What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Worldwide Gun Control Movement

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
By Congressman Ron Paul, 6/26/2006

The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms -- the right to bear arms.

The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.

Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.

Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.

So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad.

For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!

It’s no surprise that UN officials dislike what they view as our gun culture. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York. The statue depicts a pistol with the barrel tied into a knot, a not-too-subtle message aimed squarely at the U.S.

They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?

The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

Congressman Ron Paul is a Republican representing the state of Texas.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?63162166-d266-464a-940e-6c4386e16686
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
If the UN wants to meddle in some Nation's internal affairs, I suggest it starts in the Sudan. Or finishes what it started in what used to be Yugoslavia. Or the Middle East.

Better yet, we need to kick the UN out of the US. It's a useless organization that panders to the New World Order/extreme left wing and their fantasy ideals.
 

Fisherking

Rookie
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
20
Reaction score
3
Points
1
Location
Houston Tx
GunnyL said:
If the UN wants to meddle in some Nation's internal affairs, I suggest it starts in the Sudan. Or finishes what it started in what used to be Yugoslavia. Or the Middle East.

Better yet, we need to kick the UN out of the US. It's a useless organization that panders to the New World Order/extreme left wing and their fantasy ideals.
I agree GL, If the US remains loyal to the UN, the UN will continue to push America toward Globalization, a one world government.
All the more reason to hang on to them Guns.:2guns:
 

Otter_Creek

worst president ever
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
772
Reaction score
144
Points
78
Location
The Former USA

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Fisherking said:
I agree GL, If the US remains loyal to the UN, the UN will continue to push America toward Globalization, a one world government.
All the more reason to hang on to them Guns.:2guns:

This is one o fthose issue where I am not negotiating. I will not be disarmed, I don't care WHAT the UN or Handgun Control, Inc, or any other lefty, fantasy-world do-gooder wants.

It may be a worn-out saying, but it still works for me:

If you want 'em, come get 'em.
 

Fisherking

Rookie
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
20
Reaction score
3
Points
1
Location
Houston Tx
GunnyL said:
This is one o fthose issue where I am not negotiating. I will not be disarmed, I don't care WHAT the UN or Handgun Control, Inc, or any other lefty, fantasy-world do-gooder wants.

It may be a worn-out saying, but it still works for me:

If you want 'em, come get 'em.
I agree, like Charleton Heston once said, "From My Cold Dead Hands"
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
GunnyL said:
If the UN wants to meddle in some Nation's internal affairs, I suggest it starts in the Sudan. Or finishes what it started in what used to be Yugoslavia. Or the Middle East.

Better yet, we need to kick the UN out of the US. It's a useless organization that panders to the New World Order/extreme left wing and their fantasy ideals.

You really think the right has nothing to do with the new world order?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
rtwngAvngr said:
You really think the right has nothing to do with the new world order?

I believe that within this Nation, the left is the side that pushes gun control, based on the fantasy that outlawing guns would get criminals to quit using them.

I thought Hulk Hogan ran the NWO?:)
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
The UN has (a) no jurisdiction and (b) no business in telling member countries anything about gun control.

If I lived in the US I would be totally and implacably opposed to gun control. I have fond memories as a tourist of being in Tonopah, Nevada and chatting with a supermarket owner about the various firearms she he had for sale in the shop. There were some beauties.
 

007

Charter Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
47,676
Reaction score
19,276
Points
2,290
Location
Podunk, WI
Diuretic said:
The UN has (a) no jurisdiction and (b) no business in telling member countries anything about gun control.

If I lived in the US I would be totally and implacably opposed to gun control. I have fond memories as a tourist of being in Tonopah, Nevada and chatting with a supermarket owner about the various firearms she he had for sale in the shop. There were some beauties.

You bet yer ass. We value our guns here in Nevada. Take a look at this band playing up in Virginia City, Nevada on the forth. They're all wearing guns, and after David John did the band intro's, he kicked off the concert with several shots fired in the air with his Colt SAA, followed by every other gun carrying person there, including myself. That was repeated several different times during the concert. Blanks of course, but the right to own was mentioned, and stressed how we fight to keep that in Nevada.

 

shepherdboy

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
234
Reaction score
34
Points
16
Location
The occupied zone(CA.)
One of my many reasons to leave California is of its stupid gun control laws. Back in the late 80's they came to a conclusion that assault weapons were the WMD of the State. One idiot shoots some people and then all our freedoms are taken away from us in a heartbeat. For me it was my AR-15. You should see the silly California AR-15 version that they replaced it with. What a joke! Its that same old stupid argument that civilians should not need so called "Assault Weapons." Well I prefer the to call them high performance weapons. Its funny how the State allows cars such as 500 horse power Viper and Z06 Corvette. Car that can go almost go three times the posted speed limit. Yet they don't ban them. Its the same thing, human control and responsibility. Did we all just forget what freedom truly is?:bang3:

And yes I want a 07 ZO6 for Christmas:D
 

007

Charter Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
47,676
Reaction score
19,276
Points
2,290
Location
Podunk, WI
shepherdboy said:
One of my many reasons to leave California is of its stupid gun control laws. Back in the late 80's they came to a conclusion that assault weapons were the WMD of the State. One idiot shoots some people and then all our freedoms are taken away from us in a heartbeat. For me it was my AR-15. You should see the silly California AR-15 version that they replaced it with. What a joke! Its that same old stupid argument that civilians should not need so called "Assault Weapons." Well I prefer the to call them high performance weapons. Its funny how the State allows cars such as 500 horse power Viper and Z06 Corvette. Car that can go almost go three times the posted speed limit. Yet they don't ban them. Its the same thing, human control and responsibility. Did we all just forget what freedom truly is?:bang3:

And yes I want a 07 ZO6 for Christmas:D

Why in blue blazes did you have an AR-15 on paper?

NEVER buy a gun on paper. DO NOT leave a trail for the government to come to your home and disarm you.
 

Otter_Creek

worst president ever
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
772
Reaction score
144
Points
78
Location
The Former USA
Why citizens must own and carry firearms
By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, July 12, 2006

At 2 a.m. on Sunday, 27-year-old Alan Senitt was murdered. Senitt, an aspiring British politician, Jewish activist and Democratic volunteer, was walking home a female companion in the Georgetown area of Washington, D.C. when he was accosted by Christopher Piper, 25, Jeffrey Rice, 22, and a 15-year-old. Piper, who had a gun, immediately grabbed Senitt's female companion and pulled her away to rape her. Rice, who had stated earlier in the night that he was desperate to "cut" someone, slit Senitt's throat. The three thugs then hopped into a getaway car driven by Olivia Miles, 26, and sped off into the night.

Only hours later, the police arrested the four suspects. Apparently, two of the suspects matched the descriptions of perpetrators of two recent robberies, and the police had already obtained an address for those two suspects. So why did Alan Senitt have to die in order for these animals to be arrested? "I can give you my 100 percent word everything was done within the confines of the law," Lt. Robert Glover of the police department's violent crimes branch told the Washington Post. "We cannot make an arrest without probable cause."

Now the police have their probable cause. Rice was found with Senitt's ID and the woman's cell phone on his person, and his shirt covered in Senitt's blood. The suspects are in custody. And Alan Senitt is dead.

Our Constitution mandates that citizens may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. One of the requirements of due process of law is that arrests not be arbitrary. It is likely true that the D.C. police did everything within the confines of the law to pursue the suspects. What the murder of Alan Senitt demonstrates is that the confines of law cost lives when citizens are unable to protect themselves.

Law enforcement is by its very nature reactive. The police cannot arrest people before they have committed any crimes, a la "Minority Report." Citizens should not expect that the police will be able to prevent all crime -- there must always be an initial crime in order for police to prevent subsequent crimes. Until Ted Bundy murdered his first victim, the police had nothing for which to arrest him; at the very most, law enforcement could only have saved Bundy's later victims. Someone always has to suffer before law enforcement can get involved.

Citizens are left with two choices. They can either rely on the kindness of criminals, or they can protect themselves. The choice is obvious. Yet liberal cities continue to rely on the kindness of criminals.

Washington, D.C. is famous for its insanely restrictive anti-gun laws. It has been illegal since 1976 to have an assembled and loaded firearm, even in your home, in D.C. Carrying a handgun for self-protection is against the law. For some reason, Democrats seem to be unable to explain the dramatic 72 percent rise in the D.C. homicide rate between 1976 and 2001, even as the national homicide rate plummeted 36 percent over the same period. Certainly Christopher Piper had no problem carrying a gun and using it to rape Senitt's female companion. Criminals, it seems, engage in crime. And law-abiding citizens pay the price.

The basis for every right in our Constitution is the right to self-preservation. John Locke, the founders' favorite non-Biblical philosopher, explained that if a government " endeavour to grasp themselves an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty."

When a government seizes citizens' ability to protect themselves, that government becomes a usurper. It is for this reason that the Second Amendment guarantees both the individual right to self-defense and the communal right to fight any deprivation of the right to self-defense.

Would Alan Senitt have bought a gun for self-defense? The question is irrelevant in D.C.; Senitt had no choice in the matter. As it stands in D.C., only criminals have the right to choose. And the police can only respond to 911 calls.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2006/07/12/why_citizens_must_own_and_carry_firearms
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$200.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top