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

Poll time.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 50 Shooter, Jun 22, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 50 Shooter

    50 Shooter member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,499
    Location:
    SoCal PRK
  2. FTF

    FTF member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    561
    How many people do you know, who would voluntarily give up their firearms if the UN told them to do so? Just because 'guns are bad'.

    Never gonna happen. Stop wasting your time on UN issues when we have plenty of real relevant issues so much closer to home.
     
  3. Ryan1021

    Ryan1021 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Ohio
    Poll is now on front page in lower right hand corner. Hit it.

    www.cnn.com
     
  4. FTF

    FTF member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    561
    :fire:
     
  5. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    Here's the deal. If this thing passes, it truly will be the USA against the rest of the world -- No, I'm not talking about some silly keyboard kommando fantasy about the blue helmets actually coming here to disarm us by force.

    I'm talking about something similar to the way the world viewed and treated South Africa during Apartheid(*). Right now, most of the world looks down on us for our guns -- if this thing passes, it will be a vehicle to officially marginalize us.

    The UN is framing this -- and most of the world sees it -- as a matter of stopping outlaw states from putting little boys into armies. If we're alone in opposing it, we'll be seen as opposing that. B.S.? Yep. But that's the way we'll be seen and treated.

    Would we be vulnerable to sanctions? Probably not (but our economic clout won't be as strong in coming decades with the emergence of China and the continued strengthening of the EU).

    But we would be more vulnerable to outside pressures to disarm. We don't want that.


    (*)This should not be construed as a defense of the horrible system that was Apartheid
     
  6. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,037
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    41 to 59 against us.

    But hangon a minute.

    Historically, whenever the polls on CNN and FOX are parallel, they are mirror images of each other. (ie: 90/10 on CNN = 10/90 on FOX).

    Also, CNN poll results normally stand against the positions commonly taken in this community.

    The fact that the number in our favor is as high as 41 on a CNN poll is significant in and of itself, indicating widespread distrust of the UN.

    I'd never have thought that you could get 41% of the CNN viewership to agree with a position of the NRA.
     
  7. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Just voted.. 41 to 59%. For the CNN site, I don't think that is that bad.

    I never go there, I go for truth and it doesn't live there...
     
  8. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,063
    geek, that's exacty what i thought when i saw the results! the fact that more than 10% of cnn viewers believe that is amazing. (of course, my crazed socialist friends would explain the results away by saying CNN is a conservative mouthpiece :rolleyes: )
     
  9. mordechaianiliewicz

    mordechaianiliewicz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    Western Missouri
    Wow, cuchulainn was correct for once!

    Blue helmets knocking down our doors ain't much more than a fantasy really, the day it would happen, the guys doin' the knocking would largely be U.S. Forces.

    But, the U.S. not supporting this would make us pariahs.

    Thing is, we already are pariahs to much of the world because of the stupid foreign policy decisions of former administrations compounded to this one. I say, bring it on!

    We cannot sign this, and although it won't do much good, if I were Wayne, I would say, "This isn't about peace, and disarming 3rd World child soldiers, it's about making sure that you're child soldiers are the only ones armed with guns, so you can easily wipe out your tribal enemies."

    I would be bold about it, Kofi Annan, and his Dictator friends be damned!
     
  10. Erebus

    Erebus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,374
    Location:
    North Central MA
    Exactly, you will never see blue helmets at your door. It would be your friendly neighborhood SWAT team kicking your door in to take your guns.

    But that would only occur if we end up with an administration that will agree with the UN. As long as Repubs are in power it won't happen.

    If the Dems take congress this year and Hitlery wins in '08 anything could happen. In fact I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to see us go the Aussie way or worse. That would really seperate the men from the boys. But I expect it to be more incrimental. All at once will cause a huge ground swell of opposition. Taking classes of guns over a period of a few years would minimalize the outcry.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page