Global Gun Control
 

So this nonsense resurfaced again?

Without having seen even a draft of the treaty, this guy claims a UN treaty to control the ILLEGAL transfer of small arms:

Talk about jumping the gun. :eek:

Not to mention the fact that treaties cannot supersede the Constitution.

Bwahaha. How the hell would they ever regulate that?

Only if the Obama Administration agrees to participate!!! :)

Oh for Christ's sake Merc, you know better than that. You really don't expect any rational person to believe this bullshit fear mongering, do you? If anyone buys this crap, you're just preaching to the choir.

I know you hate the guy for threatening to shake up your golden goose, but this is so far afield it's ludicrous. :rolleyes:

They can take my globe when they pry it from ah... um, hmm.

Any treaty or agreements with the UN are bogus and a waste of taxpayer money.

This alone is a cause for concern:

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty seems worthwile to me, as does the treaty on land mines.

Given that the US is probably the greatest source of illegal tracking in small arms, we might want to work with others to see how we can keep these weapons from drug trafficers, terrorist wannabees and from being forced into the hands of child mercenaries in Africa.

So that makes all the bullshit and fear mongering in the column justifiable?

Global Gun Control
 

I don't think anyone should be allowed to own a global gun. One itchy trigger finger and BANG, there goes the whole world.

Wait. Is the world the target or is the world the bullet?

You better back off dude or he'll pop a cap in your asteroid.

hahaha

Sounds like bull shit pandering to the UN to me. :rolleyes:

The UN is an inept and worthless organization that lost it's luster long ago. It does give a platform for the poorer nations of the world to whine and cry about how the richer nations don't give them enough money, I will give them that much.

You dont think the UN treaty banning anti-personnel mines, which btw, the US did not sign, made a difference?
A more standardized way for nations to work together to prevent or respond to illegal trafficking of small arms makes sense to me.

So why should the US not lead the discussion or at least be at the table rather than conspicuous by our absence. It doesn’t commit the US to signing any final document, but it still can make a difference in arms trafficking.

In fact, the likelihood that the US will be part of a UN Small Arms Treaty in 2012 or anytime soon is zero to none. Even if Obama were to sign it, it would still require ratification by a 2/3 vote in the Senate.

And, again, in any case, the US Constitution will always have pre-eminence over any treaty. The US Supreme Court has made that clear in several landmark cases.

The column in Forbes was nothing more than fear-mongering.

The UN had to get a note from home to be able to bomb qkgaddahffee, I can't imagine they'll have much success at prying our guns from our various cold, dead fingers.

Oh man. Landmines.

Did you ever hear of this guy?

source

The museum he started is the #1 place I would like to visit in the world.

The slightly less hyperbolic version of his story.

So, just to clarify for a furriner, is the point of this argument that some people think the UN have an anti-gun agenda as far as the US is concerned? I mean...do the Right think that the rest of the world wants to disarm the American population?

Speaking as a member of The Rest of the World, I can tell you that we really don't care. We don't care if an American suburban household keeps a shotgun under the bed, and we don't care if American dads bond with their sons at the firing range. Many of the countries that make up The Rest of the World have similar orientations to gun ownership. Even those that don't, such as my own, don't care about guns in America.

There is no worldwide/UN conspiracy to rid the ordinary American house and street of handguns. What you do within your shores is entirely your own affair. We may have opinions, but we really don't care.

What a lot of us do care about, however, is the propensity for American guns to end up in The Rest of the World, contributing to all manner of problems and hi-jinks.

Once again: there is no worldwide, or United Nations agenda for disarming American citizens. From their cold, dead hands or otherwise.

Dana if only world could be as reasonable as you. I would like to read this letter to my newly adopted Rod and Gun Club, who voiced concern over this exact issue the other day.

The logistics of passing and enforcing such a law, then compensating people for taking their expensive guns away could only happen in, say, Japan in the 1600s

For the people around the world buying small arms specifically to fuck people up, the overwhelming choice is a Kalashnikov variant, mostly from Asia. Our guns a too expensive for the baddies, except the drug lords.

Since WWII, the big one, we've been trying to teach the world proper manners, not always successfully. Now, like petulant teenagers, they come to New York wearing funny clothes and presume to tell us how to behave. :smack:
We'll tan their butts and send 'em to their rooms.

Watched a recent episode on yousetube about the "top ten rifles" or some such. Very interesting details about what the strengths and weaknesses of various weapons were, Garand M1, Lee-Enfield, M-16 etc. I was sort of disheartend that the AK-47 was #1. I can understand how but it seemed wrong that a cheaply and hastily made stamped steel POS should be #1.

In the comments someone said something to the effect of "If you want to survive a war you grab an AK, if you want to win a war you grab an M16"

None that I know. Just a few loud extremists.

In Britain there is a theme of "Crazy rules the EU is trying to force on us!" headlines.
In the US, swap EU with UN and it is the same theme.

There seems to be an easily activated nerve that gets a response (including the "buy newspaper" response) from people. Damn those meddling foreigners!!!

Ahhh!

Ok. Thanks, that makes sense to me.

:lol: good one.

No, I don't think that is the point. It is a fact that some long standing Demoncratic Congress persons have their sites fixed on restricting gun rights in the US and they look for opportunities to do that via any vehicle of legislation that comes along to do that.

Ahhh. I see. My misunderstanding then. So, what you're saying is that the impetus is coming from within the States, rather than from without?

It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court ruled on this three years ago. The great gun wedge issue is over. The gun lobby won. The NRA has empty nest syndrome. They don't know what to do with themselves since they won. They don't want to lose their donations, so they are trying to boogyman you. And you are falling for it.

Until the court changes, and heads off on a new slant. It was once unthinkable that your property could be taken under eminent domain to build a shopping center. And it maybe in the future, but for now it's the law.

Vigilance and educating the complacent as to what can happen, is the mission of the NRA. Gun advocates turn to the NRA because theres nobody else devoted to that issue, just as the elderly flock to the AARP... even though that's become an insurance company.

ftfy

More baseless deflection from the fact that the Forbes column is nothing more than fear mongering.

What part of the fact that Demoncratic members of Congress want to restrict gun rights in this country do you disagree with?

Been there, done that.

And I still dont know of any Democratic proposed legislation in the last 10 years that even got enough Democratic votes to even get a committee hearing, much less serious consideration.

Hasn't stopped them from trying. And if I have anything to do with it they will continue to fail.

The fear mongering like the Forbes column only preaches to the choir, those predisposed to believe any rumor or innuendo that feeds their paranoia.

Reasonable, objective observers saw it for what it was.

Who is predisposed to rumor or innuendo and paranoia? :lol: