what do you know about the iansa

[Brother in Arms]

I went to the iansa webpage today, Its no good. Reading this webpage reminded me exactly why I have weapons for defense. If these people have there way we will all be helpless serfs. Just when you thought national gun control was bad, global gun control could be even worse.If you check out there site and go to the about us page all the way at the bottom of the page it reads.

"How is IANSA funded?
IANSA’s work has been supported by funders including the Governments of UK, Belgium, Sweden and Norway, as well as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Compton Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open Society Institute, Samuel Rubin Foundation and Christian Aid."


Nice to know good old american companies like ford(i'll never buy a ford again) is giving money to these people! What gives these people the right to try to disarm the world and people who really need weapons for defense. I know alot of people think the united nations are a joke. But im not taking any chances.

Look at there site if you feel like getting angry.


http://www.iansa.org/about.htm


Brother in Arms

 

[TexasRifleman]

I know all I need to know. Aim for Blue Helmets......

 

[Hockeydude]

This is really pathetic. All they're doing is saying: "Oh evil dictator, can we please help you disarm your citizens so you can slaughter them faster? :banghead:

 

[thumbody]

One of IANSAs main backers is George Soros He is the main money behind Moveon.org, Air America and was one of the largest backers of John Kerry last election.
I believe The Ford foundation is seperate from Ford Motor Co.But since I work for GM if you want to buy a GM product instead of a Ford I won't complain.

 

[Wiley]

Created with gifts and bequests by Edsel and Henry Ford, the Foundation is an independent organization, with its own board, and is entirely separate from the Ford Motor Company.

And let's remember how successful the Edsel was, hmmmmm?

 

[SomeKid]

IANSA NRA debate

Anyone ever see it?

Peters made quite a few silly assertions, I think my favorite being: "No cilivized society allows its people to use guns for self-defense."

The fact that LaPierre didn't eviscerate her on that point annoyed me.

 

[Pebcac]

Anyone ever see it?

Yeah, I saw it. LaPierre is a boob. He was standing there spouting the blood-in-London-streets rhetoric to a room full of Londoners who were laughing at him for it. He had an opportunity to counter Rebecca Peters' garbage with common sense, and largely blew it to spout empty slogans and rhetoric of his own. Peters, however, couldn't help but reveal the arrogance behind her position, like when she told a sportsman that he simply needed to find another sport besides shooting.

 

[SomeKid]

Peb,

Wayne was still in the PETA fighting style. In the PETA debate, the style was attack the other side. The IANSA debate would have been a good time for him to eviscerate arguements. Peters really did show her elitism, and Wayne should have played his arguement as being a case of freedom, and leading into the safety provided by said freedom from there. He must do something good behind the scenes to earn his pay.

 

[Pebcac]

He must do something good behind the scenes to earn his pay.

This is true. He's been around a while, and doesn't appear to be going anywhere. I'd just rather he kept his public speaking to a minimum.

I should make a correction, too. I said he "is" a boob, when I really should've said he came across as one in that debate (IMHO, of course). The guy wouldn't be at the top of the NRA if he was a moron.

 

[SomeKid]

I dunno Peb, the NRA seems to be weak. All they ever do is defend against attacks. I want to see them actually fight and win us back something.

 

[HuntAndFish]

Web site...

Zac Bauer in MO has a web site too...

http://www.iansasucks.com/

 

[boofus]

That rebecca peters <Edited to comply with Forum Rules- BR>is despicable. She thinks she is royalty. Actually she thinks she is above royalty. Not even the Queen of England is arrogant enough to demand that citizens of another sovereign nation give up their property and lifestyle.

When asked about recreational shooters and hunters that use firearms peters replied 'Find a new hobby'. Drop dead, your 'highness'.

May she water the Tree of Liberty along with her boss Mr-convicted-inside-trader-I'll-buy-the-2004election-Soros.

 

[James T Thomas]

a voice crying in the wilderness

Incredibly there are some red blooded americans even within the IRS!
Not to add that some lawyers who hold justice in esteem are amoung us also.

Why then doesn't the IRS investigative branch look into the tax exemption status of these various american foundations -mentioned, to verify if indeed they are operating according to their charters and will of the founders?
It seems obvious that they have been hijacked by subversives with their own private ajendas and are conducting business far beyond the scope of at least many of the persons who had endowed them.
A good example would be the ACLU.

Another excellent reason for us to evict and withdraw from the UN while we can.

 

[The Viking]

Now I feel ashamed to be a Swede
Anyway, I know what side that gets my vote the coming election. It ain't the commies, thats for sure...just need to figure out what party on the right to vote on

 

[ForeignDude]

Oh, My!

From their 2004 "retrospective", IANSA notes the following as notable achievements and challenges:

"In 2004, the damage caused by the proliferation and misuse of small arms continued largely unchecked despite the intensive efforts of NGOs, UN agencies and progressive governments." Progressive governments, huh? Is civilian disarmament, then, a progressive goal?

"In Brazil a comprehensive gun control package became law, including a referendum in 2005 to ban firearms among civilians...Other countries are also considering progressive new legislation." Apparently so (see above)...

"In the United Kingdom, new laws banned some types of air weapons and imposed tighter restrictions on airguns and replica guns generally, though campaigners including the Gun Control Network took the opportunity of a national review of the gun laws to fight for an outright ban on all replicas and air weapons." Again with the banning...

"The Supreme Court of the Philippines rejected the idea that the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. According to the court ruling, the right to bear arms is a statutory privilege and not a constitutional right." Welcome to the their version of the future...

"In Venezuela the government banned gun imports in an attempt to tackle gun crime." And, of course, this wouldn't make it easier for the Chavez dictatorship to suppress dissent, eh?

And the usual hero/villain, depending on your point of view: "The United States took a step backward when the federal assault weapons ban was allowed to expire..."

Ah, but now for la piece de resistance, check out the US members of the IANSA Network:

(1) Million Mom March / Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
(2) Coalition To Stop Gun Violence - USA
(3) Join Together -- Boston University School of Public Health
(4) World Vision International

Have you noted how often Brady Center spokespersons ridicule gun-owner's fears that "sensible" gun laws will lead to outright banning?

There's a wise saying in Spanish that translates roughly as: "Tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are."

Wisdom, indeed....

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

There Is A Hill To Die On Here

The President makes the treaties and 2/3 of the Senators present must concur in order for a treaty to become ratified. For that treaty to be the law of the land(supreme or otherwise), it must also pass muster as stated in Article VI, Clause (2), of the Constitution, to wit:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance there of; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;..."

The operative words in the Constitution I placed in bold tell the comforting story. (U)nder the authority of the United States. The United States has not been given the authority to, and is specifically forbidden to infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Therefore, the United States does not have the authority to enter into any treaty that would infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Second Amendment speaks directly to forbidding power to government to touch in any way our RKBA.

If our President and 2/3 of our Senators engage in such an unconstitutional act, and if the Supreme Court does not IMMEDIATELY shoot it down, the time will have come to remove the offenders from office forthwith. Awaiting the next election is out of the question. Our national security and personal sovereignty cannot withstand delay. If any in our government decide to take any such action, they had better dig their graves beforehand. If they refuse to step down, I do believe the best they will get otherwise is a common grave and a single marker : "Here Lie Those Who Defied The Constitution To The Peril Of The People."

Woody

"Revolution is the Right of the People to preserve or restore Freedom. Those vested with power shall neither deprive the People the means, nor compel such recourse." B.E.Wood