Ever Get The Feeling Antis Want a Global Ban


September 9, 2009, 11:46 AM
I've noticed in some other posts how the EU has put pressure on other countries to give up their gun rights. Some examples in Switzerland with losing the right to sell privately, and other issues regarding full-auto. Yemen losing their 'anything goes' gun laws. Maybe it's just me but I don't give a fly pigeon wing what the Anti European countries think. They're Europe, let them be Europe, we're America, let us be American. With the exception of notable countries like Switzerland, most of our ancestors fled Europe to flee tyranny, backwardsness, oppression, and idiotic leadership. Not to mention inferior ideals.

As an NRA Certified Pistol Instructor I have had the unique fortune of teaching Barristers (English Lawyers), Doctors, and financiers from England who have immigrated to United States to make more money, be free from oppression by both criminal and governmental action, and live a happier life. Now yes they are the 'privileged' few given their incomes and means of incomes but the things they have to say about Europe and England are just shocking at times. One gentleman, a heart specialist (don't remember the proper medical term right now), who has been buying from my FFL guy got to talking to us about how his home country has gone down hill.

I don't want to exercise power over Europe, I don't want to tell them what to do with their gun rights (okay do I want to tell the French to get out of Switzerland, and to stop trying to ruin the country, okay yeah). Why do they seem to want to exercise rights over us. And yes there is some consideration from South America but when those countries aren't facing crushing poverty and dilapidated military forces, we can then worry about them.

It just seems like so many Americans want to appeal to Europe and the rest of the world. What happened to when America set the standard and didn't care about being 'European.' I don't have any use for European laws or ideologies other than the past and great ones of Switzerland up into the seventies (and perhaps later). My gun rights are not up for negotiation and if that upsets the gutless cowards here in the U.S. who seem bent on appealing to the European powers (that are bent on appealing [yeah just say appealing because I want to keep this highroad] to Russia), too bad. If that upsets the European gutless, 'what have they done recently in science, medicine, preservation of human rights', powers (excluding [but not exhausting the list] Switzerland, Finland, Luxembourg), than too bad, let them take their business elsewhere.

Is it just me, or does America feel like one of the last real free bastions of liberty, albeit our 2nd Amendment right. If we lose the right to be free, to own what property we may, how we may (in this case firearms), than what is left to say we are still Americans, haven't we just become another 'European' country. And should we tolerate a culture that is not American here in America.

Thanks for indulging my rant. :neener:

If you enjoyed reading about "Ever Get The Feeling Antis Want a Global Ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
September 9, 2009, 11:59 AM
I'm afraid that is old news. They have been talking that plan in the UN for years. They just can't get the U.S. to go along with it, yet.............

September 9, 2009, 12:04 PM
First, let's dispense with any notion that somehow we have the right to poke on Europe or any other region. Such behavior is simply not on The High Road.

Addressing your concerns - have you never encountered the joy that is IANSA (http://www.iansa.org/)? It's the UN-sanctioned version of the Brady Bunch, and they *are* the sworn enemy of the RKBA.

September 9, 2009, 12:06 PM
What's your point?

Antis want no one to own firearms. That's not an American or European or Antarctic notion. It is a philosophical stance that applies everywhere.

So, what's your point?

General Geoff
September 9, 2009, 12:07 PM
Anti-gun populations by & large are more concerned with living comfortably than living freely. They just have their priorities mixed up. They also tend to favour the collective over the individual.

September 9, 2009, 06:25 PM
Uhh, that's not a "feeling"... It's a fact.

Remember, Europe still has remnants of social classes. Elitists (They prefer Enlightened) like social classes, since they are the ones on top, and know "what's best" for the serfs.

September 9, 2009, 07:53 PM
They really aren't anti-gun. They are anti-personal responsibility a.k.a. Freedom. (see attachment)

September 10, 2009, 04:26 PM

They want a *universal* ban.

If the planets surrounding Rigel have firearms, the anti folks want 'em gone.

September 10, 2009, 04:44 PM
Someone need to mug all the antis. No quicker way to turn them into pro gunners.

September 10, 2009, 05:38 PM
If they really do take it global, I'd like to take it universal - and protest disarming martians. Or at least put a max capacity on how many shots their laser guns can fire.

September 11, 2009, 04:49 PM
Ever Get The Feeling Antis Want a Global Ban?

Ever get the feeling that the sun is hot; ice cream is cold; the stars are many?

September 11, 2009, 05:13 PM
The governments of the entire world want a global ban on at minimum all small arms which pose any risk to thier body armored, armorered transport using, LEO and military troops.

I could cite legislation all day long, but here is a quick one:
United Nations
Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

They want guns, and regular peasant citizens with effective modern guns eliminated worldwide.
They want the only legal sale of such weapons to LEO and military forces.

I will quote a recent post of mine rather than typing something similar again:

Yemen, I think, and some other Middle Eastern countries pretty much have an "anything goes" policy - full autos, etc.
Actually Yemen ceased having that freedom in 2007 under pressure from Europe and the US antis to impose stricter small arms controls. They spun it as a local thing, but it was primarily a result of foreign pressure to eliminate the freedom.
Thier per capita murder rate was lower than the US.

Since then they have outlawed most of it, but since its such a strong part of the culture virtually everyone outside the main city ignores it and carries as before.
It could be a important change even for Americans as Yemen was once a main location to register vessels for tax purposes and various liberties that went with the flag. So if thier laws are worse, and you are sailing under thier flag, it could effect your freedoms at sea.

Many other nations that in reality have almost anything goes do not officially allow that. For example you can find plenty of videos of tourists firing machineguns, RPGs, and tossing grenades in Cambodia online. But that is not legal according to thier government.

There is many portions of the world where what is done, cultural expected or allowed, and what is officially legal according to the capitol many miles away are completely different.
Almost everyone has an AK in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but that is not legal under Pakistani law.

Governments like control, the only real power governments have to fall back on if necessary to preserve thier authority is use of force. That is not as easy or effective against an armed population. So governments around the world seek to disarm everyone except thier own military and LEO forces.
This had been the case for thousands of years. It is still the case today. The only time governments want thier average citizens to be armed historically is when the threat of losing thier authority to foreign invaders is greater than the risk from thier own population. Such as England facing the potential Nazi invasion.
As soon as that threat is over they want thier subjects to pose as minimal a force as possible.
That is why the UN, represented by most national governments in the world can completely agree that reduction of small arms held by citizens across the globe is a strong priority. Regardless of thier disagreements with each other, they all want thier subjects easier to efficiently manage.
It is easy to rule millions with tens of thousands if only the tens of thousands have effective arms. Or rule hundreds of millions with only hundreds of thousands. That is why gun control is always at its heart about control. They may exploit crying mothers and what is thought of as the stereotypical anti to achieve that objective, but it is an objective of governments globally.

That said many governments have no problem with thier citizens having some minor arms that would never be effective against the armed men employed by the government. They primarily want the citizens disarmed of effective fighting arms that could be used to resist thier will or authority, not all guns in general.
Brazil's laws exemplify this example. They prohibit almost anything that can defeat body armor, including virtually all rifle rounds. But they have little to no problems with people having handguns, or carbines in handgun calibers. No problem with serfs having arms to kill other serfs, as long as they can not legally have arms that pose a threat to the "king's men", or today's version the government's forces.
It's not about crime, it's about control.
Many governments don't care if thier citizens have shotguns, and are limited to ammunition that poses no threat to body armored LEO or armored transports.
They have processes and permits and red tape, but they will allow those things, not because they are less deadly, but because they are easy for the government to still crush with force if necessary.
Very few governments though will let thier serfs possess effective modern arms on par with thier own forces. Like the most modern centerfire rifles, or other armaments that pose similar risks to thier troops.

Which of course was the whole original point of the 2nd Amendment in the USA when the founders wrote it. So every locality and every state was a threat to eachother and to the federal government. So everyone was resistant to tyranny from eachother. So the body of the people was always a greater threat than a force which could be raised and used against it.
The very opposite of what almost every government wants today, and has wanted since recorded history: absolute centralized power and authority with minimal potential resistance or threats.

A UN statue:
They are not against the guns of thier own LEO and military/paramilitary/security forces, just all the other ones possessed by peasants.

September 12, 2009, 11:26 AM
The real point is that most leaders of the oppressed world today don't want any opposition to their policies. Armed opposition is tantamount to loss of control - their primary objective.

With control, they get all the perks in life that any Saddam, King, or elected leader of a People's Republic can enjoy. Without control, they have to literally fight to get what they think they deserve. Many did that - from behind a gun.

Banning them reinforces their stability and protects them from competition.

Bernie P.
September 13, 2009, 11:27 AM
Our problem is Obama his mega rich buddy George Soros and one radical Czar after another being appointed with tons of power.

September 13, 2009, 05:55 PM
All antis are not alike, nor do they all wish for the same thing. Broad lumpings of folks into broader categories won't help us bridge the gulf among those who support the Second Amendment and those who don't, or those who don't understand it, or those who have some reservations about parts of it, or those who believe that a person's age or other factors (such as background or experience) should be considered, or those who believe that a federal militia already is in place (count four U.S. Supreme Court justices in this group), etc.

Erik M
September 13, 2009, 06:55 PM
I feel that most anti's arent for total elimination of guns, they support a socilast state where only the powerful elite have guns.

Jim K
September 13, 2009, 08:56 PM
The more extreme gun control people don't want to disarm just the civilian population, but the police and military as well. One group wants to limit possession of firearms to federal agents, and even those would be issued arms only as necessary and only at the direct personal order of the president. The military would not be allowed to have possession of arms except on declaration of a national emergency by the president. Otherwise, all firearms would be stored in depots under guard. No U.S. soldiers would ever be sent out of the country, so getting arms to them is not an issue. U.S. ships and planes would have no weapons or ammunition; weapons would be sent to them in an emergency.

And we would all live in a better world.

(Needless to say, they don't mention what other countries might do; it is enough that this country act in a "moral" manner.)


September 13, 2009, 11:00 PM
Most anti's aren't against guns. They think that they, their security forces, their military, and their police can be trusted to have firearms.

They just think that you shouldn't have a gun.

September 14, 2009, 01:11 PM
You know, that gun statue could be improve immensely by simply cutting off the barrel at about 1.5" (relative to the enhanced size of the gun). It would make a decent snubbie!

September 14, 2009, 03:16 PM
I'm fairly active as a motorcyclist, and this is an issue that crops up in that area, too. The EU is definitely even more biased toward government regulation of all aspects of life than we have become.

The most restrictive standards relating to "safety" issues tend to become worldwide standards, first, as a consequence of globalizec commerce, and, second, as a result of the fact that other large governments try to impose their vision of the way things should be on other trading partners.

As a result, I firmly believe that it's important to support those in other countries who are fighting the battles we are. Even though we operate under a different constitutional scheme, every abridgement of their rights moves us a little closer to losing our own rights.

September 14, 2009, 11:24 PM
"Remember, Europe still has remnants of social classes. Elitists (They prefer Enlightened) like social classes, since they are the ones on top, and know "what's best" for the serfs. "

Do you honestly think that it's just a "remnant", or that those elite classes have not been recreated here? Class warfare is the exact root of the RKBA debate.

September 15, 2009, 12:48 AM
Back to the Original Topic at hand:

Q: Do I get the feeling that Anti's want a global ban?
A: I KNOW that anti's want a global ban like deniers of evolution want creationism theory mandated to be taught in schools. The anti-gun movement is a global movement for disarmament of the general populace of every nation lets not kid ourselves into thinking they are something limited to the United States or the UK.

Explanation: The United States was founded on the idea that all individuals are granted certain rights as inherent to individuals as being human is. While at times the United States struggles to grant or preserve those rights of its own citizens it also regularly intervenes in conflicts worldwide. The reason the United States intervenes in a number of these conflicts is that we believe the freedoms we protect within our own borders are also inherent to all humans on this earth, and therefore find our interventions necessary in conflicts outside our own borders to assist other humans in preserving their rights just as we protect our own here at home.

The movement against gun rights on a large basis, is misguided individuals who wish to preserve security and safety for the individual. The average anti-gun individual is most likely under the impression that their opinions are those that will guarantee safety, security, and peace in a society. So I would make the assumption that the average anti-gun individual with this in mind would seek for a worldwide gun-ban.

**Disclaimer: I am not arguing for, making excuses for, or otherwise endorsing the anti-gun movement even though it may seem so. I merely had to point out some of the merits of their opinions so I could sufficiently explain my point of view on the subject of discussion at hand.

September 15, 2009, 12:59 AM
Ok here's something I just found out.

I was looking at the IANSA website for comic relief on how people can be so wrong. Anyway I looked at the counter on the front page that counts gun deaths. Turns out after looking at the source (code, HTML) for the page that the counter is a mathematical script that counts automatically and isn't in fact real data. I love outright lies on the internet, it makes your campaign so much more believable!

If you enjoyed reading about "Ever Get The Feeling Antis Want a Global Ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!