Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

Frankly, the 2nd Amendment doesn't even enter into it. It's the specious and hysteria-tinged idea that the UN is actually going to give a crap whether you own a gun or not that is the focal point for ridicule here.

Try and keep up.

This is mainstream thought, hardly hysteria. You're the one lagging behind.

Oh, please. It may be mainstream thought at the John Birch Society luncheon, but it hardly passes for mainstream thought anywhere else.

http://www.stopungunban.org./

Not mainstream, eh?

Now all you have to do is prove that the people who made that site are mainstream.

Whatever the issue is, the fears of the NRA are unfounded BS. Firstly, the Treaty has been in place for quite some time now. Secondly, the US never signed it, so its not subject to the UN's "so-called" interference. Thirdly, the UN doesn't have the power to actively interfere.

All you're doing now is spinning round in circles, arms flailing wildly in some kind of bizarre Jim Carrey impersonation gone wrong.

I think you're simply choosing to ignore the issue. It's easy for you, living in an already disarmed nation, to simply keep your head in the sand.

Mudslinging us won't do you any good. We may not have guns, but we sure as Heck don't need them.

I'm not choosing to ignore the issue.

But you are choosing to make one up.

Why do you not need them?

On behalf of the entire sane population of the United States, I would like to apologize for the inanity of the question.

1. The original 2nd Amendment was created so as to ensure that the citizens of America, whom were few in numbres, would be armed in case Britain attacked again. Seeing as we did not have such a problem, we don't have a 2nd Amendment.

2. The number of people who go hunting is very low. No need for guns for that use.

3. The existence of guns in a house is more a liability than a useful asset. Accidents, thieves taking the guns for themselves and using them against the household, the likelihood of you accidentally shooting the thief and getting sued etc. None of these cons are considered valid enough to overcome the pros.

4. The average British person realises that they will never have use for the gun in protecting their household. Household items are considered sufficient for rendering burgulars/criminals in the house.

5. If a criminal does enter with a household gun, brandishing one against them is considered likely to increase tension and result in a shooting.

6. The middle classes at least, see so little crime in their area, they are more likely to believe that a gun is unnecessary in protecting themselves.

There are possiby others that I haven't even considered. Generally, the public doesn't believe they need them and have never been proven wrong so far.

To say we're disarmed is foolish. There are people here who own guns. Licensed guns that are registered. They're generally sound in mind, having sat psychological tests to prove so.

The website is over a year old cjsa.. When did the UN come for your guns?

The treaty went into effect July 3, 2005. When did the UN come for your guns?

It is hardly mainstream. When did the UN come for you guns?

Stop, parados, stop.

I'm going to have to change my sig line again.

They are waiting for a US president that is going to want to take our guns. When that president comes into office they are going to cave into the UN demands for a disarmed planet and it won't be the UN who comes and takes my guns it will be the US govt its self who does this. They will be the flunkies of the UN and do their bidding against citizens of the US.

A stunning display of ignorance. Such compliance on the part of the United States could only come from treaty compliance. All treaties must be ratified by two thirds of the Senate. They'll have to wait a hell of a long time.

That type of analysis never stopped you leftists from complaining about the Patriot Act.

I beg to differ. The ignorance displayed-- while incredible-- is far exceeded by the raving, witless paranoia, which is truly stunning.

Yeah, Blacksmithn, but the paranoia is displayed to an extraordinary degree by another member. It's easier to task Baldimon with being a liar than paranoid, based on his post in which he claimed he was denied a job because he's white, and then comparing it to another post of his in which he states that he is not white and proud of it. When it comes to the ranters, it helps to distinguish one from the other.

Sorry, I guess I need a scorecard to keep the liars, er... players straight.

You mistake forward thinking for paranoia. That somehow doesn't suprise me.

That Set continuously follows me around then calls me paranoid for noticing him is entrapment, pure and simple. Bug off dude.

No one can limit my posting to these threads, other than the instance of being banned by the moderators. I have not violated the terms of service in my posts regarding you. I don't follow you around, so there is no basis for your contention other than paranoia, plain and simple.