UN Gun Control Treaty

[74novaman]

This is real easy to explain. The enemy of the statists is anyone who is willing to think for themselves. Someone willing to defend themselves IS thinking for themselves. Someone who does that is far more of a danger to the government than a petty thug and will be treated as such.

Excellent point.

[chasfm11]

Another aspect

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 0-19-00-59

According to the report, "in the absence of guidelines and clear responsibility for security outsourcing, the U.N. has hired companies well-known for their misconduct, violence and financial irregularities - and hired them repeatedly."

This effectively allows the companies to define the U.N.'s security strategy "and even its broader posture and reputation," the report said.

Sure makes me feel warmer about the whole UN gun control topic.

Dick Morris repeated his concern on F&F this morning, saying that Hilliary is going to sign the treaty this month and that the NRA is testifying before the UN today.

[sjfcontrol]

Acorn?

[Kythas]

Go through our States and look at similar situations. NJ, for example, is nearly as likely to punish you for defending yourself as the UK. You must retreat if attacked and you have to be able to demonstrate that you retreated. Then look at the crime rate in cities like Newark or Camden. They are right up there with the big boys - NYC, Chicago. Trust me, if you walked through Newark, your chances of being a victim of a crime are very high. But use a gun to defend yourself in Newark and wait until you see the jail sentence waiting for you. Heck, you'd get punished for for having it.

I have a friend of mine from New Jersey. She told me that you do not stop for red lights in Newark after dark. You slow down at the intersection, look both ways, then go if traffic is clear. Otherwise you have a good chance of getting carjacked - or worse.

This was several years ago that she told me that. I understand things have gotten better under Mayor Corey Booker, who seems to be a fairly conservative Democrat. Newark experienced an entire day without murders recently - the first murder free day in over 40 years.

[Heartland Patriot]

I trust what you say about NJ. I was stationed there many, many years ago during the "crack epidemic". A buddy and I used to go driving around just because, gas was cheap and we were too young to get into bars. Anyway, one time we made a wrong turn and ended up in Camden. This is after the Campbells soup factory closed down. That place looked horrible, trash everywhere, buildings crumbling, and people not "doing stuff" like most places, but just hanging out, not doing ANYTHING, just standing there...we were really happy when we found the right road and rolled on out of there.

[chasfm11]

Go through our States and look at similar situations. NJ, for example, is nearly as likely to punish you for defending yourself as the UK. You must retreat if attacked and you have to be able to demonstrate that you retreated. Then look at the crime rate in cities like Newark or Camden. They are right up there with the big boys - NYC, Chicago. Trust me, if you walked through Newark, your chances of being a victim of a crime are very high. But use a gun to defend yourself in Newark and wait until you see the jail sentence waiting for you. Heck, you'd get punished for for having it.

I have a friend of mine from New Jersey. She told me that you do not stop for red lights in Newark after dark. You slow down at the intersection, look both ways, then go if traffic is clear. Otherwise you have a good chance of getting carjacked - or worse.

This was several years ago that she told me that. I understand things have gotten better under Mayor Corey Booker, who seems to be a fairly conservative Democrat. Newark experienced an entire day without murders recently - the first murder free day in over 40 years.

An improvement in the crime rate is good news. We haven't lived there in a while but have good friends who do live nearby Newark. Unfortunately, nothing has changed at the State level to help those who want to protect themselves. While Southern NJ is much more of a redneck mentality where guns and self defense are acceptable, almost all of the geography above Trenton might as well be annexed to NY and Mayor Bloomy. They have about the same mentality.

I flew out of Newark airport a lot - often several days a week. The good news for me wais that I found ways to get there without having to go through any major part of the city. I often arrived home late at night and would likely not have survived those return trips if it weren't for the bypass routes. I'd put Newark up against Chicago's worst sections any day. Camden may be worse.

If the UN gun control were ever passed and implemented in the US, I believe that there would end up being a lot more Newarks and Camdens. I believe that they exist as they are because there is little or no deterrent to the rampant crime

[VMI77]

2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

VMI, there was a case in the UK some while ago where a group of three (IIRC) thugs were taken to court by a man's mother on his behalf, because he was a little too (permanently) messed up to do it for himself. They beat him pretty much senseless IN HIS OWN APARTMENT. However, he tried to fend them off for a few minutes, with his bare hands...and because he did that, the judge wouldn't allow the case to proceed because of it. So, you either have to simply take it, or simply take it; if you lose, you lose...and if you win, you lose because the "justice" system will convict YOU of injuring the others if you defend yourself successfully. I will ask the question again: why is it always okay to START trouble, but never okay to end it? Can any of our legal minds please answer this question for me, in a manner that a mere layman and mechanic can understand? Because otherwise, all I smell is a collectivist rat carcass by the name of Marx stinking the place up...

A government that punishes self-defense has abandoned all claims to legitimacy. No one has any obligation to obey any law in such a country --or more to the point, since the government has abandoned the rule of law, citizens of such a country have no recourse under law, and so must find recourse for themselves.

[VMI77]

2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

VMI, there was a case in the UK some while ago where a group of three (IIRC) thugs were taken to court by a man's mother on his behalf, because he was a little too (permanently) messed up to do it for himself. They beat him pretty much senseless IN HIS OWN APARTMENT. However, he tried to fend them off for a few minutes, with his bare hands...and because he did that, the judge wouldn't allow the case to proceed because of it. So, you either have to simply take it, or simply take it; if you lose, you lose...and if you win, you lose because the "justice" system will convict YOU of injuring the others if you defend yourself successfully. I will ask the question again: why is it always okay to START trouble, but never okay to end it? Can any of our legal minds please answer this question for me, in a manner that a mere layman and mechanic can understand? Because otherwise, all I smell is a collectivist rat carcass by the name of Marx stinking the place up...

This is real easy to explain. The enemy of the statists is anyone who is willing to think for themselves. Someone willing to defend themselves IS thinking for themselves. Someone who does that is far more of a danger to the government than a petty thug and will be treated as such. Ever notice that tax evasion is punished more consistently and more harshly than many other crimes? Laws, especially in the UK are prosecuted according to the impact on the State, not individuals or the population.

Go through our States and look at similar situations. NJ, for example, is nearly as likely to punish you for defending yourself as the UK. You must retreat if attacked and you have to be able to demonstrate that you retreated. Then look at the crime rate in cities like Newark or Camden. They are right up there with the big boys - NYC, Chicago. Trust me, if you walked through Newark, your chances of being a victim of a crime are very high. But use a gun to defend yourself in Newark and wait until you see the jail sentence waiting for you. Heck, you'd get punished for for having it.

I think we're coming from the same place, but I look at it a little differently. I can't pinpoint exactly when it happened because it has been a gradual transition, but at some point we ceased being citizens in the eyes of the ruling elites and became "resources" to be managed and harvested for their benefit. Taking this forum as an example, there are clearly some who sense this change, whether or not they express it so explicitly, and some who still believe that the ruling elites are guided by some sense of morality, duty, or obligation to the country, it's citizens, and the rule of law.

A lot of us here agree about the problems we're facing as a country, but end up in disagreement because of the fundamental difference in perspectives from which we view these problems. Specifically, I view the ruling class (which in a country founded on our principles shouldn't even exist) as degenerate and corrupt, so I don't believe exchanging one set or faction of degenerates for another is going to fix anything (though I grant, it may expedite or delay the inevitable). No doubt many here consider this attitude absurdly cynical, and I admit, I am probably more cynical than might be justified by the reality --but since none of us can ascertain this reality, except as it plays itself out, it's also possible I'm less cynical than reality would justify. Fixing our problems will require us to stop churning the ruling class and replace them, wholesale, with people who believe in the principles of The Republic.

Self-defense threatens the State and the ruling elites in two ways: 1) it conveys the notion that we hold our lives to be as valuable as theirs; and 2) what you allude to above, independence, or put another way, a failure to conform to the social order of the Herd. Bloomberg typifies the attitudes manifested in the former by seeking to deny us peasants any means of self-defense while his "vital importance" is symbolized in protection by heavily armed bodyguards. In other words, HE is important, we're just resources to be managed and harvested, and any good manager knows he's going to lose a little product here and there. The latter is important as thugs are actually more valuable to the State than productive citizens as long as they remain a minority of the population, primarily because they help keep the productive docile and cowed and in need of the State for protection --but this value disappears if the productive class is allowed to eliminate thugs in self-defense, so self-defense is prohibited by the State. In other words, prohibiting self-defense fosters dependency, and dependency is essential to the preservation of the State, because once too many citizens realize they can take care of themselves, the power of the State is threatened with diminishment. That's partly what Obamacare and a lot of the other "entitlement" programs are about --fostering a large enough dependent class to make big government seem necessary and essential.

[jollyman]

[chasfm11]

(Snip) HE is important, we're just resources to be managed and harvested, and any good manager knows he's going to lose a little product here and there. The latter is important as thugs are actually more valuable to the State than productive citizens as long as they remain a minority of the population, primarily because they help keep the productive docile and cowed and in need of the State for protection --but this value disappears if the productive class is allowed to eliminate thugs in self-defense, so self-defense is prohibited by the State. In other words, prohibiting self-defense fosters dependency, and dependency is essential to the preservation of the State, because once too many citizens realize they can take care of themselves, the power of the State is threatened with diminishment. That's partly what Obamacare and a lot of the other "entitlement" programs are about --fostering a large enough dependent class to make big government seem necessary and essential.

I don't perceive a difference between us in opinions. I just wasn't as able to say it as eloquently as you did. While a bit graphic, I believe that some of our population has already succumbed in a less physical fashion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IojqOMWTgv8

As a singular citizen, I have a limited opportunity to influence my local government but I can, at least, directly address my mayor and tell her about my concerns. State government is much harder and Federal government is harder still to influence. I believe that the Elites have recognized that World government makes them totally insulated from the influence of even any massive group. This is especially true if they can control (and they seem to be attempting in every way that they can) electronic media. The UN gun control is one of the major hurdles that they have to get past because as long as guns exist to the extent that they do in the US and elsewhere, there is always the chance of a spontaneous armed rebellion. The new world order could be threatened.

I think that there are other forces besides the NRA working to defeat this UN treaty but to avoid derailing this thread, I won't mention them here. We all need to hope that the combined efforts are successful at that defeat.

[AEA]

They won't get mine!

[Heartland Patriot]

I've stated before that Bloomberg and the (former) Mayor Daley use thugs in their cities as revenue generation machines. The citizens aren't allowed to defend themselves...the thugs get bad, the call goes out for someone to do something, the mayor says he needs more police, the Mayor then says he needs to raise taxes to pay for them, a little of it gets spent on said police and the cycle repeats...and they only crack down on the thugs when they get too far out of hand...nothing against any specific LEO in any of those cities like that...but against the political machine that determines their actions, in general.

[magillapd]

I'm ashamed to say that even though I enjoy my firearms and cherish the 2nd amendment, I hadn't ever joined the NRA. That all changed today after reading this story. I am so fed up with these tyrants wanting to take away my freedoms...the freedoms that my Grandfather fought in WW2 to save. Enough is enough. I can't afford a lifetime membership, but for the next three years...I'm locked in and never will I stay away.

[Skiprr]

I'm ashamed to say that even though I enjoy my firearms and cherish the 2nd amendment, I hadn't ever joined the NRA. That all changed today after reading this story. I am so fed up with these tyrants wanting to take away my freedoms...the freedoms that my Grandfather fought in WW2 to save. Enough is enough. I can't afford a lifetime membership, but for the next three years...I'm locked in and never will I stay away.

A personal, and sincere, "thank you."

From an NRA Endowment Life Member.

[VMI77]

As a singular citizen, I have a limited opportunity to influence my local government but I can, at least, directly address my mayor and tell her about my concerns. State government is much harder and Federal government is harder still to influence. I believe that the Elites have recognized that World government makes them totally insulated

This was essentially the kind of government originally created in this country even at the Federal level. Senators were more remote, but Representatives were generally people of stature in the local community, so they were not only more accessible, but their real character was more generally known. Even in Lincoln's day people could walk off the street into the White House and express their concerns to the President. Now the President is more like a King with a Royal Retinue and all us commoners are expected to halt our activities and bow before the Monarch, as happened recently at the Air Force Academy graduation where an air show was halted so King Barrack could leave early.