U.N. Global gun ban

[K-Romulus]

"too too optimistic"

(To paraphrase MrBenchley)

All it will take to get AUS/UK-style laws is for the current media drumbeat on "gun violence," "the powerful gun lobby," "bleeding cities," etc., with the accompanying current anti-gun-owner political wave fostered by Bloomberg, et al., to continue for the rest of the year.

The fed elections in November are too close to call, and the realistically potential "worst case downside" is a fed legislature eager to implement the proposed permanent tougher AWB II, along with the previously proposed needs-based Brady II handgun owner licensing & registration scheme, not to mention the previously proposed needs-based "arsenal licensing."

Maybe it's because I live in the DC area, have relatives in NYC and Phila, and follow the gun control issue like some sort of OCD sufferer, but between the politicians I see falling all over themselves to "ban guns," the nationwide breadth of local law enforcement heads who back them up, the fed legislators on the same bandwagon, the CCW-encounter-with-LEO horror stories posted here at THR and Packing.org (to give a snapshot of rank-and-file LEO attitudes), and the breathtakingly overwhelming number of people I meet (both in and out of this area) who believe that all firearms ownership should be banned at the federal level, I do not have the same optimism you guys have.

And to top it off, if there is such a UK/AUS-style ban, I am "more confident than not" that the USSC will (1) decisively rule in favor of the "collective rights" interpretation, before (2) approving the ban, anyway, in a hypothetical discussion of the individual rights view, as a "reasonable, narrowly tailored" restriction on the Second Amendment, and it will do so based on looking at the fact that 99% of the other countries in the world have adopted those or more restrictive laws.

I dunno, maybe I need a vacation or something to get away and some perspective. I hope I'm wrong and you guys are right . . .

M67: The article is about the 2001 conference, but they are supposed to be periodic. The next conference is scheduled to begin in two weeks. Here is the leading anti-gun NGO's page on the conference: http://www.iansa.org/un/index.htm

IANSA is the defacto agenda-setter for the conference. This year, they want an agreement on domestic gun laws passed by majority vote (somethat that was rejected through veto power during the 2001 conference), and hold up Australia as the model for those domestic laws.

 

[Tommygunn]

U.N.

Hello. This will be my first post here on "The High Road."
I am as concerned as anyone here about this United Nations business -- the possiblity of registering guns, then confiscating some of them, or all, has been in existance for quite awhile.
What would people here do if such a treaty -- or "agreement" -- was enabled? Would you register your guns? Refuse? What if they did pass an outright ban?
Is there any consensus on what the reaction of the citizens should be?

Let me say that as a member of both Gun Owners of America, and the National Rifle Association, and other pro-second amendment organizations, I regularly contribute to them as a means of helping them defend our freedoms and to help keep myself "up to speed" via their bulletins.

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote:
"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."



I don't personally post "SHTF/What I'm going to do when the revolution comes" threads myself. I do however, point out facts each time I see "Don't worry be Happy" posts.

Personally I have been very active as a volunteer, and used to make regular donations to my old party recently enough in fact, to have been asked to act as a delegate in our recent state convention.

But I decided against even trying any more after not one single member of the group I have supported so long, will act in a Partisan manner. They are all afraid of the media and of the left.

That is why we need to unelect the current crop. When you have a majority in the U.S. Senate that cannot pass a measure to REPEAL THE TAXING OF A MAN BECAUSE HE DIES, then it is time for a whole new party. The Democrats are left wing, and the Republicans all want to be seen as "Moderates". This results, in a Minority Party Majority.

Why donate and volunteer for folks that do what the left tells them anyway?

 

[M67]

K-Romulus, yes I know this is a periodic thing. But I still think I have a point...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Personally I have been very active as a volunteer, and used to make regular donations to my old party recently enough in fact, to have been asked to act as a delegate in our recent state convention.

Then you should know better than anyone that what you need is MORE involvement in the party from like-minded people, not less.

Of course it is difficult to get things done, you've got 30 years worth of leftist hippies and they are now all ensconced and have senior positions in both parties. Despite that, they still aren't advancing their agenda near as well as they like. They are being stopped cold in a lot of areas.

Whether or not they will ulimately succeed depends on the next generation that will be replacing them - that needs to be us, not them. Taking ourselves out of the system voluntarily makes the job that much easier for them. You can't win a game you don't play and even if the odds on this game aren't great, they are a lot better than any other odds we are going to get.

 

[1911Tuner]

Point/Counterpoint

Ida Allen wrote:

>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.< (And many other good points)

Very true, Ida...but a cry did go up everywhere. Aside from 100,000 armed-to-the-teeth gun owners mustering and marching on New Orleans, that's about all that could be done under the circumstances. The positive that came out of it was that it tipped the hands of the people who would do the same...either again in The Big Easy, or in other places. They gave evidence of their true agenda a bit prematurely.

We are thus forewarned, and that's a big advantage. The decent, law-abiding property owners in N.O. didn't have that, and believed that because they were at home minding the property, that they'd be given a pass. When it didn't happen that way, eyes were slammed wide open to the fact that it's not about safety. It's about control, and absolute power...and we all know what that does to too many people.

How much book ya wanna lay that...in the event of another situation like the Katrina debacle...that it'll be different next time?

 

[Ira Aten]

1911

I appreciate your response, and regarding how much book I want to lay on it not happening again, unfortunately I am of limited financial means at present.

(Ninety dollar words for saying "Broke as a church mouse")

But had I the funds, I wouldn't bet a dime on it being any different. In fact, I would bet everything I had on it reoccuring exactly as it happened last time.

I am sorry but there is not one single fact to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Our schools have taught two generations to believe in U.N. "oversight" of all countries and their governments.

And unfortunately, that is what the U.N. and Chuck Schumer, Rudolph Guliani (who believes in gun registration) John McCain, Hillary Clinton, et al, are betting on. Us just standing for it once more.

After that, they will be sure. (Why do you think the New Orleans Police said they would do it again, regardless of the court finding?)

And after one more demonstration, they will move even closer to signing it. The only way, is to vote out every Democrat, and every Republican Incumbant, and vote in some true Americans.

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote from Bart Roberts:

"You can't win a game you don't play"



Bart:

I've played enough downs with this particular team.

I finally figured out after thirty years of knocking heads, you can't win a game with a bought-off coach.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I finally figured out after thirty years of knocking heads, you can't win a game with a bought-off coach.

Sure you can; the coach is only one part of the game. He can be replaced by the team.

 

[Wastemore]

I don't even see why this is a concern if you understand the meaning of inalienable.

 

[gc70]

Can you give an actual example of a single person who didn't "stand for it" in New Orleans when it happened.

Excellent question.

We all saw the videos of individual confiscations and read news reports about other confiscations. At the same time, we all saw photos and read news reports about people banding together and providing armed protection for their neighborhoods.

I do not remember reading any accounts of guns being confiscated from an armed and organized neighborhood, or even of a confrontation between the police and an armed and organized neighborhood. Maybe it was just coincidence, but I think it should tell us something about strength in numbers.

 

[1911Tuner]

Numbers

gc70 wrote:

>Maybe it was just coincidence, but I think it should tell us something about strength in numbers.<
*******************

Exactly. Easy for a 240-pound athletic 30 year-old to manhandle a little old lady who trusted him enough to let him into her kitchen. Different story when it's 12-15 men with rifles declaring: "We're fine here. Go about your business." Now that everybody has seen what they're willing to do on the authority of one man, they won't be so easily misled.

So, let the standard answer become: "We're fine here." And say it in unison. The response may well be:

"I didn't see any guns. You guys see any guns?"
"Nope. Not a one. Wanna go downtown to see if there are any guns?"
"Yep."
"Let's roll!"