http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
Hmmm. Russia. China. India. Venezeula. Most of the middle east.
Gas is $3/gallon. I suspect someone can afford to take up the slack if the U.S. were to stop paying up.
Somehow, I doubt Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Venezuela wants to pony up a few billion just to see you disarmed, Sparky.
I'd chip in a few bucks, though. Armed lunatics make me nervous.
So, I'm a lunatic because I choose to exercise my second amendment rights? You're out of your mind.
cjhsa wrote:So, I'm a lunatic because I choose to exercise my second amendment rights? You're out of your mind.
He never said you were a lunatic because you were armed. He said you were a lunatic and armed. It's an easy reading mistake to make when you're blinded by unjustifiable rage.
The funniest part of this whole fear mongering is the treaty went into effect July 3, 2005.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_signatures_firearms.html
Quote:Entry into force: 3 July 2005, in accordance with article 18 (1) which reads as follows:
Which day did they take your guns away cj? It's been almost 11 months. They must have broken down your door already.
Of course it isn't just the UN that is doing this..
The Organization of American States has a similar treaty which the US has signed but not yet ratified
http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarms/Cifta_Convention_text.htm
Of course we wouldn't want to criminalize the illicit trafficking of guns.. otherwise how would Al Qaeda get their weapons? (I think I saw a story just yesterday about how a shipment of 200,000 AK-47s may have gone to Al Qaeda.)
There are lots of folks who own guns and who aren't nutcakes. You just don't happen to be one of them, Mr. The-UN-Is-Going-To-Take-My-Guns-All-Evidence-To-The-Contrary.
I can't believe I missed that.
It would also appear that the US hasn't signed the Treaty, so they are not subject to its effects.
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
I can't believe I missed that.
How could you miss the blue helmets showing up at your neighobors door to wrest the gun from their hands? cj spotted them immediately.
parados wrote:How could you miss the blue helmets showing up at your neighobors door to wrest the gun from their hands? cj spotted them immediately.
Simple. We Brits don't have guns. We have beer instead.
Then we've one-upped you Brits once again. Here in America, we have beer, guns AND-- as seen here-- nuts who own them.
Put all 3 together and that's a Saturday night uptown!
So, I get to choose between Wayne and BS. I don't like BS.
Console yourself. Buy another gun before the UN bans them.
cjhsa wrote:I don't like BS.
Why, then, do you attempt to peddle so much of it around here?
I've told you before Set, as you've followed me around a great deal, that you simply don't understand the truth. You hate the truth. For you, if there's no hidden meaning, it cannot be true.
The spin I heard on this was that lapdog Pierre was trying to paint Hillary Clinton as backing this and this is merely an an attempt to try to create a wedge issue for 2008.
cjhsa wrote:I've told you before Set, as you've followed me around a great deal, that you simply don't understand the truth. You hate the truth. For you, if there's no hidden meaning, it cannot be true.
Paranoia strikes deep, Bubba . . . you're a legend in your own mind . . .
And apparently yours too.
You're no legend in my mind. I am highly amused to see that you think you are being followed around, though. Mark it up to the endless hilarity you inspire.
Defense of the second amendment that guarantees our right to keep and bear arms is "hilarity" to the lib-tards that infest this site.
No, the idiotic contention that you have to defend the second amendment from the UN is hilarious.
