Have you sent your letters to stop the UN gun ban?

[DiverDn]

What are everyones thoughts on the UN gun ban?

http://www.stopungunban.org/pages/fireashot

[Diode]

Good link, thanks!

[longtooth]

Thoughts These are mine. This is Memorial day weekend. Sunday I will bring a message from Zephaniah 2:1. A Nation Not Desired. On a regular basis I make the letters I write to politicians available for the people of our church to sign & send also. I place copies at the front with envelopes there. Announce what the letter is about. If you agree pick up a letter & envelope. Sign the letter, address it & all you are required to do is furnish the stamp. These three will be in a set & I am copying 30 sets. Consider doing the same & ask your preacher if you can make the same announcement. If not, privately talk to the members of your church & offer them a copied set to send. Thank you DiverDn.

Edit thought. Several thousand of these from all over Texas post marked Memorial Day Tuesday should send the same message of defiance that he is sending with his choice of dates.

Not sure if it is truth, legend, or combination of both but it has been said that when Santa Anna read his demands of surrender at the Alamo, Travis answered w/ a cannon shot. Bowie is reported to have said, "You sure know how to start a war."

[Chris]

i just have one thing to say to that...

[jbirds1210]

Chris, ya wanna join me on the rooftop for a bucket of suds
Jason

[Diode]

^^^^^^ Hey can I come? My brother bought me a Chinese SKS last week, I'll need to tune it up somewhere :)

[Lumberjack98]

Sent all three about 2 weeks ago.

Thanks for the link. I hope that many of you will send the letters.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The UN treaty on small arms is one of the most dangerous threats we've faced regarding the Second Amendment. I've talked with many people who firmly believe a UN treaty can't trump our Constitution. This is both correct and incorrect. If the U.S. Supreme Court had issued an opinion that the Second Amendment is an individual right of the citizen, then the UN small arms treaty would not have an effect on gunowners.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court has not issued such an opinion, so a UN treat would trump the Second Amendment. All it would take is a U.S. President to sign the treaty and the U.S. Senate to ratify it. Let us have a Democrat President and a Senate controlled by the Democrats and we could see the U.N. small arms treaty in effect as soon as 2009. This is no idle threat. The IANSA group is headed by Rebecca Peters, the miserable lying woman who ran the successful gun-grab in Australia. She's financed by George Soros, so her funding knows no limits.

So the next time someone says the U.N. small arms treaty is nothing but a fund-raising effort by the NRA, tell them to do a little research as to how treaties are applied in the U.S., before they undermine our efforts on this issue.

Regards,
Chas.

[HighVelocity]

Sent a week or two ago.

[Chris]

this thing failed miserably when it was first attempted in 2001. it's not going to go anywhere. i'm picturing all these international leaders having serious discussions, while the representatives from the United States are sitting in the back playing tic-tac-toe.

imagine the number of major companies that would be impacted, jobs lost, etc. it would have a significant impact on the economy. the firearms industry is HUGE in the US. firearms, firearm accessories, gun ranges. there are tons of firearm related companies. for the guns i own, i have holsters, ammo, cleaning supplies, scopes, cabinets/safes, cases, targets, reloading supplies, you name it. a ton of companies support the firearms industry.

not to mention, there's the impossible task of trying to collect the 250 million privately owned firearms floating around in the United States. i live in the United States; a country founded on private citizens taking up arms against a government. i also happen to be a Texas native, a state in the United States where private citizens took up arms against a government. given our track record, guns aren't going away any time soon. i think there is sufficient evidence to attest to that. history was written by armed citizens; the visigoths who hid and stockpiled weapons, eventually sacking rome, the mongolians who took up arms against the chinese, the germans who took up arms against the romans in teutoburg forest...

i'm not even close to being worried.

[longtooth]

Chris, one simple reminder. I won't spend much time here. If the Kalifornia Farcesteins & Chappaquida Killerdys will try to destroy the arms industry through legislation that makes business impossible throught excessive regulation & then bankrupt the rest w/ frifilous lawsuits they have already proved thy don't care about all the cash flow, tax money, jobs or the people from the industry. They agree w/ Rabecca Peter's when she said, "get a new hobby" or job. That thing is serious my friend.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The attempt didn't end in 2001; it's an ongoing project. UN treaties aren’t like legislation. Efforts to pass them go on for years with some countries signing some not. Also, look who was President in 2001 and he wouldn't have signed it, so it wouldn't have gone to the Senate. If Gore, Kerry or H. Clinton are in the White House in 2009 and beyond, it's a different ball game. Give them a Democratic Senate majority and it's a different ball game yet. And the U.S. House of Representatives won’t be involved!

The firearms industry in the U.S. is very small; only 2 billion annually for small arms and not all of that is for the civilian market. As to house-to-house searches, you are correct - it can't be done. But every time someone used a gun for self-defense or anything else, then they would be subject to arrest. Ammo, reloading components and spare parts sales would be over and you'd be buying them on the black market, if they could be found at all. Add to the mix a few highly publicized prosecutions and people going to federal prison for 20 or more years and you will scare the guns out of most people's hands. Why on earth remain idle and let this happen, only to say we'll fight them later when they come to my door?

"It's not going to go anywhere[?]" I respectfully disagree. The UN small arms treaty absolutely will be signed by a U.S. President and ratified by the U.S. Senate, unless enough people take it seriously and let our Senators and President know it. This isn’t a one-time effort; we must be on guard against it as long as there is even a whisper of a UN small arms treaty. Remember, when it comes to guns and gun ownership, Australia was a virtual mirror image of the U.S. but the Peters/Soros team shoved gun-control/gun-ban/gun confiscation down Australians throats in a matter of weeks.

As is probably obvious, this is a hot topic for me, because so many gun owners don’t take this threat seriously. The “it can’t happen here� attitude may give some comfort to those who feel that way, but it’s a false sense of security. The sole reason for broaching the subject in the UN is to get to the US. Very few countries allow any private ownership of guns, much less the broad right we enjoy. Most countries in the UN would love to have a treaty that made it illegal for their “subjects� to own guns - it makes it much easier to quell dissent. Soros is behind IANSA and he has been helping the anti-gun crowd in the US for years. This is just his latest effort.

Apathy is a far greater threat than the UN, Rebecca Peters and George Soros combined.

Chas.

[AV8R]

""It's not going to go anywhere[?]" I respectfully disagree. The UN small arms treaty absolutely will be signed by a U.S. President and ratified by the U.S. Senate, unless enough people take it seriously and let our Senators and President know it. ''
Charles Cotton

I believe that this is the most serious threat to liberty and independence that this nation has faced in its history. A legal means to circumvent the will of the people clearly exists. Lately, there has been much interest in communitizing the economies of North America. Fox, Bush, and Martin are leading the push. The constitutional right to bear arms is not compatible with plans to, in effect, create a system of rule by international committee. Even a "soft merger" of these economies would have the effect of pressuring individual rights downward toward some least common denominator in order to shift the balance in favor of absolute government rule. I'm for the concept of inalienable rights.

Let's all get squarely behind this one. Our politicians care much less about representing us than they do about getting elected, so let's put our money, voices, and votes where it counts.

[flintknapper]

Apathy is a far greater threat than the UN, Rebecca Peters and George Soros combined.

Chas.

Agreed Sir, Apathy and Complacency will be the death of our Second Amendment rights if we are not ever watchful and willing.. to act decisively (in numbers) whenever challenged.

Please encourage every gun owner you know to join the NRA/ILA and the TSRA.

The estimated number of gun owners in the U.S. is between 80-84 MILLION. Why are 4 million NRA members carrying the rest on our backs? If the NRA/ILA were to grow to only 10 million members, and those same members faithfully "voted" their position, then we could breath a little easier.

No "middle of the road" bargains with the anti's either. The only thing I'm willing to give them....is grief (and plenty of it)! If that sounds like a hard line or an unbending, uncompromising position, then you understand me perfectly.

Flint.

[yerasimos]

I plan on sending polite-and-to-the-point letters to both Senators from Texas. Bolton will get something very similar to the form letter, also polite-and-to-the-point. I already have drafts, and plan on completing and sending them this week.

I am not going to waste stamps sending letters to two-bit UN bureau-rats who are already set in their corrupt, genocide-winking ways. They have made up their minds, as I have made mine. The effort is better spent informing, sponsoring and supporting those who are willing and able to thwart the evil plans of IANSA and the UN.