the UN-american strikes again

[Hoppy]

Greetings.

In a major departure from my normal posts, id actualy like to talk to you guys about something i feel is extremely serious to both sides of an arguement. that being the gun arguement. for years many nations around the globe have banned guns with arguable results. with enough statistic manipulation on both sides it may never be known what actualy came out of any bans. the exception being proof from the present and the past. banning something does not eliminate its use by those who chose to break the law. this has been seen with Alcohol during the prohibition, and drugs in the modern war on drugs. making thses things illegal only hurts those who follow the law. and the people who follow the law, are not criminals, they are literaly the opposite.
This brings me to the point of this post. Some in the pro-2nd ammendment camps believe the UN is conspiring to try to pass an international treaty banning ownership of arms by civilians. and they plan on doing it on our, as americans, most hallowed of holidays, the Fourth of July. This extends beyond the age old american debates over arms and extends into the subjugation of the american people to foriegn powers, many of dubious origin and intentions.
The UN does not deny holding a confrense regarding banning small arms, but claims that this treaty is directed at the trade of illegal arms to trouble areas like war torn Africa. The UN also denys any July 4th conspiracy. Though i dont believe 100 percent of either side i do believe something is askew. Since the NRA ( national rifle association, the largest lobby in the united states, if not the world) is a very proffesional operation and has also put a great deal of resources into allerting the public, and fighting any ban leads me to believe theyre may be a shred of truth to the whole thing.

This is not a Pro gun VS anti gun post. there is no debate to be had, no partisan politics to be played. only a warning of a possible risk to American sovereignty that i felt you should be made aware of. Please visit the links below for several "reputable" sources


www.stopungunban.org ( NRA)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13468122 (msnbc, have copy of article if internet source goes down)

its tought to say what i think. i dont think the UN is dumb enough to try. nor do i think our gov. would allow it. how ever i dont think the NRA would make such a bold claim if there wasnt something more to it. and we all know how politicians, lie, cheat, steal and regularly attach a bill to another to get it passed... just thought you might like to know.

always remember what george washignton said. "steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

[witeshark]

The idea is ludicrous. No way it can ever be enforced

[xsperf]

well said hoppy, ill have to admit i ddint read all of it, kinda in a hurry, but thers a few things

ITS IN THE CONSITUTION.. you cant just change the constitution or ignore it, whats next, ignore freedom of speech?

the second thing is(and i believe hoppy already said this) whether or not guns are banned, criminals will get them through the black market, either way, so if someone marches into my house, and he has a gun, i would prefer to have a gun than to be unarmed and helpless

[CAPiTUL]

You know, the US has already said Fuck You to the UN once, recently (please reference the War in Iraq). We supply the UN with 20% of its operational budget (Japan with 17%). We also hold permanent membership on the Security Council (1 of 5). There is no way the US will succomb to this ban in the way you are thinking. Factually, the UN needs US support. If it doesn't have it, it is worthless (much like the League of Nations became after the US failed to support that). That is extreme, however.

Quite honestly, it will probably be something to the tune of the nonproliferation treaty, which prohibits nuclear weapons development in those countries that are party to the treaty and had not yet developed them. The US, for example, may still develop and enhance its existing nuclear stock. Ghana, on the other hand, may not develop a nuclear arsenal (provided they signed the treaty, which most countries did). At the end of the day, I don't think the US is going to terribly suffer from such a push within the UN.

[Hoppy]

no i doubt its as bad as the pro gun people claim/think. but it concerns me in the idea that it became a big deal. kinda the idea that behind ever rumor is a shred of truth. and just the thought that some other nation could try to impose its will on us ( shut up, i know we do it.) gets me on nerve

[CAPiTUL]

well, for what it is worth, whenever a nation joins a collective body it is losing a piece of its sovereignty. Anytime it is party to any major IO, WTO, WHO, UN, NATO, etc. it is giving up sovereignty because those countries then have influence, as a collective, over the practices happening within other countries.

[celsdogg]

the UN isnt even a governing body. in order for this to work all the countires would have to agree to it and enforce it themselves. is the US gonna do it? i think not.

[german speed demon]

In my honest opinion, a gun ban of any sort in America would result not in the actual banning of said weapons, but the explosion of the black market arms trade, not with foreign countries, but within our very borders.

Interesting. Thanks for the heads up man, first i've heard of it.
Dave

[Storamin]

as one of our... showings to the un, we always give our check to them the very last day possible. we always give them the money, but we wait until the very last day. why? because we're showing how much we think of their actions.

[exjarhead328]

Hoppy, I read up until I got to the NRA reference. I'd be more inclined to believe something Dick Cheney said before the NRA. Is the face of that org still that cabbage? (dunno if Heston is still alive)

[jms]

I believe in the right to bear arms, I also believe in the right of national sovereignty. I also firmly believe that the first idea defends the second. whether or not you believe the NRA is irrelevant. Any attempt to subvert our rights whether by a foreign body or our own government should be met with fierce resistance. That is precisely the reason for the first 10 amendments, to unequivocably define and protect our rights.

Granted there is virtually no way this would ever have an impact on our lives. Even if they somehow managed to put together a treaty or ban, We as Americans would have to support it and we would have to support it in sufficient numbers to repeal the second amendment.

[celsdogg]

^^^