Second Amendment Rights [split]

[bamf]

North Korea learned many years ago they could do what they want to do. China does not want anyone else near the peninsula. North Korea was beaten to the ground, but China stepped in and changed everything. Everyone has allies, but remember others have political agendas that take precedence over anything else.

Taepo Dong and Shehab generations are from shared technologies. Iran and North Korea are doing most everything they can to suck the world into war. North Korea will show their ignorance, thinking they are showing their might, only as a decoy for the most uninformed of the world. They will continue to do so until China spanks them.

The US Congress Monday spoke in regards to START with Russia (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). Our leaders are trying to do everything they can with their lame ducks until January 5 next year. Why reduce weapons manufacturing when your self-decided enemies are continuing to produce more WMDs? Second Amendment rights have been turned over to the UN for scrutiny, as the 80 plus million gun owners in America have little clue what that may bring....may not even know our current administration has betrayed us.

North Korea sees us as a weak nation with little to no influence any more. Maybe we should stop sponsoring the United Nations. Their agenda for a gunless society around the world is rediculous to many, but they have a reason for making the populace unarmed so they can change the world the way they want to. Last thing they want is an uprising against them. Maybe they should look at their ideals with a microscope and see the way it really is.

Yes, the ceasefire has been violated. It has been violated before with the sinking of a South Korean warship. How many remember the Karine-A? Wonder where that came from?

The passing of power to a new leader is in progress. I see this as a lesson in world politics to the young man.

Wait, what?

What does START have to do with individual gun ownership and the second amendment?

 

[just me]

Wait, what?

What does START have to do with individual gun ownership and the second amendment?

mmm...I would call the similarities betrayal by our government in and during bad times worldwide.

Japan calls our inaction to the now two confrontations by North Korea an invitation for more confrontations. Iran also sees our inaction as a sign of weakness.

 

[bamf]

mmm...I would call the similarities betrayal by our government in and during bad times worldwide.

Japan calls our inaction to the now two confrontations by North Korea an invitation for more confrontations. Iran also sees our inaction as a sign of weakness.

I still don't understand what North Korea, or nearly 20 years of nuclear arms reduction has to do with private gun ownership in the United States, or how it is threatening Second Amendment rights, or how the UN is trying to take away private arms in the United States.

 

[just me]

I still don't understand what North Korea, or nearly 20 years of nuclear arms reduction has to do with private gun ownership in the United States, or how it is threatening Second Amendment rights, or how the UN is trying to take away private arms in the United States.

It may not have anything directly related except the timing. Bush would not allow the UN to ask questions regarding our Second Amendment rights. The UN wants only the military and police, if that, to have guns. Bush and everyone else knows that. Obama and Clinton have opened the door to the UN's scrutiny of our Second Amendment Rights on the world arena.

The correlation of the two (arms reduction and gun rights abuse) at a time when other countries are building nuclear weapons and pushing their political agendas in the Far and Middle East, stink and smell of dead fish. I do apologize for not being more explicit or for being misunderstood. The US was handing out weapons to civilians and training them how to use them to help protect our Pacific coast when the Japanese were at war with us. Our administration continues to try and disarm America's civilians when all hell could break loose any day. Makes me wonder whose side they are on. An unarmed populace can do little against a government out of control, let alone help protect our homeland. Sheeple are easier to control than people.

 

[Kavalan]

It may not have anything directly related except the timing. Bush would not allow the UN to ask questions regarding our Second Amendment rights. The UN wants only the military and police, if that, to have guns. Bush and everyone else knows that. Obama and Clinton have opened the door to the UN's scrutiny of our Second Amendment Rights on the world arena.

The correlation of the two (arms reduction and gun rights abuse) at a time when other countries are building nuclear weapons and pushing their political agendas in the Far and Middle East, stink and smell of dead fish. I do apologize for not being more explicit or for being misunderstood. The US was handing out weapons to civilians and training them how to use them to help protect our Pacific coast when the Japanese were at war with us. Our administration continues to try and disarm America's civilians when all hell could break loose any day. Makes me wonder whose side they are on. An unarmed populace can do little against a government out of control, let alone help protect our homeland. Sheeple are easier to control than people.

As far I know the only UN resolution dealing with arms regulations is targeting illicit gun running. Unless you can produce a public document from the UN saying other wise you are fear mongering and no better than those who cried death panel... stop it.

 

[just me]

As far I know the only UN resolution dealing with arms regulations is targeting illicit gun running. Unless you can produce a public document from the UN saying other wise you are fear mongering and no better than those who cried death panel... stop it.

Maybe look at the tied gun barrel bronzed they have at their home office.


http://www.nrapublications.org/SG/index.asp

Just received this in the mail.

 

[Kavalan]

I got halfway through and got to how George Soros runs the world and realized that that is just a conspiracy fear mongering article... It never cites where it gets its information and thus is not credible. Its also from the NRA... about as unbiased about this subject as I am about abuse of scientific data/theory...

 

[Kavalan]

Finished... they allude as they fail to cite the resolution I spoke of above and misrepresented it. They'll take action against you if you say... sell guns to guerrillas. If you don't do that I think you will be in the clear.

 

[just me]

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/dc3249.doc.htm

Maybe the course is not clearly defined.....
the intent to get their foot in the door for further resrictions is.
Reminds me of "give an inch and they want a mile".

"
TED ROWE, President, World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, said, since the programme of action was adopted, the World Forum had had two very consistent messages: that the United Nations recognize that the vast majority of small arms in the world were legal firearms; and that the Programme of Action focused on specific solutions to the problem. He had been disappointed that those messages seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. There was no acknowledgement or recognition of the existence and legitimacy of legally owned and possessed firearms by the civilian population in the reports of the biennial meetings, regional meetings, expert reports or anywhere else. For its part, the Programme of Action “lacked focus”. He suggested that the upcoming 2011 meeting focus on addressing the illegal transfer of large numbers of military small arms and light weapons, rather than on legal civilian firearms owners. Military small arms should be defined as those capable of fully automatic fire. The 2012 Review Conference should also focus on the transfer of military arms. Involvement by non-governmental organizations should be encouraged at both venues." quoted from the above UN doc

 

[IndigoSensor]

The argument about us loosing our second amendment right is a completely moot point in this argument and has no relevancy in my eyes what so ever after reading this.

Further, the second amendment isn't going to be going anywhere anytime soon. It's a amendment, do you have any idea how hard it is to actually make an amendment? The last time we actually had one was several decades ago. It takes years (double digit years) and longer to actually make an amendment. In order for people to take our gun rights away they would have to create an amendment that specefically undo's the second amendment (that is the ONLY way it can be done, literally). For one that would be WILDLY unpopular by congress and the burecratic red tape that a new proposed amendment needs to go through is by far the longest and most difficult out of anything run in the US government. The odds of an amendment actually forming to undo gun rights is staggeringly out of it's favor by leaps and bounds. To think otherwise is, well, stupid to be completely honest, as this is the ONLY way to undo amendment rights. Anything that actually does violate the amendments ends up getting shot down faster then any other thing that passes through the courts. If they actually somehow did create a loophole of a law to ban guns in some way, it would be undone in a matter of months and be locked out forever.

 

[Kavalan]

It still deals with ILLICIT SMUGGLING of small arms.... unless you buy from a shady dealer from russia I think your firearms will be safe.

 

[just me]

I apologize for veering off subject. That was not done intentionally. I do wish to thank all interested in keeping our Second Amendment Rights: Thank You!! The day our government wants a list of all privately-owned small arms, for whatever excuse they use, will cause quite an uproar.

Anyone care to write the UN and ask how they feel regarding the subject, just to see if they bother to reply and how? Please post your findings.

I really must get some rest....

 

[IndigoSensor]

I apologize for veering off subject. That was not done intentionally. I do wish to thank all interested in keeping our Second Amendment Rights: Thank You!! The day our government wants a list of all privately-owned small arms, for whatever excuse they use, will cause quite an uproar.

Anyone care to write the UN and ask how they feel regarding the subject, just to see if they bother to reply and how? Please post your findings.

I really must get some rest....

If you want to I can split this thread out and make it a topic of its own on the 2nd amendment.

 

[just me]

It would be fair to the original poster to do so, Indi. I once again apologize.

Edit to say it is sometimes what we do not read or what is not written that can harm us.
" There was no acknowledgement or recognition of the existence and legitimacy of legally owned and possessed firearms by the civilian population in the reports of the biennial meetings, regional meetings, expert reports or anywhere else. For its part, the Programme of Action “lacked focus”. He suggested that the upcoming 2011 meeting focus on addressing the illegal transfer of large numbers of military small arms and light weapons, rather than on legal civilian firearms owners."

 

[Kavalan]

found the Program of action
In the preamble:

9. Reaffirming the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence in accordance with
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,

10. Reaffirming also the right of each State to manufacture, import and retain small arms and light weapons for its self-defence and security needs, as well as for its capacity to participate in peacekeeping operations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Unless these points have been edited out in the nine years as long as you have not broken laws you should be safe...
http://www.poa-iss.org/PoA/poahtml.aspx
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

 

[IndigoSensor]

[mods]this thread has been split out from the north/south korea thread, about second amendment rights[/mods]

 

[just me]

Self defense leaves an awful lot in the air to me. However, I must know if I am a member of the UN. The right for each state does not include me.

If the words do not include the rights of each individual of each state, they have left something out that gives me a problem.

 

[Barnabas]

It still deals with ILLICIT SMUGGLING of small arms.... unless you buy from a shady dealer from russia I think your firearms will be safe.

but...but...but... how will Tokolov feed his six Russian babies