UN wants to control US guns as well...

[senecaripple]

the un is so corrupt, koffi cannot even control his own son. the current administration is pro gun, i am wooried about the next one. if hillary should become our next president, we can start kissing our rights to bear arms sooner than later!

 

[Empath]

270winchester, remove your personal attack against Bravo25. If the thread starts getting personal, it doesn't stand a chance.

Thank you, Sir.

 

[thesurefire]

Politics confuse me. I remember hearing something like 'The right to bear arms' in some history class...

 

[Unicorn]

Even if the NRA isn't doing as much as many believe it should be (and to the antis, and some middle of the roaders, they are doing a lot), you should become a member. It's a matter of simple numbers. How many politicians would vote for a national gun control law if the NRA had 15 million members? Just the sheer numbers that could become a voting block would scare them.

 

[savumaki]

Fellow Gun Enthusiates;

WHATEVER YOU DO stay vigilant to the sneek attacks;

first we start w/small things like additional licencing, the need for more training (not a bad thing in it's own right), control of certain 'types' of fierarms, REGISTRATION, and then CONFISCATION.

Here in Canada we have advanced to the registration phase and the gun community believe that confiscation is next; as it has occured in England and Australia; (it is interesting to see the the b/4 and after violent crime stats in those countries)

This may sound like paranoia but with our political systems it is very convenient for politicians to sieze on a violent incident involving firearms as an example for more gun control, particularily in large urban centers. They beat this drum incessantly and usually win since there is the concenration of non-user voters who are convinced this is a good thing.

Our registration program is a case in point; to date the cost is approaching two BILLION dollars, and NOT one politican can point to a case where this has made any difference in crime; just look at Toronto !!! But it does win votes.

THAT's what doing 'nothing' will get you. STAY ALERT.

yours in sport

Karl

 

[senecaripple]

how did a sport/tool for american pioneers become such a hotbed for politicians?

 

[LifeNRA]

Sorry I do not feel like a long response today, maybe tonight or tomorrow.

For those who come up with excuse after excuse for not joining the NRA let me ask you this. Do you think you can change anything by yelling on the sidelines? Do you think the NRA and the rest of us is better off without your membership?

For those who do not believe in or understand the 2nd let me say this. You have a RIGHT to not defend yourself and your loved ones with deadly force. I have the RIGHT to defend myself and my loved ones with deadly force. I dont come into your home and demand that I know what is best for you. DO NOT come into my home and tell me what is better for me and my family. Why is that so hard to understand? I dont think it is hard to understand at all. In fact I think everyone understands it just fine. I just think that many people want to control others and feel that they know what is best for everyone else. Well I do not want or appreciate your thoughts on my safety or the safety of my loved ones. You may protect or not protect yourselves in any way that you see fit. Please extend the same courtisy to the rest of us. I thank God that I do not live in a Socialist country and some of us are doing our best to make sure it stays that way. Freedom is a wonderful thing and when it is gone it is nearly impossible to get it back. Dont let your hatred, fear, or ignorance lead us out of freedom and into slavery.
Read your history books and you will see that every dictatorship began with disarming the people. And dont think that dictatorships are only run by one corrupt person or family. Governments can become dictatorships just as easy. Dont believe this will ever happen here in the USA? I bet none of those other countries thought it could happen to them either.
The 2nd is not about hunting or sporting. It is about being able to protect your life and liberty.
Choose wisely when you take sides on this debate. You may one day get just what you want and it may not be the Utopia that you dream about.

 

[gadget_lover]

For those who do not believe in or understand the 2nd let me say this. You have a RIGHT to not defend yourself and your loved ones with deadly force. I have the RIGHT to defend myself and my loved ones with deadly force. I dont come into your home and demand that I know what is best for you.

I am posting this as a "devils advocate". It's not what I belive, but may be true for some. I'm just throwing it out for your consideration.

While reading your post, it occured to me that those who choose not to keep guns may be fearful of those who do. Your right to defend yourself (and thus posess firepower) also puts you in a position of superiority if you should decide to force your will on the other half. If you ever decided to, you could "come into your home and demand that I know what is best for you. " After all, you have the firepower to back you up.

It is unfortunate, but zealots, thugs and crazies are also frequently pro 2nd. That very small percentage may well be the reason that the average person either prefers gun control or does not mind it.

Talking for myself, it's the zealots and thugs that concern me. Personally, I don't think partial gun control will change anything.

Daniel

 

[BB]

I will play counter-devil's advocate...

On crazy can kill/rob a handful or so of people with a gun--will generally be arrested and/or killed at the end of rampage.

19 crazies with box cutters can kill 3,000 people--they only could do this once.

A government full of "alternative thinkers" can kill over 30 to 50 million people a piece--they still are in power and through International Conventions are directly and indirectly trying to control my fate.

-Bill

 

[LifeNRA]

If someone is fearful of those who keep guns then the 2nd is for you too. It is your right to arm yourself or not. It is not your right to tell others that they cannot arm themselves.
If guns are outlawed does anyone think that the thugs, zealots, and crazies would follow the law?
Did outlawing illigal drugs keep the criminals from using and selling them?
Does anyone really think that a criminal will stop carrying a gun because a law was passed?

 

[270winchester]

If someone is fearful of those who keep guns then the 2nd is for you too. It is your right to arm yourself or not. It is not your right to tell others that they cannot arm themselves.
If guns are outlawed does anyone think that the thugs, zealots, and crazies would follow the law?
Did outlawing illigal drugs keep the criminals from using and selling them?
Does anyone really think that a criminal will stop carrying a gun because a law was passed?

:thumbsup:

Look, people, the laws only apply to those who follow it, its effectiveness only reaches as far as the law enforcement community is willing to go, unfortunately the majority of the time the police, feds, etc are NOT THERE when s**t hits the fan. Would you rather have people be on the same playing field with these, uh, thugs, or do you want them to be defenseless all together.

Rememeber New Orleans? the police's absence means the people were there to fend themselves. In a perfect world we don't need to use guns for things other than hunting and traget shooting, but our world isn't perfect, and don't have the illusion that the law will always to pretect everyone.

 

[gadget_lover]

I will play counter-devil's advocate...


19 crazies with box cutters can kill 3,000 people--they only could do this once.

-Bill

I'm pretty sure you meant zealots there. They were trying to impose their religeous/political views on the rest of us, remeber?

Beside's, it wasn't the box cutters that did the job. It was the threat that there was a bomb that allowed the terrorists to gain control. There's very little to prevent that from happening again although, as you said, they only do it once each.

The following thoughts came to me while I was showering, thinking of this thread.

Several people have made comments about keeping their government honest by owning guns. Does the average NRA member take this thought all the way through to it's conclusion? If the government wants to silence someone, would they send a few armed men or a squad in full body armor with lots of toys? If a squad or platoon wanted to force you into submission or to kill you, would a house full of guns slow them down much? Would you win?

Because we (the US) have a somewhat honest and somewhat humane government, we see stand-offs where the police sit for hours or days outside a compound or house, trying to talk people into giving up. I don't remember a case where having guns in the compound or house led to victory for the people who were barricaded inside. I can't remember a single instance where the government troops (cops, fbi, etc) went home empty handed. Maybe the indian's siezure of Alcatraz, but that was a rather unique instance.

I can imagine cases where a local sherriff was chased off by gun owning property owners, but I don't consider that "the government".

So how much firepower should an average american keep eround the house to keep the government honest?

Me? I keep a riffle suitable for disuading a casual intruder and for hunting small game in an emergency. Any altercation bigger than that and I'd lose anyway.

Daniel

 

[LifeNRA]

Daniel,

I think you are missing the mark when you hear of people saying that owning guns keeps the Government honest.
Most people are not talking about the Government targeting a single individual and storming their house. We are talking about what would happen if the Government decided that they wanted to turn into a regime where they make sweeping laws such as taking away the right to keep and bear arms in order to keep the power over the people.
I know a lot of Police Officers and I would say that maybe 50% of them would not obey the Governments orders to take away the 2nd. The other 50% would go along gleefully confiscating every firearm they could find, ala New Orleans. Some cops have already forgot that they are citizens like the rest of us and have a very large chip on their shoulders because they think they are above the ordinary citizen of this country. That kind of thinking is not good for anybody.
The military men and women that I know on the other hand, I have never had any suspicions at all about how they would react to such an order. All the ones I know have fought for the freedom of this country and view such an order as unconstitunal and I dont believe they would obey it.
If one does not think that the 2nd helps keep the Government at least a little honest needs to do no more than to study history. And recent history at that. The Chinese troops at Tieniman (SP?) square would not fire on their own people and the Communist government had to call in troops from another region to do the dirty deed. All those people wanted was freedom and what did the Government do? They ordered the troops to fire on them. Do you think that would happen here with so many people owning firearms?
If the Government decided tomorrow to scrap the 2nd and made it illigal to own fireams I would, as sick as I am, be on the front line against it. Call it foolish or stupid or anything else you want. I call it freedom. Our forefathers did not bleed and die so that .gov could take away everything they fought for. They did not fight the British to bow to an even bigger King. They fought so that we could be free. Freedom is nothing but a word on this page without rights. Our rights include the right to keep and bear arms. That right is there to insure the freedom of this country and its peoples. Without the 2nd the USA would fall into nothing more than another Socialist regime where your rights come from the only ones who can own a firearm, the police and government.
As I said before, choose wisely in this debate that is going on in our country. Choosing the wrong side may get you more than you bargained for. I for one do not want to see how far the rabbit hole goes. I can see it in other countries where the citizens are oppressed at the barrel of a gun.
We have been given a great gift in this country and I hope we do not throw it away in search of greener grass on the other side.

 

[gadget_lover]

Daniel,

I think you are missing the mark when you hear of people saying that owning guns keeps the Government honest.
Most people are not talking about the Government targeting a single individual and storming their house. We are talking about what would happen if the Government decided that they wanted to turn into a regime where they make sweeping laws such as taking away the right to keep and bear arms in order to keep the power over the people.

OK, maybe I'm missing something, but don't we already have a government that has an immense amount of power over the people? Doesn't it already have a power stucture such that only two political parties are viable? Aren't the rules made in such a way that it's almost impossible to change them without the consent of the ruling party? Isn't the ruling party already making sweeping laws that don't reflect the desires of the citizens?

Since I've personally paid up to 70% of my income in taxes/fees* in one year, I can assure you that the government can take what it wants when it wants.

Daniel

*In one exceptional year I made a lot, and I paid 38% fed, 12% state, 8.75% sales and 15% self employed tax. That's 73.75% tax on everything in the top bracket... I think the top bracket started arount was $75K that year. Thank god we don't live in a communist state where you are forced to share the wealth.

 

[gadget_lover]

I usually don't think about gun control much. Nor do I spend a lot of time thinking about the constitution and it's origins.

But you got me thinking about the 2nd ammendment and what it meant at the time. This is what occurs to me.

At the time, the musket was the main weapon of the world's armies, and was also the main tool used when hunting. The civilian musket was pretty much the same as the military version. Once a shot was fired, the shooter had to reload and was vulnerable during that time. One citizen was roughly as powerful as one soldier. In close up fighting, 2 unarmed citizens were as powerful as one soldier, since once the gun was fired the second citizen could attack on equal footing.

An armed citizenry meant that the government could not prevail against it's citizens.

Fast forward to modern times.

If a revolt were started, a civilian's 30-30 bolt action would be no match for an armored vehicle manned by a crew with machine-guns. He'd need bombs and rockets and mines to prevail. Unlike a colonial musket, modern man has no need of a rocket launcher in his normal life. He isn't going to go to the expense of buying $10,000 worth of equipment and amunition to allow him to fight a professional army unit. Unlike Iraq, we don't have abandoned ammunition dumps to raid.

I'm not saying the spirit of the 2nd is bad, wrong or incorrect. I just think it's intent does not translate well into an age where Billions are spent on military hardware. Since "arms" translates to howitzers and missles, I wonder if the 2nd would apply there too? That last was humor.

Daniel

 

[Topper]

Hi Dan, I guess it will 20 or so years before I hit that 75k mark (if ever) if and when I do we can gripe together about how much taxes are untill then how about we get back on track. Do I want the UN to control guns is the US? Heck no I do not. I will say I am happy for you that you do so well inspite of the tax you pay, not being a smart *** at all. I make in one day what you seem to pull down in a few minutes good for you. Not sure what that has to do with the UN or the NRA but I guess you knew what you meant.
Topper

 

[jhereg]

I usually don't think about gun control much. Nor do I spend a lot of time thinking about the constitution and it's origins.

But you got me thinking about the 2nd ammendment and what it meant at the time. This is what occurs to me.

At the time, the musket was the main weapon of the world's armies, and was also the main tool used when hunting. The civilian musket was pretty much the same as the military version. Once a shot was fired, the shooter had to reload and was vulnerable during that time. One citizen was roughly as powerful as one soldier. In close up fighting, 2 unarmed citizens were as powerful as one soldier, since once the gun was fired the second citizen could attack on equal footing.

An armed citizenry meant that the government could not prevail against it's citizens.

Fast forward to modern times.

If a revolt were started, a civilian's 30-30 bolt action would be no match for an armored vehicle manned by a crew with machine-guns. He'd need bombs and rockets and mines to prevail. Unlike a colonial musket, modern man has no need of a rocket launcher in his normal life. He isn't going to go to the expense of buying $10,000 worth of equipment and amunition to allow him to fight a professional army unit. Unlike Iraq, we don't have abandoned ammunition dumps to raid.

I'm not saying the spirit of the 2nd is bad, wrong or incorrect. I just think it's intent does not translate well into an age where Billions are spent on military hardware. Since "arms" translates to howitzers and missles, I wonder if the 2nd would apply there too? That last was humor.

Daniel

You don't need $10K in equipment to fight a modern army. You have to be where they don't expect. You hit them when they are not ready & fade into the background. If it ever happened we would have a lot of police/military desert & take their equipment. It would be a guerilla war with snipers, sabotage, poison & bombs. In the end nobody would really win, but hopefully we would have something to rebuild out of the rubble.

I hope it never happens. The 2nd Amendment is a doomsday clause. It serves it's purpose by making the politicians cautious.

 

[LifeNRA]

jhereg,
Very well said.

Daniel,
We are not looking to revolt.
We have not fired the first shot so to speak. Those in Government are the ones who have done that. We are fighting them in the courts and the Government. If the Government ever got enough gun grabbers to vote to take away our right to keep and bear arms then they would have to call on someone to enforce the law. As jhereg as already stated that will not be as easy as they think. I agree that many from law enforcement and the military will leave to defend their homes.
Could you imagine the military rolling a tank down main street Ameirca? Or using all those weapons to destroy city blocks? If that day ever comes then the revolt will happen. And ask Russia how effective guerilla warfare was in Afganastan. Heck ask our own solders in Iraq. The gun grabbers in Washington know that it would be next to impossible to take guns away by force. That is why they are using the courts and bills in Congress to try and do it.
That is also why everyone who believes they have a right to defend themselves and their home should be a member of the NRA. The NRA is fighting for our rights behind enemy lines on ther turf by their rules.

 

[gadget_lover]

Hi Dan, I guess it will 20 or so years before I hit that 75k mark (if ever) if and when I do we can gripe together about how much taxes are untill then how about we get back on track. Do I want the UN to control guns is the US? Heck no I do not. I will say I am happy for you that you do so well inspite of the tax you pay, not being a smart *** at all. I make in one day what you seem to pull down in a few minutes good for you. Not sure what that has to do with the UN or the NRA but I guess you knew what you meant.
Topper

The point was that the government can do what they want now. No need to resort to violence and subterfuge. No need to confiscate guns. No need for UN resolutions or treaties. They make silly lawes and we seem to obey them.

As for the 70% taxes.... I was just surprised when I realized how much the government does get when you finally manage to earn it. The dot com boom made a lot of people rich... On paper.... Before taxes. I haven't seen a year like that since.

Daniel

 

[jhereg]

The point was that the government can do what they want now. No need to resort to violence and subterfuge. No need to confiscate guns. No need for UN resolutions or treaties. They make silly lawes and we seem to obey them.
Daniel

You know that is only true up to a point. The Government can do pretty much anything to you they want, but that is only if they notice you. There is no need to confiscate guns, but certain members feel it is necessary. A lot of people feel that they don't trust a government who doesn't trust us with guns. There is always the question in the back of their minds "What is it they intend to do that cannot be done while we are armed?" The thing a lot of the gun banners do not realize is the consequences. If they ban all guns, then there is no reason not to have full auto & supressors. I know how to convert a (legal) semi-auto AR15 into an (illegal) full-auto in about an hour with about $70 in parts. (No I'm not going to tell anyone.) A supressor (aka silencer) would take an afternoon with a lathe, or a little/more less depending on what tools you had & the sophistication you wanted. Respect for the law & fear of the consequences keeps law abiding citizens from doing this. Make outlaws out of people & they will no longer respect the law or the consequences. There is an old expression "After the first one the rest are free."