UN Gun Ban E-Mail

[Shadowhunter]

I got this E-Mail from the NRA What's everyones thought on it? Maybe it's SHTF time.

Dear Fellow American,

This 4th of July, while you and your family celebrate the 230th Anniversary of the founding of our great nation, there's one party you won't be invited to...

...And that's the party that Kofi Annan is throwing at United Nations headquarters in New York -- using your tax dollars -- for nearly fifty dictatorships, six terrorist states, governments that endorse execution based on religious faith, and a multitude of other nations from around the globe.

You see, this party isn't to honor your freedoms -- but to conspire to take them away.

Over our July 4th holiday, on American soil, they are preparing to enact a legally-binding treaty that would give the U.N. unchallengeable power to ban civilian ownership of ALL firearms.

That means your rifles, your shotguns and your handguns. AND YOUR FREEDOM!

To learn what you can do to stop the U.N.'s global gun ban treaty-before it destroys our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms visit www.stopungunban.org.

Just as a handful of patriots fired the "shot heard 'round the world" at Concord Bridge, it's up to you and me and every patriot who cherishes our Bill of Rights to tell the world today that our nation will not be bullied by the U.N.

Thank you for acting today.

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association of America

 

[Manedwolf]

Admiral Yamamoto said that an invasion of the US mainland would be impossible, since there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass".

I'd like to see the bluehelmets even TRY.

As someone else on here said, about the only thing the UN could do on US soil would be to loot their own cafeteria.

Wayne just wants more donations, as usual.

 

[Vitamin G]

The bluehelmets wouldn't be trying it... Too much backlash at the perception of being ruled by a "foriegn" power.

We'd pass our own law, just as restrictive, or more, and comply of our own, oh-so-enlightened, free will.

And we'd still have bread and circuses, so most people wouldn't care.

 

[MountainPeak]

I mailed my letters today. It can't hurt, and $1.17 is in most of our budgets. John Bolton has been a strong supporter of the American 2nd Amendment. It isn't a bad idea to remind him, a lot of us
are like minded.

 

[308win]

Admiral Yamamoto said that an invasion of the US mainland would be impossible, since there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass".

Apples and Oranges, that was a different generation Yamamoto was talking about.

 

[confed sailor]

no offense 308win, but theirs a blade of grass in SC that isnt going down easy.

i dont know about the urban areas but i have alot of faith in the rural dwellers of our nation to make occupation of the hinterland about the cities untenable.

 

[MountainPeak]

The sample letters are offered by the NRA for free. Print them, or write your own. It costs you about $1.20. I for one think 39 cents is cheap, in letting Kofi Annan know I think he is full of it. Do mass mailings change minds? Probably not in most cases. I did have a legislative staffer tell me, they are used frequently, as one measure of public sentiment. I come from the, it can't hurt/might help mindset. I'm a frequent letter writing, phone calling, e-mailing guy, when it comes to firearms issues. I'm also REAL use to my gun buddies, and their lack of support on issues.

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote from ManedWolf:
As someone else on here said, about the only thing the UN could do on US soil would be to loot their own cafeteria."

Maned Wolf:
I cut and pasted your quote (hope you don't mind) to help in pointing out some things about this U.N. Small Weapons Treaty, because the U.N. is a very formidable threat to the Constitution of the United States, and it was meant to be when founded. (Already, the U.N. has overseeing control of certain environmental issues in our National Parks, thanks to Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gore, and the Democrat majority in the Senate during the Clinton Administration)

But specifically, as to your 2ND Amendment rights, The United Nations has had a HUGE influence in the propaganda and political movement, that led to the loss of gun rights in England and Australia, and has its target set on the United States, should there be another Democrat majority in both the Senate and the White House.

If you go to the U.N. Web site, you will see the Small Arms "Treaty" conference dates, etc, which are dedicated to training people within our government, and others, to influence a push toward the U.S. eventually signing on to this treaty.

And if you research enough, you will see that one of the MAIN goals of the United Nations currently, is the registration of firearms owned by American Citizens, using the plan underway for this treaty. Dismissing the call for help by LaPierre as simply "wanting more donations" is exactly how they want you to look at it. They want you to think there is NO WAY, that the U.N. can influence the policies of a single nation.

But please keep in mind, they have already done so, in a HUGE way in America's recent history. The United Nations was founded with a great deal of help (even the very drafting of the U.N. Charter) by a (PROVEN) Communist/Soviet agent working within the Roosevelt Administration named Alger Hiss.

Alger Hiss was long suspected of being a communist agent, and it was confirmed unequivically by the decoded "Venona" cables, which were released by the (former) Soviet Union, in 1995. These cables were decoded by the U.S. military, and proved that not only Hiss, but several communist agents on the payroll of the Soviet Union, were working within the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations.

Alger Hiss was the guy who convinced both Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman that Joseph Stalin was simply an Agrarian Reformer and an all around great guy. Roosevelt on numerous occasions, referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe" Stalin. American policy during the war was heavily influenced by Hiss (people forget, Stalin initially sided with Hitler, until Hitler turned against Russia during WW II)

Roosevelt thought until his death Joe Stalin was a pretty good old fellow, who was simply trying to help his farmers learn how to grow more wheat to feed the masses.

President Truman (who Hiss also advised) actually fired General Douglas MacArthur for fear of angering Stalin and the Soviet Communist leadership, mainly due to advice and urging of Alger Hiss since Hiss KNEW what a threat MacArthur was to communism.

But not only was Hiss proven to be working in concert as an informer/influencer for the Soviets, but when you realize that Hiss was appointed by Roosevelt to be Secratry General of the conferences that drafted the charter founding the United Nations, it is not a far stretch, to be concerned that the United Nations has a great deal of influence on the United State's political policies. And that is exactly how they are a danger to our 2ND Amendment Right.

When half of the United States Senate and Congress (and all of the media) contend that U.S. policy SHOULD NOT be unilateral, but rather should defer to a "consensus" of the "global village" known as the United Nations, I would sure caution people that when the U.N. begins planning to pressue our Representatives in the Government to sign this treaty, we better take it seriously. (Especially when our Congress and President will give in to political pressure from a third world-like country such as Mexico)

I write this with all due respect, and in no way mean to come off as some smart ass. But this is really the biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment, since Chuck Schumer and Rudy Guliani. I know I take it very, very seriously.

 

[iapetus]

The bluehelmets wouldn't be trying it... Too much backlash at the perception of being ruled by a "foriegn" power.

That, and the UN Charter prohibits it from going into a country without permision from that country's government. And it's not allowed to do anything other that what it has been permitted to by that government.

And in any case, the Permenent Members of the Security Council can veto any decision to do anything.

And as the UN has no troops of its own, its dependent on other countries supplying troops.

That's why it did absolutely nothing useful in Bosnia, Rwanda, etc.


I really doubt the UN will be sending Blue Helmets to disarm you.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Iapetus, please.

I haven't seen your posts, so I don't know your politics, but most British arguments for gun rights have to do with a "right to own sporting arms." A claim which well, loses every time. If you are in this camp, I understand exactly why you made that statement.

As to America "standing alone" on the gun issue. Such is crazy. Everyone needs allies. Imagine countries burning surplus ammo instead of sending it to the US. Imagine anti-gunners coming to American schools to teach the young "guns are evil."

We need to encourage global rkba movements in foreign lands, encourage pro-gun orgs (Eastern Europe would be a decent place, formerly Communist countries have people who can understand the power of a government run amok).

I for one, am taking LaPierre's advice. Not for gun ownership today, but for gun ownership amongst our progeny. (hint to Iapetus guns=freedom, not guns=sport)

 

[iapetus]

Iapetus, please.

I haven't seen your posts, so I don't know your politics, but most British arguments for gun rights have to do with a "right to own sporting arms." A claim which well, loses every time. If you are in this camp, I understand exactly why you made that statement...

I for one, am taking LaPierre's advice. Not for gun ownership today, but for gun ownership amongst our progeny. (hint to Iapetus guns=freedom, not guns=sport)

I'm not sure what I said that you're criticising, mordechaianiliewicz. Are you sure you replied to the right person? (Or maybe its my fault for wording it wrongly. Either way. not to worry).

My politics are broadly libertarian, and my view on guns is that the RKBA is an extension of the rights to Life and Liberty (and the right to protect them), and that widespread civilian ownership of firearms is the last line of defence against tyranny and genocide. (Although as I am generally libertarian, I wouldn't want to stop people spending their money on sporting guns, even if that did mean they couldn't afford military-grade weapons as well)

So my view of firearms rights is pretty much the same as yours, and most other Highroaders'.

My point was merely that I don't see the "Blue Helmets invading the US to sieze your guns" scenario mentioned previously as at all realistic, because:
a) The UN couldn't send troops into the US without permision from the US government, and
b) It would probably have great difficulty in getting either the funds or the troops themselves necessary to do the job.

So unless the US gov actually requested and funded/equipped a UN Blue Helmet mission to forcibly disarm American civilians, it just won't happen. And if the US Gov had got so bad that it would do that, then you're already in trouble, regardless of whether some (most likely under-equipped developing-world) Blue Helmets are sent to help.


That's not to say there aren't other ways that the UN/campaign groups/etc may try/are trying to restrict gun ownership, or that you shouldn't oppose it. But I was answering a speciffic comment about Blue Helmets being used.

 

[Flatfender]

Come and get 'em.