U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

Deftone

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
18,357
Reaction score
27,291
an article by LARRY BELL

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the anti-gun media never seem to grasp).

4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

(cut from page 2)
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

(Cut from page 3)
There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.
So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.


FULL ARTICLE
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Larry Bell - The Bell Tells for You - Forbes
 

Deftone

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
18,357
Reaction score
27,291
Like (almost) everyone else, I dream of a world where man is kind to man. There would be no theft, murder or rape.

But I live in the real world, where some men are evil to others.


Awesome quote, Seven:

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - Winston Churchill
 

TeleDog

Pain in the Rear!
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
8,979
Reaction score
2,931
Scare tactics. No UN can even tint the holdings in Heller related to the 2nd Amendment as a personal right.

All this talk about Obama in some conspiracy with the UN, that means crap, it is crap, it means nothing and you shouldn't pay attention to any of that unless of course you're Dave Mustaine! lol

This is another attempt to try to blame the President for something that can't happen to begin with! SAD!

Instead of talking about issues and real substantive matters some are wasting time talking about ghosts and what ifs that are simply impossible in the eyes of the law.
 

H.E.L.Shane

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
6,518
Reaction score
6,376
The U.N. has become a front for the reptilians to enhance the process of "domesticating" humanity so that the earth can become a large meat packaging facility.

the united states has been a thorn in in their side ever since they came here...

because of the "wild west' mentality and little speedumps like the Second Amendment... its been hard for the Government to "follow the plan"...

things like this rediculous UN bullshit are the small steps needed to take our ability to defend ourselves from the massive attack when it comes.

Watch "They Live" and then think about the little attacks on our freedoms and the corporation USA that has been hapenning since WWII...

I joke about the "reptilians"... but there IS something going on... and I haven't ruled out extraterrestrial influence as if yet....
 

Howard2k

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
24,825
Reaction score
44,797
LOL, Yep, I am sure that disarming American citizens is a top UN priority.

tinfoil.jpg
 

Byron999

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
8,182
Reaction score
8,682
Wasn't there was a lot of questionable regulations in NAFTA that have yet to be inforced?

It may be that these efforts, which are an affront to our sovereignty, are put in place in case they are needed in foreseeable future. Again, it is about jurisdiction if the masses refuse to go along. Think peace keeping missions, world court edicts, our owners are 3 steps ahead in securing their interest. There is a reason for everything they do, and I doubt it is ever, ever in our interest. :hmm:
 

TeleDog

Pain in the Rear!
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
8,979
Reaction score
2,931
i wouldn't laugh to hard about that.....

What is the greatest threat to a "new world order"?


A people able to defend themselves from having it forced on them

See? Give it time and it comes out all by itself... The "new world order" bull crap. I mean, this is so ridiculous I have a hard time understand why people even pay attention to this.

Get this straight. The UN cannot do crap about guns, alright? They can't take guns away, so no separation anxiety issues. They can't do it even if they get in bed with Congress and the President himself.

The holding in Heller stands, even if the UN starts crying about it, it doesn't matter.

Now give that "new world order" crap a rest, it's the most asinine thing I've ever heard! Wow, talk about crazy conspiracies!!!!!!!!!

I'm opposed to gun control, and I'm opposed to people being labeled combatants and officials listening to your phone calls. But this is new. Now it's the concern over the constitution and the 2nd amendment. 4 years ago, if you didn't give up your rights to private calls you were not "a patriot". So make up your minds! lol

Let me give you an example here. Say Congress wants to help the UN and the President and every other government on the face of the earth and Mother Teresa and the Pope and Jimmy Page pass a law for gun control. STILL DOESN'T MATTER. The ONLY way to take guns away is to pass a constitutional amendment, there is NO OTHER WAY.
 

H.E.L.Shane

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
6,518
Reaction score
6,376
See? Give it time and it comes out all by itself... The "new world order" bull crap. I mean, this is so ridiculous I have a hard time understand why people even pay attention to this.

Get this straight. The UN cannot do crap about guns, alright? They can't take guns away, so no separation anxiety issues. They can't do it even if they get in bed with Congress and the President himself.

The holding in Heller stands, even if the UN starts crying about it, it doesn't matter.

Now give that "new world order" crap a rest, it's the most asinine thing I've ever heard! Wow, talk about crazy conspiracies!!!!!!!!!

I'm opposed to gun control, and I'm opposed to people being labeled combatants and officials listening to your phone calls. But this is new. Now it's the concern over the constitution and the 2nd amendment. 4 years ago, if you didn't give up your rights to private calls you were not "a patriot". So make up your minds! lol

Let me give you an example here. Say Congress wants to help the UN and the President and every other government on the face of the earth and Mother Teresa and the Pope and Jimmy Page pass a law for gun control. STILL DOESN'T MATTER. The ONLY way to take guns away is to pass a constitutional amendment, there is NO OTHER WAY.

wow...

now i feel naked because i left my aluminum foil hat at home.....
 

jeff_farkas

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
33,333
Reaction score
22,345
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate[/B]


Do you guys really think that the Senate will actually ratify this?? Really.. get more tin foil for your hats.

/thread :laugh2:
 

tampa898

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,335
Reaction score
843
Some of you folks need to get your heads out of your butt cracks. If you don't think this kind of stuff can happen take a look around you. Great Britan firearms are banned, Austrailia firearms are banned, Canada firearms are registered and have to be locked in a safe with the ammunition locked in a different safe. Hand guns can only be transported by permit even to the shooting range. Yes it can happen. Fortunetly for Canada our newly elected Conservative government has plans to get rid of the registry, but it's the Libs that put it there in the first place.
 

TeleDog

Pain in the Rear!
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
8,979
Reaction score
2,931
Do you guys really think that the Senate will actually ratify this?? Really.. get more tin foil for your hats.

/thread :laugh2:

They can ratify it and hold a party over it. It means nothing! What the SC says, that's what matters when it comes to constitutional interpretations.
 

TeleDog

Pain in the Rear!
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
8,979
Reaction score
2,931
Some of you folks need to get your heads out of your butt cracks. If you don't think this kind of stuff can happen take a look around you. Great Britan firearms are banned, Austrailia firearms are banned, Canada firearms are registered and have to be locked in a safe with the ammunition locked in a different safe. Hand guns can only be transported by permit even to the shooting range. Yes it can happen. Fortunetly for Canada our newly elected Conservative government has plans to get rid of the registry, but it's the Libs that put it there in the first place.

And the UK aint the US, that is the little piece of info people "miss" when spreading the crap.

Here, this is a system of checks and balances, and the SC already spoke on the issue, the 2nd amendmet is an incorporated individual right, period, NO LAW WILL CHANGE IT, no Congress, no president, NOBODY. You wanna change that, you need to pass a constitutional amendment.

The Heller case was about all those issues you talk about, it has been decided, and that's the end of the road. NOTHING nobody can do about it short of a full blown constitutional amendment. It's that simple and that specific.

So, it rains in the UK, sure enough it means it rains here too at the same time. :shock:

All these conspiracy theories are ridiculous to say the least, and the saddest part is that there's people who actually continue to spread them. Why? Because they don't like Obama. Completely asinine.

What's next? Dwarfs going to take over Fort Knox or Snow White running for Secretary of Defense?
 

River

Senior Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
57,237
Reaction score
91,396
Some of you folks need to get your heads out of your butt cracks.
Yes, you're smart, we're stupid. I'm not only stupid, I'm also blissfully ignorant.

I don't live in Great Britain, Canada, nor Australia. I live and vote in the U.S.A. We're oranges, they're apples. They can't even spell right.

:slash:
 

Latest Threads



Top