PDA

View Full Version : Is this for real


JPN6336
05-09-2006, 4:28 PM
I don't mean to distract everyone's debate about the new Memo, but I received an email sending me to this site which appears to have NRA logos and so forth on it but I'm not sure if this is real. If it is, it's only a semi-serious problem at best because I can't see the UN passing nor being about to enforce it.

http://www.stopungunban.org/

xrevxoltx
05-09-2006, 5:49 PM
Yeah right.

EBWhite
05-09-2006, 6:33 PM
does anyone have a link to the debate that was on video???

Matt C
05-09-2006, 6:56 PM
I think it is from the NRA.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 8:50 PM
It is likely from the NRA.

While a bit alarmist, warnings about UN stuff have a basis in fact. If treaties are signed by Congress, they have the power of law. The idea is to not even "let it go near there" so there's sufficient interest and wariness that we're all on watch for it and are ready to inundate Congress with mail & phone calls.

five.five-six
05-09-2006, 9:18 PM
It is likely from the NRA.

While a bit alarmist, warnings about UN stuff have a basis in fact. If treaties are signed by Congress, they have the power of law. The idea is to not even "let it go near there" so there's sufficient interest and wariness that we're all on watch for it and are ready to inundate Congress with mail & phone calls.


welcome to the new world order

AF_INT1N0
05-09-2006, 9:41 PM
The site may or not be legit.

But you can bet your *** that the U.N. is the new method the Anti's will take to disarm you. YOu have to realize that in most states (The notable exceptions being NY, MA, CA,) gun control is a loser. Nebraska just passed Shall issue CCW (just in time for my orders to come through:mad: :mad: although before that LE only (really) enforced the laws in North Omaha, (Picture a smaller Oakland) and then you had to be obviously in trouble before it was an issue.) but I digress..

Now, the Anti's knowing that the U.S. would not vote to get rid of her arms on her own, are trying the UN route.


Brazil was a perfect example of the U.N. trying to implement gun control through globalism..

Several good examples have occurred in Africa, over the last several years or so.

The overall result is the same.
Government sponsored goons kill millions of "political dissedents".
Or as in Sudan/ Syria right now. The muslim government spreads the word of Allah (ussually by killing off all the men in a tribe and then impregnating/raping the surviving women to breed out the infidel)

The UN's stated goal is that no non-government entity will possess small arms. Only approved dictatorships.. And believe me.. Armed American citizens is very high on their radar right now.

five.five-six
05-09-2006, 10:03 PM
The UN's stated goal is that no non-government entity will possess small arms. Only approved dictatorships.. And believe me.. Armed American citizens is very high on their radar right now.


the problem for the U.N. is that the U.S. can be seen by people all over the world as a shining beacon of hope and fredom. it makes life much more dificult for kofie's gang of thugs when the people liveing in those contrys can see us. they need to put a stop to it now! if you have never been outside the U.S. you can't understand it. I am currently in a third world contry (mexico) I had to take my son to the local hospital for dehydration and diariah as it would take 3 days to fly home. anyway the point is that this hospital, had it been a resturant in caliornia, would have been shut down years ago. these dicators view the common people as cattle.


new rules to imigrate to the usa (https://www.dslextreme.com/webmail2/src/download.php?absolute_dl=true&passed_id=28943&mailbox=INBOX&ent_id=2)

Chopper
05-10-2006, 8:56 AM
There is nothing about this site, this cause or anything related to it on
the official NRA website.

Yute
05-10-2006, 9:19 AM
From what I can tell the site is registered to the NRA.
You can double check here:
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp

A bit alarmist IMHO.

DrjonesUSA
05-10-2006, 11:46 AM
I'm quite shocked at how uninformed so many of you are.

I don't mean to sound high-and-mighty or anything, but really.....this stuff is quite old news.

YES, this is a serious threat and it should be taken very seriously as if a future congress/senate/president seriously supported such a UN treaty (and already some in our government do), that could have very serious implications for America.

rkt88edmo
05-10-2006, 12:07 PM
There is an abridged transcript of La Pierre's debate with Rebecca Peters (UN) here at the bottom of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_LaPierre

More important that off list lowers :eek:

I'm sure the video is out there for download but couldn't find it in 3 seconds...

Yute
05-10-2006, 1:55 PM
Alright everyone who is going to take a stand needs to read this:
http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/poa.html
This is what the UN is aiming to do. Draw your own conclusions from it. But note the preamble and what their they believe states should be doing. It a. Reaffirms the soverienty of states and b. asks governments to set up mechanisms in their countries to prevent "illicit arms" from being manufactured and exported - mechanisms we already have in the US.

IMHO there is a big difference from this UN document and "the International Action Network on Small Arms" who wants to ban every rifle that can shoot past 100 metres. There is a legitmate concern for controlling ILLICIT firearms from entering conflict zones. This is what this document and the confrence is trying to do. But then again a lot of casulties in Rawanda were caused by machetes... Would they ban them too?

I for one do not see men will blue helmets coming to confiscate your weapons... The UN is based on the principles of State soverienty - I doubt very much they would violate it. They will however try and limit weapons from getting into conflict areas - which has its pros and cons depending who is fighting...

DrjonesUSA
05-10-2006, 1:58 PM
There is a legitmate concern for controlling ILLICIT firearms from entering conflict zones.


Because guns cause crime/murder/genocide. We all know that.


But then again a lot of casulties in Rawanda were caused by machetes...

Exactly. I guess you'd prefer those who were murdered by machete-wielding government thugs stayed unarmed?


The UN is based on the principles of State soverienty - I doubt very much they would violate it.


Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?

You do not understand:

The IANSA believes that all guns not under the government's direct control are "illicit".

Their goal is to disarm all civilians, thus giving the state a total monopoly on violence.

Yute
05-10-2006, 2:13 PM
Drjones,
sorry I'm not smoking anything :D I know where you are coming from, my remarks were meant to be slightly ironic, I apologize if it did not come out that way. I still believe that the uncontrolled sale of illegal weapons needs to change though ;) Examples would be Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, Nepal, Columbia, Palestine, etc, etc...


"The IANSA believes that all guns not under the government's direct control are "illicit"."
No disagreement there! But there is a difference between what IANSA is trying to do and what the UN is doing. The IANSA can lobby all they want but ulimately it is the members of the UN to implement and enforce laws. Forcing the US government (who I might add controls most of the UN's assets...) to tell its people to disarm is not going to happen.

Questions for more debate: Is it wrong for the UN to try and prevent the flow of illicit weapons into a war zone? What if an oppressed people need weapons to defend themselves from annihlation?

DrjonesUSA
05-10-2006, 2:15 PM
I still believe that the uncontrolled sale of illegal weapons needs to change though ;)



Are you serious?

So you do believe guns cause crime/genocide or not?


No disagreement there! But there is a difference between what IANSA is trying to do and what the UN is doing. The IANSA can lobby all they want but ulimately it is the members of the UN to implent and enforce laws. Forcing the US government to tell its people to disarm is not going to happen.

Right, but there is a good possibility that a future president/congress/senate could sign/agree to a UN treaty on "illicit small arms".

THAT is what bothers me.

Yute
05-10-2006, 2:45 PM
So you do believe guns cause crime/genocide or not?
No sir, people do. My concern is the unregulated supply of weapons to groups that will use them for genocide, terrorism, tyranny, etc. It really depends on the situation.

Take for example the Maoist guerillas in Nepal. Currently most of them are fairly ill armed and most of their actions have been isolated to the country side. But give them modern weapons (aks, pkms and rpgs for every man/woman to replace their bren guns and enfields and muskets) and I assure you they will be willing to take the fight to a whole new level. Many more WILL die than if they were unable to get better weapons. Luckily they do not seem to have the funds to rearm...

At the same time, was it wrong for certain unnamed parties to arm the Tutsis outside the country in the Rawandan genocide, allowing them to end the genocide? I would argue no - no country was willing to intervene in Rawanda and arming the Tutsis was the only way they could defend themselves. Here we have an example where weapons are a good thing - when supplied to the "right" people...

Right, but there is a good possibility that a future president/congress/senate could sign/agree to a UN treaty on "illicit small arms".
"Good possiblity"? Maybe if Clinton got elected and somehow managed to get all the red states into blue. With magic or mind control perhaps!

I prefer to stay optimistic :D
But still slightly cautious ;)

Ps apologies for all the editing, I make a lot of spelling mistakes!

TonyM
05-10-2006, 8:38 PM
does anyone have a link to the debate that was on video???


If you donate some cash to the NRA they will send you the DVD. I enjoyed watching it and seeing that "woman" try to avoid the facts and spread B.S.

five.five-six
05-23-2006, 1:55 AM
now I understand1 if there were no guns then there would be no crime

Omega13device
05-23-2006, 5:47 AM
If you guys are worried about the UN actually doing anything effective, then you don't have anything to worry about. The UN has not been an effective institution for a long time.

ldivinag
05-23-2006, 10:34 AM
now I understand1 if there were no guns then there would be no crime


yes, exactly. and we will live in a utopian world afterwards...



[/sarcasm]

shopkeep
05-23-2006, 11:51 AM
After the political fallout from the AW Ban of '94, I highly doubt any politician on Capitol Hill is going to be stupid enough to sign this treaty. Furthermore signing of such a treaty could result in a second civil war or at least MAJOR civil unrest throughout the country. One third of the country is armed and a significant percentage of this third is not going to lay down its arms easily.

Cardinal Sin
05-24-2006, 1:39 AM
for kofie's gang of thugs

new rules to imigrate to the usa (https://www.dslextreme.com/webmail2/src/download.php?absolute_dl=true&passed_id=28943&mailbox=INBOX&ent_id=2)


When is Kofie's term up??? Like to see someone with balls and a brain actually do something with the UN . . . wishfull thinking yes, but one can dream :p

radioactivelego
05-24-2006, 11:48 PM
Take for example the Maoist guerillas in Nepal. Currently most of them are fairly ill armed and most of their actions have been isolated to the country side. But give them modern weapons (aks, pkms and rpgs for every man/woman to replace their bren guns and enfields and muskets) and I assure you they will be willing to take the fight to a whole new level. Many more WILL die than if they were unable to get better weapons. Luckily they do not seem to have the funds to rearm...Solution: give the citizens "illicit" arms to illicitly defend themselves.

Yute
05-25-2006, 12:45 AM
Solution: give the citizens "illicit" arms to illicitly defend themselves. You are right in that Nepali citizens are by in large not allowed to own weapons. However the government is tending to turn a blind eye to their own policies, allowing (if not arming and training) villages near Maoist territory to own guns. While some villagers are armed, because of the isolation of the villages and the relatively few villagers per village they are easily outnumbered by maoist raids. Giving villagers better guns and training might help, but I would like to see the maoists get their gun supply cut off. Unfortunately by arming specific villages, the emergence of warlords is becoming a real possiblity.

That said I highly doubt the Un would be able to styme the flow of weapons (ableit low quality) from India into nepal (and then to Maoists).