The U.N. is coming for your guns - Update #402

Boghog1 said:
Well to tel the truth they did decide to put the discussion about the treaty on hold back in 2009 until 2012 and they restarted the discussion on 7/2/2012 so you have to expect the talk to start back up. no matter what we should be out of the UN
Click to expand...

one of the problems with the UN is that people actually pay attention to the UN. The more people ignore them, and treat them as irrelevant as they are, the faster it will go away.

By paying attention you're giving them credibility and fooling them into thinking they are actually relevant.
inerlogic said:
and no one had the balls to shoot them.....
Click to expand...

Which is probably a good thing, as the NG would of hosed anyone that took a shot at them. The NG in a disaster like Katrina is dangerous.
 
Dench said:
Which is probably a good thing, as the NG would of hosed anyone that took a shot at them. The NG in a disaster like Katrina is dangerous.
Click to expand...

Lives, Fortunes, Sacred Honor.....
when i was in the NG i swore:

"I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of Massachusetts and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God."

an order that violates the constitution is not a lawful order, and i would not follow it, and i would not accept the authority of anyone who would follow such order....

no one can take what you don't give them.
 
Dench said:
The UN is retarded. They cant run anything. They just say they can run everything.

This is the 1,000th thread about how the UN is coming to take our guns, and mysteriously the UN gun ban is not here yet.
Click to expand...

This is true, but I think it would be very dangerous to turn our backs on them or underestimate them. I don't trust them even a little bit and they have a world of moonbats behind them.
 
Smokewagon said:
The UN has been trying for this since Dubya if i recall. They now have an administration in the white house who is sympathetic. The only obstacle is the Senate, which must approve all treaties with a 2/3 majority. If it is an "agreement" it requires a simple majority of both houses. (Someone correct me if I am wrong on approval and whatnot, I'm going off memory here).

~SW
Click to expand...

There is nothing about an agreement in the Constitution. There is language about treaties and treaty is what this will be if the UN passes it,

Article II, Section 2 (powers of the Executive)

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Click to expand...

Even if he got every Democrat to vote to ratify (which he won't) there aren't enough votes to ratify this treaty. There are a fair number of Democrat Senators, especially those from the south, that are pro gun. I think even Henry Reid would oppose it.
 
jasons said:
This is true, but I think it would be very dangerous to turn our backs on them or underestimate them. I don't trust them even a little bit and they have a world of moonbats behind them.
Click to expand...

having been involved, unfortunately with the NG operation in MA for the 2004 DNC, the shit that they say to soldiers, and the weapons they give them under the guise of "crowd control" is completly unacceptable. There were many people looking forward to beating up protesting civilians. They put our unit through a 7 day crash course brainwashing the soldiers to hate the protesters. I wouldn't of believed it if I hadn't seen it.

There was planning up to and including light infantry with rifles to put down protesters.

It was not something I wanted to be associated with. being 19 at the time, I rolled with it and watched it play out. luckily nothing happened. If that were me now, i would of refused to be apart of the mission and asked to be reassigned.
 
Zepp said:
Im more curious as to economic sanctions that "hypothetically could be leveled on us (doubtful) for non compliance.
Click to expand...

OTOH, the US could decline to fund the UN, which would just about gut it's budget.

Keep in mind that the "UN Peace Keepers" are mostly from third world nations where the military is very strong until it actually comes up against people with weapons who can fight back. Mostly, the UN Peace Keepers engage in the child sex trade or raping of defenseless women. Not exactly the point of the spear.
 
pernox said:
How many of you guys that were in the armed forces would go door to door collecting guns?

...So they're going to need the UN to come do it, right?

Let's see how that works out.

172-0727082413-Stamp_Image_UN_Blue_Helmet-1.jpg
Click to expand...
The UN will have help from NY, Ma, DC, Ca, Md, etc. Not to mention the military, unless those boys grow their own pair to stand up the the 5-star. Any bets on that happening?
Climbnsink said:
The Army/police will do what they are told to do, history is quite clear on that. What Americans do is what would matter.
Click to expand...
+1
WPDC13 said:
Maybe some, but not all. I sure as sh*t would be handing in my badge and getting ready for the fun!!
Click to expand...
I hope you would, it would be the honest thing to do.
Climbnsink said:
History and Stanley Milgram suggest the vast majority would. I commend those that wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't put my freedom hopes on the idea of draconian measures not being enforced.
Click to expand...

I'm going to remind everybody about Katrina and the gun-grab that happened there. You really think it couldn't happen again? In any state that so desires it, regardless of it's constitutionality? "We're just doing our job" comes to mind, and it happens today in DC, Mass, etc, regularly, and arbitrarily. Think "suitability". That's an in-your-face gun grab in this state, with nothing more than a crappy, arrogant attitude attached to a badge.
 
Boghog1 said:
I wonder how many pre bans are in that pile
ak47_magazines_drc.jpg
Click to expand...

I see 4 aluminum waffle mags in there, which were all made in the 1960's. There are also 2 visible bakelite mags, which ceased production around the beginning of the 80's (Russia moved to polyamides... east Germany, however, kept building bake ak74 mags, and was the only country using the material).

all kidding aside, it's safe to say all of those were made well before 1994. I want me one of those waffle mags.... I missed the "boat" on those, unless I wanted to fork over $75 to a vendor.
 
joeendris said:
The UN will have help from NY, Ma, DC, Ca, Md, etc. Not to mention the military, unless those boys grow their own pair to stand up the the 5-star. Any bets on that happening?
Click to expand...

First off, there is only a 5-star during wartime, there is not currently an active 5 star in the Army.
Second, don't think that all the military will just roll over and accept an ass-pounding by the U.N. My unit would be more than happy to defend home soil from a bunch of blue helmeted pansies if they decided to come and enforce rules that are against our constitution.

I pledged to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic... I never once swore an oath of fealty to anyone in any political sphere; don't think for one second that I will not uphold my oath.
 
Scarecrow said:
First off, there is only a 5-star during wartime, there is not currently an active 5 star in the Army.
Second, don't think that all the military will just roll over and accept an ass-pounding by the U.N. My unit would be more than happy to defend home soil from a bunch of blue helmeted pansies if they decided to come and enforce rules that are against our constitution.

I pledged to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic... I never once swore an oath of fealty to anyone in any political sphere; don't think for one second that I will not uphold my oath.
Click to expand...
There are a whole lot of us out there amigo.
 
Kevin_NH said:
Not counting our soldiers, the UN has about 80,000 troops contributed by member nations. The US has about 1.4M active, and another 1.4M reserve, and could always take the UN headquarters hostage.

There's no way the senate will ratify a UN arms treaty, and even if ratified, treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution (Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17)
Click to expand...


Unknown.jpeg
 
Scarecrow said:
..if the U.N. or Obama and his goons want my guns, they'll have to beat me to death with them because there won't be a single unfired round left in my house. I am not going out like a Jewish person in Poland in the 40's.

The guns are always the first to go, an unarmed person stands very little chance against their oppressors.
Click to expand...

You wont be alone!!!!!!!!!!
 
It would need congressional ratification. That won't happen. They don't have a majority. No Republican will vote for that nor will the Blue Dogs.
 
Doesn't some moonbat present an anti-gun treaty to the UN pretty much annually?

Climbnsink said:
The Army/police will do what they are told to do, history is quite clear on that. What Americans do is what would matter.
Click to expand...

This. I hate to say it, and I wish our police and troops stood by the people, but they will do what they're told. If the order is given, the National Guard will be on our doorsteps within the hour. Remember Katrina? If I recall correctly, the troops collected guns without protest, and some even seemed to enjoy doing it.
 
Last edited:
Dench said:
having been involved, unfortunately with the NG operation in MA for the 2004 DNC, the shit that they say to soldiers, and the weapons they give them under the guise of "crowd control" is completly unacceptable. There were many people looking forward to beating up protesting civilians. They put our unit through a 7 day crash course brainwashing the soldiers to hate the protesters. I wouldn't of believed it if I hadn't seen it.

There was planning up to and including light infantry with rifles to put down protesters.

It was not something I wanted to be associated with. being 19 at the time, I rolled with it and watched it play out. luckily nothing happened. If that were me now, i would of refused to be apart of the mission and asked to be reassigned.
Click to expand...
Ahh, the 2004 DNC...The first (and hopefully only) time I've made a wrong turn with 4 drunks in my car (playing DD th at night) and come face-to-face with a dozen armed men and various armored vehicles. The car got really quiet, really quickly. Fastest I've ever seen four drunks sober up. [laugh]

Interesting parallel to the military protecting us from govt stupidity with individuals refusing illegal orders as a last resort - There's a layer before the jurors (grand jury) that's supposed to prevent stupid prosecutions, but look how many states have legislated that away, since that portion of the 5th wasn't held as incorporated against the states. The jury is supposed to be the final decider/defense/refuser, and that doesn't work so well either.

Glad that you saw that, though. Wish more people did.
 
Practice yelling this out the mail slot of your reinforced steel door:

"That's close enough! State the reason you have entered my property while armed Guardsman!"
 

Similar threads

What is your oldest firearm?
2 3
Replies
80
Views
1K
Darksideblues42
Darksideblues42
Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Buck F
Buck F
What is the PSI for a .38 Special Proof Load?
Replies
15
Views
232
Agincourt
A
  • Locked
You know college is a waste when your professor’s name is Topher.
Replies
2
Views
193
drgrant
drgrant
5 shot after Maryland high school senior skip day turns violent: 'What is the world coming to?'
Replies
7
Views
278
SpaceCritter
SpaceCritter
Back
Top Bottom