Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

When it comes to idiocy, I'm downright prejudiced.

Whatever the issue is, the fears of the NRA are unfounded BS.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Whatever the issue is, the fears of the NRA are unfounded BS.

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

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.

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.

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.

blacksmithn wrote:

When it comes to idiocy, I'm downright prejudiced.

You're in the minority. Most Americans don't find freedom idiotic.

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.

oralloy wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:

When it comes to idiocy, I'm downright prejudiced.

You're in the minority. Most Americans don't find freedom idiotic.

"Most Americans" isn't a category represented by a few lunatics who needlessly but obsessively fear blue helmets and black helicopters coming to disarm them.

cjhsa wrote:

Over our July 4th holiday, on American soil, they are preparing to enact a legally-binding treaty that would give the U.N. unchallengeable power to ban civilian ownership of ALL firearms.

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

The treaty can be found here..

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/a_res_55/255e.pdf

It seems that LaPierre is in support of criminals based on the what this treaty does.

Quote:

Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and
Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components
and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations
Convention against Transnational Organized Crime

blacksmithn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:

When it comes to idiocy, I'm downright prejudiced.

You're in the minority. Most Americans don't find freedom idiotic.

"Most Americans" isn't a category represented by a few lunatics who needlessly but obsessively fear blue helmets and black helicopters coming to disarm them.

Never said it was.

You should try not to confuse your bigoted stereotypes with reality.

I'm very afraid. Just like I'm afraid of putting U.S. troops under U.N. command. Give up your M16's boys, those Iraquis are all friendly folks.

People who don't believe in the right to defend yourself are criminal idiots.

And unlike you, when I hang 'em out there, well, at least I have something to hang out there.

parados wrote:

The treaty can be found here..

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/a_res_55/255e.pdf

It seems that LaPierre is in support of criminals based on the what this treaty does.

Quote:

Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and
Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components
and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations
Convention against Transnational Organized Crime

Criminals SUPPORT gun control and gun prohibitions,
so that they can have a monopoly of guns
for predatory activity; otherwise,
said predatory activity can be too dangerous for criminals
if their victims are armed in their own defense.
David

Isn't it amazing how brain dead and brainwashed Europeans are by the U.N.?

Thank God for Tony Blair.

What I'd like to know is what the difference is between the guns criminals use and those owned by upstanding citizens?

What I'd like to know is what the difference is between the guns criminals use and those owned by upstanding citizens?

cjhsa wrote:

Isn't it amazing how brain dead and brainwashed Europeans are by the U.N.?

Thank God for Tony Blair.

What I'd like to know is what the difference is between the guns criminals use and those owned by upstanding citizens?

Isn't it amazing how absolutely brain dead and brainwashed cjhsa is by the idea of an evil UN?

Do you really want illegal weapons out there on the market? Tell me that. Do you want illegal weapons out there on the market? Do you? Is it that difficult for you to understand that illegal weapons must not be made and that it must be cracked down on?

If this treaty is passed and enforced, it makes it less easy for criminals to get guns, right? This means that criminals will only be able to get guns through legal means. This means that they will be subject to review for suitability.

How will this affect the upstanding citizen? Not by much. You know, if the NRA had an ounce of sense about it, it would ensure that the Government enforced the treaty in such a way that it would not affect the citizen that has no criminal record and is psychologically sane.

Take a car, for example. Would you want somebody driving a car without a licence? Without insurance? Without having taken lessons? No. Why not? Because they might end up killing themselves and/or other people in an accident.

So why must a gun be exempt from this? Why must a weapon designed to kill be exempt?

I'm all for the sane, upstanding citizen owning a gun. What I'm not for is insane people or criminals owning a gun. What I'm not for is a Government that stands by and lets such people own a gun.

Is that so hard to understand?