U.N. Global gun ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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 . . .
 
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
 
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.
 
It is not only lawyers using international law as guidence; it is our leadership pushing their mutual global socialist agenda - building their global plantation.
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land".
Click to expand...
- George W Bush, United Nations General Assembly, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
my.php
[/URL][/IMG] hehehe

got it from http://www.a-human-right.com/fight-flight.html
 
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???
 
Quote:
"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:
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.
 
Marshall:

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"??????
 
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.
 
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?
 
Sorry, but an all-or-nothing overnight ban (UK style for sake of argument) would never fly in the USA. Even if we are in the tiny minority there are still a whole crowd of us shooters and I don't think a single one of us would stand for it in the least.

Doing the county-by-county, state-by-state, law-by-law thing to slowly erode away our rights to bear arms might work eventually, if there's enough apathy on our part to go around. But if the UN announced a ban one day (and the US federal government followed suit) there'd be enough of us out in the streets burning effigies to make the government worry.

The feds know that they can't just pass a law like that all at once because after the riots were over we'd totally slam dunk them in the supreme court (even if it is loaded with neo-nazis) which in turn would draw massive attention from shooters and nonshooters alike.

If such a countrywide ban went into law like that it could just as well be the second civil war - I wonder just how many states (New York and California excluded...) would take that lying down. I can think of a couple that certainly wouldn't off the top of my head: Vermont, Wyoming, Florida, Texas, et. all.

So no, it won't hapen. The Europeans can keep on whittling themselves down to nothing and turing their continent into an Orwellian theme park, but I don't think (and I sincerely hope) that there are anywhere near enough bleeding hearts, soccer moms, and hysterical ne'er-do-wells on the face of the earth to make it happen here.

Instead, it will be the "military style" firearms that will be the first to go. Magazine capacity restrictions will probably come first, of course. Big bores will get reasoned away. Then it'll be military calibers - Say goodbye to 9x19 and .223, for a start. Then it'll be handguns. After that it'll be anything "non sporting" like tactical shotguns. Then it'll be licensing requirements and "need to own" restrictions.

And it'll take decades to accomplish, and if they do it slowly enough they might just get away with it. But that's why we have to be vigilant. Frothing at the mouth over the alleged boogeymen on the other side of the pond in the UN is entertaining, but it doesn't accoplish much. What we need to do is improve things here and now, and send the message that we're a part of this country and we're not going to be stepped on.
 
Points/Counterpoints

This is indeed a dangerous time, and our enemies are truly approaching the gate. An overnight, blanket gun ban and turn-in order positively won't fly here...and they know it. They may take a bite here and there, but they know that there would be a battle in the courts that would bog the system down and grind it to a halt.

BUT...Our founding fathers failed to include ammunition along with the RKBA amendment...even though it was probably assumed that "Arms" meant viable arms, which would be useless without powder and shot.

So, they know that they can't get the guns, because they're protected by the Bill of Rights/2A and because there are just too many out there to get'em all. Ammunition is a completely different problem for the enemies of our Constitution and our way of life. That, they can get. Not through confiscation, nor even legislation. The American people are much too resourceful to allow little issues get in their way. Witness Prohibition, and even the "War on Drugs" for indication of the failures there.

There will be no Lexington and Concord. There will be no uprising. The problem will not come from the JBTs nor from the ATF, nor the FBI, nor the
Department of Homeland Security....nor even from the UN's Multinational Peacekeeping Force. It will come from state and federal excise taxes...maybe even directly from the IRS itself. A "use tax" on every round of ammunition sold can range from a few cents to a few dollars...all the way to requiring a tax stamp for the purchase of a box...or a single round of ammo.
Requirements to return all fired brass would lay waste to the reloading solution...and tax imposed on every tray of primers would slow what was left of it to a crawl.

Likely a "Needs-Based" or use tax on each firearm that you own, with an amnesty period to give you time to complete the paperwork....which of course would include a percentage of denials for the proper licensing.
"You can keep your artifact, sir. You just have to silver-solder a plug in the chamber so that it can't be fired. Documentation of the modification from a licensed gunsmith required within 90 days. Thank you for your cooperation, sir and have a nice day."

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Therein lies the clue to what the future holds.
 
Zero DGZ:

You wrote: "Sorry, but an all-or-nothing overnight ban (UK style for sake of argument) would never fly in the USA. Even if we are in the tiny minority there are still a whole crowd of us shooters and I don't think a single one of us would stand for it in the least."



Thinking about New Orleans, as a test case, what you are saying certainly didn't happen then.

One Government Employee made an edict that "Only Law Enforcement will be allowed to have guns" and they went about a wholesale confiscation of weapons, right in front of the television reporters of residents being de-gunned inside their own homes, with out of State Cops body slamming a little old lady, and EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IN THE UNITED STATES STOOD BY AND WATCHED IT HAPPEN.

Even now, under a court order to return those weapons which they have failed to comply with, the head LEO in New Orleans said they would do it again if they wanted to.

I hate to say this, but unless we vote out every incument currently in the U.S. Senate, if a Left Wing gun banner like McCain, Clinton, Guliani, or Schumer, or Liebermann, (or basically anyone currently in the Senate) any of them win the oval office while a left wing majority is in the Senate, we as a nation will more than likely be sold out by our "leaders" who will sign on to that by 2012. Heck, we have a majority in the Senate now, that couldn't even pass repeal of the DEATH TAX, which not a single American agrees with, and they couldn't even pass that with a majority, because they did not want to be looked at as being "Partisan".

Their reason will be, we MUST act in accordance with the consensus of countries "around the world" which means doing what the U.N. tells us. We waited on the U.N. an entire year to get Saddam to let inspectors in, but this same body of Senators says we "rushed" in without consulting the U.N. by getting it's "blessing".

We are constantly hearing statements that we are "shaping policy with a goal to work within the confines of the guidelines set by our U.N. partners." Now a goal of our U.N. partners is that we be a signator to this gun ban.

John Bolton will not be our U.N. Ambassador after 2008. Can anyone seriously claim that a U.N. Ambassador with the type of political leftist leanings of a Madelane Albright would not push constantly for us to "join with our partners in the world body" by signing on to this agreement? AFter all, it is only to protect the innocent.

You hear these kinds of statements all the time coming from the Senate. If I told you fifteen years ago that the U.S. Government itself would claim it has a right to monitor every single bit of electronic communication you ever have, you would have claimed the U.S. Constitution said they could not.

It in fact does say they can't. However, that does not seem to make a tinkers damn of difference. The Federal Government constantly goes against what we the people want in open defiance of the Constitution. I don't see how Constituitional protections will suddenly enter in to this to save us from "joining with our U.N. partners" in "standing firm against gun violence".

The Feds have had our military train for it by performing mock gun confiscation drills with people instructed to say "I have a right to keep my guns", and train the guys to ignore these statements. People point these factual occurances out, and they are called "Tin Foil Hat Brigade" memebers.

Then when the doubters find out it has happened on numerous occasions they accept it by saying "it is only a drill, it is not real". Then, when guns are blatantly illegally confiscated in New Orleans, they each and every one, stood by and let it happen. It's happened in England, Austrailia, Germany, Poland, Russia, China. Almost every country so far. Their thinking is, what makes the U.S. any different? Eveyone else has allowed it. In fact, we did last summer.

Can you give an actual example of a single person who didn't "stand for it" in New Orleans when it happened. That wasn't even the U.N. That was one Cop telling them that his sole word was law.
 
RKBA is already doing better than it has in 40 years. I think we have a lot of reasons to be optimistic overall. Nothing the UN does is going to have any affect on the United States unless our legislators agree to it.

Whether or not our legislators agree to it (and the current crop is certainly not going to) depends entirely on the efforts of gun owners. If even half of the people who post "SHTF/What I'm going to do when the revolution comes" threads would get involved with their local politics and work consistently to push pro-RKBA legislators at the local level, the pool of talent for the antis would dry up in 30 years.

We will win this battle with the UN; but there are going to be more and the issue will not go away.

Ira Aten said:
The Feds have had our military train for it by performing mock gun confiscation drills with people instructed to say "I have a right to keep my guns", and train the guys to ignore these statements.
Click to expand...

Could you point me toward the information describing these drills?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Lying Scholars Fuel Anti-gun Court Verdicts
Replies
2
Views
547
Mark Tyson
M
W
  • Locked
NRA's LaPierre Slams 'Phony' Anti-Gun Propaganda
Replies
2
Views
515
bountyhunter
B
B
  • Locked
Arizona Governor Vetoes Guns-in-Bars Bill
Replies
16
Views
730
Old Fuff
O
E
  • Locked
Kerry's Track Record Compiled
Replies
0
Views
431
erik the bold
E
B
  • Locked
Lying Scholars Fuel Anti-gun Court Verdicts
Replies
2
Views
612
2dogs
2
Back
Top