• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

IANSA Calls For Worldwide Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Boberama

member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
384
I recently discovered an alarming organization called the International Action Network on Small Arms.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/12/14/iansa-plotting-to-tear-down-the-2nd-amendment/

They have succeeded in banning guns in the UK and Australia. Don't think it couldn't happen here. IANSA was and is behind the Million Mom March and the Brady Campaign. Rebbecca Peters, the head, lead the gun ban in Australia and is quoted as saying that all rifles that could kill someone at 100 metres need to be banned, worldwide. IANSA wants to ban YOU from owning any semi-automatic gun more powerful than a .22 LR. Go to the IANSA website and find their so called Model Law. It bans just about every firearm, hollow points, handguns, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
 
Thanks for the word. I checked out thier website. Not only I had never heard of IANSA until now, I have never read material from an anti-gun group that seems to be based outside the US. I have known about an anti-gun stance in the UN for some time and have been aware that the Second Amendment in the Constitution has bothered many of the more "internationally minded" for some time but this was almost refreshing. I got the impression that whoever wrote the material they have posted is absolutely terrified of not only private gun ownership but all firearms in general. I found the list of sponsers very enlightening, although not suprising, as well. While I doubt they will be very effective at anything in the near future (in the US) being made aware of thier existence, and the scope of thier sponsers, makes me feel better prepared for possible future events or proposed events.
 
Old news. As far as it happening here, you have heard of Heller, right?
Click to expand...

Just like GCA of 1986, right?

Heller was a big battle won, but the right to bear arms war still wages on.........
 
Iansa

quote[Heller was a big battle won, but the right to bear arms war still wages on.........]quote


CA. must have a couple IANSA folks lobbying the legislature, seems we lose something each year, like AB-962.
 
The Kings College London Debate between Rebecca Peters of IANSA and Wayne LaPierre of the NRA ILA is to use a cliche "must see TV" for anyone interested in RKBA.

Rebecca Peters quoted Thomas Hobbes (the apologist for an absolute state ruled by an absolute monarch with a monopoly on use of force) while LaPierre quoted Thomas Jefferson (author of our Declaration of Independence).

The Australian ban on 650,000 legal registered semi-auto and pump rifle and shotguns was implemented by a mandatory "buy back" and destruction of the guns. Here registration equaled eventual confiscation, but the Australian constitution required compensation. Our gun banners have repeated stated if they get a gun ban, they will not pay people for contraband: surrender without compensation or else.

During the debate, Rebecca Peters stated that Americans are no better than anyone else and should bge subject to the same UN gun restrictions. Her goal was to ban all handguns and repeat fire long guns. Americans would be allowed to have single shot rifles with a lethal maximum range of 100 meters. She mocked self-defense saying a woman facing a rapist should depend on the police and courts to protect her, and mocked an English target shooter in the audience who lamented the loss of his sport through no act of his own. IANSA has a goal of one gun law for all nations enforced by the UN. Buy the DVD, watch the debate, the whole debate (the transcript of the debate posted at IANSA's website is redacted to make Peters look better).
 
Paronoia

Far from that. Realistic is what comes to mind.


IANSA calls for worldwide gun control.

1. Psychiatry. a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others(IANSA), sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
Click to expand...
No. We're not all crazy. "They" have been known to be hostile or antagonistic.
2. baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others (IANSA).
Click to expand...
Hell no. No question about their motives.
3.A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
Click to expand...
Ubber no. Persecution's not at issue.
4.Extreme, irrational distrust of others (IANSA).
Click to expand...
Definitly no. Nothing irrational in our distrust of the anti-gun crowd.
 
I watched the debate those few years ago - Wayne tore her apart, but she smiled with the bliss of unshakeable superiority. She truely 100% believes she is absolutely right and superior to us peons, thus there is no way she can accept whatsoever that we can challenge that belief. We just need to keep her outside our borders and politics.
 
So.......A fellow discovers IANSA and posts here to alert, to encourage concern and possibly elicit discussion on a topic that promises repercussions on ALL U.S. citizens.

That post receives a response of a bored yawn with the condescending reminder that "search function is your friend", a contemptuous reminder of the "Heller" decision and a denunciation of "paranoia" accompanied with the admonition to "grow up".

Yes, the search function is your friend. But-- until WHAT you don't know is revealed to you, how would you know what to search for? IANSA was evidently new information for several here. I'm sure they are grateful for the links.

As for the "Heller" decision, in reality whether it applies across the US or only to DC is still being hashed out and if the Senate were to ratify any global arms control treaty that decision, the Second Amendment and eventually our entire beloved Constitution would not be worth a bucket of warm spit.

Ah....We're paranoid and should grow up. How to respond to such an insipid insult?
My God, more complacency, wake up!

Thank you Boberama for bringing this up again. We must be reminded from time to time that there really is a bogyman under the bed waiting for us to fall asleep.

Regards All -- Al
 
As for the "Heller" decision, in reality whether it applies across the US or only to DC is still being hashed out and if the Senate were to ratify any global arms control treaty that decision, the Second Amendment and eventually our entire beloved Constitution would not be worth a bucket of warm spit.
Click to expand...

A treaty may "expand" federal power beyond those elesewhere enumerated in the Constitution (it really does not because the power to make a treaty is an enumerated power--- the only limitation thereon is that the subject matter of the treaty be a legitimate object of international agreement) but it may not violate the Constitution. A treaty which violates the 2nd amend is void as much as a law passed by congress which violates the 2nd.
 
I agree with you completely Al. There seem to be an awful lot of people here who just sit around and wait to copy and paste a forum rule or say "use the search function". I wish they'd exercise their right to not litter up a post they have nothing to contribute to.

To the OP, thanks for the heads up on IANSA. I had never heard of them and I guess I wasn't smart enough to do a forum search for something I didn't know even existed.
 
Hello Legaleagle,

According to Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE have granted the Power to the President, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, providing 2/3 of the Senators present concur.

I understand and accept that to be an "enumerated power".

If / When an international treaty were to be signed and ratified which bans ownership of certain firearms and regulates the manufacture and commerce in "small arms ammunition" to the extent that individual citizens could neither purchase nor reload; would we NOT be obligated to enforce the terms of that treaty?

Would that not then effectively abrogate our Amendment II?

Would that not continue until a challenge be brought before the Supreme Court?

How long might that take?

How long did it take the challenge to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL DC law to make it before the Supreme Court?

I don't have an inordinate fear that this treaty will be ratified. It will not, however, be going away any time soon. There really is a bogyman under the bed just waiting for us to go to sleep.

Please Legaleagle, I respectfully ask you to help me understand where I am wrong and why I should not be so concerned.

Regards - Al

"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always streched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." - John Adams -
 
Who cares?

As far as leaving the United Nations, that would be a horrible idea. Many forget that it is an important organization that helps many people as well as gives us a great deal of international influence.
 
" an important organization " -- " helps many people " -- " gives us a great deal of international influence "

Unh...Hngh...OK.. I get it, it's a joke right? OK Ha Ha Ha, that was a good one!

That important organization is nothing more than a Progressive debating club infested with corruption, hypocrisy, larceny and inefficiency.

How about all those lucky people the UN has been helping with that genocide stuff?

Were all those little girls raped by the UN people being helped before, after or during that little old raping thing?

I know I'm probably sounding a little impatient or perhaps ungrateful but just where has all this "international influence" gotten us in regards to Korea or Iran? Where did it get us in the first place with Iraq? Where has it EVER gotten us?

We should stop paying our dues and withdraw from the UN. We should evict the UN from NYC. We should collect the outstanding parking tickets from the UN delegates before they're allowed to leave the country. They should be strip-cavity- searched before being put on busses to the airport.

There is more but I am tired. Suffice it to say I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the UN.

Regards All - Al
 
I guess I am just to progressive for you Azimuth315. But either way I would love to see some links that discuss some of the incidents you posted. Please send them to me via a private message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Wow, what a shocker - IANSA dancing in the streets about the US Midterm Elections!
Replies
1
Views
410
geekWithA.45
G
G
  • Locked
100 days IANSA anti gun meeting, in NYC
Replies
13
Views
585
Standing Wolf
S
H
  • Locked
Brady Campaign: Senator Allen Breaks His Pledge,
Replies
1
Views
354
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
C
S
  • Locked
So, how many firearms did you destroy today for 'International Gun Destruction Day'?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
GSB
G
M
  • Locked
George Soros agrees to gun debate
Replies
16
Views
1K
Rebar
R
Back
Top