The Worldwide Gun Control Movement

[align=left]big government socialist neo-cons can learn a thing or two from a real pro-constitution conservative. don't count on communist george dubya to do a damn thing about it, he's more anti-gun than clinton was.[/align]

The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
Ron Paul | June 27 2006

The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. Itâ??s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms â?? 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 itâ??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 summerâ??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 â??easy availabilityâ?� 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!

Itâ??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 donâ??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.

Won't happen and fuck the U.N.! They need to stay out of our business!

This has been making the rounds on alot of gun forums and obviously a lot of people are outraged. It's also nothing new...the U.N. held a similar conference years ago. That resulted in severe limitation of gun ownership rights in various places across Europe.

If the U.N. wants my handguns, they can come take them from me...

guns are ment to kill humans, whats the point in having one?!
If no one had a gun, it would be alot safer in the streets. Especially where i live in Toronto, where illegal guns from america are being smuggled here and being used in violent crimes.
The Americanization has brainwashed Canada, and its disgusting, with weed prices rising because of Pro American Stephen Harper, aka asshole.
There should be a limit in a Prime Ministers Salary, even if he's using his great status to make bussiness deals.
Fuck Guns and Fuck the America government, not the innocent people.
If everyone in america woke up and realized there country is being taken over in tyranny, they should protest, everyone stop going to work and have all celebrities and athletes refuse to play until government is in order and fair for everyone.
SPREAD THE WORD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doctor mj

guns are ment to kill humans, whats the point in having one?!
If no one had a gun, it would be alot safer in the streets. Especially where i live in Toronto, where illegal guns from america are being smuggled here and being used in violent crimes.
The Americanization has brainwashed Canada, and its disgusting, with weed prices rising because of Pro American Stephen Harper, aka asshole.
There should be a limit in a Prime Ministers Salary, even if he's using his great status to make bussiness deals.
Fuck Guns and Fuck the America government, not the innocent people.
If everyone in america woke up and realized there country is being taken over in tyranny, they should protest, everyone stop going to work and have all celebrities and athletes refuse to play until government is in order and fair for everyone.
SPREAD THE WORD

---

What the hell are talking about? Judging by your spelling I would guess you aren't very educated and haven't any real knowledge about what your speaking.:thumbsup:

"if everyone in america woke up and realized there country is being taken over in tyranny, they should protest..."

it's a good sign of tyranny when the government wants to take your guns away. read history, read the federalist papers, the intent of the 2nd amendment is quite clear.

slaves are disarmed. you can't count on the feds to bring food or water like with hurricane katrina, but you sure can count on them to start confiscating guns, which doesn't make you safe.

The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summerâ??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. "


Are you going to shoot the planes?



" a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France! "



Well i have been to china and france, and there is ZERO chance of getting shot there. So i guess it works



"They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals."


The UN doesnt fear armed bubbas


"They certainly donâ??t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment."


Neither do i



"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. "


Americans have less freedoms than any people other industrialized nations. You certainly havent shot your way to legal weed or gay marriage.


"Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."


Um last i checked you could vote for anyone you want. You dont live in a fascist state, you have choices. The suggestion you are going to shoot government forces is pretty wacko. You dont your leaders, you get 1 vote like anyone else




"but you sure can count on them to start confiscating guns, which doesn't make you safe."



<akes your neighbours safe, as you are a crazy nut and shouldnt have guns. Hunting is ok, stockpiling guns to go ruby ridge is not ok.

supporting gun control makes no sense, because if the government takes away guns from law abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns. how easy will it be for an armed criminal to rob, rape and kill if they know their victims are unarmed. besides criminals dont get guns from gun stores, they get them from black market gun dealers.

There should be a Worldwide BIRTH Control Movement - then maybe we wouldn't need as many guns.

The same kind of people that want unlimited access to extremely powerful weapon usually want to have the right to have unlimited amounts of children -a privledge which most of them have, for now.

Kind of makes sense, when you think about it. Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition! :dance:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

What the hell are talking about? Judging by your spelling I would guess you aren't very educated and haven't any real knowledge about what your speaking.:thumbsup:

---

^^what does a comment like this contribute? You did nothing be critic my spelling. Explain why I have no knowledge.
You can use your gun, when the governments got tanks and heavy artillery. The best way to fight against that is Peaceful Protest. You dont need guns to over throw your government, all you need is the knowledge and time.

I have a gun and I'm a liberal...

I'm a leftie, too, but no guns for me.

As far as others having the right to have them, I guess I think folks ought be be allowed the right to choose. I wish more people would choose not to have them, but I know that's impossible. In Texas, gun-totin' cowboys with bad cases of road rage are getting more and more common. Makes me wish for Kevlar window and body panels in my car.

What happened when hitler disarmed all jewish residents in germany?

They died horrible horrible deaths.

Maybe if they had guns they would have been able to fight back and form a resistance.

The same thing happened in The Soviet Union and China.

I do NOT want that happening in america. That is why I am pro gun.

If there were no guns in the whole world and no police or militaries had them then i wouldnt really care. But the American Citizens must be allowed to form militias. That is the purpose of the 2nd ammendment, to prevent what happened in the colonial days from happening today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halo

If there were no guns in the whole world and no police or militaries had them then i wouldnt really care. But the American Citizens must be allowed to form militias. That is the purpose of the 2nd ammendment, to prevent what happened in the colonial days from happening today.

---

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

With regard to guns, what exactly "happened in the colonial days" that you want to prevent from happening today?

I may be wrong, but I interpret your comment as a suggestion that England forbade the ownership of guns by the colonists, and that this was a cause of the Revolution. No such ban ever occurred. Guns were necessary for survival in those times.

There is a big difference between gun control and outright banning of firearms. The Founding Fathers knew this, and that's why dueling was illegal - as well as other wrongful uses of guns and pistols.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

Makes me wish for Kevlar window and body panels in my car.

---

LOL... Good safety tip for liberals in Texas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

[I]
There is a big difference between gun control and outright banning of firearms. The Founding Fathers knew this, and that's why dueling was illegal - as well as other wrongful uses of guns and pistols.

---

I heard CSPAN is gathering signatures to introduce dueling to the U.S. Congress.

I've never had a gun of any kind .... If I had one, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night ..... Would I shoot a 14 year old breaking into my home at night ??? Do I want one even remotely accessible to my kids and their friends ? .... or maybe a desparate alternative to a really depressed family member ?? .... I could never do it .....

That said, I believe that law abiding citizens have the right to possess guns for hunting, collecting, or self-defense.

I hunt with, an AK ,with a capacity clip, in the middle of the night. I have a Mosin Nagant with a scope, to hunt things from extremly long distance.
Why do I need High Capacity Clips, a scoop from which to shoot things 800 meters out, becuase its fucking fun. I shoot things at 3 o' clock in the morning becuase thats the easiest time to get them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WalkaWalka

I shoot things at 3 o' clock in the morning becuase thats the easiest time to get them.

---

Excellent! I shoot things at 7:09am on the freeway... :cool:

I don't take action of any kind, from shooting to conscious thought to upright posture, at either 3 a.m. or at 7:09 a.m. I have to get my beauty sleep. . . .

The second amendment is old and needs some fine-tuning. What do they mean by a well-regulated militia? It has been proposed that they meant a state-sponsored militia, like a part-time reservist-type militia for that particular state (wherever the person lives who is part of that state's militia). If that's what they meant, then PRIVATE gun ownership isn't part of the equation at all -- you'd need to belong to some well-regulated militia.

Secondly, what did they intend with the word 'arms'? At the time the second amendment was written, they had front-loading one-shot muskets. So what they meant could have been just that, that they thought ownership of front-loading one-shot muskets was okay (if you belong to the well-regulated militia, of course). Or, taken to the other extreme, 'arms' could mean any weapon of any type, including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

As a historical fact, the one time the common man actually took up arms and used them to fight our own government in large numbers, it was the Civil War. And they lost. And we'd probably have been worse off if they'd won (a divided U.S., ongoing racism and slavery, blah blah).

As a practical matter, we made our own bed and now we have to lie in it. There are hundreds of millions, maybe BILLIONS, of guns in circulation now. It's not feasible to try any sort of gun control in the U.S. because of that. If we'd had gun control from the start, yes, we could probably be saving thousands of unnecessary deaths each year by keeping gun control. But we didn't, and now it's too late. Every country has problems. Some have endemic disease problems, some lack food, and we have high levels of gun violence. That's just a part of our national landscape now: that you are at much higher risk of being blown away by some retard with a gun than you would be in basically any other first-world country. That's bad for tourism, that's bad for the residents of this country, but it's good for the big-business gun makers, and in any case, there's really nothing we can do about it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamstigator

The second amendment is old and needs some fine-tuning. What do they mean by a well-regulated militia?

---

I feel ya, jams .... but the constitution was not meant to be taken forever literally .... and it's a good thing ... the founding fathers were OK with slavery, women not voting, and a militia popping up whenever the govt raised taxes.

The forefathers knew that over time, the constitution would need to be interpreted in future generations and built in an interpretive body .... the Supreme Court.

The people, through their state legislatures, have the ultimate say, with power to amend the constitution. Changing the constitution is a difficult process, and most will argue that it should be.

You're right, the genie is out of the bottle wrt gun control ... and I would argue that the related problems are not the fault of the constitution, or it's interpretation, it's the fault of society.

the purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of government, and that idea doesn't change over time. governments always become corrupt and only seek to further a dictatorship. if you read the federalist papers, the things that cause revolutions don't change over time. it's mainly property rights and taxes and anything you'll find in the bill of rights.

it's not a good sign when we're not allowed to know what our secret government is doing and people are in protest zone cages miles from the emperor.

free countries like our republic once was don't last for that long in the grand scheme of things. and our country's now being dismantled in favor of a global government dictatorship where you're taxed and tolled out of everything.

the really bad stuff won't start happening until we're all disarmed, whether peacefully through sham gun buybacks, getting paid to be a slave, or forcefully like in new orleans.

Armed or disarmed, the people will always have the greater power. Look what Gandhi did without using any weapons: he brought the British Empire to its knees and ultimately saw them removed them from power in India. Look what Martin Luther King did in Birmingham and, a couple of years later, Selma, using non-violent means: he ultimately convinced Congress and the president that life was just going to suck until blacks got equal treatment (or some acceptable semblance thereof).

Here's a quote from an article titled, "Why Gandhi Drives The Neoconservatives Crazy", published in Washington Monthly, September 1983:

"Neoconservatives seem to fear that America -- by braving the perils of
dissent and democracy -- will be similarly weakened. Part of what makes
America "great" is, theoretically at least, its reluctance to use force
against other nations. Yet, fearful that standards such as this place us
at a disadvantage in the real world, some neoconservatives advocate that
America needs to win a war somewhere, to use violence successfully.
Their insecurity would have us violate American values -- to mirror the
hideous brutality of less open societies -- in order to preserve them."

That paragraph is eerily prescient, considering what has transpired since 1983, and especially given the current state of affairs.

We need to look long and hard before we go rampaging around the world with our military. If we give up that which makes us great, in an attempt to preserve our greatness, then we aren't that great. Weapons and violence shouldn't be the first or second option when confronting a problem. If they are an option at all, they should be the absolute last option available. Gandhi and King both proved that you can disable powerful governments without ever lifting a gun. It's sad that our own citizenry hasn't learned that peace can triumph over force, and instead cling in fear to their guns, paranoid that someday they may need to use those guns against their government. Even if our own government were to turn tyrannical, we could defeat them without guns.

^^ nicly said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamstigator

Armed or disarmed, the people will always have the greater power. Look what Gandhi did without using any weapons: he brought the British Empire to its knees and ultimately saw them removed them from power in India. Look what Martin Luther King did in Birmingham and, a couple of years later, Selma, using non-violent means: he ultimately convinced Congress and the president that life was just going to suck until blacks got equal treatment (or some acceptable semblance thereof).

Here's a quote from an article titled, "Why Gandhi Drives The Neoconservatives Crazy", published in Washington Monthly, September 1983:

"Neoconservatives seem to fear that America -- by braving the perils of
dissent and democracy -- will be similarly weakened. Part of what makes
America "great" is, theoretically at least, its reluctance to use force
against other nations. Yet, fearful that standards such as this place us
at a disadvantage in the real world, some neoconservatives advocate that
America needs to win a war somewhere, to use violence successfully.
Their insecurity would have us violate American values -- to mirror the
hideous brutality of less open societies -- in order to preserve them."

That paragraph is eerily prescient, considering what has transpired since 1983, and especially given the current state of affairs.

We need to look long and hard before we go rampaging around the world with our military. If we give up that which makes us great, in an attempt to preserve our greatness, then we aren't that great. Weapons and violence shouldn't be the first or second option when confronting a problem. If they are an option at all, they should be the absolute last option available. Gandhi and King both proved that you can disable powerful governments without ever lifting a gun. It's sad that our own citizenry hasn't learned that peace can triumph over force, and instead cling in fear to their guns, paranoid that someday they may need to use those guns against their government. Even if our own government were to turn tyrannical, we could defeat them without guns.

---

Yes, some excellent points; there's no doubt our image as a waring nation is real and the majority of EU nations perceive us as the biggest threat to world peace...

But I take exception to being lumped into this "our own citizenty" statement. I'm not paranoid or paramilitary. I obey just laws and fight to change unjust ones, peacefully. I own a gun because it's the easiest way to kill an intruder in my house. If they're in my house and not telling me why then I have enough evidence to know they're not a member of the U.N.

I don't know if they will succeed easily with taking our guns away. In my house alone, my step-dad has quite a number of rifles. We have a German Shepherd too, so if the gun doesn't get ya, the dog will!!

But mass murderers agree...GUN CONTROL WORKS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doctor mj

guns are ment to kill humans, whats the point in having one?!
If no one had a gun, it would be alot safer in the streets.

---

Wrong..

You sound like a decent person. But not everyone in this world is like you. If the world were a perfect place we wouldn't need guns.

History shows that those who don't have guns get conquered by those who do. And Canada doesn't even have a fraction of the gun-crimes the United States does, and you guys have just as much guns as we do.

Well, history shows a lot of things. History also shows that a determined group of completely unarmed people can achieve victory over a heavily-armed force too. In other words, those with guns were conquered by those without guns. Whether that is possible or not depends on the level of determination of the unarmed force, and the goals of the armed force. If the goal is simple extermination, the guys with guns pretty much always win, yes. But if the goal is anything else (occupation, enslavement, whatever), then victory for the armed force is not at all guaranteed and really depends on how determined the unarmed force is to resist. This is how Gandhi and Martin Luther King won their respective battles: not with guns, but with sheer determination to thwart the goals of the armed forces oppressing them, at any cost except using violence themselves.

If you are an occupying force, and your goal is subjugation of the indigent population (for example), but that population disobeys your every order, what can you do? You can shoot them or bash their skulls in, of course (lots of Gandhi's followers died this way, not even ducking to avoid the killing blows rained upon them). But if the population still resists, then the goal of the occupying force is thwarted nevertheless, even if they have a hundred million guns and the oppressed population has zero. Britain vacated control of India not because those resisting them were heavily armed (they weren't armed at all), but because those resisting them were simply determined not to bow to British rule. In the face of that resistance, the British took their guns and left.

The human spirit can be far more powerful than mere guns.

Hrm you get bashed in the head I'm going to do some sniping. You have to look at guns in a common sense sort of way which is that the gun is just another tool. And also with your point of the musket it was the technology of the time in fact the general populace probably had better guns than the armies. The human spirit + guns makes better sense to me. The way I invision a take over is the more things change the more people will stay the same. Their will be roadblocks and curfews I plan to obey neither and my gun is just another force of persuasion.