What *you* can do about the UN gun ban summit

[Fu-man Shoe]

Send those slimeballs a letter!

Let them know that there are many Americans out there who know
exactly what they are about, and will not stand idly by while a bunch
of tin-pot dictators and terrorists conspire to repeal American freedoms.

I'm not a big "write your congressman" kind of guy, but this whole
deal really hacks me off. Basicly, you have a bunch of third world
nobodies getting together, ON THE 4th OF JULY, *IN AMERICA*, to draft
a resolution to clamp down on the "global small arms trade"...

Folks, when they say "global", you can be darn sure they mean America too.

Now, I highly doubt that many of us will be lining up to turn 'em in to the UN,
but we need to let them know that they can count on our firm non-support.

So lets send a message to the UN! ... Not now, not ever. Period!

The best thing is that not only do you get to tell the worthless parasites at the UN
exactly what you think of them, but it's also only gonna cost ya three stamps and
about five minutes of your time.

If you're on the internet forums, I *know* you got at least five minutes to crank
out a couple of letters to those scumbags at the UN, to let 'em know what you think.

You can read about the UN small arms summit here: http://www.stopungunban.org/

You can print out and send some letters to the UN here:http://www.stopungunban.org/pages/fireashot

...and if you're not a member of the NRA, I would strongly suggest considering joining up.
Like them or not, the NRA is our best voice on the national scene. Even the hardcore liberals
fear and hate "the gun lobby".

So go on, git 'er done, and send some letters to those worthless dirtballs over at the UN,
and let 'em know that you, for one, are not going to stand by while they have thier way
with our God given freedoms and rights.

 

[Ira Aten]

Fu:

I have been bleating like a stuck goat for about a year and a half about this evil sinister plot by the thuggery running the so called United Nations, and all I have heard in response, are references to being a "tin foil hat wearing paranoid".

Our so called Republican party representatives have not done a single solitary thing to assist our nation's public about this extremely viable threat to our right to protect our homes.

The United Nations is responsible for the genocides being allowed in Rawanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Cambodia, etc., and not one single Senator or Congressman has vowed to oppose the upcoming planned confiscation of your guns.

I have been writing and calling until I am blue in the face, and you have seen not one single news article on television about this plot. Your Congress does not care. Your President does not care. Your entire governmental system, is complacent, since they collectively want this to occur.

Only then, can the thugs running the U.N. begin to insist upon the One World Government in order that "peace" can be maintained. (I guess the same type of peace these thugs insured in Rawanda, Sudan, Somalia, Cambodia, etc.)

Won't be but a few more posts, and you will be labeled a "tin foil conspiracy nut", or a simpleton for believing in such "rumors" as a plan to take away the right to keep and bear arms is being planned by the United Nations. (Or even worse, one of those NRA gun nuts) Regardless of the fact this plot is set out on the U.N. website itself.

The U.N. also seeks control of the Internet, but if you bring that up, you are once again, bound to be labeled a "tin foil hat" victim.

The majority of Americans and gun owners will not believe this, until the blue helmets are at the door. After all, this just can't happen in America.

 

[fletcher]

^ QFT. I've noticed much of the same.

 

[Third_Rail]

How many privately owned firearms are there, again?

Now, how many people have firearms that are not included in that number, being either illegal (MGs made from kits, etc.), homemade, pre-1968 purchase, or passed down from generations past?


It would be very difficult indeed to disarm the most heavily armed populace in the entire world.

 

[SIOP]

What you can do?

Not vote for any more Republicans or Democrats, that's what.

 

[ctdonath]

Send those slimeballs a letter!

To what end? They have a multi-dimensional vested interest in disarming you; saying "please don't" won't dissuade them.

After some 15 years following politics closely, I'm growing weary. While I hate to apply the term "chattering class" (as I sit here chattering), I find tremendous potential effort is wasted attempting to change the mind of political opponents who have no interest in listening to the other side, much less actually working differences out.

Buy guns.
Buy ammo.
Train.

As noted above, there are enough guns for every citizen in this country.
Anyone attempting to disarm you is solely bent on dominating you.
While the confiscation in New Orleans had thousands of guns handed over sheepishly (anyone know of any active resistance?), I infer that the gov't agents involved got the message "don't you EVER try that again".

The only hope the UN gun grabbers have is to stifle lawful above-board commerce in arms by influencing our legislators to implement a long-term strategy of slow strangulation. Guns being extremely durable high-demand concealable goods having lifespans exceeding entire political parties, I don't think gun bans per se will survive assorted forms of backlash. Ammo, being consumable, may be their only hope; stifling commercial ammo manufacture & distribution could work (forget reloading: can you make primers? shells? high-quality powder? FMJ bullets? the best most can hope for is homemade blackpowder & lead balls).

My hope for chattering-class diplomacy is about nil. They hate you, period. Happy to argue, they'll keep you paralyzed with "discussion" while sawing out the floor under you.

Just make sure your legislators don't start in on incremental strategic ammo elimination. BLOAT.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This is still a functioning representative republic. It may not function exactly how they taught you in high school civics; but it does work. Even in a dictatorship, there is only so much the government can get away with without public support.

Writing the UN isn't going to help much... most of the people you are writing to would have little concern if that letter came from their own people, let alone you.

If you want to get attention at the UN, write to your Senators and Congressmen. These are the people that fund (or do not fund) the UN. These are the people who will vote on any loopy proposals made by the UN. Believe it or not, your letters DO make a difference. Even Senators like Feinstein who is about as implacable an enemy to RKBA as anyone have been known to get quiet on the subject when they get a lot of pressure from constituents.

If your elected representative knows what you think and still isn't voting that way, it is time to get a new elected representative. First make sure people who believe in RKBA are the only ones making it to the bigger campaigns. Ask about RKBA at the local level, even if they can't do a thing to affect your gun rights. The time to stop gun grabbers is while they are still small and limited in power.

Second, make sure that RKBA candidates win at the primary level. The primaries are your best opportunity to change the way things get done without making futile protest votes. If you have an anti-gun incumbent running unopposed, then find someone to oppose him or oppose him yourself. Campaigns cost money to run and even a no-budget challenge from a no-name candidate makes them dip into their coffers to protect themselves. Challenge them in the primaries and then challenge them again in the general election.

The only reason elected representatives are able to ignore the wishes of their constituents is because people believe the tripe that they can't do anything and should just sit and do nothing instead. YOU as an individual may not be able to accomplish your goals; but with other like minded individuals, anything is possible once you hit critical mass.

Finally, the big problem all grassroots movements face is that they are composed of ordinary people. They often face a lot of conflicting demands on their time including good old fashioned taking care of business around the home and family. Our opponents are not masses of other people as much as they are billionaire-financers like George Soros and Andrew McKelvey. They can hire people to badger our elected representatives non-stop on a professional basis. Like the Terminator, that is ALL THEY DO. While we do have the NRA, the NRA is only as powerful as its members for it relies on them for both money and votes - and when the members get tired of this eternal fight or apathetic because of a few successes, the other side wins.

The gun grabbers are not going to go away anytime soon. We have the numbers to win this fight; but the only way we will win is by keeping up the pressure until their funds dry up - and that is a long, long time from now. They are counting on us to get tired or apathetic and then they will push hard to move their agenda as much as they can when that happens. Gunowners strike me as particularly bad about this; probably because most of them are of the "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" mindset; but like the old proverb says "The price of freedom is eternal vigiliance."

 

[Ira Aten]

Bart:

Our Congressmen, are the exact ones claiming we MUST act within the "global community" consensus on matters such as "irregular immigrants, rather than make any unilateral decisions.


Our Congressmen and women, don't even listen to party contributors, much less voters.

That is why I decided yesterday, to totally give up on them. I will vote liberatarian, and I will send not one single dollar (soon to be renamed North American Euro-Peso or some such crap) to another Republican.

I have voted straight party ticket for thirty five years, and argued for America til I am blue in the face, while watching the teachers I pay, do everything possible in public schools, to tell the next generation, that America is worse than the Nazi party and the Facsists combined.

We have more hope of assistance from an inbound comet, than we do of our so called Representatives, representing us as Americans.

 

[boofus]

Maybe George Bush's turban-clad, cave-dwelling friend in the middle east would hijack some airliners and crash them into the UN on Independence Day.

I'd just be heartbroken and terrified into submission.

 

[Low-Sci]

I've got nothing but hatred for the UN. Seriously, I'm so broke I don't even have lead for them, hot or otherwise.

If, on the outside chance the UN did persuade the US into going along with this retarded load of ponyloaf, US gun owners wouldn't. But its definately worth resisting now, and worth resisting later.

That's a really good idea, Fu-man Shoe. My letters are away.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Our Congressmen, are the exact ones claiming we MUST act within the "global community" consensus on matters such as "irregular immigrants, rather than make any unilateral decisions.

In 1950, the Soviet Union boycotted the UN because they shared much the same opinion of it that you do... this allowed the fight in Korea to become a UN operation pitting the Soviet Union (and the Chinese who did not then have a veto power) against the rest of the world.

The United States created the UN and enjoys the veto power there. I am sure that our enemies would love nothing better than for us to leave the UN. It would let them organize the rest of the world against us both economically and militarily. It would also remove some of the major obstacles that keep the UN from becoming nothing more than another layer of corrupt bureaucracy ruling over the serfs.

The UN can be an institution that influences the rest of the world with American ideals or it can be a "global" institution that influences America with ideals we renounced long ago. To the extent our participation in the UN keeps it on the former track, I think that is a good thing.

Our Congressmen and women, don't even listen to party contributors, much less voters.

They still need votes to hold that position. If they won't listen, then it is time to put someone in who will. You can't make sure that the good guys are there to win the primaries if you let the very people you dislike dominate the process through not participating.

The only kind of equality that counts is being equal to the occasion

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

The best thing is that not only do you get to tell the worthless parasites at the UN
exactly what you think of them, but it's also only gonna cost ya three stamps and
about five minutes of your time.

At the last one of these summits, the UN made a list of all the people who wrote letters expressing pro-gun opinions, and put them on a watchlist for security at the conferance, even though none of the letters contained threats.

The main thing pro-RKBA people have going for us that makes me feel secure, for now, is John Bolton. He basically shut it down last time, and I'm sure he'll do the same this time (as long as we don't stay completely silent). What I'm worried about is next time. The UN schedules these things every four years after every presidential election. The key is to keep a pro-RKBA president in office, because he's who appoints the ambassador.

 

[SIOP]

The main thing pro-RKBA people have going for us that makes me feel secure, for now, is John Bolton.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa.

The "Bolton is anti-U.N." charade is one of the biggest scams pulled on conservative America in decades. This guy will sell us down the river in a heartbeat when it comes down to brass tacks.

The fix is in and when it is all said and done, and your guns are gone, Bush and his pals can say they tried to stand up for your rights but they had to comply with a U.N. Treaty. They know that their presumed resistance will not affect the outcome one way or another.

 

[hillbilly]

Yeah, yeah, yeah....write letters, worry about the One-World-Government, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Why not do something REALLY constructive on July 4th?

How about taking a couple of non-shooters or non-gun-owners to a freakin' range and introduce them to shooting?????????

That'd be a lot more effective and a lot more fun than writing letters, signing electronic petitions, and worrying about the UN One-World-Government.

hillbilly

 

[Malice]

Excuse my ignorance.

But since the US has a veto, the UN could not pass a gun-related treaty like the one we fear unless the US refused to veto it.

Correct?

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa.

The "Bolton is anti-U.N." charade is one of the biggest scams pulled on conservative America in decades. This guy will sell us down the river in a heartbeat when it comes down to brass tacks.

SIOP, why don't you respond with facts instead of annoying laughter and ridiculous hyperbole. Bolton stopped this last time, and that's a fact. In his remarks, he said, "The United States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life."

 

[Waitone]

Bolton stopped this last time, and that's a fact. In his remarks, he said, "The United States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life."

I would prefer Bolton to have said, "Our constitution assumes our citizens can own firearms. The UN will not modify our form of government."

Bolton and Bush are globalists, not UN-ists. Big difference.

 

[SIOP]

SIOP, why don't you respond with facts instead of annoying laughter and ridiculous hyperbole. Bolton stopped this last time, and that's a fact. In his remarks, he said, "The United States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life."

You're not paying attention. Bush and Bolton can give lip service to this because they know that it is going to pass with or without U.S. support. And they can then use the argument that we have to abide by U.N. treaties to enforce gun control. Thus, they win both ways: The furtherance of U.N. goals for world government and control are achieved, and it makes it Bush look like a good guy back home. And what exactly does Bolton's statement mean? It means nothing. Just like Condoleeza Rice's statement about the 2nd Amendment and just like John Kerry and all the rest of the Democrats saying that they support the 2nd Amendment. Sure they support it. Their interpretation of it. You notice Bolton didn't say that the ownership of firearms is an individual right that will be fiercely protected by the U.S. What he said is that "responsible use" is a "legitmate aspect." What exactly does "responsible use" mean? Heck, that could be interpreted as meaning he supports strict gun control. Doesn't the Brady Campaign want "responsible use" also?

Here's an excerpt from The New American about Bolton's nomination:

"Prior to Senate hearings into his nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Bolton was portrayed by both his allies and critics as the bane enemy of the world body. Some critics of the Bush administration have suggested that Bolton?s nomination is part of a plot to destroy the UN. Yet during the opening day of Senate hearings Bolton made it clear that the Bush administration, its "unilateralist" posturing notwithstanding, is not only willing to work with the UN, but actually eager to strengthen the organization.

"Walking away from the United Nations is not an option," insisted Bolton in opening remarks before a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the UN as an important component of our diplomacy?. If confirmed, I look forward ? [to forging] a closer relationship between the United States and the United Nations, which depends critically on American leadership."

Bolton predicted that the UN would play a central role in the Bush administration?s "global democratic revolution." "Now more than ever the UN must play a critical role, as it strives to fulfill the aspirations of its original promise," he declared. While conceding that he had often spoken critically of the UN in recent years, Bolton asserted that the "consistent theme" of his public criticism "is that for the UN to be effective requires American leadership. I say it over and over again. I deeply believe it. My criticisms during the 1990s were in large measure because of what I thought was the lack of effective American leadership." It is the Bush administration?s intention, he continued, to "strengthen" the UN by making it "a more efficient and uncorrupt organization."

 

[V4Vendetta]

Here's my sentiments. The guns in the pic aren't mine but the nature of the photo is relevant. Or so I feel.

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote from Bart below:

"It would let them organize the rest of the world against us both economically and militarily.".



Gee Bart. We sure wouldn't want that to happen would we? Especially with the rest of the world respecting and cooperating with us so fully now.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

You notice Bolton didn't say that the ownership of firearms is an individual right

I only pulled one sentance out of several paragraphs written by Bolton. He also mentioned the report that came out under Ashcroft saying the 2nd Amendment protected individual RKBA.

As for Bolton's other statements that you quoted--that's just generic diplomatic pleasantries.

 

[ricci316]

I tend to agree with most of what is being said regarding the U.N. and their attempts at taking away our Second Amendment rights. Might I suggest an alternative outcome here.

1. The U.N. Gun Ban goes through and the U.S. is forced into complying.
2. Several southern states, including Texas, secede from the Union(again) and form their own country.
3. Myself and many of my friends move to this new country as soon as possible.

Just something to get the conversation going!!

 

[Deathrider1579]

The US Military in cooperation with the UN then procedes to reduce all fighting units in the feild and all "possible fighting units" (aka population centers) to rubble.

No I don't think any type of sessession is possible any more, the military is just to strong and too loyal to the fed.

Not saying that I wouldn't be there fighting against opression with those who hold freedom dear just saying I think we would get our brass kicked.

-DR

 

[ricci316]

The US Military in cooperation with the UN then procedes to reduce all fighting units in the feild and all "possible fighting units" (aka population centers) to rubble.

No I don't think any type of sessession is possible any more, the military is just to strong and too loyal to the fed.

Not saying that I wouldn't be there fighting against opression with those who hold freedom dear just saying I think we would get our brass kicked.

I am not so sure that the servicemen and women would blindly follow orders in an instant like that. The soldiers of today's military are much smarter then ever before and I believe they would recognize that the government would be dead wrong. I think you would have many "defections" from military units to aid in the fight against an illegal government activity.

Either way, I would still fight the fight!

 

[one-shot-one]

ricci316 SAID
"1. The U.N. Gun Ban goes through and the U.S. is forced into complying.
2. Several southern states, including Texas, secede from the Union(again)
and form their own country.
3. Myself and many of my friends move to this new country as soon as
possible."

please just be sure not to block the flow of our handful of liberal pinheads as they leave!