U.N. to regulate guns in America?


PDA






Deadman
July 16, 2003, 09:44 AM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33584

If you enjoyed reading about "U.N. to regulate guns in America?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Art Eatman
July 16, 2003, 11:30 AM
They've been trying that garbage for quite a while, now. It took a lot of work for the NRA to get status as an NGO; it's the only NGO to speak up for our side of the issue. Umpteen gazillion NGOs are against us.

Art

Cal4D4
July 16, 2003, 11:37 AM
Hats off to Bob Barr and Bolton. For Kofi and his world domination clan, the guillotine.

themic
July 16, 2003, 02:00 PM
WOW. kudos to the State Department!

Barr and Bolton sound like top notch fellas.

Waitone
July 16, 2003, 02:17 PM
All the major blocks that constitute global governance are in position. Just a few remain to be place. The two biggies are control of legal small arms trade and UN direct taxes. The US is standing up and saying "No" but you can bet President Hillary <shudder> will reverse Bush's directives. It is no coincidence both initiatives are linked. Direct taxation will permit the fielding of an autonomous UN army and control of legal firearms will reduce the amount of target practice on the nice blue helmets.

Glad Bob Barr is available for the gig.

geekWithA.45
July 16, 2003, 02:40 PM
As I recall, we threw a grand little war over that in 1776, and I'm sure we'll have plenty of help if we need to again.

No armed UN soldier will ever stand in a position of authority on US soil unmolested.

Not within 300 meters of me, anyway.

alan
July 16, 2003, 05:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
U.N. seeking global gun control?
Conference moving toward plan that would regulate U.S. arms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 16, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A U.N. group is working toward establishment of an international system to register and regulate civilian possession of firearms, according to a former congressman.

The ultimate aim of many members of the conference on small arms is to outlaw personal ownership of guns altogether, said Georgia Republican Bob Barr in an interview yesterday on the newly syndicated WorldNetDaily Report with Joseph Farah.


Bob Barr

Barr was an official representative of the U.S. State Department's delegation at the conference's week-long session last week. It is known officially as the first Biennial Meeting of States on the Implementation of the Program of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

At the beginning of the session, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged members to redouble efforts to curb small arms and light weapons.

"The United Nations remains firmly committed to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons in all its aspects," he said.

The group will meet again in 2005, followed by a review conference scheduled for 2006.

If not for the U.S. State Department and organizations such as the National Rifle Association, "this locomotive would have had a lot more steam," Barr said.

Barr commended U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton for focusing the U.N.'s attention on international trafficking of illicit arms and not on U.S. ownership of arms.

"He has done an outstanding job of monitoring this and standing up to it in a way the State Department frequently does not do," Barr said.

However, Barr warned that many member nations, including the UK, Netherlands and India, want to set up a legally binding protocol requiring all U.N. countries to start registration of firearms.

The potential implications of that are enormous, he said, noting it is a small step toward the ultimate nightmare of American gun owners – "the U.N. knocking on our door to get our firearms."

"If we were to allow in any way, shape or form the U.N. to begin the process of registering and regulating fire arms – ultimately their goal of doing away with personal firearms – we would have dealt a blow to our sovereignty," he said.

Barr called on citizens to urge their representatives to stay on top of the issue and ensure the U.S. is not faced with a legally-binding document that would commit the country to some form of firearms registration and regulation by the U.N. or any outside authority.

"The presence of several anti-gun groups at this and other related conferences underscores the threat they pose to the constitutional rights of American citizens if we fail to closely monitor their activities," Barr said in a statement. "In fact, many of these groups receive substantial funding from anti-firearms governments to move their agenda."

During the conference, the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey released its findings for 2002, which paid special attention to U.S. gun ownership.

"By any measure the United States is the most armed country in the world," the report said. "With roughly 83 to 96 guns per 100 people, the United States is approaching a statistical level of one gun per person."

Related stories:

U.N. to host global gun-control event

Global tax on guns?

manwithoutahome
July 16, 2003, 05:48 PM
The un can't get global power if there are people still out there with guns. They are the demorats democrap, they not only believe they are owed power but will kill anyone who goes against them. They can't take over if people have the power to stop them from doing so.

M

Waitone
July 16, 2003, 06:20 PM
Still

Byron Quick
July 16, 2003, 06:37 PM
It's probably time to get out of the UN.

Skunkabilly
July 16, 2003, 06:39 PM
They gearing up for invasion? Already? :scrutiny:

Preacherman
July 16, 2003, 06:45 PM
I've merged two threads on the same subject, using the earlier thread's title for the combined result.

Nightfall
July 16, 2003, 07:57 PM
Molon Labe.

Spot77
July 16, 2003, 08:21 PM
Quote:
It's probably time to get out of the UN.

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

Amen to that brother. Where are all the other member nations when we need them anyway?

Waste of our tax dollars....

Byron Quick
July 16, 2003, 08:36 PM
Where were they? Hiding under a rock...as usual.

JeepDriver
July 16, 2003, 09:54 PM
No armed UN soldier will ever stand in a position of authority on US soil unmolested.

Not within 300 meters of me, anyway

I second that

amprecon
July 16, 2003, 10:31 PM
If they've got plans to come on over and tell us what to do, I'd wish they'd hurry up and come on. Those dang paper targets get boring to shoot at after awhile. Those delivery room blue helmets scurrying for cover would be much more fun and challenging.

fmjcafe
July 16, 2003, 11:14 PM
A few sucessful ambushes and think of all the neat new goodies we could pick up....
:evil:

tyme
July 16, 2003, 11:56 PM
mmm. What firearms do UN "peacekeepers" use, anyway? HK stuff? Somehow I don't see them walking around with 1911s.

alan
July 17, 2003, 12:49 AM
Gentlemen:

Interesting though the thoughts might be, I doubt very much that the U.S. will ever pull out of the U.N., at least not within the forseeable future.

As for the U.N. dictating to this country, regarding our constitutional rights, I doubt that too, unless our government complete abdicates it's responsibilities, which might well lead to armed conflict.

faustulus
July 17, 2003, 06:21 AM
If they want them, they are here.

Skunkabilly
July 17, 2003, 12:52 PM
What firearms do UN "peacekeepers" use, anyway? HK stuff?

Schuey! This is our chance! Our collective efforts can finally drive those damn Norwegians into envy!!! :evil:

Cosmoline
July 17, 2003, 06:15 PM
The worst dictators in the world trying to regulate our firearms in the name of peace.

But let them pass all the edicts they want. They mean nothing unless we sign a treaty and it's ratified.

amprecon
July 18, 2003, 01:22 AM
We wouldn't have to sign it, someone like Hillary would be obliged to do it on our behalf.

PATH
July 18, 2003, 01:46 AM
Who hosts the U.N.? America
Who pays the lions share of its bills? America
Whose troops do most of the killing and dying when the U.N. gets involved? America
Who made up the bulk of U.N. troops in Korea? America.

The U.N. has peacekeepers, from a myriad of other countries, all over the place and they are militarily as useful as teats on a bull! Libya and Cuba are main players on the human rights commission, some joke, eh?

Our right to bear arms will be won or lost right here on the homefront! Without the Americans there is no U.N.!

.45Ruger
July 18, 2003, 04:17 AM
It seems like the U.N. serves mainly as a place where dictators, and tyrants can go and complain about anything that America stands for. The point of this organization was originally to foster world peace, not serve as a stepping stone to a one world government. It does seem laughable that these coutries want to disarm us, great then we get treated just like the lucky civilians in Libya, WOOHOO!!

Skunkabilly
July 18, 2003, 01:03 PM
...and tyrants and criminals dress up as environmentalists.

:cuss: the UN!!!

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_redcoats.jpg

PileDriver
July 19, 2003, 03:36 AM
they'll have to shoot me first.

pay a un tax?? LOL not in this lifetime

Skunkabilly
July 19, 2003, 04:07 AM
pay a un tax??

Umm, aren't we already? Kind of?

4v50 Gary
July 19, 2003, 01:45 PM
The blue heads are coming! Well, if it's some foreign national, perhaps the promise of land will work again. Worked for some during the Revolution.

longeyes
July 19, 2003, 02:33 PM
American leftists have already made clear they see "international
treaties" trumping the U.S. Constitution. This is the new way to
overturn the BOR: subsume it under the foreign entanglements we
call treaties. Will our Government defend our rights from a greater
world "community?" I for one have serious doubts, given what I've been
seeing of late. The black flag of Diversity waves high, and the
U.S., is being viewed as the bad boy in class in the world nanny-state.

PeteyPete
July 19, 2003, 09:35 PM
Aim for the baby blue helmet
http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/images/smilies/sniper.gif

PileDriver
July 19, 2003, 09:50 PM
Umm, aren't we already? Kind of?









i'm not and never will. are you?

Skunkabilly
July 19, 2003, 10:23 PM
i'm not and never will. are you?

Don't a portion of our Federal taxes go to whatever they see fit--welfare, military, social security, UN, etc? :confused:

HBK
July 19, 2003, 10:49 PM
Skunk's right, our taxes, to some extent, already go to the UN. I think we need to get the hell out of the UN and send them to France...or Libya.

PileDriver
July 19, 2003, 11:19 PM
contrary to popular belief, taxes go to the privately owned federal reserve bank as payment of interest on the debt.

the fed then loans the nitwits in washington whatever funds they require. that's why there's so much spending. to get elected they have to promise every special interest group certain things in order to secure their votes.

the money currently being unconstitutionally spent will be paid back by our children, after, of course the interest begins to compound and their effective tax rates will have to be somewhere around 70-75%.

fun huh? wait till we get the actual bill for iraq and the prescription drug program

HBK
July 19, 2003, 11:26 PM
We should just default...tell them to screw themselves.

PileDriver
July 19, 2003, 11:49 PM
www.givemeliberty.org


at last count, 8 million and growing like weeds

HBK
July 20, 2003, 12:03 AM
Add one.

PileDriver
July 20, 2003, 12:07 AM
congrats and welcome to the fight!

Moparmike
July 20, 2003, 01:03 AM
I have a few general purpose answers for this sort of situation. They can pick from the following:

"Drop dead."
"Go to Hell."
"Over my dead body."
My favorite, a Charleton Heston quote: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand!"
Molon Labe is also quite appropriate. Lets just hope they understand they will be reciving the bullets first. Hell, I will be nice enough to personally deliver the bullets myself.:D (aint I a nice feller)

Makes me glad I am buying a gun next week. My first. I am having trouble deciding between the Mauser or the Mak. Bout the same price, but ammo is cheaper with the Mauser and can shoot further. Cant buy (by myself) the pistol any way, nor can I carry it.

Anyone know where I can buy blue helmeted human-silhouets? (SP?):D

sm
July 20, 2003, 05:41 AM
psst.... UN don't the door hit you in the butt

Ian Sean
July 20, 2003, 09:12 AM
Well folks, Ron Pauls action failed to get us out of the UN (75-350). Take a look and see if your congressman is on the list of yaes. If they are, send them a note of thanks.

Find it here.

http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/votes/?votenum=364&chamber=H&congress=1081

Moparmike
July 20, 2003, 02:21 PM
Done. Glad one of 4 AR reps had intelligence.

alan
July 21, 2003, 03:30 PM
Moparmike:

Re Mauser and Mak, they serve different purposes entirely. Mausers are/were pretty decent, serviceable bolt action service/hunting rifles. Some of the "cheap" surplus 8mm (actually 7.92 x 57 mm) ammunition, particularly the Turkish is not only corossive, but high pressure, possibly higher than should be.

As for the MAK pistols, I have experience with the Russian make(9mm Makarov), not the .380, that ammunition is cheap too, and non corossive, for the most part. U.S. production is all non corossive. Trigger pulls are on the heavy side, not particlarly rough, just heavy, both single as well as double action.

The rear sight, adjustable, goes click, click when turned but movement is course, I suspect that this sight was used for it's ATF "point value". The Russian guns are or were reasonably priced, very reliable, though somewhat "rough" looking, and accurate enough for defensive use, and casual target shooting. For my eyes, (old), the front sight was much to small. That can be fixed by any competent gun smith.

Good luch.

Moparmike
July 21, 2003, 03:46 PM
Alan, thanks for the info. I knew the difference, but the only reason I mentioned them together is because they are both within my budget. I cant buy the Mak on my own though, and ammo isnt readily availible in large quantities on my budget.

alan
July 21, 2003, 05:15 PM
oparmike:

If you reload, Starline does excellent brass in 9mm Mak, not terribly expensive, hard cast lead bullets, 93 grain, .365"dia shoot well with bullseye, red dot, 213, unique, accurate #5 all work.

Actually, from what I've seen/heard, Wolfe ammunition, non reloadable, is so cheap that reloading almost isn't worthwhile, unless you simply want to expirement.

By the way, U.S. 8 x 57 is loaded down, in deference to some really old rifles that are still floating, especially the ones with .318 bore diameter. In Europe, 8 x 57 S bore ammunition (.323" dia. bore) ammunition was loaded to 50,000 # equivalent, and is perfectly safe in '98 Mausers, in proper condition.

If you enjoyed reading about "U.N. to regulate guns in America?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!