1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

U.N. Global gun ban

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Gun_nut, Jun 13, 2006.

  1. Gun_nut

    Gun_nut Well-Known Member

  2. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Well-Known Member

    Gun Nut .. Get ready for the Socialist Mainstream Media (if you don't know that is CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, The ASSociated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, The LA Times, and thousands of socialist and statist leaning media).

    What you are going to see is rernuns of Columbine, etc., ad nauseum...

    Then after this "Conference" adjourns, there will be revelations in the press that the Wondrous pedophiles at the UN have come up with an "answer".

    IANSA, Rebecca Peters, and the UN are your enemies... get used to it.
  3. Joey2

    Joey2 member

    This is in the making , as far as I remember, for about 4 yrs. The guys with the tinfoil hats have be talking about it. What made it all of a sudden a credible issue now when before nobody believed it?
  4. Don't Tread On Me

    Don't Tread On Me Well-Known Member

    Choosing July 4th is just as bad as the FBI/BATFE choosing April 19th to burn down the Branch Davidian Church. The FBI/BATFE chose that date because that was the day the British met resistance by people in response to an ordered firearm confiscation (Lexington/Concord). They too, were on a firearm confiscation mission, and met resistance. Thus, that day was a deliberate, planned, in-your-face statement to every American that THEY are in charge, and they RULE. This is them clearly and blatantly accepting the role as authority in the eternal authority vs. citizen struggle that humanity has dealth with since the beginning of history.

    Having this conference during our Independence day is two fold. 1] most people will be totally distracted by the holiday, traveling, partying, thinking about other things while the media drowns out UN politics with a flood of patriotic stories. Thus, the UN can have this very unpopular conference without catching much attention or flak 2] for those in-the-know..aka gun owners, or those who follow and are concerned with such politics, they know this is a direct in-your-face feces smearing notice that our independence, sovereignty, rights, law means NOTHING, and that they are in charge, and you are not. A direct statement to us.

    People who don't shoot, don't own guns, don't even know the name of a single supreme court justice, don't even know the name of the vice president, those who think "rights" are "given" to us by the "gubmint"...you know, 90% of Americans drinking coke while being mezmerized by American Idol, will never, ever, ever pick up on the significance of any of this, the politics, what is at stake, or the dates that have been chosen.

    The UN knows this. So I am forced to conclude that this is intentional, and is the UN's way of firing a shot across our bow.

    This will not be a gun-ban treaty. Treaties are too difficult to pass, and way too visible and attract attention. AGREEMENTS are treated by the government as the equivalent of treaties, and they are much, much easier to pass.
  5. K-Romulus

    K-Romulus Well-Known Member

    Banners are already in damage control mode

    Over at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the home page has a whole section denying that the UN conference will discuss private firearms ownership.

    CSGV tries to slice hairs by claiming ownership won't be "banned," just tweaked to prevent "illegal transfers" (read: UK/AUS-style "needs based" licensing and registration)

    Too bad that CSGV is a member of IANSA, the coalition that sets the UN conference agenda by default. The same coalition that wants the conference to get a binding international agreement (like NAFTA) to implement UK/AUS-style domestic gun laws that do indeed call for bans. So much for the denial.

    (Earlier thread on IANSA and the conference here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=201080)

    CSGV also says that the conference will not be in session on July 4th, and the UN building will be closed . . .
  6. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Well-Known Member

    Did the brits forget what happened the last time they tried this 230 years ago this July 4th?
    I haven't.
    Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it- George Santayana
  7. Wastemore

    Wastemore Well-Known Member

    Meh... bring it.
  8. Jeff

    Jeff Well-Known Member

    The UN's posturing on gun control is like stepping in a pile of dog crap. It is unctuous and offensive, but harmless. I suppoort the UN's global agenda no more than I do stepping in dog poop, but I also fear the UN's global agenda no more than I do stepping in dog poop.

    Let them throw their impotent temper tantrum, be it July 4th or any other day.
  9. Autolycus

    Autolycus Well-Known Member

    You probably dont wear sandles.

    I do only because some lawyers use international law as a guidance tool for US law.
  10. Don't Tread On Me

    Don't Tread On Me Well-Known Member

    You mean Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg?
  11. LAK

    LAK Well-Known Member

    It is not only lawyers using international law as guidence; it is our leadership pushing their mutual global socialist agenda - building their global plantation.
    - George W Bush, United Nations General Assembly, 2001.


  12. Gun_nut

    Gun_nut Well-Known Member

  13. boofus

    boofus Guest

    Do the math. 100,000,000 killed in the 20th century by UN member governments = 1,000,000 deaths a year.
    10,000 firearms deaths in the US per year.

    UN members in 'good standing' kill 100 times more people per year than Americans die from firearms (including accidents, justifiable shoots by citizens/police and suicides)

    Which is the greater threat to security and freedom? The 1 or 100???
  14. Ira Aten

    Ira Aten member

    "This is in the making , as far as I remember, for about 4 yrs. The guys with the tinfoil hats have be talking about it. What made it all of a sudden a credible issue now when before nobody believed it?"

    Oh there is no problem. The U.N. is not trying to do anything to take your guns. That is just those idiot tin foil hat guys claiming the United Nations is attempting to create a one world government. Aw Pshaww! Why would they want that? What evidence is there to support the charge that the United Nations would want to garner ruling power over individual nations?

    They are just a great group of guys and gals whose only goal is to "Save the Children" like they have done in so many places all over the world.

    After all, hasn't every single penny of funds gathered through charitable donations over the years for U.N. programs such as "United Way" "Save the Children Fund" and the U.N. "Oil for Food Program" gone to the stated goals?
    Certainly all U.N. programs result in the "planned goals".

    That is why we have no hungry children in the world, no impovershed nations, no traffic in human slavery, and ZERO violent acts from use of guns by the member nations pushing this newest "Small Weapons Treaty".

    They have made the world safe for all of the "Global Village" inhabitants, and are simply no threat at all to individual countries losing their freedoms.

    The United States could be violence free also if it weren't for those darned "Tin Foil Hat" wearers always coming up with their ludicrous claims and causing delays in the inevitable "Treaty" signing!

    All the U.N. is saying, is give their worldwide gun registration program a chance. There is no effort to actually halt your owning one, it is just to be sure only the good citizens in the Global Village have access to them.

    After all, what factual historical data could possibly support claims from these Tin Foil Hat wearers that allowing a governing body to require registration of certain weapons could lead to some type of confiscation?

    The darn Tin Foil Hat crowd will be the ruin of us all if they don't stop their silly rumor mongering!
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2006
  15. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Well-Known Member

    The agenda of IANSA appears unchanged from Rebecca Peters' position in
    the Kings College Library Great Gun Debate of 2004: restriction of civilian
    legal ownership within nations: her proudest accomplishnebt--the
    confiscation and destruction of 640,000 legally registered firearms
    from law abiding Australians: her view is that Americans should be
    subject to the same rules (i.e, her rules) as everyone else (ie, the Aussies).

    IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms) UN Conferences
    Mon 26 Jun 06 1:15-2:45 pm Conference Room 6 IANSA intro meeting
    Tue 27 Jun 06 1:15-2:45 pm Conference Room 4 IANSA Women's Network
    Tue 27 Jun 06 1:15-2:45 pm Conference Room 6 IANSA Victim Assistance
    Wed 28 Jun 06 n/a
    Thu 29 Jun 06 1:15-2:45 pm Conference Room 4 IANSA Public Health Network
    Fri 30 Jun 06 1:15-2:45 pm Conference Room 4 IANSA National Gun Laws
    It appears that IANSA is fairly important in the U.N. Conference on Small
    Arms and Light Weapons.
  16. Zedicus

    Zedicus Well-Known Member

    Rifle, Amunition, Some Minor labour Involved...

  17. Marshall

    Marshall Well-Known Member

    Call me an optimist, I don't see it happening in this country. Although, 4-8 years of a "leftist anti" in the Whitehouse wouldn't do us any favors.
  18. Ira Aten

    Ira Aten member


    Just curious, but what reason would make you possibly think that the United States Congress, after giving in to 12 Million Illegal Invaders, would not consider handing the power to register weapons to the United Nations?

    Already, the first amendment has been stamped void by numerous laws passed by not only Congress, but signed by the President, and upheld by lefitst members on the Supreme Court of the United States.

    What fact makes you doubt these clowns are not willing to void the Second Amendment by enacting this upcoming treaty with the U.N? Specifically, I am curious. What makes you say "I don't believe this will happen in our country" when year after year, our representatives claim we must "act in consensus with our "U.N. Partners"??????
  19. Marshall

    Marshall Well-Known Member

    I'm optimistic because of the trends of gun laws and rights in the US. More and more states are going to CCW. More and more states are passing laws making it harder for retribution against anyone feeling threatened for their life and using deadly force. I see us being on an upswing in this area nationally. Also, the negative sentiment against the UN is becoming larger than ever within the US. I don't believe our citizens will put up with it and I don't believe our states will allow it to happen. I believe the internal pressure will be feared more than the external pressure.
  20. Ira Aten

    Ira Aten member

    Well I appreciate your response.

    I believe personally that even though approval of the U.N. is about ZERO with the citizens of the U.S., our approval of Amnesty for Illegal Aliens was at the same level, and it was totally diregarded anyway by the Senate and by our President. We will get an Amnesty program, no matter what we "approve" of.

    Although State laws are being passed, when the Feds decide to change our wishes on the local level, they do it in any number of ways. There is growing sentiment for concealed carry being expanded within the U.S., I grant you that. But that is due to our local laws reflecting what we want. Unfortunately a Treaty is a Federal issue, and it will supercede any State laws.

    So with that in mind, being that the Federal Government Representatives consistantly defy our wishes, is there anyting you see on a Federal level that would give on any reason to believe the Feds woudn't do that?

Share This Page