Thread: Don’t Ban Guns — Ban the United Nations

Mitt Romney walked into the lion’s den carrying an unloaded gun when he spoke at a National Rifle Association forum. A Steve Kornacki piece in Solon tells us:

You might think the gun rights group would be deeply suspicious of Mitt Romney, who signed a ban on assault weapons and small handguns as governor of Massachusetts and assured voters there that “I don’t line up with the NRA.”

Romney is also on record in support of gun registration. That position is far more anti-Second Amendment than is a ban on assault rifles. For the umpteenth time: Registration is the final step before confiscation.

Kornacki goes on to put in a plug for Hussein:

And you might think its members would have at least grudging appreciation for Barack Obama’s presidential record, which includes signing a law to allow loaded guns in national parks and which is devoid of any major push for gun ownership restrictions – even as two gun-related tragedies captured national attention.

Kornacki should know that Hussein is not going to poke a sleeping lion. He even tells us why:

The gun control turning point came in 2000, when Al Gore lost a number of states – West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas and even his native Tennessee – with substantial populations of rural and small-town lower-income white voters that Clinton had carried 1992 and ’96.

And this:

The Kerry campaign bent over backward to avoid the perceived mistakes that Gore had made. ”This campaign is 180 degrees different from 2000,” Kerry’s state director in West Virginia bragged before the election. But the result was the same. Actually, it was worse: Kerry lost West Virginia by 13 points, compared to only six for Gore in ’00. And Kerry failed to win back any of those crucial, gun-friendly states that Gore had lost to Bush. Nationally, Gore had lost gun owners to Bush by 25 points. Kerry lost them by 27.

Friday, Apr 13, 2012 2:47 PM 18:08:15 EDT
When Democrats gave up on guns
The NRA’s attacks on Barack Obama are a reminder of the futility of his party’s 2nd Amendment strategy
By Steve Kornacki

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/when...uns/singleton/

Instead of mounting a frontal assault on the Second Amendment by trying to disarm law-abiding Americans, Hussein’s strategy is to outgun them. It is a pity he is not trying to outgun America’s enemies since he cannot disarm them either.

Hussein’s sneak attack on the Second Amendment began in July 2008 when he said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=UHmecy94z-M

Pundits never mention it but funding is in the Affordable Care Act only it’s called the Ready Reserve Corps. Spending billions of tax dollars organizing and arming millions of street punks, dedicated Communists, angry America-haters, and drug-soaked radicals from the Alinsky School of Revolution would neuter the Second Amendment more effectively than repeal. Hussein’s armed goons will make nasty groping airport screeners look like humanitarians on a mission from God.

To imply that Hussein the Community Organizer is somehow a staunch defender of the Second Amendment is a testament to spin and doublespeak. In all things Hussein succeeds in appearing to be the exact opposite of what he is. I cannot think of another politician, living or dead, who pulled it off to the extent Hussein is getting away with it. Or perhaps he simply has more to lie about.

Gingrich and the Second Amendment

Newt Gingrich addressed the NRA forum after Romney. There is no doubt that he is far more trustworthy on the Second Amendment than is Romney. That should have me given me hope Gingrich would pick up some momentum ending in an open convention. Sad to say Gingrich’s resurrection would have gained more traction had he NOT tied a good idea to the United Nations:

“A Gingrich presidency will submit to the UN a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet.” Every world citizen, he said, “deserves the right to defend themselves from those who exploit, imprison, or kill them.” For his latest big idea, Gingrich earned a standing ovation from the crowd of roughly 5,000.

Newt Gingrich Calls for Universal Right to Bear Arms at NRA Forum
by Michael Ames | April 13, 2012 7:05 PM EDT

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...nra-forum.html

Romney is a New World Order—United Nations guy. Gingrich did not help himself by suggesting a UN treaty. Giving the UN credibility is not the way to separate his views from Romney’s tenuous support of the Second Amendment. Being one very nervous conservative, any mention of the United Nations scares the hell out of me unless it calls for shutting the place down à la Ron Paul.

Bottom line: Newt is smart enough to know that the UN would never agree to such a treaty, and he surely knew that the UN has been pushing for a worldwide ban on all hand guns. This Youtube video is a MUST-MUST-MUST-SEE for everyone who is interested in learning about the UN’s attack on the Second Amendment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO0k9...layer_embedded

Hussein gets the final word

Hussein can hardly be called Second Amendment friendly since he is in favor of the UN’s Gun Control Treaty. He and his UN-loving pals in the Senate would ratify it today if they had the required number of votes:

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/10/22/o...#axzz1s3yThgms

Finally, the thugs in Hussein’s civilian national security force would not be covered by the UN’s Gun Control Treaty because they would enjoy the same status enjoyed by government-armed goons in every dictatorship. This old saw has never been truer: When guns are outlawed only the criminals will have guns.

You have to love Newt Gingrich for standing up for the Second Amendment in so definitive a manner. Still, I wish he had not given the United Nations an ounce of legitimacy by suggesting this country submit a treaty for the universal Right to own guns. To my way of thinking it amounts to the US asking the UN for permission to speak for those people living in dictatorships. The only way individual freedom from government tyranny will move toward for those people is to get rid of the United Nations. The UN, more than any other institution, has successfully moved America and the world away individual liberties.

Hussein is conning American women to get their vote while he guarantees brutality against women will increase:

The Small Arms Treaty and the U.N.’s project on International Small Arms Control Standards seek to impose global restrictions on gun ownership that would apply to Americans and the citizens of every country that ratified the agreements. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to support the treaty, an excuse for governments everywhere to empower themselves and limit their citizens instead of the other way around.

Connecting Hillary Clinton to the brutality done to women in dictatorships should go a long way to dispelling the myth feminazis have been spreading for so long.

Hussein & Company refuse to acknowledge that the most brutal of men have guns in dictatorships, and they all work for the government. Nobody is talking about disarming them; so there is nothing to lose by arming everybody else. Nothing to lose unless you are a member of a ruling class.

NOTE: Ruling classes do want get rid of nuclear weapons because they know they could have their own butts blown away along with the rest of us.

Our own ruling class does not care a whit about bringing savagery to even more women. Their support of the UN’s Small Arms Treaty proves it. America’s ruling class fears the spread of individual liberties so much they are determined to replace America’s freedoms with UN treaties.

Gingrich nails this one to perfection:

As long as we’re limited to fighting over the Left’s gun control agenda we’re debating on their terms. We have to go on offense.

Right on. Go on the offense by shutting down the United Nations.

The Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right
by Newt Gingrich
Posted 04/18/2012 ET

At the United Nations, the governments (and the dictatorships) of the world are conspiring to deny their people a means to defend their families and their liberty.

The Small Arms Treaty and the U.N.’s project on International Small Arms Control Standards seek to impose global restrictions on gun ownership that would apply to Americans and the citizens of every country that ratified the agreements. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to support the treaty, an excuse for governments everywhere to empower themselves and limit their citizens instead of the other way around.

As long as we’re limited to fighting over the Left’s gun control agenda we’re debating on their terms. We have to go on offense.

The Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We already have the right, because it doesn’t come from government—it comes from God.

Our founders understood this right is essential to the defense of liberty. It was a lesson they learned firsthand at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, 237 years ago this week. As David Hackett Fischer’s Paul Revere’s Ride recounts, in order to quench the beginnings of the American Revolution, British soldiers marched to confiscate gunpowder and other militia supplies, an act that they hoped would incapacitate the colonial rebels. Thus, it was in defense of the right to bear arms as a means of securing the other liberties that the first battle of the American Revolution was fought.

As the Second Amendment implies, the right to bear arms isn’t given to us by the government, and it isn’t just an American right. It is a human right. As a fundamental component of self-defense, the right to bear arms is intimately tied to those universal truths expressed in our Declaration of Independence—that all men have rights to life and liberty, with which they are endowed by their Creator. And they have not just a right but a duty to throw off despotic government.

These truths are universal. The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.

Every person on the planet has the right to defend themselves from those who would oppress them, exploit them, harm them, or kill them.

Far fewer women would be raped, far fewer children would be killed, far fewer towns would be destroyed, and far fewer dictators would survive if people everywhere on the planet had this God-given right to bear arms recognized. Mass killings and rapes like those that took place in Darfur might have been prevented if the people had the right and the means to defend themselves. When citizens have the power to defend themselves against a violent and tyrannical regime, governments think twice about trampling the lives and liberty of the people.

The United Nations has an extensive Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to join a labor union and the right to social services and security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood or old age.

Nowhere does it provide for the right to keep and bear arms that in many places around the world is so critical to self-defense. And the Small Arms Treaty is a deliberate attempt to restrict these human rights.

I believe the United States should submit to the U.N. a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet.

It is critical not just for those living under oppressive regimes, but for the many people who live in conditions in which the government cannot secure their safety. From dangerous neighborhoods even here in the United States to lawless regions of the world run by gangs and warlords, firearms are often the only means of personal security.

When criminals have weapons, taking away the right to bear arms is nothing less than eliminating the right to self-defense. Only the elites, who’ve never had to live in a dangerous place or fear for their own lives, could be so confident that denying ordinary citizens the right to bear arms would make everyone safer.

It isn’t enough to watch people move from one dictatorship to another, nations lurching from disaster to disaster. In submitting a treaty to the U.N. guaranteeing that right, America can represent its trust in the basic decency of millions of people around the world and our belief that the God-given rights in the Declaration of Independence apply to them, too. We can let them know that if they had a government that recognized their inherent rights; a government that understood that they were a citizens, not subjects; a government that understood it is government which is to be limited, not people, they too would the chance to pursue happiness and live in safety.

That’s the message our president and secretary of state should be standing up for, not a document designed for the protection of dictators.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50909

reva's defualt avatar (above)



Great well written, thought provoking thread Flanders. Well we are in survival mode now. Romney while not the friends of second amendment constitutionalists and freedom loving people everywhere, is better than Obama, which is about the best thing I can say about the goober. Serious governmental and organizational 'One world government/UN is God' agendas are a reality and no longer in the conspiracy theory realm. Heck for anyone that reads the morning paper one worldism' and proposals for hasting its emergence are common bland news and have been for many years! Spokespersons for both the GOPers and DEMs speak of one world order as if it's a 'to soon be a fact' reality. In fact [sic] it probably is!

I will resist the UN/One world agenda with every fiber in my being. I recoil when I read about the UN proposing malevolent but seemingly innocent measures. Well the UN proposals are innocent on first glance to a trusting common man who is more intent on feeding his family than a rigged UN chess game of geopolitics. For example, remember a few years ago when the UN proposed a token internet tax for everyone in the world? What is sinister about that action is not the fraction of a penny that the tax would cost the average American. No, what the UN really is attempting to do is set a precedent! That sinister precedent is the ability for a non elected world governmental body being able to enforce its will, maybe with the power of threatening incarceration or seizure upon the citizens of a sovereign nation! Now that would be an Kofi Annan (or a Hitler's) wet dream come true! If a world body can enforce a tax levy on citizens of the USA, and seize equipment jail time etc as a penalty for non compliance, how far behind can firearm seizure and other Orwellian draconian activities be ? Of course an enforcement body such as a world police force (Hello nightmare Gestapo!) would be required that could cross international borders at will, and it would have to possess nearly unlimited arrest powers.

No NO NO! Its all bad stuff. To be honest I am astonished that there isn't an uproar of negative public opinion against anything remotely similar to the threats of any number of worldisms that's rearing their ugly heads in the last ten years. We should get out in the real world and force ourselves to leave the apathetic gamer couch monster mentality ON the couch and vote the issues. Again electing Rommeny will be a start, he is the lesser of two evils. I am sure Obama is saving his most detestable and most final solutions for his last term where 'political suicide' is an empty series of words. At least I dont think Rom would nominate a liberal SCOUS judge etc. So lets get the man in office and run Obama back to wherever he comes from. Then we work on Rommeny's assault ban gun mentality.

reva

What a load of nonsense.

Which will never work. As Romney if he is acting stupid or just the way the man is. Ignores the complexity around the world of different gun laws. And many captiol cities and other urban spawls, ban guns for the protection not just for the citizens but also the tourist element.

This so called idea, will not just anger many who don't want guns. It also destroy profit revenue to endanger countries who have for years controlled guns.

But it never get that far. First a vote would be needed. And since the perm 5 are made up of 3 nations who already ban guns. (uk/france/china) it will never pass. And of course the russians might veto it for laughs.

Originally Posted by GeneralSod

What a load of nonsense.

Not at all~ the statement by Newt alluding world wide ownership of firearms to protect citizens from despots and others in power that would enslave them was a well crafted somewhat covert subliminal message that has worked wonderfully, even some mass media took the bait!

Which will never work. As Romney if he is acting stupid or just the way the man is. Ignores the complexity around the world of different gun laws. And many captiol cities and other urban spawls, ban guns for the protection not just for the citizens but also the tourist element.

You like so many gun control advocates are missing the point entirely. It's not about gun LAWS but rather individual RIGHTS which are inherent, or in other words not given by any man, i.e. the unalienable right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is the issue. 'Laws' are man made constructs and are superseded by rights.

This so called idea, will not just anger many who don't want guns. It also destroy profit revenue to endanger countries who have for years controlled guns.

With all due respect, can you not see the dunceabality’ in that statement? Those that don’t want guns are not being forced into anything! No a more accurate sentence would be “ This so called idea, will not just anger many who don't want ANYONE TO HAVE guns”. It’s not the firearm rights proponents that are inflicting their ideas upon others, its those that are firearm phobic that are trying to inflict THEIR ideas upon others! And that attempt to deny anyone their unalienable rights is committing a serious crime, and an reprehensible one as well!

But it never get that far. First a vote would be needed. And since the perm 5 are made up of 3 nations who already ban guns. (uk/france/china) it will never pass. And of course the russians might veto it for laughs.

I think the person that proposed the idea of world wide ownership of firearms as a right of every FREEDOM loving individual knew it would not be accepted by the freedom killing assembly called the UN. No he satisfied his goals which were to have people like us talking about rights and freedoms to own and bear arms as well as OTHER UNALIENABLE rights of all men. That word (freedom) scares the dog poo out of dictator types everywhere. That is the reason the UN being full of 'want to be' impotent dictators, tyrants and despots its no wonder they want to keep the idea of freedom, individual INALIENABLE rights of all people hush hush, to the point of garroting anyone that suggests such an idea!

reva

To imply that Hussein the Community Organizer is somehow a staunch defender of the Second Amendment is a testament to spin and doublespeak. In all things Hussein succeeds in appearing to be the exact opposite of what he is. I cannot think of another politician, living or dead, who pulled it off to the extent Hussein is getting away with it. Or perhaps he simply has more to lie about.

Ayuh,.... Exactly,....

While Romney isn't My 1st choice, he's Better than the man in the position Now...

Originally Posted by RevAnarchist

Not at all~ the statement by Newt alluding world wide ownership of firearms to protect citizens from despots and others in power that would enslave them was a well crafted somewhat covert subliminal message that has worked wonderfully, even some mass media took the bait!



You like so many gun control advocates are missing the point entirely. It's not about gun LAWS but rather individual RIGHTS which are inherent, or in other words not given by any man, i.e. the unalienable right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is the issue. 'Laws' are man made constructs and are superseded by rights.



With all due respect, can you not see the dunceabality’ in that statement? Those that don’t want guns are not being forced into anything! No a more accurate sentence would be “ This so called idea, will not just anger many who don't want ANYONE TO HAVE guns”. It’s not the firearm rights proponents that are inflicting their ideas upon others, its those that are firearm phobic that are trying to inflict THEIR ideas upon others! And that attempt to deny anyone their unalienable rights is committing a serious crime, and an reprehensible one as well!



I think the person that proposed the idea of world wide ownership of firearms as a right of every FREEDOM loving individual knew it would not be accepted by the freedom killing assembly called the UN. No he satisfied his goals which were to have people like us talking about rights and freedoms to own and bear arms as well as OTHER UNALIENABLE rights of all men. That word (freedom) scares the dog poo out of dictator types everywhere. That is the reason the UN being full of 'want to be' impotent dictators, tyrants and despots its no wonder they want to keep the idea of freedom, individual INALIENABLE rights of all people hush hush, to the point of garroting anyone that suggests such an idea!

reva

You are lost in fantasy and over look one huge point.

Just because your young nation for whatever reason created a constitution to bear arms. It does not mean the mass of humanity will follow it.

You speak of tyrants and dictators, well you read like one. To try and force this because you 'think it is a good idea"

I like the OP thread title thought. No to UN treaties affecting the constitutional rights of American citizens. We'll run our country and you run what China and Russia allow you to.

Originally Posted by GeneralZod

You are lost in fantasy and over look one huge point.

Just because your young nation for whatever reason created a constitution to bear arms. It does not mean the mass of humanity will follow it.

You speak of tyrants and dictators, well you read like one. To try and force this because you 'think it is a good idea"

No reason to concern yourself with the individual rights of an American citizen. Live as is your custom to live.

America is no place that anyone should be concerned with let alone desire to visit. People that visit here can't leave fast enough! If you care about your world neighbors spread the word and save them from a crushing disappointment! Now Castro's Cuba there's a place for you, a gun free (guessing here) paradise.

Originally Posted by DixNickson

No reason to concern yourself with the individual rights of an American citizen. Live as is your custom to live.

America is no place that anyone should be concerned with let alone desire to visit. People that visit here can't leave fast enough! If you care about your world neighbors spread the word and save them from a crushing disappointment! Now Castro's Cuba there's a place for you, a gun free (guessing here) paradise.

I am mildly concerned when americans try to speak for my rights and the greater world. You morons want to be armed. Do it far away from civilised people.