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

[ricci316]

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

That I will promise. In fact, I would be happy to come down early and help them move.

 

[SIOP]

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.

Ahh, yes, John Ashcroft. Another Bush toadie who pretended to be a conservative. Here's what Mr. Ashcroft's 2nd Amendment statement really boiled down to, which rendered the entire document meaningless:

"Of course, the individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests," [then lists felons as an example]......

Oddly enough, this is almost exactly how several U.N. documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, read.

"Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Like Ashcroft's statement, Article 29(3) renders the entire previous 28 Articles meaningless and at the mercy of the whim of the state.

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

So what are you saying? That he didn't say them or he didn't mean them? In either case, then what do you know you can believe coming from him?

 

[Third_Rail]

Let us suppose that 1/10 of 1% of gun owners in this country resist a forceful confiscation of all firearms in the country.

80,000, yes eighty thousand armed people, ordinary in every sense except they refuse to give up arms. These 80,000 people blend in to the populace in every sense, again because they are ordinary.

Show me an army in the world that can handle that many people. Not even the United States military can completely crush resistance in Iraq, and how many people do you think are actually actively resisting?


Let me state again that there is no way I know of for this to happen, as long as good men do not stand by if the time comes.

 

[SIOP]

Show me an army in the world that can handle that many people.

Tell that to 6 million Jews.

And to who knows how many hundreds of millions of Soviet subjects.

And how many billions of Chinese subjects.

And how many million East German subjects.

And how many Czechs. And Poles. And Cubans. Etc. etc. etc.

 

[Third_Rail]

Let me state again that there is no way I know of for this to happen, as long as good men do not stand by if the time comes.

 

[Deathrider1579]

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.

I agree that they are smarter than ever before but at the same time they are indoctrinated and perhaps even brain washed more than ever before (yeah I know look out for tin foil) any how I think there would be a majority of the US Army sticking with the .gov the air force and Marines are the ones I would look to possibly switch sides in a ligitimate beef with the jackboots.

-DR

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Earlier, I posted on a thread about NOLA, which had a clip posted. It showed soldiers who had confiscated weapons. While they didn't want to do it, they did.

I think some troops would violate their orders and follow their oath to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. However, most would follow orders.

 

[No_Brakes23]

the military is just... too loyal to the fed

Horsehockey. Maybe some part-timers in the guard are that loyal, (No offense to our NG,) but I can't see all of our forces going along with this. If .gov wants to disarm us, they are far more likely to send as many servicemembers overseas as they can and have cops do their dirty work.

(They passed the USA Pat Act when I was overseas, making me feel like I had been stabbed in the back when I came home.)

 

[SIOP]

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.

O.K., boys and girls. It's time for everyone to go read up on the TwentyNine Palms combat arms survey.