Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

No, it threatens gun ownership in any country that signs it. Period.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The political force behind " gun control "
is the force behind collectivist despotism.


Hitler was very proud of his Gun Control Act of 1938.

If what you say is true then why is it those on the left that are pushing for gun control the most. They are the leaders in the restriction of the 2nd Amendment. Would they support a UN law that made weapons illegal and then also support a left wing President who would also try and push for stronger gun control. I said this back on about page 2 or so but was ignored.

"Meet the Mastermind of the U.N. Global Gun ban Treaty"

If you have even the least bit of doubt that this threat is real, watch Wayne LaPierre's recent debate with Rebecca Peters, head of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA)-the organization driving the U.N. Global Gun Ban Treaty.

Peters is the principal spokesman for a coalition of more than 100 nations and 500 organizations�-including the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center and the Million Mom March here in the U.S.�-all determined to ban civilian ownership of firearms�-including YOURS.

Last fall, NRA's Wayne LaPierre took her on in a live televised debate, on her home turf, in London. She is the voice and face of hatred of gun owners and Second Amendment freedoms. Don't take our word for it--listen to her on how the U.N.'s global gun ban treaty is only the first step in a calculated strategy to ban, confiscate and destroy guns and bury our hunting and shooting traditions forever.

This debate will shock you. It will frighten you. It will drive home that this threat won't be defeated unless gun owners stand together and fight with all our courage.

http://www.stopungunban.org./pages/mastermind

cjhsa wrote:

The U.N. isn't your ally if you are a U.S. citizen. This much is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

So basically, you're not opposing this treaty because it actually says any of the sort that you said it does - but because, well, that darned UN is bad, period, so - yeah, whatever the treaty actually says, its bad news and it should be stopped! ?

Got that right?

listen to her on how the U.N.'s global gun ban treaty is only the first step in a calculated strategy to ban, confiscate and destroy guns and bury our hunting and shooting traditions forever.

This treaty, in combination with the UN 's efforts to get
taxation authority, manifest a dangerous trend toward
a one world government

The problem is the brain dead libs infesting A2K like friggin trolls. They wear blue tin foil hats.

What are you guys, like 17 years old?

You've been sold a line by your professors.

The U.N. isn't your ally if you are a U.S. citizen. This much is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

If what you say is true then why is it those on the left that are pushing for gun control the most. They are the leaders in the restriction of the 2nd Amendment. Would they support a UN law that made weapons illegal and then also support a left wing President who would also try and push for stronger gun control. I said this back on about page 2 or so but was ignored.

Allright. So basically both of you oppose the UN treaty not for anything it actually says, but for how it is somehow, in terms of intent and prime movers, a signal for other, actually bad stuff that might still be to come.

The slippery slope argument.

Of course, thats like saying that, say, those who suggest restricting late-term abortion are really proposing "only the first step" in "a dangerous trend" to ban all abortion altogether or, for that matter, take away our condoms. As for the intent of those movers, that might actually even be true, but wouldnt it make more sense to just assess each step on its own merits?

McGentrix wrote:

I wish I didn't have to scroll through so much chaff to follow a discussion.

There is no more discussion. cj's assertions have been thoroughly debunked. Now we're just watching him twist in the wind in a desperate attempt to save his argument ("wriggle word," "read it but take out the word that is the main point of the entire proposal," etc).

There's something funny/sad about watching someone who simply refuses to acknowledge that they're mistaken, particularly when they've been proven so wrong so clearly. But he keeps coming back for more... Why? I have no idea.

Peters is the principal spokesman for a coalition of more than 100 nations and 500 organizations-including the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center and the Million Mom March here in the U.S.�-all determined to ban civilian ownership of firearms�-including YOURS.

Its WORSE than that.

That is the first step: rendering the future victims helpless.
Then, after microsurveillance is fully ubiquitous,
personal freedom can be curtailed, in the degree
that government chooses, incrementally most likely,
until society is sculpted into what government desires.

You don't seriously think that your childish insults have actually debunked anything????

The irresponsible exporting of small arms is made possible by an absence of export controls or a failure to enforce existing controls, or by loopholes in the law.

The trade in small arms takes various forms. The majority of the 7 million to 8 million new guns produced every year form the legal trade in small arms, that is the trade authorised by governments. However, limited controls of this legal trade, and a failure to enforce them, means that many arms are diverted into the illegal sector.

There are currently no universally accepted, legally binding global standards that apply in every country to prevent irresponsible arms transfers.

Click here to read article

nimh wrote:

Allright. So basically both of you oppose the UN treaty not for anything it actually says, but for how it is somehow, in terms of intent and prime movers, a signal for other, actually bad stuff that might still be to come.

The slippery slope argument.

Of course, thats like saying that, say, those who suggest restricting late-term abortion are really proposing "only the first step" in "a dangerous trend" to ban all abortion altogether or, for that matter, take away our condoms. As for the intent of those movers, that might actually even be true, but wouldnt it make more sense to just assess each step on its own merits?

No it doesn't. When faced with people who want to annihilate our freedom, it is required that we fight to the bitter end with each and every step.

They are only trying to put in place stronger methods for tracking illegal weapons now, but as soon as they get those methods in place, then they'll start trying to classify more and more weapons as illegal.

If we can block measures like this to begin with, and make sure it remains nearly impossible to trace weapons, then we won't have to fight the later battles where the freedom haters try to outlaw our guns.