This so-called "international coalition of anti-gun groups" called on Hollywood?? WTF? Do they think HW has some sort of UN influence? They should wait for Hitlery to get in office. We all remember how tight HW was with the Clinton regime. They've got free access to MTV whenever the want it, as well.

Maybe they should pressure Hollywood to stop having movies with any reference to guns at all instead. Fat chance of that happening... too much money in that.
They're "The Elite." Apparently some people think we view them as a Higher Power. I'm sure that's how they see themselves, and they will welcome the new Clinton regime with open arms.

It seems to me that most of the genocides in which guns were used were carried out by governments, not civilians.  If the UN's goal is to stop such genocide, the UN should adopt a resolution stating that only civilians should be allowed to own guns and that governments should disarm.  

Everybody wants my guns!

ControlArms
SaferWorld
International Action Network on Small Arms
IANSA
United Nations
Brady Bunch
schumer
klinton
fienstein
.
.
.

LET 'EM GET THEIR OWN DAMN GUNS!

Quoted: anti-gun people are anti-American...look at the liberal agenda...everything they stand for is against what America stands for... 1.  Taking away guns is merely taking away the ability for a nation to defend itself...since gun owners are most likely to stand up and fight for their country more than anyone else. 2.   dumb down the education system so people react to emotion and are easily swayed to the herding instincts and not likely to think for themselves. 3.   Use government money to pay for the welfare (comfort) needs and survival needs of the people so less people are  motivated to be self-reliant    4.  Encourage legal immigrants to maintain their own national identities instead of blending into the melting pot so there are less people who would actually fight for this nation .  5.  Encourage and protect the illegals so there are unruly and uncontrollable masses to weaken the internal structure of the nation.  6.   "play" with the drug war so citizens are addicted to something making them weaker and unable to resist. 7.   encourage Abortion because that weakens the work force, reduces the population and desensitizes people to the value of life.  8.  promote evolution...we are on the level of apes; just animals...encouraging behavior like animals.  9.  get rid of religion...standards...moral law...= creating anarchy, chaos and confusion...something any unified force will be justified in suppressing. 10..encourage homosexuality and pornography...helps spread disease and addicts people to their passions...  Homosexuals, riotous college students, drug dealers and liberal press and professors have their place...they will be "used" to weaken a country or civilization BUT will be eliminated when their pervered thinking and behavior is no longer necessary.  Hitler used them for a time...  Who exactly will fight "FOR" this country?   that is who the war is against for now...

+ about a billion

Quoted: Executive Order...

Oh. I just didn't get what he meant by EO.

That's why we can't import "evil" rifles. Bush Sr, gave an Executive Order, banned new imports in 1989, then that EO was made into law. Executive Order...the President making law without going though the legislative process. You should see some of them...down right tryannical. Have a personal stache of food in a national crisis and you are guilty of hording. You go to jail, for just having extra food.

Importation is something the national government has the right to regulate.

But all those "evil" rifles that could not be imported CAN be produced domestically in their full evil configuration, as the President is unable to issue an EO stopping that.

Quoted: It seems to me that most of the genocides in which guns were used were carried out by governments, not civilians.  If the UN's goal is to stop such genocide, the UN should adopt a resolution stating that only civilians should be allowed to own guns and that governments should disarm.

I dunno, you must be a malcontent, and sent to a re-education camp.  Making sense is not allowed in the new regime, as it is evidence of excessive thought and lack of devotion to the cause.  

Remember:

War is Peace
Ignorance is strength <---motto of the UN and the Democratic Party
Freedom is Slavery <---slowly being adopted by the Republicans


I will add this comment for myself.

I am sick to death of all the worrying about all the efforts by various organizations to disarm non-criminals.  And, making one a criminal so someone can legally be disarmed is a joke, and derives from philosophical novels.  We all know all the reasoning against disarming, and we all preach to the choir daily.  The people who are trying to do this, that is, the ones behind it all, aren't stupid either- though, perhaps their dupes (Hollyweirds) are.  The string pullers have their own agenda, one which cannot be satisfied until WE the PEOPLE no longer have a say.  The best example of that is every time someone quotes the Constitution, that person is labelled a fringe-loony.  The Constitution is a choking point against the totalitarians.

There are many in our own country who think they would obtain some advantage by the ability to assume virtual dictatorial power, with no opposition possible.  If the peasants are ground underfoot, who is to stop them?  The existing forces such as army and police will be used by the new regime and follow orders.  One need only look at history to see that other, possibly less fractious and more loyal people have turned under the right circumstances.  Some of the Hollywood and other types in this country probably think that they will be an "elite" who also is able to take advantage of peasants.  There have been cases of vehemently anti-gun people themselves having guns.  Is it silly hypocrisy or something else?  How about the columnist Carl(?) Rowe, later Mayor of Cleveland.  Anti gun, but chased kids with an illegal revolver.  Or a couple of "actors" who, when the police arrived at their home (their name escapes me, but it doesn't alter the effect) and asked them why they were holding guns, especially when they were known antis.  Their response (to the comment about their position on gun laws) was "Those aren't for us.

It all reminds me of the collaborators during and after WWII in Europe.  In France (to their credit) the collaborators got what they asaked for.  In Central and Eastern Europe, the Soviets used collaborators and gave them benefits and position, reinforcing their conclusion that their treason was for their benefit.  After they no longer were useful, they went to a gulag or were killed outright by their "friends."  But, the modern versions of these do not recall history.  Or, perhaps in the character of the arrogant, it doesn't apply to them.  

It is beyond clear that these collaborators here and in the UN are pushing an agenda, one which they think will benefit them, either by position of power in the "new order" or simply by greater wealth - even in an everybody equal society or planet, some will be more equal than others.

I refuse to be ground underfoot, especially if it came to deliberate theft from me or my family, which I suspect is the real intent of all UN behind the scenes planning for all in the US.  And, I truly will not countenance some creep placing him/herself in a position by treason, and acting as administrator for the worldwide grabbers.  Therefore I openly and freely violate the Code of Conduct.  I advocate: the disobediance of any phony law made under false pretenses, with lies; and I further advocate the hunting down and killing of any people involved with such a takeover, hand over of power or sovereignty to the UN or any similar organization which is just the same thing under a different name to fool the naive.  Yes it unfortunately has to wait until it happens: we don't want to justify the position of some creep politician by making him or her a martyr.  But, remember those who have laid the groundwork, and don't worship them.  Further, any "public servants" who follow such, deserve the same fate.  "Following orders" didn't work in Nuremberg, it won't work now.  No, it's not "different"  (ANd, maybe those who criticize my position and aren't so far gone that they are still capable of thought, must now realize how the Germans felt and why they didn't do anything: yes they were wrong, and, they'll tell you that, themselves).

Why am I saying all these horrible things?  It's all been done before.  While some conquer by overwhelming force, I can in some odd sense respect that: doesn't make it right but it was a fight.  I cannot stomach a "handing over."  The main reason I say all this is that I know thaere are many others out there who feel strongly.  We wouldn't even think of knocking over a little old lady for her Social Security chek or at an ATM, nor do we rape, or rob convenience stores.  But, we don't want our country handed over to be milked.  Forget the moral issues of "poverty", there's lots to be said about that on all sides.  But we know what happens to the impoverished, they're still poor.  The money is soaked up by bureaucrats: the president of some African country can have a bunch more Rolls-Royces; an Asian dictator/sultan has more concubines; an "American" businessman has more money which amazingly won't be touched by the "authorities"; and another pseudo-American will have the admiration which he craves (he gave things away before, but it didn't achieve what he had hoped; and, he didn't learn).  The Europeans will be the bureaucratic/administrative elite.  So, my purpose is that those of you who feel this way know there are others.  Fight it legally as long as possible, as out UN Ambassador is doing.  But, if other things happen and our country is given away, I, for one, will be "hunting"  (in parenthesis because I don't hurt animals:  no, not starting another issue, because I don't tell other people what to do).  ANd, to others who are fed up, you are not alone. Ban me if you like.  

Quoted: anti-gun people are anti-American...look at the liberal agenda...everything they stand for is against what America stands for... 1.  Taking away guns is merely taking away the ability for a nation to defend itself...since gun owners are most likely to stand up and fight for their country more than anyone else. 2.   dumb down the education system so people react to emotion and are easily swayed to the herding instincts and not likely to think for themselves. 3.   Use government money to pay for the welfare (comfort) needs and survival needs of the people so less people are  motivated to be self-reliant    4.  Encourage legal immigrants to maintain their own national identities instead of blending into the melting pot so there are less people who would actually fight for this nation .  5.  Encourage and protect the illegals so there are unruly and uncontrollable masses to weaken the internal structure of the nation.  6.   "play" with the drug war so citizens are addicted to something making them weaker and unable to resist. 7.   encourage Abortion because that weakens the work force, reduces the population and desensitizes people to the value of life.  8.  promote evolution...we are on the level of apes; just animals...encouraging behavior like animals.  9.  get rid of religion...standards...moral law...= creating anarchy, chaos and confusion...something any unified force will be justified in suppressing. 10..encourage homosexuality and pornography...helps spread disease and addicts people to their passions...  Homosexuals, riotous college students, drug dealers and liberal press and professors have their place...they will be "used" to weaken a country or civilization BUT will be eliminated when their pervered thinking and behavior is no longer necessary.  Hitler used them for a time...  Who exactly will fight "FOR" this country?   that is who the war is against for now...

Everything satan stands for.

People think the spiritual world and the physical world are separate things.  wrong.

Quoted: Quoted: The UN wants my guns.  Big deal...I want their heads on a stick, but that is as likely as their getting my guns. Agreed. There are many other things to worry about. Statewide firearms bans. Those are the bans to worry about. Any president that caves into the UN gun ban can kiss that parties ass goodbye.

You really think so?
I don't.
Americans have, as of late, been conditioned to accept the need for an "international rule of law."
I don't think signing a UN Gun Ban would be met with resistance by any great number of people, besides the usual suspects. (Us)

I'll abide by U.N. crap just like every other nations does...

If they get too pushy I'll just offer Koofi a few bucks to leave me the hell alone.

The UN wants what?  

Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Yeah, becasue the UN is doing SUCH A GREAT job of protecting unarmed citizens in Africa. Murdered and raped by the basketful. Every single day.

But they say "give us your guns" it will make the world safer.

As if the bad guys are going to turn them in.

Right.

I have come to believe the United Nations is a fool's errand. NATO has accomplished far more than they ever will.

Quoted: Yeah, becasue the UN is doing SUCH A GREAT job of protecting unarmed citizens in Africa. Murdered and raped by the basketful. Every single day. But they say "give us your guns" it will make the world safer. As if the bad guys are going to turn them in. Right. I have come to believe the United Nations is a fool's errand. NATO has accomplished far more than they ever will.

That is the problem with so many people on this board.
Civilian disarmament has nothing, i repeat, nothing to do with public safety.
It has to do with paving the way for a one world socialist government.
For those who want to call me a conspiracy theorist - one world government has always been, and will always be, the goal of communism/socialism.
It has nothing to do with conspiracies.

Fuck 'em.

Quoted: The Bush administration has set out several "red lines" that the United States would not cross, he said. "We will allow no discussion, no negotiation, over civilian possession of firearms," Barr said. Nor will the U.S. agree to any U.N. effort to impose binding U.N. controls on what "non-state actors" a member state will supply with weapons. "We feel it's the prerogative of the president of the United States to decide what groups to support," Barr said. "There could be freedom fighters in ‘Freedonia' we find it in our interest to arm."

Now what would Kerry have said to that?  Hopefully in 08, we get someone who will not kowtow to the U.N. and will take the same stand as above - hopefully.

Here's my open letter to the UN:

Dear UN,

I hear that ya'll want to come over to America and take our guns.  If you do, please come to Texas first.  I figure its going to be Texans who finish the fight anyway, and I'd rather not have to drive to New York to do it.  I hate long drives.

Sincerely,

happycynic

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, becasue the UN is doing SUCH A GREAT job of protecting unarmed citizens in Africa. Murdered and raped by the basketful. Every single day. But they say "give us your guns" it will make the world safer. As if the bad guys are going to turn them in. Right. I have come to believe the United Nations is a fool's errand. NATO has accomplished far more than they ever will. That is the problem with so many people on this board. Civilian disarmament has nothing, i repeat, nothing to do with public safety. It has to do with paving the way for a one world socialist government. For those who want to call me a conspiracy theorist - one world government has always been, and will always be, the goal of communism/socialism. It has nothing to do with conspiracies.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you concerning socialism or UN goals, just saying that global gun eradication organizations claim it makes people safer, and give this as a reason to do it. Obviously I disagree with this.

I think you misunderstood my post. By accomplishing more I meant in terms of peacekeeping, as in Kosovo.

You can have my guns, when you pry them from my cold dead hands.  

Quoted: Quoted: Fuck the fucking fuckers. If I see a blue helmet clad person coming to get my guns I wont give it to them. More than likely it will be done in a similar way as the evacuation of NO, out of town/state/country forces tasked with carrying out the mission.  Local LEO will most likely be relocated to work other communities so there would not be as much apprehension in disarming, beating, shooting the flock of their own townspeople in the process of disarming.  This will happen after local LEO's are deputized or whatever in an IPf/NPF (international/national police force) along with the guard and other military/federal entities. I do not think blue helmets will be part of the uniform.

Correct.

tag

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fuck the fucking fuckers. If I see a blue helmet clad person coming to get my guns I wont give it to them. More than likely it will be done in a similar way as the evacuation of NO, out of town/state/country forces tasked with carrying out the mission.  Local LEO will most likely be relocated to work other communities so there would not be as much apprehension in disarming, beating, shooting the flock of their own townspeople in the process of disarming.  This will happen after local LEO's are deputized or whatever in an IPf/NPF (international/national police force) along with the guard and other military/federal entities. I do not think blue helmets will be part of the uniform.   Correct.

Not me....and they can have mine, if they want them.
Bullets first.



Sheep

Quoted: You can have my guns, when you pry them from my cold warm, dead hands.

Legally binding?  Nothing the UN does is legally binding.

If the Helmit is blue, the aim is True!

"I was in Sierre Leone," British activist Anthea Lawson, a spokesperson for IANSA, told Newsmax. "How can I explain to people who have gone through incredible suffering because of small arms that NRA [National Rifle Association] concerns are blocking an international agreement that would make lots of people safer?"

Good grief.

What on Earth does the NRA have to do with the international trade in military arms?

Is there any evil for which the NRA is not responsible in their fevered minds? I suppose next we'll hear about how the NRA boils babies and causes AIDS.

If they want the guns, they better be prepared to fight for every inch of ground, they'll never even get close.  We must remain vigilant, and if the blue hats come, they will die where they stand.  I am an AMERICAN Citizen, not a World Coalition citizen.


Molon Labe

Fix Bayonets

Wake me with gunfire...

There is some on this board that have a problem with our troops refusing to wear the blue helmets.

Just remember when the blue helmets come, us troops may be among them, what are you going to do then?

Damn! and I was hopping to live a long peacefull life. I guess I'll teach my kids how to build something out of the rubble

Quoted: There is some on this board that have a problem with our troops refusing to wear the blue helmets. Just remember when the blue helmets come, us troops may be among them, what are you going to do then?

Could someone post a link to the "I just don't want to die alone" essay in response to this?

Quoted: There is some on this board that have a problem with our troops refusing to wear the blue helmets. Just remember when the blue helmets come, us troops may be among them, what are you going to do then? hock.gif

If you are an American soldier, your oath was (unless they've changed it) to defend the U.S. Constitution.  Not defend the U.N.  Not defend the country against militiamen.  Not defend a damn thing but that constitution.

Even if 60 percent of the people wanted to disarm themselves, it is an illegal order to confiscate the arms of the rest.  This is a Republic (not a Democracy, nor a Monarchy, nor Communism).

Quoted: Fuck the fucking fuckers. If I see a blue helmet clad person coming to get my guns I wont give it to them.

They won't be sending UN soldiers in blue helmets, the local,state & federal govt will be sending our brothers & sisters to do their bidding!

Just another JFK stunt continuing to unfold.

If you can find a copy of "Freedom From War" US State Department document # 7277, it makes for interesting reading...

"In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force ..."

"The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order."


Kennedy was a socialist through & through.  He started this ball rolling in 1961, and it may take a while longer to wind up at our doorstep.   I doubt I will live long enough to see it happen, but I never thought I would see a lot of other crap happen either!


Lem

Quoted: Quoted: There is some on this board that have a problem with our troops refusing to wear the blue helmets. Just remember when the blue helmets come, us troops may be among them, what are you going to do then? If you are an American soldier, your oath was (unless they've changed it) to defend the U.S. Constitution.  Not defend the U.N.  Not defend the country against militiamen.  Not defend a damn thing but that constitution. Even if 60 percent of the people wanted to disarm themselves, it is illegal to confiscate the arms of the rest.  This is a Republic (not a Democracy, nor a Monarchy, nor Communism).

Have a member do a search for the thread that was talking about Michael New, a soldier that refused to wear the blue helmet, and read how some blasted the idea of not wearing the helmet when given an order to do so.....

Could someone post a link to the "I just don't want to die alone" essay? I can't find it, and it fits this topic rather well...

Quoted: Again? I'd like to see the UN attempt overtaking our sovereignty. Really, I would. But if it does happen... Looks like it's hunting season boys, no bag limit .

+1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is some on this board that have a problem with our troops refusing to wear the blue helmets. Just remember when the blue helmets come, us troops may be among them, what are you going to do then? hock.gif If you are an American soldier, your oath was (unless they've changed it) to defend the U.S. Constitution.  Not defend the U.N.  Not defend the country against militiamen.  Not defend a damn thing but that constitution. Even if 60 percent of the people wanted to disarm themselves, it is illegal to confiscate the arms of the rest.  This is a Republic (not a Democracy, nor a Monarchy, nor Communism). Have a member do a search for the thread that was talking about Michael New, a soldier that refused to wear the blue helmet, and read how some blasted the idea of not wearing the helmet when given an order to do so.....

Unfuckingbelievable!

Here's my open letter to the UN:

Dear UN,

I hear that ya'll want to come over to America and take our guns. If you do, please come to Texas first. I figure its going to be Texans who finish the fight anyway, and I'd rather not have to drive to New York to do it. I hate long drives.

Sincerely,

happycynic

Somehow, this seems as eloquent as TheMcAllen's post.

Could someone post a link to the "I just don't want to die alone" essay? I can't find it, and it fits this topic rather well...

userweb.suscom.net/~paulbritton/Die%20Alone.htm

That'll do it for you?  

Quoted: Is there any evil for which the NRA is not responsible in their fevered minds? I suppose next we'll hear about how the NRA boils babies and causes AIDS.

The NRA doesn't have AIDs, but they give it to people anyay.....

That's just how bad they are!!

userweb.suscom.net/~paulbritton/Die%20Alone.htm

From www.freekentucky.com

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 155, January 7, 2002
THE BRIGHT AND THE BLEAK

------


I Just Don't Want to Die Alone
by Joel Simon
[email protected]

Exclusive to TLE

"Why do you do that? What would you USE it for?"

My fellow cubicle-dweller is an interesting fellow. Former Special Forces grunt, son of a semi-famous actor. He burned out after being seriously injured in the army, and bummed around Asia doing god-knows-what before coming back to America. Then he bootstrapped his way to a fairly good tech writing job at the Silicon Valley branch of a Japanese robotics company. I feel a certain kinship with him. We've both made some serious mistakes for which we're paying some very serious prices. He's single; I'm divorced. He's cynical as hell and so am I. Neither of us has many friends outside work. I like him.

And that's why I told him how I spend most of my weekends. And that's why, when he asked his question, I gave an honest answer. An answer he found disturbing and offensive. I should have just shut up, or lied.

I shoot. A lot. I have, off and on, for decades. When I'm not shooting, or working, I'm cleaning up from shooting or getting ready to shoot. When I'm not practicing with my M1A, I practice with a .45. Sometimes just for variety I practice with a knife. What little money I have left after taxes, bills and child support, I spend on food and books and reloading stuff and surplus rifle ammo. Rarely in that order.

It's not for enjoyment. I tell people (and myself) that I enjoy it all to pieces, but the truth is I don't actually enjoy it that much. I'm hardly Jeff Cooper, but I'm at least good enough with a handgun to give a street mugger reason to regret his career choice. I don't hunt. I'm not planning a life of crime. So why spend so much time on it?

That's the question my friend asked me. It's the question I used to lay awake asking myself night after night, already knowing the answer. Along with, "am I crazy?"

My daughter flew up from LA to visit for a week during the holiday break, and inadvertently reinforced my reason for shooting so much. It was the first time I'd been to an airport since the Sept. 11 hijackings. I'd heard how much worse they'd gotten, but I still wasn't ready for what I found there:


After buying an e-ticket online, I was required to present proof of my identity at least three days before the flight or my daughter would not be allowed to board.

I was forbidden to enter the short-term parking lot until I consented to have my car searched. I didn't ask whether a cased rifle in the trunk (legal even in California) would cause the searcher to lose sphincter control. I just drove away unsearched and came back later.

While standing in the first of several lines in the airport, I noticed:

An Immense Machine scanning luggage for contraband, taking up space once used to welcome passengers. I thought the large American flag that covered it was a nice ironic touch.

A colorful illustrated sign listing the sorts of things you could be arrested for "smuggling" onto an airplane, such as plastic cutlery, corkscrews, and nail files.

A prominent notice that it was a federal offense not to inform the airline of firearms in checked baggage, which would of course be discovered by the Immense Machine. It's not, oddly enough, an offense to HAVE a firearm in checked baggage. But to be legal, the baggage must receive a sticker that says, in effect, "steal this bag."

When I arrived to meet my daughter's plane, I was refused permission to go to the gate. No amount of explaining, arguing, or pleading would produce an exception to this rule. This "protective" rule required my barely-teenage daughter to wander alone through a busy airport concourse until she happened to arrive at the closest location I could approach without being shot by national guardsmen.

When my daughter and I went to the security checkpoint for her return flight (you're allowed to escort a child to the gate, but not to pick one up there), an unpleasant woman with a heavy accent demanded that we remove our jackets, belts, and wallets and send them through the X-ray machine. Some passengers were required to remove their shoes.

Venerable elderly ladies were pulled aside for (random, I think) wand searches. One particular lady - blond, young, heart-breakingly well-built - received particular attention. She was apparently considered too dangerous for a mere wand search and needed to be patted down.

After I beeplessly passed through the metal detector, another woman refused to allow me to pass until I removed my hat. She ran her hand through the inside, very thoroughly. It's a rather old hat; I have a rather greasy head. I do hope she enjoyed it.

I looked around and noticed the postures of the national guardsmen who surrounded the checkpoint. You know: The ones posted at the airports to protect us from terrorists? They faced inward. Their M-16's, slung at the ready, were pointed at my daughter and me.
What particularly disturbed me about all this was how cheerfully my fellow herd members received it. We seemed to have fallen into a movie about occupied France, and it didn't bother anyone. I wanted to shake people by the shoulders. Either I was crazy, or everyone else in the airport was.

Later that afternoon I went to the range and burned through over 100 rounds of .308. Just gotta get those groups smaller from the prone position.

All of which leads me back to my friend's question, and to the bleak and offensive way I replied to it:

"I only expect to use it once," I told him.

"I fancy myself an honest man. I've never intentionally harmed an innocent soul, and I've never stolen so much as a slice of bread even when I was broke and hungry. I obey every law I can bring myself to, sometimes at the cost of self-contempt. But there are some things I CAN NOT do, and someday those things will be demanded of me. Then I'll be branded a dangerous criminal. And someone will come for me, and I'll resist. Then the shooting will start, and I'll likely be killed. I just don't want to die alone."

"Are you telling me," my friend asked, "That you'd shoot some poor pimple-faced grunt just because he was ordered to be the first one through your door?" I recalled that my friend had earlier said that he was assigned to "counter-terrorism" work in the Special Forces, and that his training had more to do with breaking down doors than storming bunkers. I looked up and met his eyes.

"I have to take the consequences of my choices," I replied, "And he has to take the consequences of his."

I wish I could believe that the original intent of our republic can be restored. I really do. Not long ago I re-read El Neil's and Aaron Zelman's book Hope. I leaned back in my chair and tried to retreat into a fantasy of what it would be like to have someone like Alexander Hope as president, providing a way for us to restore our liberty while punishing those guilty of stealing it from us. I just couldn't do it.

No president like that will arise. Americans won't rise up, either, even when it's too late. In the unlikely event we do organize for revolt, we'll lose. Since I can't imagine living in the future America I envision, I expect to die. And when I die, I don't expect to be surrounded by friends. So enemies will have to do. I just don't want to die alone.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, becasue the UN is doing SUCH A GREAT job of protecting unarmed citizens in Africa. Murdered and raped by the basketful. Every single day. But they say "give us your guns" it will make the world safer. As if the bad guys are going to turn them in. Right. I have come to believe the United Nations is a fool's errand. NATO has accomplished far more than they ever will. That is the problem with so many people on this board. Civilian disarmament has nothing, i repeat, nothing to do with public safety. It has to do with paving the way for a one world socialist government. For those who want to call me a conspiracy theorist - one world government has always been, and will always be, the goal of communism/socialism. It has nothing to do with conspiracies. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you concerning socialism or UN goals, just saying that global gun eradication organizations claim it makes people safer, and give this as a reason to do it. Obviously I disagree with this. I think you misunderstood my post. By accomplishing more I meant in terms of peacekeeping, as in Kosovo.

Yea, yea.
Sorry to come off so agitated.
I know that you know, it just bothers me to see them pushing safety.
I would have more respect if they just came out and said "we want to ban all guns" without the preachy bullshit.

Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me that most of the genocides in which guns were used were carried out by governments, not civilians.  If the UN's goal is to stop such genocide, the UN should adopt a resolution stating that only civilians should be allowed to own guns and that governments should disarm.   I dunno, you must be a malcontent, and sent to a re-education camp.  Making sense is not allowed in the new regime, as it is evidence of excessive thought and lack of devotion to the cause.   Remember: War is Peace Ignorance is strength <---motto of the UN and the Democratic Party Freedom is Slavery <---slowly being adopted by the Republicans I will add this comment for myself. I am sick to death of all the worrying about all the efforts by various organizations to disarm non-criminals.  And, making one a criminal so someone can legally be disarmed is a joke, and derives from philosophical novels.  We all know all the reasoning against disarming, and we all preach to the choir daily.  The people who are trying to do this, that is, the ones behind it all, aren't stupid either- though, perhaps their dupes (Hollyweirds) are.  The string pullers have their own agenda, one which cannot be satisfied until WE the PEOPLE no longer have a say.  The best example of that is every time someone quotes the Constitution, that person is labelled a fringe-loony.  The Constitution is a choking point against the totalitarians. There are many in our own country who think they would obtain some advantage by the ability to assume virtual dictatorial power, with no opposition possible.  If the peasants are ground underfoot, who is to stop them?  The existing forces such as army and police will be used by the new regime and follow orders.  One need only look at history to see that other, possibly less fractious and more loyal people have turned under the right circumstances.  Some of the Hollywood and other types in this country probably think that they will be an "elite" who also is able to take advantage of peasants.  There have been cases of vehemently anti-gun people themselves having guns.  Is it silly hypocrisy or something else?  How about the columnist Carl(?) Rowe, later Mayor of Cleveland.  Anti gun, but chased kids with an illegal revolver.  Or a couple of "actors" who, when the police arrived at their home (their name escapes me, but it doesn't alter the effect) and asked them why they were holding guns, especially when they were known antis.  Their response (to the comment about their position on gun laws) was "Those aren't for us. It all reminds me of the collaborators during and after WWII in Europe.  In France (to their credit) the collaborators got what they asaked for.  In Central and Eastern Europe, the Soviets used collaborators and gave them benefits and position, reinforcing their conclusion that their treason was for their benefit.  After they no longer were useful, they went to a gulag or were killed outright by their "friends."  But, the modern versions of these do not recall history.  Or, perhaps in the character of the arrogant, it doesn't apply to them.   It is beyond clear that these collaborators here and in the UN are pushing an agenda, one which they think will benefit them, either by position of power in the "new order" or simply by greater wealth - even in an everybody equal society or planet, some will be more equal than others. I refuse to be ground underfoot, especially if it came to deliberate theft from me or my family, which I suspect is the real intent of all UN behind the scenes planning for all in the US.  And, I truly will not countenance some creep placing him/herself in a position by treason, and acting as administrator for the worldwide grabbers.  Therefore I openly and freely violate the Code of Conduct.  I advocate: the disobediance of any phony law made under false pretenses, with lies; and I further advocate the hunting down and killing of any people involved with such a takeover, hand over of power or sovereignty to the UN or any similar organization which is just the same thing under a different name to fool the naive.  Yes it unfortunately has to wait until it happens: we don't want to justify the position of some creep politician by making him or her a martyr.  But, remember those who have laid the groundwork, and don't worship them.  Further, any "public servants" who follow such, deserve the same fate.  "Following orders" didn't work in Nuremberg, it won't work now.  No, it's not "different"  (ANd, maybe those who criticize my position and aren't so far gone that they are still capable of thought, must now realize how the Germans felt and why they didn't do anything: yes they were wrong, and, they'll tell you that, themselves). Why am I saying all these horrible things?  It's all been done before.  While some conquer by overwhelming force, I can in some odd sense respect that: doesn't make it right but it was a fight.  I cannot stomach a "handing over."  The main reason I say all this is that I know thaere are many others out there who feel strongly.  We wouldn't even think of knocking over a little old lady for her Social Security chek or at an ATM, nor do we rape, or rob convenience stores.  But, we don't want our country handed over to be milked.  Forget the moral issues of "poverty", there's lots to be said about that on all sides.  But we know what happens to the impoverished, they're still poor.  The money is soaked up by bureaucrats: the president of some African country can have a bunch more Rolls-Royces; an Asian dictator/sultan has more concubines; an "American" businessman has more money which amazingly won't be touched by the "authorities"; and another pseudo-American will have the admiration which he craves (he gave things away before, but it didn't achieve what he had hoped; and, he didn't learn).  The Europeans will be the bureaucratic/administrative elite.  So, my purpose is that those of you who feel this way know there are others.  Fight it legally as long as possible, as out UN Ambassador is doing.  But, if other things happen and our country is given away, I, for one, will be "hunting"  (in parenthesis because I don't hurt animals:  no, not starting another issue, because I don't tell other people what to do).  ANd, to others who are fed up, you are not alone. Ban me if you like.

"The fastest way to enslave a population, is to disarm them."      Thomas Jefferson, 1782

I purchased my weapons to defend myself, my family, my property, and my country. I will die doing all four of these, before I let any person/party/country/organization take my weapons, and/or suspend my consitution.

Quoted: Quoted: There is some on this board that have a problem with our troops refusing to wear the blue helmets. Just remember when the blue helmets come, us troops may be among them, what are you going to do then? Could someone post a link to the "I just don't want to die alone" essay in response to this?

I just don't want to die alone...

As you wish.

Tag for later

Quoted: There is some on this board that have a problem with our troops refusing to wear the blue helmets. Just remember when the blue helmets come, us troops may be among them, what are you going to do then? hock.gif

If U.S. troops are among them, then they are violating the OATH they took to defend THE CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES.....deal with them accordingly....but I hardly think our military brothers and sisters would open fire on fellow Americans.......as least I hope not.

Quoted: Quoted: There is some on this board that have a problem with our troops refusing to wear the blue helmets. Just remember when the blue helmets come, us troops may be among them, what are you going to do then? hock.gif If U.S. troops are among them, then they are violating the OATH they took to defend THE CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES.....deal with them accordingly....but I hardly think our military brothers and sisters would open fire on fellow Americans.......as least I hope not.

They already have.  Its happened in the past...(Bonus Army).  But I do expect that, in the event of a major disarmament (assault on civil rights), some will defect, just like some Soviets defected in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956  

I commission in May as a 2LT MP in the National Guard.  I'll be damned if I'll obey an order contrary to the Constitution.  I'll educate my soldiers as to such and remind them of the oath they took to defend the Constitution.  

I don't know if any other officers will be with me or if they'll court martial me out in a hurry but thats what I'll do

Regarding rjroberts long post

How about the columnist Carl Rowe, later Mayor of Cleveland. Anti gun, but chased kids with an illegal revolver. Or a couple of "actors" who, when the police arrived at their home (their name escapes me, but it doesn't alter the effect) and asked them why they were holding guns, especially when they were known antis. Their response (to the comment about their position on gun laws) was "Those aren't for us.

That was Carl Rowan, a DC area newspaper columnist.  He not only chased, but fired at the kids.  He thought it was OK to have an unregistered pistol in DC because his son, an FBI agent, gave it to him.  In his mind that exempted him from the law which he so vehemently supported for other people.

www.tincher.to/rowan.htm

The actors were Jane Fonda and her then husband, peace activist and Kali Assemblyman Tom Hayden.  They commented gun control laws were for other people, not them.

I need to send this to DSArms. If they don't get crackin', they're going to get stuck with the FAL I ordered.

UN can get a spoon and eat my ass, tell them to take somalias civilian guns first.