Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/21/2004 1:31:02 PM EST
Amazing what you can stumble across on the internet..

Here's the link to the .pdf

http://disarmament.un.org:8080/DDAPublications/desthbk.pdf

And this note from the introduction.....

"Any systematic effort to deal with the menace of small arms
proliferation would require the retrieval of such weapons,
ammunition and explosives from illicit circulation with the aim of
destroying them, so that there is no possibility of their diversion
through illegal channels into civilian possession. The destruction of
surplus stocks would also contribute to this objective."

Here's my paranoid peep into the future... HIllary elected Pres in 2008, Bill elected Secretary General of the UN, Blue helmets then going house to house in my town, looking for "Small arms in civilian possession".

It's a pretty interesting time to be alive, isn't it!

Link Posted: 9/21/2004 3:13:31 PM EST
They will run out of blue blue helmets LONG before they run out of civilian arms to seize.

No problemo.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 3:36:25 PM EST
A cold day in hell when Blue Helmets disarm US citizens.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 3:38:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
They will run out of blue blue helmets LONG before they run out of civilian arms to seize.

No problemo.

+1
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 3:40:10 PM EST
Not going to happen on my watch.

If the day comes where there are Blue Helmets coming up the driveway to confiscate my weapons I'll be dead, but I won't be alone.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 3:49:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 3:50:49 PM EST by EagleArmsHBAR]

Originally Posted By Airwolf:
Not going to happen on my watch.

If the day comes where there are Blue Helmets coming up the driveway to confiscate my weapons I'll be dead, but I won't be alone.



I will die also defending my rights from the UN or anyone else. I am DEAD serious about this.
We should organize something in case this happens. We would be more effective in squad size groups than just one by one aginst the UN.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 3:54:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 4:39:06 PM EST
If they were going to do it here in the United States, they'd take you by surprise and without prior warning. A few hundred boatloads of UN troops would secretly arrive at a U.S. port and be secretly dispersed throughout the country. They'll come to your home at some early hour, break down the door and conduct a search. The whole country-wide seizure will be lightning quick and over very fast, otherwise the people would be able to organize and resist with force.

If you're wondering how they'll be able to tell who owns firearms and who doesn't... well, they have their ways. Carnivore and Echelon are two that come to mind, but even IP tracing will work. You send an E-Mail about a gun you own, make a post here on ARF.com, use a credit card to buy a weapon, ammo, mags or attachments -- that digital record doesn't just dissapear. It's there forever. Everything you've ever done digitally is stored on some machine in some basement, and if they want it they will find a way to get it.

And if you think the then-President is actually going to announce the arrival of UN troops to take away our guns, and that you'll have the luxury of getting 5 or 6 friends together and armed before they arrive at your doorstep, you're seriously underestimating the powers that be. For all the hate the Clintons and various gun-hating liberals get, they aren't stupid.

That all being said, this is very unlikely to happen. Any president who took away our guns with force would be unseated from power. Likewise, any Congressperson who didn't move to take action immediately would also feel the wrath of the electorate.

I think the more likely option would be Congress and the states using lies and misinformation on an uninformed public to gradually increase the amount of gun control until the 2nd Amendment basically ceased to exist. This more peaceful method is preferable because it'd have widespread public support (like the AWB did). UN troops on American soil, on the other hand, would just be a catalyst for disaster.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 4:49:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 4:49:49 PM EST by Lightning_P38]
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 4:51:27 PM EST
Okay Traxus, I agree with most of what you said, but what do you think the chances are of Bill Clinton being the Secretary General? Do YOU think we'll ever see that day? (I do, I think that's his next and most natural aspiration. After being President, what's left for him to achieve?).

And if he is Sec General, do you think he would stand up with global gun-banners like Rebecca Peters and the International Action Network on Small Arms, (she's the one who cleansed Australia of private firearms ownership) or do you think he'd be on our side and try to stop them?

Don't want to freak out about it but I think this is a real threat on the horizon.

Not sure where this scenario goes from here, but I'll give you odds that it would be Blue Helmet time in Your Town.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 5:36:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 5:38:31 PM EST by Traxus]
Bill Clinton becoming Secretary-General? I don't know much about the process, but if he did eventually take that seat, I can't say I'd be surprised.

Being the Sec-Gen, however, doesn't mean he has unlimited power. You'd have to get the UN to pass a resolution just before the first wave of seizures began, and this wouldn't even be conceivable -- let alone possible -- without full support from at least the President, if not the states and Congress. After all, UN troops roaming around U.S. soil taking away citizens' guns won't go unnoticated by state governors or law enforcement. Congress would have to pass a law making it legal for the U.N. to be here and to do what they'd be doing. And even then you'd run into problems from state and local authorities who I'm sure would still object (possibly with force).

Let's also not forget that both houses of Congress would have to be in total agreeance with the President and then be able to pass such a law in only a very short amount of time. And with the speed with which such a seizure would be conducted, I'm sure the Supreme Court would step up rather quickly to issue a statement (much like they did with the 2000 elections). What are the chances of getting at least 60 senators, 50% of the House, the President and 5 Supreme Court justices to all agree on having armed foreign troops take away our guns?

And finally, assuming this actually happened and private firearm ownership is toast, and the UN gun-destroying furnaces are busy chugging away, how sympathetic do you think the American people are going to be towards Congress and the President? Believe me, there will be HELL to pay. Not only will they be all be kicked out of office, you'll probably find folks blowing up Federal buidlings and killing senators with bombs or weapons bought off the black market. Wasn't McVeigh trying to start a 2nd American Revolution? I'm sure you'd find more people trying to do the same thing.

So yes, I'll agree that it is certainly possible. But do I think it's even remotely probable? I can't say that I do. But hey, that's just my opinion. :)
Top Top