Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

When asked to provide evidence you provided countries that have registration and still allow guns.

I am still waiting for one instance of a country registering guns and then banning all guns.

There is a long history of registering guns and NOT banning them. The US has such a history.

If you want to claim that simply registering guns means they will be banned quickly then that is easily disputed by the registration and licensing required for automatic weapons in the US. They are not banned but they are registered.

I can find no instance anywhere in history of registration being immediately followed by banning the guns that were just requires to be registered.

Your claim of NYC doesn't even come close. NYC required registration of shot guns in 1967. In 1991 they required owners of shotguns to remove them from the city. They were not banned from owning them. They were only required to keep them outside the city.

New York and California show otherwise.

parados wrote:

When asked to provide evidence you provided countries that have registration and still allow guns.

Those countries banned most guns.

The purpose of the Arms Act 1983 "(the principal Act") is "to promote both the safe use and the control of firearms and other weapons".
The principal Act is premised on the need to have controls on the ownership of firearms by individuals, and to manage the import of firearms.

This law regulates the handling of weapons or ammunition with consideration of the interests of public security and order.

Quote:

Oh, so we should worry about the UN because without the UN, there would be no bans on guns in the US.

The reasoning is that the UN is dominated by authoritarian collectivists
who are also incumbent governments that do not wish to tolerate
resistance to their authority, and certainly not to tolerate
overthrowing them.

THEIR interests are antithetical
to the personal freedom of citizens
whom thay wud govern and oppress, however those governments choose.

The dichotomy is freedom of the citizens
or
the brute power and authority of the constituent governments of the UN.
IT FAVORS THE LATTER.

Governments do not like to be challenged by their citizens.
Governments prefer DOCILITY and helplessness for their citizens.

Consider:
Wud (or did) the nazis prefer to have naked Jews helplessly standing in line,
having the gold pulled from their teeth
and patiently waiting to enter the ovens ?

OR

wud the nazis prefer
that the Jews be well armed with loaded guns under those circumstances ?






Which way do U think is better, Parados ?

US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) said:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic
since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power
of the rulers; and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
His view was adopted by the US Supreme Ct in US v. MILLER (supra),
together with that of Judge Thomas Cooley who reiterated that idea, adding:
"The meaning of the provision...is that the people ...shall have
the right to keep and bear arms and they need no permission
or regulation of law for the purpose." [ emfasis added ]

None of these laws show "registration requirements [are] onerous enough [in most places] that it amounts to a ban."

Could you please give a link to one?

I see. You are allowed to make outlandish claims and use rhetoric that has no basis in reality but then to defend your claims you get to change the meaning of words.

Quote:

New York and California show otherwise.

Oh, so we should worry about the UN because without the UN, there would be no bans on guns in the US.

parados wrote:

I see. You are allowed to make outlandish claims and use rhetoric that has no basis in reality but then to defend your claims you get to change the meaning of words.

Quote:

New York and California show otherwise.

Oh, so we should worry about the UN because without the UN, there would be no bans on guns in the US.

Let me know if you ever decide you want to discuss this seriously.

Actually this is just a gun registration treaty. The UN won't push their ban for a while yet.

They always try to register the guns before they try to outlaw them.

The fears of a treaty that would outlaw most guns, are quite well founded.

True. The treaty would have to be signed and ratified.

The main fear is not of the UN sending troops into the country, but that our government will sign and ratify the treaty and then enforce it on us themselves.

And although the gun registration of the current treaty is unacceptable in itself, the main fear is that the UN will push a second treaty, which will ban civilian ownership of all revolvers, pistols, and rifles (not to mention heavier weapons).

The problem with that is that their next step will be to classify legitimate weapons as "illegal" and this treaty will then be used to go after the guns of ordinary people.

They will eventually try to make a treaty that expands the definition of "illegal weapon" to include all machine guns, rifles, semi-auto pistols, and revolvers that are owned by civilians.

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

Walter Hinteler wrote:

None of these laws show "registration requirements [are] onerous enough [in most places] that it amounts to a ban."

Could you please give a link to one?

I was referring to parados' statement regarding America's registration requirements for machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, etc. The requirements are so onerous that in most parts of the US they amount to a ban.

Here is a faq on how to comply with the law:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

david wrote :

Quote:

US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) said:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic
since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power
of the rulers; and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
His view was adopted by the US Supreme Ct in US v. MILLER (supra),
together with that of Judge Thomas Cooley who reiterated that idea, adding:
"The meaning of the provision...is that the people ...shall have
the right to keep and bear arms and they need no permission
or regulation of law for the purpose." [ emfasis added ]

would you like to enlighten us as to what would happen if a few thousand armed U.S. citizens
would march upon the white house ,
claiming "usurpation and arbitrary power " must be stopped ?
will it "enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - whoever THEM are ?

:wink:

Everybody in USA is a law - abiding citizen until the guns go off.

"With all the violence and murder and killings we've had in the united states,
I think you will agree that we MUST keep firearms from PEOPLE who have NO BUSINESS with guns."--Robert F kennedy five days before his ASSASSINATION 1968 may

Quote:

Dave, the founding fathers did not preclude gun control.

U obviously don 't know what u r talking about.
Historically, that is false;
it was ANATHEMA to them.

Quote:

A friend in the UK possesses guns for target shooting.

When did this happen ?
What kind of guns ?
Anything suitable for self defense ?

If he is innocently walking down the street
and is attacked by his enemies pounding upon him,
or stabbing him with broken bottles or knives,
can he now legally defend himself with a gun on his person ?

as he cud before the First World War ?

Quote:

To register them, someone from the government visited the home
to ensure that they are kept secure in a gun safe.

Is the gun safe close enuf
and made so as to be swiftly opened
in time of emergency defense of its owner 's life or property ?

Quote:

Dave, we don't know what the intent was.

What is this "WE" stuff ??
With all respect,
I accept the fact that U don 't know American history
( or this aspect thereof ),
but please restrain yourself from attributing your ignorance to the rest of us.
The writings of the Founders survive them;
we still have their writings of the time,
FROM WHICH their intentions are very clear.

Quote:

However, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the second amendment that bans gun control.

According to u,
WHAT was the purpose of it ?

Do U allege that there was a great, loud demand
by the Founding generation for the repeal of the Constitution 's
Article I §1O sub-§3, against states keeping troops,
and THAT was Y thay enacted the 2nd Amendment ?
for the benefit of state governments ??

I AWAIT YOUR ANSWER, ADVOCATE.

That is NOT part of American history and that did NOT happen.
The 2nd Amendment is included with many other individual rights.

Quote:

Dave, it is you who is showing ignorance.
The founding fathers consciously kept their proceedings private,
and avoided any type of statement of legislative history.
A few recollections of individuals don't establish a legislative history.
No legislative history was approved by the body, probably because many
of the signers went home and didn't want any invalid interpretations.

BALONEY !
" Great weight has always been attached,
and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition. "
COHENS v. VIRGINIA 19 US 264, 418 (1821) JOHN MARSHALL, J.

Quote:

We still have gun control, which belies your foolish belief about the second amendment.

" That an unconstitutional action has been taken before
surely does not render that same action any less unconstitutional at a later date. "
POWELL v. McCORMACK, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)