was secure, but who knows when we would be able to retrieve them, and we were carrying for a very good reason), or find another way out of town while avoiding anyone else with a badge that might want our guns. We chose the later. Being the boss, I had to ask each of my guys if they would surrender their guns if there was no alternative. They all said yes they would. Then I had to tell them that IF the supposed authorities left me no option, I would not surrender my guns and they, (my guys), needed to remove themselves from the lines of fire. What an absolutely sickening feeling. Iím a Veteran, have worked in law enforcement and have friends in LE, and the realization that I truly might have to bear arms against former comrades made me physically ill.:barf: Fortunately, after many hours of grim determination and a lot of back tracking, we found a route out of the city. Although we went through several check points we werenít challenged. Thank YOU GOD!:D

As a side note, we, (my employer), supplied logistical support to the ATF during the first month or so of the recovery/cleanup. Our office is just around the corner from theirs on the North Shore, and we had a loading dock, forklift, power, water, a shower, air conditioning, and a large classroom and conference area we turned into a sleeping area for the ATF agents. After our encounter with gun confiscation, I looked up one of the senior ATF agents and related my story and asked him point blank whether or not the AFT was behind any of this crap. He swore that werenít and he and several other agents went out of their way to encourage those of going into the city to carry guns.

UnknownSailor
August 30, 2006, 09:48 PM
You shouldn be more concerned about what "publik edukashun" is doing to your fellow American. How many blissfully walk around, ignorant of their own country's history and traditions, and believeing everything the Box tells them?

Take as many people out shooting as you can. Get more Americans involved in the sport. It's about numbers, people. It's only public ignorance that allows the hoplophobe agenda to flourish. Educated Americans can spot the horsepucky being shoveled by the gun-grabbers, and can cast an informed vote.

If the time comes where we are all hunkered down in our homes (those that still have firearms after being piecemealed to death in the preceding years), waiting for the Bad Man to come and try to take them, it's FAR too late.

beerslurpy
August 30, 2006, 09:57 PM
What was the ATF even doing in Katrina during cleanup? Auditing FFLs with scuba gear?

Malone LaVeigh
August 30, 2006, 10:08 PM
It embarrasses me that so many of my allies on the gun control issue are such crackpots...

OB-1
August 31, 2006, 12:29 AM
"What was the ATF even doing in Katrina during cleanup? Auditing FFLs with scuba gear?" Initially, they were doing the same as everyone else, simply helping out where they could. They were part of the federal force that eventually established order in the city. Later, they visited all the damaged and destroyed guns shops securing records and firearms that hadn't been looted or destroyed.

cbsbyte
August 31, 2006, 12:33 AM
It correct to assume that the greatest threat to your 2nd Ad rights if from Republicans and some Democrats.

LAK
August 31, 2006, 04:41 AM
Antsi,

The mere fact that the Bush administration has not withdrawn the United States from that international crime syndicate says enough for me. George Bush says and does the "right things" when it suits him, but make no mistake - and I have quoted him verbatem in previous threads - he is right behind the UN agenda all the way. He will not be in for another term; his replacement will do the rest, and so on.

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

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

antsi
August 31, 2006, 05:16 AM
-------quote-------
The mere fact that the Bush administration has not withdrawn the United States from that international crime syndicate
--------------------

And President Hilary will withdraw the US from the UN?
President Nader?

I'd love to see it happen, but there's nobody even remotely electable who is advocating withdrawal from the UN.

If you are concerned because Bush is too supportive of the UN, you ought to be seething, livid, and frothing at the mouth regarding every other national politician on this issue.

LAK
August 31, 2006, 07:25 AM
No; one performing WWF star is no different from the other WWF star in the ring - nor the other WWF "contenders" waiting to get in the ring for the next performance.

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

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

Zundfolge
August 31, 2006, 12:29 PM
The mere fact that the Bush administration has not withdrawn the United States from that international crime syndicate says enough for me.
Do you honestly believe that ANY US President has the power to withdraw us from the United Nations? Someone needs to learn their civics a little better.

Plus there's no consensus even among Republicans that we need to leave the UN (hell, I'm not convinced that leaving the UN would be a good idea and I'm about as anti-UN as they come).

Frankly, GW sending Bolton up there to monkeywrench the UN seems to be a much more effective tactic than just "taking our ball and going home".

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.05.12.PhantomMenace-X.gif

Old Fuff
August 31, 2006, 04:09 PM
Love the cartoon, but please don't post it while I'm drinking coffee... :evil: :D

Keith Wheeler
August 31, 2006, 06:18 PM
It embarrasses me that so many of my allies on the gun control issue are such crackpots...

Yep, I just keep thinking about Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics:

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms ó he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated ó if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoidís sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

Koobuh
August 31, 2006, 06:34 PM
"First and foremost, the Second Amendment would prohibit the President the power to create, and the Senate to concur on the creation of, anything that would infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms."

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

You have more of these, yes? Wonderful comedy.

The gun legislation history of the 20th century would like a word with you if you were actually trying to be serious.

I would tend to consider the inability of citizens to own modern military weapons, onerous 'school protection zones', the entire state of California, and idiotic restrictions on silencers, among other things, to be infringements upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

GeorgiaGlocker
September 1, 2006, 08:34 AM
There could be a run a 33 round mags.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 1, 2006, 11:45 AM
I would tend to consider the inability of citizens to own modern military weapons, onerous 'school protection zones', the entire state of California, and idiotic restrictions on silencers, among other things, to be infringements upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

...about those who came before us? What does that tell you about what we must do and who we must vote for?

And This:

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

Who wrote that? Obviously, it was written by someone addressing those unwilling to discuss societal norms. We're not talking religious faith, birth control, interracial marriage, or any other of a myriad of social conflicts or deviations from societal norms worthy of compromise or "mediation". We are talking basic human rights here.

Without those basic human rights protected by those of us unwilling to compromise them away, you open the door for, and end up in, a totalitarian society where there is NEVER any compromise or mediation(however any form of mediation might apply to such issues). Take those great sounding philosophical platitudes and stick them where the sun don't shine. As far as standing up for and protecting our basic human rights go, that is the first step in placing those platitudes(shall I say "grunting and straining") into the proper receptacle for flushing them away. Don't forget to wipe, and wash your hands when you are through.

Stand up for your rights or get down on your knees and prostrate yourself to the next "god here on the earth" dictator. I'll caution you, though, not to stand between him and my sights.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

Fastlane
September 1, 2006, 02:43 PM
A lot of you guys like to write. So I will keep my reply to this post simple. I'm a old man who takes too many pain meds, if they "they being whomever" would like to try and take my guns let them come and get them. My best years are long behind me.

LAK
September 2, 2006, 08:44 AM
ZundfolgeDo you honestly believe that ANY US President has the power to withdraw us from the United Nations? Someone needs to learn their civics a little better.
He (or she) certainly does; who exactly is it that your civics class taught you has the power to enter the United States into treaties with foreign governments?
Plus there's no consensus even among Republicans that we need to leave the UN (hell, I'm not convinced that leaving the UN would be a good idea and I'm about as anti-UN as they come).
It is not a matter or being "anti-UN"; the United Nations is an international criminal organization - a global terroristic institution that operates under an ideology of global socialism. Those so-called "republicans" ought to just join them, as it seems that is where they belong.
Frankly, GW sending Bolton up there to monkeywrench the UN seems to be a much more effective tactic than just "taking our ball and going home".
We've been throwing monkey wrenches for decades in the mafia (various forms), drug cartels, and now "terrorists". It's a big show that is an ongoing excuse to drain our resources - blood and money - and needs to stop. The president has the power to withdraw the United States from the "United Nations" with the stroke of a pen. After that, whether Congress decides to "fund it" or not becomes a moot issue.

It really is that simple. What Bolton has done is honorable - assuming he is not putting on another show, but it is not going to last. There has been, and continues to be heavy pressure to eliminate the veto; for "real democracy" within the UN. It is not going to last for long, and you can bank on them going forward with their collective agenda when the veto no longer exists.

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

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

longeyes
September 2, 2006, 01:31 PM
The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms ó he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated ó if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoidís sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

I have news for this writer: Apocalypse does come, and not that infrequently.

That said, it's always prudent to get involved and work rationally and cooperatively while you can.

When you are dealing with leftists you should always keep a little paranoia handy.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 2, 2006, 02:20 PM
When you are dealing with leftists you should always keep a little paranoia handy.

But, is it really paranoia when it's responding to the known tactics of the left? They call it paranoia to hopefully throw us off balance. It didn't work. Paranoia is unfounded fear. We fear them, but we know why, so, it isn't unfounded.

Let's call it "awareness". That's a word they use all the time so they must understand it. We are "aware" of their tactics and are prepared to meet them head on.

Woody

There is perspective and there is pretense. No amount of bombast or emotion can truthfully equate the two. One does not add validity to the other. Bombast and emotion added to pretense does not equal perspective. Reason, fact, and logic? That's a different matter. That will net you perspective every time. B.E.Wood

Diamondback6
September 3, 2006, 02:55 AM
Oh, you didn't know? "Paranoia is simply a state of heightened awareness." I forget which wise Elder Statesman of combat weaponcraft said that, but it's still a valid perspective.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 3, 2006, 10:49 AM
I like that! It covers paranoia AND awareness!

Woody

"Gun Control" seeks to put bounds upon, and possibly effect the elimination of, our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control. What is under attack are rights of the people. Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense, primarily. Dehumanizing the discourse by calling it "gun control" or "gun rights" tends to lessen the impact from what the impact would be if the discussion were to be directed at the HUMAN right being infringed, and attempts to hide it from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. B.E.Wood

GrammatonCleric
September 3, 2006, 09:02 PM
Gentlemen, I have a bad feeling that this country is headed for disaster. If (God help us) Hillary or any other leftist gains the presidency in 2008, our Constitutionally-recognized right to self-defense will go right down the porcelain throne. There is no doubt in my mind that these communist traitors will collaborate with their UN puppet masters to bring this once-great nation in line with their collectivist agenda. That being said ANYBODY trying to seize my arms will regret it. Born in this country or not, leftists are NOT Americans. True Americans believe in the Constitution, and are willing to lay down their lives in defense of it and what it stands for. I will NEVER surrender my firearms, my rights as an American were paid for in blood by millions of great Americans throughout this country's short history, and I will DIE before I see their sacrifices fall by the wayside and amount to nothing. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!!:fire:

Malone LaVeigh
September 5, 2006, 02:24 PM
When you are dealing with leftists or right-wingers you should always keep a little paranoia handy.

Fixed it for you.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 5, 2006, 10:20 PM
You mean you abridged it, don't you?

Woody

To be liberal is to live in a cloud of delusion fraught with fantasy, and a disregard for the law and fair play. Alas; clear fact, unambiguous consensus, scrutiny, and researched reason does prevail and keeps me in touch with who is who, what is what, and why I am conservative. B.E.Wood

1911 guy
September 6, 2006, 11:29 AM
While I never expect to see blue helmets marching down my street, I think the threat of confiscation is real. Other will be sent to do the U.N.'s bidding. As for the treaty vs. agreement argument, I've already seen evidence that our national sovreignty means nothing to these clowns. Two months ago I was working on the shipping dock at my factory. A truck pulled in and I was talking with the driver, who began complaining about his new inspection sticker. It has three flags on it. American, mexican and canadian.

Our Republic is dying a death of a thousand cuts.

Sam
September 6, 2006, 11:40 PM
That is quite correct.
The UN is not going to take my weapons.

Sam

ProguninTN
September 6, 2006, 11:49 PM
Another way I have heard it is "Paranoia is a survival trait".

If you enjoyed reading about "The UN is NOT going to take your Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!