The UN vs. our guns

[Dravur]

Whenever I read these threads I get a picture of a whole bunch of rednecks with disgsustingly large bellies yelling "Molon Labe" as they pose for the camera crews. Thats just what I see in my thoughts.

Oddly enough, I have a view of the people who think the U.N is a great organization and the new world order is the greatest thing since sliced bread...I view them kind of like Nazis, spreading like a cancer. The only way to deal with Nazis is to shout Molon Labe and start-a-whacking.

So, count me in. Blue helmets are easy to spot.

 

[nvshooter]

Shootin' gallery...

It will be fun to start poppin' them blue helmets in the head if they try this clinton. By that time, US domestic law will be meaningless and better to die in defense of freedom than to live under the "peace, tranquilty and social order" that the UN would force on us. Lock and load, boys. Let's rock!!

 

[Sav .250]

The UN is "mostly" made up of 3rd world countries. Their Gov`ts are corrupt. The people are poor and illiterate. Famine and disease is rampet.
They use the UN as sort of a Lobby consortium to get aid, be it military or
loans they don`t ever seem to pay back. Forgiven is a better term.
As far as a possible gun-ban goes it might be a "talking-point" but when
push comes to shove they see free-bies vs gun ban.
Like most politicians, no matter where, A bird in the hand (free-bies)
vs gun ban ( talking point) will win every time. IMO.

 

[Geno]

Now what...you guys don't trust the "United-against-us Nations"?! Why ever not?!

 

[iapetus]

The UN doesn't have troops though.

For the UN to carry out any sort of military invention requires:

* The member states to agree to make an intervention
* One or more member states to agree to provide the troops
* One or more member states to agree to pay for the operation.

(And the first step normally has to start with the members first agreeing that there is a problem, then scheduling a meeting to debate whehter it is worth doing something about, and if that passes, having another debate to decide what should be done. And it very rarely seems to get that far).

So which country or countries do you think would be volunteering its troops to supress an American insurgency (if the operation was sanctioned by the US government), let alone a real invasion (if it wasn't)?

 

[Reddbecca]

 

[MDW GUNS]

Well, let’s say Ms. Clinton makes it in 2008 and her honest husband becomes the UN Secretary.
Now the Brady bunch would insist that the UN enforces a global disarmament.
Then the order would come from our government in DC and every LEO in the country would have a sworn duty to disarm every civilian.
I am sure we would have a nice little story to go along why that would be the best for everyone!
I think this is a real good chance to happen!

 

[pcosmar]

Folks it doesn't have to be a (D) it could be an (R). Anyone who is getting their marching orders from the CFR will do.
There are folks with a plan of a One World Government.
The plan is progressing.

 

[Reddbecca]

There are folks with a plan of a One World Government. The plan is progressing.

Then it's time we get our plan progressing for when the doomsday scenario comes about and words fail, and we'll be forced to start killing.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Keydokee.

That's 'nuff.

Although I agree that armed foreign soldiers attempting to excercise authority or hostilities on US soil are perfectly fair targets, THR isn't the place to "get our plan progressing".