Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Here's what a Swiss gun control org has to say about this summer's event in NYC:
Economist Magazine on NRA vs UN
- Thread starter JoshM
- Start date
- Status
Silver Bullet
Member
Sam Adams, I wish you'd post more often.
************************
************************
I think "may carry" is worse than "no carry"; the politicians and their pals get to carry and have no motivation for letting the little people carry. Right, Dianne ?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Swiss Cheese
Quoted quote:
>The book will be launched, with the assistance of the German government, at the United Nations in NY in late June—during an international conference on small arms and light weapons.<
************************
Ah! Our old friends, the Germans...Guess they saw how well it worked for Uncle Adolph in '38 and figger they'll see if it flies in '06.
Can't wait to hear what the French have to say...
Quoted quote:
>The book will be launched, with the assistance of the German government, at the United Nations in NY in late June—during an international conference on small arms and light weapons.<
************************
Ah! Our old friends, the Germans...Guess they saw how well it worked for Uncle Adolph in '38 and figger they'll see if it flies in '06.
Can't wait to hear what the French have to say...
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Yeah, because that totally worked in Rwanda.
I ♥ the UN.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Iain, here is the first draft of the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons from 2001. The UN described the focus of the meeting as being on revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, light machine-guns, heavy machine-guns, mortars, hand grenades, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns and portable missile launchers.
Note phrases like:
"to exercise effective control over legal manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession"
"to supply small arms and light weapons only to governments"
"to ensure that all confiscated, seized or collected small arms and light weapons are destroyed expeditiously"
"to encourage States in the interest of awareness-raising and confidence-building to carry out public destruction events"
"to seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes" (remembering of course, that small arms are defined as revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles)
Note phrases like:
"to exercise effective control over legal manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession"
"to supply small arms and light weapons only to governments"
"to ensure that all confiscated, seized or collected small arms and light weapons are destroyed expeditiously"
"to encourage States in the interest of awareness-raising and confidence-building to carry out public destruction events"
"to seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes" (remembering of course, that small arms are defined as revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles)
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Iain, many of us in the U.S. view the U.N. as tyranny with a smiling face and a CARE package. I know that is my personal opinion. We see an organization that is incompetent and ineffectual at best, and a tyrannical and malevolent enforcer of a certain type of status quo at worst. The U.N. makes half-hearted, half-assed attempts at peace keeping to maintain the support of the more gullible among the world's population, while in reality it does little more than support the status quo of the world-wide oligarchy that is in the process of dominating the entire planet. Call us crazy or paranoid, but I and others like me truly believe that is what is happening.
Kim, US coverage of world issues is usually childish and pathetically bad. We are incredibly insular and ignorant as a rule. The Economist does a much better job than any similar publication from the States. Business Week? Don't make me laugh. Forbes? Fortune? Not hardly. The WSJ? Only a little under protest.
On the other hand it is such an unabashed supporter of the destruction of the middle class, a staunch foe of labor and the greatest cheerleader of the race to the bottom you are likely to see. It is best avoided.
On the other hand it is such an unabashed supporter of the destruction of the middle class, a staunch foe of labor and the greatest cheerleader of the race to the bottom you are likely to see. It is best avoided.
Sheldon J
Member
They are a very anti gun rag, ran into them a lot when I did my college thesis on the 2A just to piss of my anti prof, he was a anti/jewish/hippie/longhair 60's throwback looked like he bellonged in LA and not MI.Josh M said:
ctdonath
Member
Name ONE gun-owning resident of NOLA who said "Molon Labe" or some such, and resisted actual confiscation.
Tellner------I am a staunch foe of labor unions. I do think the more capitalism is unregulated by a government the better off I will be mentally and financially.. I believe that cause I am a member of the Middle Class as are the large majority of USA citizens. When a Democrat or socialist uses the word middle class they mean their pet welfare class. That is what keeps them in business along with all the taxes the real Middle Class pays.
And I am a staunch proponent of them and a fierce foe of the Cult of the Sacred Market for what I believe are better reasons, even if you buy the theoretical foundations of liberal or neo-liberal economics. We will almost certainly never agree no matter how many facts I shovel.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Amalgamated Brotherhood of Fact Tossers -- AFL/CIO
Eleven Mike
Member
I see what you're saying, but what does "Homosexuals" or "Mission Accomplished" have to do with it? People will surrender their guns because of homosexuals or because we won in Iraq?
What he means is that those are words that get a Pavlovian reaction from the flock.
When there weren't commies to kick around any longer the heirs of Lee *spit* Atwater needed someone else to kick around, a new goblin under the bed. Gays aren't rich. They aren't powerful. They are at best tolerated. Best of all, they make the Know Nothings all hot and bothered. So gay marriage became a constitutional crisis and an opportunity for evil mamzers (technical term here) like FoF, AFA and the rest of that mean-spirited vicious crowd to get the sheep to all baa in the same direction.
Mission Accomplished? Once you get them to swallow one big lie the next are easy. We've turned more corners than an iterative descent of the Mandelbrot set. The resistance has been in its "last throes" since the day after our tanks rolled into Baghdad. Stage a photo-op of The Decider in a flight suit, and the credulous will believe that he's a hero who won a war.
Combine them with the rest of the control words, and you have a huge segment of the American public who would support anything their masters tell them to.
When there weren't commies to kick around any longer the heirs of Lee *spit* Atwater needed someone else to kick around, a new goblin under the bed. Gays aren't rich. They aren't powerful. They are at best tolerated. Best of all, they make the Know Nothings all hot and bothered. So gay marriage became a constitutional crisis and an opportunity for evil mamzers (technical term here) like FoF, AFA and the rest of that mean-spirited vicious crowd to get the sheep to all baa in the same direction.
Mission Accomplished? Once you get them to swallow one big lie the next are easy. We've turned more corners than an iterative descent of the Mandelbrot set. The resistance has been in its "last throes" since the day after our tanks rolled into Baghdad. Stage a photo-op of The Decider in a flight suit, and the credulous will believe that he's a hero who won a war.
Combine them with the rest of the control words, and you have a huge segment of the American public who would support anything their masters tell them to.
odysseus
Member
Tecumseh said:
+1. Isn't that the truth...
The UN is so loaded of hypocrisy and corruption such that I don't understand why people will look for leadership from it. The examples are well documented. They have no jurisdiction, nor should we ever make the worst of foolish decisions and put any of our country's policies under their leadership.
odysseus
Member
tellner said:
I think most people if given the opportunity would (and did) take a policy of gathering what they can and doing the duck-and-run and bug-out.
Zen21Tao
Member
The problem with the current administation isn't one of brain washing the right it is its attempt to appease the left in every possible fashion. Through out every step of Bushes second term he has tried to be "a uniter not a divider." It's quite funny that the one Conservative move Bush refused to compramise with the left on, the Supreme Court nominations, was the one issue libs said Bush could use to prove he would be a "uniter not a divider."
The Republican party has a solid platform built on limiting governmental power while promoting personal responsability and freedom. What the right needs to do is stand true to its platform and kick the left "sware in [its freedom hating anti-American] nutz." [Rant Off]
The official, stated, UN position on the press is that it is the responsibility of the press to support the government, as it is the responsibility of the people to support the government. Needless to say, they see no conflict here with the idea of individual rights or freedom.
Jim
Jim
Zen, what color are the sunsets on your planet, and do the cats have scales that match the feathers on the fish?
This Administration has pushed a hard right-wing agenda in every possible way from getting rid of civil rights protections, gutting workplace safety, engineering the largest transfer or wealth from workers to the very rich in history, tried to turn the Constitution into a post-it board for the Know Nothings to stroke themselves to, made clean air and water standards voluntary, broke the last of the unions, let businesses write the laws that regulate them, and increased the power of the police state to a level that it has never even come close to approaching.
And this is appeasing the Left? That's just insane.
This Administration has pushed a hard right-wing agenda in every possible way from getting rid of civil rights protections, gutting workplace safety, engineering the largest transfer or wealth from workers to the very rich in history, tried to turn the Constitution into a post-it board for the Know Nothings to stroke themselves to, made clean air and water standards voluntary, broke the last of the unions, let businesses write the laws that regulate them, and increased the power of the police state to a level that it has never even come close to approaching.
And this is appeasing the Left? That's just insane.
Eleven Mike
Member
tellner,
What is a hard right-wing agenda on your planet? A prescription drug benefit? A bill that favors illegal over legal immigrants? Massive government spending? Ted Kennedy's "Leave No Child Behind" act? A White House that reportedly includes more homosexuals than any previous administration? The President's repeated statements that Islam is a religion of peace? Tax cuts and rebates? Perhaps it is the toppling of totalitarian states that makes Bush a far-right-winger.
What is a hard right-wing agenda on your planet? A prescription drug benefit? A bill that favors illegal over legal immigrants? Massive government spending? Ted Kennedy's "Leave No Child Behind" act? A White House that reportedly includes more homosexuals than any previous administration? The President's repeated statements that Islam is a religion of peace? Tax cuts and rebates? Perhaps it is the toppling of totalitarian states that makes Bush a far-right-winger.
Please explain these charges.
- Status