9
   

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

 
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 10 May, 2006 01:05 pm
The level of denial here on A2K is exactly why I post this stuff.

It's coming.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  2  
Wed 10 May, 2006 01:06 pm
Much like Saddam Hussein's efforts to foil our great President's cunning plan for victory in Iraq, the thought of such a gun ban is ridicluous on it's face. In fact, I wonder at the motive of someone who would spread such rumors. Are they, like the opponents of our visionary leader's great plan, America haters?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 10 May, 2006 01:08 pm
I certainly hope the moderators of this site are keeping track of this virus that Squinney released upon A2K.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  2  
Wed 10 May, 2006 01:41 pm
Speaking of viruses, now that the President's plan for victory in Iraq is nearing it's successful completion, I'm sure that democracy soon will be spreading virus-like throughout the region! And there's no gun ban THERE, let me tell you!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Wed 10 May, 2006 02:48 pm
parados wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
Because that's what it says. Just remove the wiggle word "illicit" from the entire document and read it again.

If you remove the wiggle word "gun" from the document and it says nothing about confiscating guns anywhere in it.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Wed 10 May, 2006 02:57 pm
Have they banned all the guns yet?

Have they gone to take all of CJs firearms from him, or shoot him down like the dirty dog he is alleged to be?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Wed 10 May, 2006 03:11 pm
I think they're trying to pry them from his rigor mortised hands as we speak.
0 Replies
 
paull
 
  1  
Wed 10 May, 2006 03:14 pm
LaPierre is an awful name for an NRA president anyway.

The UN probably wants to control guns, but this missive simply says that it will make illegal what "States" and their "Parties" choose to make illegal.

Thanks Kofi, for all the hard work!

I prefer that the UN stay right where it is. Much easier to eavesdrop that way.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 10 May, 2006 07:16 pm
paull wrote:
LaPierre is an awful name for an NRA president anyway.


I agree. It should be "Nugent".
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Thu 11 May, 2006 04:44 am
Baldimo wrote:
I can see a series of small steps that could be taken. First they make such a treaty to stop illegal weapons. The next step is to come out with a list of said weapons that they think should be illegal.


I that case...

I can see a series of small steps that are being taken by the US. First, they say they start a war on terrorists. Then the next step is to come out with a list of said terrorists that they think are terrorists. Next thing you know, anyone who wants to criticise the US Government is arrested and the Government can oppress free speech.

The argument of, this is the first step, is ridiculous fear mongering.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Thu 11 May, 2006 07:00 am
I find it highly amusing that in other contexts, the rightwingnuts rant about how ineffective and meaningless the United Nations is, but when something like this comes along, they start hollering about how they are under seige.

The sky is falling ! ! ! The sky is falling ! ! !

-- C. Little
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  2  
Thu 11 May, 2006 07:03 am
That reminds me, Setanta.

If you guys claim that the UN is ineffective and can't do anything, how can you then claim that it is going to take away all your rights later on? Double-think?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Thu 11 May, 2006 07:08 am
If the U.S. were to sign this, I have no doubt the U.N. would shift its resources to fight the law abiding public of the U.S.

If they want to disarm somone, why not go after the Iraqi insurgents, or Somalia? Why bother with this rhetoric directed at law abiding citizens of the world? Hmmm?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  2  
Thu 11 May, 2006 07:12 am
cjhsa wrote:
If the U.S. were to sign this, I have no doubt the U.N. would shift its resources to fight the law abiding public of the U.S.

If they want to disarm somone, why not go after the Iraqi insurgents, or Somalia? Why bother with this rhetoric directed at law abiding citizens of the world? Hmmm?


I have no idea how CI found out but after reading your hysterical posts here, I am convinced he is correct that you are ****less. Smile
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Thu 11 May, 2006 07:15 am
Roxxx, if I were to say what I think of you, and it would be 100% true, I would be forever banned from A2K.

Why don't you crawl back into your closet?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  2  
Thu 11 May, 2006 07:19 am
cjhsa wrote:
Roxxx, if I were to say what I think of you, and it would be 100% true, I would be forever banned from A2K.

Why don't you crawl back into your closet?



Oh my sad, little man, guess what, I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Thu 11 May, 2006 07:21 am
Precisely your problem. You don't care what ANYONE thinks of you. 'nuff said.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  2  
Thu 11 May, 2006 07:26 am
cjhsa wrote:
If the U.S. were to sign this, I have no doubt the U.N. would shift its resources to fight the law abiding public of the U.S.

If they want to disarm somone, why not go after the Iraqi insurgents, or Somalia? Why bother with this rhetoric directed at law abiding citizens of the world? Hmmm?


Yeah and seeing that the US is the UN's major contributor of financial resources, the US can merely take away its funding. Furthermore, its troops are donated by its member countries. I think the US makes up the majority of UN Peace-Keeping Forces. So once again, if the UN does anything like that, the US can simply take away support and leave the UN high and dry.

Seriously, you guys aren't consistent in your claims of the UN's power.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Thu 11 May, 2006 07:30 am
CJ wrote:


Quote:
If they want to disarm somone, why not go after the Iraqi insurgents, or Somalia? Why bother with this rhetoric directed at law abiding citizens of the world? Hmmm?


Because, my frightened buddyboy, it's not directed at the law abiding citizens of the world. Try reading the document that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. (Thanks to those who did.)

The NRA is a money making scam today. LaPierre and others too gross to mention are using fear to drive more money into their pockets. That's a shame because the NRA used to be an association of hunting and camping enthusiasts looking out for the natural habitats of this nation with the same fervor as present day environmentalists. It has become a shell of itself, filled by proud gun-nuts, self-styled militia fratboys and fearfilled bootshakers.

Joe(hand over your money, he's got a gun)Nation
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  2  
Thu 11 May, 2006 07:30 am
cjhsa wrote:
Precisely your problem. You don't care what ANYONE thinks of you. 'nuff said.


I care what real people in real life think of the real me. No one on this forum knows me (yet anyway) I must say, however, that even in real life I doubt that I would care what you think of me unless we were doing business, in which case I would have you wrappped around my little finger.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/24/2024 at 04:36:14