So what about this UN gun ban on the 4th of July?

[Manedwolf]

Prohibit civilian possession of military-style rifles, including semiautomatic
rifles that can be converted to fully automatic fire and semi-automatic variants of military weapons.

Yes, can't have the pesky civilians able to resist a police state, after all. The revolutionary fighters here were successful because they were able to get the same or comparable battlefield muskets as the British were using. The Brown Bess was the "Assault Weapon" of the day.

But I suppose that'd be a BAD thing to the dictatorial thugs that want to maintain their corrupt, bloodsoaked regimes around the world.

I just wonder what happened to Australia. From fiercely anti-monarchist to absolutely submissive nanny state in short order.

 

[American By Blood]

This whole issue doesn't make me mad. I wish it did. Instead, it just sends me into despair. This will sail through the UN and because it isn't the right sort of issue won't be subject to the oft-used American Security Council veto.

The treaty is a done deal. It could even start making the rounds across the globe this autumn. Ratification throughout most of the world is a foregone conclusion. The sad fact is that in most countries it will simply be a recognition that they already share basic gun laws with just about everyone else. It won't stop genocide (pre-pubescents with AKs are bona fide soldiers in parts of Africa, dontchaknow), make the streets safer, prevent any crimes of passion, or even slow the flow of guns across borders. The bulk of homicides are committed by legally-authorized state agents (or their proxies) and most international small arms sales are at least in part governmental affairs. Like all gun laws, this new package of the same old bunk will only effect law-abiding civilians.

What remains to be seen is how quickly it will be ratified in the US. The worst-case scenario is 2008. I don't see this as being realistic. It's far more likely that ratification (probably by calling it an "agreement" like NAFTA) is at least a decade away and very probably a little further off. I'm no fan of the Baby Boomers, but a few of them have their heads on straight. The thing is that the Boomers are going be starting their Great Die-Off in short order. My generation coming into its own is what we have to fear. Most of us are too busy eating and entertaining ourselves to death to bother with the duties of citizenship, and the few that do care about politics hold to ideologies that make the fuzzy-leftism of the hippies look nuanced and well reasoned. You can kiss any semblence of freedom or national sovereignty goodbye when generations X, Y, and Z become the establishment. We've been spoonfed anti-American internationalist drivel from day one and determine a person's intellectual refinement almost solely on how well they regurgitate the Euro-leftist party line.

I will grant that my proposed rough timeline could be drastically accelerated via judicial ratification ala Roper v. Simmons. All hail activist judges and their total disregard for republicanism.

 

[Zedicus]

If you ask me this whole issue has a strong ominous felling to it.

Either way you argue this the fact still remains that if this does pass in the UN that if any Liberal or bad RINO Prez gets in you can be darned certain that they will use it for an excuse for civilian firearms confiscations in one way or another.

the big question though is "What are we going to do about it?"

What are we going to do to try to stop it?

It's unlikely that it is possible to stop it passing, to many Tyrants in the UN want it badly & the UN also wants it badly, combine that with the likelyhood that the US UN Rep probably couldn't care less about it & we have a recipe for disaster.

What are we going to do if worst case scenario becomes reality?
(IE: Treaty Passes & some Frothing at the mouth anti worms their way into the Presidency)

Will you turn your guns in?, bury your guns someplace?, or will you stand in defiance & vote from the rooftops/hilltops?
Bugging out to parts unknown would probably not be an option since they will find you one way or another.

So what will we do?

 

[K-Romulus]

we still have a chance at the UN

the likelyhood that the US UN Rep probably couldn't care less about it

The current ambassador is John Bolton, who threw down the gauntlet during the 2001 conference and personally derailed any attempt at getting civilian firearms ownership on the agenda. Amb. Bolton kept things on point and focused at illegal arms dealing.

Hopefully, he can still pull it off this year. He is the reason IANSA wants a rule change to keep any single nation from vetoing the agenda.

 

[The-Fly]

they're welcome to try (to take my guns). Those blue helmets make such lovely targets.

 

[amprecon]

We've all heard the old axiom, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life." I think this old adage may be applied to this discussion to say "Give a man a gun to fight, protect him for a day. Teach a man to fight with a gun, protect him for life." It's not enough to have a gun and use it, it's about having a gun and knowing when not to use it. These third world countries have fueds dating back generations, firearms make it easy to pursue their revenge. No one can protect one from the other, we cannot detain every person who wishes a fued.
Millions of Americans own/possess personal weapons yet we live amongst ourselves peacefully. Millions of people in third-world countries get these weapons yet do not possess the restraint from using them to fulfill their vendetta's. Why? There are no consequences for their actions. Who is there to prosecute them? They must have a system of laws, a justice system and an enforcement ability in place to prosecute those that break the law. There must also be laws that govern the actions of the justice system a code of ethics. Until these countries take their situations seriously these massacres and genocides will continue unabated. Maybe it's what they want, let them have it their way. It is a shame, but it's not our problem and we cannot deny them their destiny even if it's horrible and wasteful. It is obviously what they want.
If the true intent of this U.N. meeting regarding firearms is to stop the ethnic cleansing, let's hear some real and effective ideas and proposals. If the true intent is to disarm the entire world-wide civilian population, then houston we have a problem.

 

[mogunner]

UN Gun ban on July 4th

I am afraid that the "Show-Me " Statewould have some differences of opinion re any type of gun ban. As far as the UN is concerned, get them the Hell off US Soil and get the US out of the UN.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

I have a simple thing I will do. I will send the U.N. (Kofi Annan's office), a picture of myself in a mask holding my AK in one hand, and my AR in the other. I will say in this letter that attempts to confiscate my arms or other Americans will result in this masked man taking heads.

Will they even care? Probably not. But what I know is that they don't care about the NRA form letters.

They get 3,000,000 photos of American Patriots with weapons threatening violence, I think they will take notice.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Rebecca Peters has already used Australian gunrights rhetoric
"the only currency that will buy freedom is blood" as a
justification for civilian gun control.

The illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons is largely
controlled and promoted by governments and political movements
with international agendas, not by individual private gunowners
within countries.

IANSA's proposal is a major diversion of international and
local law enforcement resources from serious problems and crimes
to the pursuit of a gun control ideal of a world free of legal guns
whose unintended consequences could easily be counterproductive.

IANSA is meddlesome.

 

[V4Vendetta]

"The only verdict is vengeance. A vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value & veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant & the virtuous."

V for Vendetta.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Carl, I would agree. The IANSA is very much a meddlesome group. Thinking of firefly's river tam quote )

Look, the Aussies that said that were absolutely correct. The only way they can purchase their freedom in Australia at this point is by hoisting the black flag and slitting throats!

Will they do it? Almost surely not. Too much of the attitude of "sporting arms" were prevelant in Australia. There were actually pro-gun groups there who supported the gun confiscations. Are there probably guns in the ground waiting for use? Possibly. But, I bet that Aussie gun owners fold.

Look, not saying you will use violence if someone attempts to disarm you puts you in a weaker position with these fools. What do you think 2a is there for? Hunting and skeet like the Democratic Party says? Or defending your country from all enemies, foreign and domestic? They are counting on all the Western World's gun owners to fold. The only way to prevent that is by letting them know we will not be victims. Because we have the only population which would resist in the Western World.

Would you avoid telling someone coming into your home you will shoot if they don't lay down their weapon, and get on their knees? Or would you tell them to drop their weapon, and get on their stomach before you open fire?

Look, the U.N. is that invader that wants to take your gun. You can lay out, and take it like the Aussie gun owners did, or you can fight.

It is much better to fight now with words, and threats of righteous violence, to those internationalist thugs that would trample on the BOR, than to play nice and ask to be able to keep our guns.

I, as an American will wear "The only currency with which we can purchase our rights back is blood" as a badge of courage.

Once more, I will say, These thugs are 3rd World Hitlers. Hitler was ignored until the invasion of Poland. He violated the Treaty of Versailles, and armed Germany illegally, then demanded "breathing room." By the time it was clear "appeasement" would not work, WWII was necessary.

Best now we nip these genocidal cowards in the bud now than allow this to go to armed conflict. If a threat of violence helps to give pause to reconsider, it was appropriate.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The UN fiddled as Rawanda bled.
It is hard to take the UN-IANSA stance of
moral superiority seriously.
They won't stand up to genocides, but they will
come down hard on duck hunters and self defenders.