9
   

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

 
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 07:02 am
M, your pacifist attitude is exactly what the U.N. is hoping for.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 07:07 am
M, your pacifist attitude is exactly what the U.N. is hoping for...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 07:45 am


From the text of this document:

Quote:
Let me also note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a "global gun ban", nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.



Mr. President, with your permission, I would want to repeat, because there are people around who either have not heard this, or do not want to hear. We are not negotiating a global ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 08:06 am
McGentrix wrote:


From the text of this document:

Quote:
Let me also note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a "global gun ban", nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.



Mr. President, with your permission, I would want to repeat, because there are people around who either have not heard this, or do not want to hear. We are not negotiating a global ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.



Such was noted on this thread a couple of times.

I wonder, why some should read the document now?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 08:17 am
Because of her and others, I cannot simply take a statement like that above at face value. One of those behind the treaty:


Rebecca Peters
Billionaire George Soros's protégé, Rebecca Peters, runs the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which coordinates the gun prohibition efforts of groups around the world, including the Brady Campaign in America. IANSA claims at least 500 accomplices worldwide and is funded with countless millions from governments, international foundations, and billionaires like Soros.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 08:29 am
cjhsa wrote:
Because of her and others, I cannot simply take a statement like that above at face value.


Is "she" part of that document and later of the treaty?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 08:33 am
Yes.

I can usually spot a wolf in sheeps clothing.

I'm a hunter after all.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Thu 29 Jun, 2006 12:13 am
McGentrix wrote:


From the text of this document:

Quote:
Let me also note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a "global gun ban", nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.



Mr. President, with your permission, I would want to repeat, because there are people around who either have not heard this, or do not want to hear. We are not negotiating a global ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.


Does this mean that Mr. McGentrix BELIEVES ranting politicians ?

and suggest that WE believe them too ??

David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Thu 29 Jun, 2006 01:54 am
McGentrix wrote:


From the text of this document:

Quote:
Let me also note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a "global gun ban", nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.



Mr. President, with your permission, I would want to repeat, because there are people around who either have not heard this, or do not want to hear. We are not negotiating a global ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.



So, Kofi is asking us "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?"

I say, "I believe my eyes, and they don't lie".



A snippet from a 1999 UN report:

    "States should work towards the introduction of appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. [b]In particular, they should consider the prohibition of[/b] unrestricted trade and [b]private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine guns).[/b]" [URL=http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/presskit/sheet21.htm]http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/presskit/sheet21.htm[/URL]



The rough draft from what would later become the UN's first small arms treaty:

    "20. [b]To seriously consider the prohibition of[/b] unrestricted trade and [b]private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes.[/b]" [URL=http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf]http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf[/URL]



A fine young diplomat by the name of John Bolton gave the following speech at the convention:

http://www.un.int/usa/01_104.htm

The speech can be loosely translated as "You boys go take out those parts about civilian ownership or you'll find Uncle Sam's boot in your @ss."

(The parts about civilian gun ownership were taken out, and the diplomats of the world engaged in copious whining about how domestic US politics was preventing their global anti-freedom agenda.)



After Bolton torpedoed the UN's attempt to create a treaty that would ban civilian ownership of military weapons, some of the diplomats got together and created a regional treaty, the Nairobi Protocol.

One part of the Nairobi Protocol is:

    (b) State Parties undertake to : (iii) [b]prohibit the civilian possession of semi-automatic and automatic rifles[/b].... [URL=http://www.smallarmsnet.org/docs/saaf12.pdf]http://www.smallarmsnet.org/docs/saaf12.pdf[/URL]
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Thu 29 Jun, 2006 02:33 am
Let's not forget all the NGO's that are pushing these anti-gun treaties:

Quote:
http://www.iansa.org/un/bms2005/Ownership.pdf

1. Prohibit civilian ownership of certain weapons
2. Prevent the build-up of private arsenals
7. Limit the carrying of guns



Quote:
http://www.hdcentre.org/datastore/Small%20arms/Rio_Chair_summary.pdf

• Civilians should be restricted from acquiring or possessing small arms designed for military use.

• Ownership of small arms should be contingent on obtaining a firearms license, which, in turn, could be based on the following minimum criteria, inter alia - meeting a minimum age requirement; lacking a relevant criminal history, including of intimate partner and family violence; existence of a legitimate reason to acquire weapons; observance of relevant gun laws as well as the safe and efficient handling of small arms.

• Small arms ammunition sales should be restricted to those with a valid firearms license, and only for ammunition suitable for the type of gun specified on the license as well as limitation on the number of rounds of ammunition allowed.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Thu 29 Jun, 2006 06:45 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
McGentrix wrote:


From the text of this document:

Quote:
Let me also note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a "global gun ban", nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.



Mr. President, with your permission, I would want to repeat, because there are people around who either have not heard this, or do not want to hear. We are not negotiating a global ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.


Does this mean that Mr. McGentrix BELIEVES ranting politicians ?

and suggest that WE believe them too ??

David


O.o

No, That means Mr. McGentrix was referring to a part of an article that stated something inportant so he emphasized it.

You should know that the UN has ZERO say over the laws of the United States. That has been proven and reproven time and time again. There is no reason to believe that any resolution passed in the UN could ever think to take away any Americans constitutional provided rights.

Beyond that, it's just a lot of chatter.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Thu 29 Jun, 2006 06:49 am
Hey, Bush wants to ban guns. He said Saddam couldn't have nukes. That means he wants to ban guns.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 29 Jun, 2006 06:51 am
McGentrix wrote:
There is no reason to believe that any resolution passed in the UN could ever think to take away any Americans constitutional provided rights.


Exactly that's what the "rough countries" say .... about their laws, constitutions etc Laughing
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Thu 29 Jun, 2006 04:36 pm
McGentrix wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
McGentrix wrote:


From the text of this document:

Quote:
Let me also note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a "global gun ban", nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.



Mr. President, with your permission, I would want to repeat, because there are people around who either have not heard this, or do not want to hear. We are not negotiating a global ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.


Does this mean that Mr. McGentrix BELIEVES ranting politicians ?

and suggest that WE believe them too ??

David


O.o

No, That means Mr. McGentrix was referring to a part of an article that stated something inportant so he emphasized it.

You should know that the UN has ZERO say over the laws of the United States. That has been proven and reproven time and time again. There is no reason to believe that any resolution passed in the UN could ever think to take away any Americans constitutional provided rights.


Yes.
I accept that, for the present time,
but if a leftist President of the US were elected,
along with a leftist, collectivist authoritarian Senate,
an anti-gun treaty might be ratified,
which wud require the USSC to revisit the issue.
Justice Ruth Bader-Ginaberg has already indicated
that she believes that the US
shud be guided n bound by alien law.

Relying upon a consistent and conservative
ruling might be risky, and a lot is riding on it.

David
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 02:37 pm
cjhsa wrote:
M, your pacifist attitude is exactly what the U.N. is hoping for...


Well, if the U.N. was hoping I would laugh at extremely paranoid people, then I can't help that.

Personally, I don't spend any of my time trying to please the U.N.! They are just not on my list of folks that I think about ;-)
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 03:39 pm
Montana wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
M, your pacifist attitude is exactly what the U.N. is hoping for...


Well, if the U.N. was hoping I would laugh at extremely paranoid people, then I can't help that.

Leon Trotsky might have been paranoid,
but that did not render him immune
to Stalin 's NKVD.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 03:55 pm
okie dokie Laughing
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 03:57 pm
OSD's advocacy of paranoia may go a long way toward explaining his need for an arsenal...
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jul, 2006 06:40 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jul, 2006 07:07 am
How ironic that his mother's mobile home was built in communist China.
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 12/26/2024 at 08:04:57