GUN latest on UN Gun Ban

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by TL1000RSquid, Jun 8, 2006.

  1. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    email i got from GOA.. letter towards the bottom you can send to your senators.


    Are Members Of Congress Lying To You About The UN Threat On July 4th?
    -- Take action to firm up the US's resolve against an anti-gun
    global treaty in the works

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
    http://www.gunowners.org


    ACTION: Please urge your two U.S. Senators to cosponsor legislation
    by Sen. David Vitter (S. 1488) to withhold funds from the UN. And
    please send a message to the State Department, encouraging Secretary
    Condoleezza Rice and our ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, to oppose
    the global gun control that is being planned for July 4! Contact
    information and pre-written language can be found at the end of this
    alert.

    Wednesday, June 7, 2006

    The letter to one of our GOA members starts off innocently enough.

    "Dear Friend," it says. "Thank you for taking the time
    to contact
    me... regarding United Nations (UN) firearm regulation and protection
    of Second Amendment rights."

    The senator goes on to say, "As an American citizen, I believe that
    is of the utmost importance to protect our liberties guaranteed in
    the Bill of Rights. Among these is the Second Amendment."

    Sounds like one of our guys, right?

    Actually, this May 11, 2006 letter was penned by none other than one
    of the most anti-gun senators in the Congress -- Sen. Herb Kohl
    (D-WI).

    What especially caught GOA's attention is that Sen. Kohl emphatically
    states that the UN is NOT trying to disarm us.

    "Current UN proposals do not infringe upon these [Second Amendment]
    rights," he says. "The State Department has assured me that 'the
    Convention is intended to address the problem of transnational
    trafficking in firearms, and is not meant to regulate the internal
    firearms trade' of individual nations, including the United States."

    Did Kohl really say that? And did the State Department really say
    that current UN proposals don't infringe upon Second Amendment
    rights? That the UN is only interested in stopping the international
    trafficking of firearms, and is not trying to infringe the rights of
    law-abiding citizens?

    Well, as they say on the farm: that's just horse-pucky.

    The fact is, the United Nations has ALREADY TRIED to impose mandatory
    gun controls for member nations. In 2001, delegates from more than
    140 nations met together to hammer out various firearms restrictions.
    But there were a few countries -- most notably, the United States --
    that resisted all efforts to discuss legally binding measures or
    restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms.

    The hero at that conference was our very own John Bolton, who at that
    time was an undersecretary for arms control at the State Department.
    Bolton, who is now the US ambassador to the UN, said that our country
    would not support any language that conflicted with the
    constitutional right of our citizens to keep and bear arms.

    That was the proverbial monkey wrench in the cog wheel. Without US
    support for mandatory restrictions, the agreement became a
    "voluntary" one.

    But make no mistake about it, the overwhelming majority of member
    nations at the UN hate the idea of civilians owning guns, and they
    want to bring an end to such freedoms. They despise our Second
    Amendment to the US Constitution.

    The leading organization that is pushing for global gun control is
    IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms). They are the
    umbrella lobby group for all the anti-gun groups at the United
    Nations.

    IANSA is helping coordinate an international convention this July 4
    to discuss, among other things, "the importance of regulating guns
    owned by civilians." This is the latest series of conferences where
    nations are putting together a global gun control treaty.

    But Sen. Kohl is either lying or is ignorant to what the UN has been
    up to. All he needs to do is check the IANSA website to see what the
    global gun grabbers are saying about the upcoming global meeting on
    small arms. Kohl tells his constituent that the UN "will not
    infringe upon the rights of U.S. citizens to bear 'firearms such as
    hunting rifles and pistols.'"

    But that is exactly what a majority of the UN delegates want. In its
    2006 report, Bringing the Global Gun Crisis Under Control, IANSA
    defines small arms as "weapons that can be carried and used by an
    individual, for example, revolvers, pistols, rifles, shotguns,
    sub-machine guns and assault rifles." So, it sure sounds like
    they're talking about regulating the kinds of guns that average
    citizens own.

    IANSA laments that "there are no international guidelines to assist
    states in regulating gun ownership among their own citizens." So
    what kinds of guidelines (that is, gun restrictions) would IANSA like
    to see imposed in countries around the world? Consider just a
    sampling:

    * Registration of all firearms
    * A national system of licensing
    * Prohibition on the private ownership of military-style rifles,
    including semi-automatic variants
    * Mandatory, lock-up-your-safety storage requirements

    Thankfully, there is something that we can do about this.

    Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has introduced the Second Amendment
    Protection Act (S. 1488), which will "withhold funding from the
    United Nations if the United Nations abridges the rights provided by
    the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

    If the UN wants to meddle with America's internal affairs and attempt
    to undermine our freedoms and our U.S. Constitution, then the
    American taxpayer will stop paying a huge portion (22%) of the entire
    UN budget, something we can ill afford and which serves no great
    purpose at any time.

    If the UN tries to mess with us, they will pay a price for it.

    CONTACT INFORMATION:

    1. Please urge your two U.S. Senators to cosponsor the Vitter
    legislation (S. 1488) to withhold funds from the UN. To contact your
    senators, you can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send them the first
    pre-written message below.

    2. Please send a message to the State Department, encouraging
    Secretary Condoleezza Rice and our ambassador to the UN, John Bolton,
    to oppose these global gun controls. While there is no direct email
    that is available, you can contact them via phone or fax (Talking
    Points are provided below to assist you):

    Phone: 202-647-9572
    Fax: 202-647-2283

    ----- Pre-written letter to your Senators -----

    Dear Senator:

    I find it extremely irritating that the United Nations is holding
    another gun control conference from June 27 - July 7. While we are
    celebrating one of our most sacred national holidays on July 4, gun
    grabbers will be meeting on U.S. soil to discuss plans for our
    disarmament.

    One can find out what these international gun grabbers have planned
    by going to the IANSA website. As the umbrella lobby group for all
    the anti-gun groups at the United Nations, they have posted their
    agenda for all to see. They have, by no means, kept their plans
    secret.

    The United Nations has ALREADY TRIED to impose mandatory gun controls
    for member nations. In 2001, delegates from more than 140 nations
    met together to hammer out various firearms restrictions. But at
    that time, it was our very own John Bolton, who said that our country
    would not support any language that conflicted with the
    constitutional right of our citizens to keep and bear arms.

    Primarily because of Bolton's efforts, the 2001 meeting ended without
    any binding measures or restrictions on civilian ownership of
    firearms.

    But the UN is at it again. And that's why it's essential that you
    support S. 1488, the Second Amendment Protection Act. This bill --
    introduced by Sen. David Vitter -- will "withhold funding from the
    United Nations if the United Nations abridges the rights provided by
    the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

    If the UN wants to meddle with America's internal affairs and attempt
    to undermine our freedoms and our U.S. Constitution, they should pay
    a price for it.

    I would appreciate hearing whether you plan to cosponsor this bill.
    Thank you.

    Sincerely,


    -- Talking Points for State Dept. Sec. Rice and Ambassador Bolton --

    I find it extremely irritating that the United Nations is holding
    another gun control conference from June 27 - July 7. While we are
    celebrating one of our most sacred national holidays on July 4, gun
    grabbers will be meeting on U.S. soil to discuss plans for our
    disarmament.

    You both have been strong defenders of gun rights in the past. So I
    hope that you will do everything within your power to make sure that
    this great nation does not spend a single tax dollar in helping these
    global gun tyrants to enact a treaty putting international pressure
    upon the United States.

    Senator Herb Kohl is claiming that your State Department has assured
    him that the intentions of current UN proposals are intended to
    "address the problem of transnational trafficking in firearms, and is
    not meant to regulate the internal firearms trade" of individual
    nations, including the United States.

    This is just plain wrong. The United Nations has ALREADY TRIED to
    impose mandatory gun controls for member nations -- such as in 2001,
    when delegates from more than 140 nations met together to hammer out
    various firearms restrictions. Thankfully, that meeting ended
    without any binding measures or restrictions on civilian ownership of
    firearms.

    But the UN is at it again. IANSA, the umbrella lobby group for all
    the anti-gun groups at the United Nations, has not kept their plans
    for our country a secret. They have their agenda posted on their
    website, and it is available for all to see.

    Again, I hope you will stand against these plans. And please know
    that Americans all over this country are standing behind you and want
    you to stand firm against this onslaught against our rights.

    Thank you.


    ****************************

    Defend The 2nd Amendment Through Creative Giving...

    As we confront the challenges of the future, we know that the
    generosity of those who assist us will make all the difference in our
    success. That's why GOA seeks your long-term support.

    Please call 703-321-8585 during regular business hours or e-mail
    [email protected] to request information on how to keep control
    of your assets and make a gift at the same time through:

    * a bequest
    * a retirement plan
    * a will, living trust, or insurance policy

    Requests for information are confidential and do not represent an
    obligation.


    ****************************
     
  2. black96gtvert

    black96gtvert "Is that goal regulation size or what!" -Happy Gil

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    louisville
    Cliffs. post is too flippin long
     
  3. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    * Registration of all firearms
    * A national system of licensing
    * Prohibition on the private ownership of military-style rifles,
    including semi-automatic variants
    * Mandatory, lock-up-your-safety storage requirements
     
  4. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    o_O


    well, I think there was a thread awhile back about this kind of shit, and we all agreed that it would be a blood bath if the UN tried to pull this shit in the US.
     
  5. Aequitas

    Aequitas If it keeps on raining, levee's going to break.

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    We did, but it'd still be better if there was no blood. Might as well let those faggots know not to try the shit anymore. It'll be bad ass if the bill gets a good amount of support.
     
  6. 01_Cruiser

    01_Cruiser An American Classic OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    45,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NC
    Lets say that it does pass. Who the fuck is going to enforce it? The UN cant get shit done by themselves.
     
  7. Gaunt

    Gaunt blood for the blood god OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,588
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Seattle
    fuck yeah,thats excatly what i was thinking. the UN could never enforce that in the US.
     
  8. striker754

    striker754 Chillin

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    16,198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Around
    Time for USA to pull out of UN
     
  9. SnakeEater

    SnakeEater OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Burma
    fukk the UN.we need to kick those bitches right to the curb
     
  10. PorscheRacer

    PorscheRacer You see this? It means not welcome

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    16,888
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Are you ready to kill a cop that knocks on your door to take your guns? I think most people would just give up their guns
     
  11. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    well, we will never know unless that situation comes to pass, now will we?
     
  12. cabriolet

    cabriolet ...

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I lost mine in a boating accident....in the middle of a desert...ain't that a son of a bitch?
     
  13. Sssnake

    Sssnake meh

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    3,469
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Biggest Little City in the World
    Again, don't forget that each year the Democrats keep bringing up the Revised Assault Weapons Ban for vote and each year it gets voted down but not by party lines. Some Republicans vote for it too. It is written in a way to make all but single shot shotguns illegal. So I can see the fear that if Democrats get power back they could very well go for another ban, only a much more inclusive one the next time around.
     
  14. Aequitas

    Aequitas If it keeps on raining, levee's going to break.

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    If the cops or whoever it is refuse to go away then I'm willing to fight. If the person doesn't go away then they better be willing to die to take my guns because I'm willing to do whatever it takes to keep them. I'd rather be dead than defenseless. Anyone trying to take away my ability to defend myself or my loved ones is an enemy to me, my family, and my friends. I might sound like some kind of nut, but I believe it's a right worth fighting for. If I'm not willing to fight to keep it, what right do I have to it? I also hope it never comes to this and believe that with the proper leadership and organization any kind of comprehensive gun ban can be shot down. (pardon the pun)

    As of now I don't have anyone that is my responsibility, no wife or kids. In a few years when I'm married and have kids my response will probably be different, but for now it will stay as is.
     

Share This Page