Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

UN dirty tricksFollow

#1 Jun 22 2006 at 6:06 AM Rating: Decent
Those crazy internationalists are conspiring to take your guns away!

Quote:
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Americans mistakenly worried the United Nations is plotting to take away their guns on July 4 -- U.S. Independence Day -- are flooding the world body with angry letters and postcards, the chairman of a U.N. conference on the illegal small arms trade said on Wednesday.


"I myself have received over 100,000 letters from the U.S. public, criticising me personally, saying, 'You are having this conference on the 4th of July, you are not going to get our guns on that day,'" said Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's U.N. ambassador.

"That is a total misconception as far as we are concerned," Kariyawasam told reporters ahead of the two-week meeting opening on Monday.


For one, July 4 is a holiday at U.N. headquarters and the world body's staff will be watching a fireworks display from the U.N. lawn rather than attending any meetings, he said.


For another, the U.N. conference will look only at illegal arms and "does not in any way address legal possession," a matter left to national governments to regulate rather than the United Nations, he added.


The campaign is largely the work of the U.S. National Rifle Association, whose executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, warns on an NRA Web site (http://www.stopungunban.org/) of a July 4 plot "to finalise a U.N. treaty that would strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection."


Kariyawasam said, "The U.N. conference will not negotiate any treaty to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons."


U.N. CONSPIRACY -- OR STRONGER CONTROLS?


LaPierre, who also uses the site to pitch his new book, "The Global War on Your Guns," asks NRA members to send letters to Kariyawasam and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warning that "the American people will never let you take away the rights that our 4th of July holiday represents."


The group also asks members to write to John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, urging him to "ensure the defeat of this treaty." Bolton's office confirmed he had received tens of thousands of cards from concerned Americans.


"We understand their concerns and will work during the conference to communicate their concerns," Bolton spokesman Richard Grenell said.


At the same time, 1 million people around the world -- symbolizing the number of people killed by guns since the last U.N. small arms conference in 2001 -- have signed a petition backing stronger controls on arms deals in a campaign organized by Oxfam International, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms.


The June 26-July 7 U.N. conference was called to review a 2001 U.N. action plan aimed at stemming the illegal global trade in small arms, which, as defined by the United Nations, range from pistols and grenades to mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.


The action program set out broad guidelines for national and global measures to track arms sales, promote better management of government arms stockpiles and encourage the destruction of illicit arms.


Or not. Bastards anyway.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#2 Jun 22 2006 at 8:36 AM Rating: Default
the U.N. has no authority in this country.

what they are advocating is eliminating the free flow of weapons into developing country,s to try and stem the violance poping up all over the world.

now, this is something the NRA will fight tooth and nail. the biggest supporters of the NRA are weapon makers. the U.N. is talking about reducung their profits.

it isnt U.N. dirty tricks you should worry about. they have no vested interestet in anything but peace.

it is large american corperations you should worry about. death and volance is good for their bottom line. and the U.N. recieved 10,000 letters from IGNORANT americans who believed them, kind of like the support this addministraition got for this war in Iraq.

if stupid people should not have guns, half this country should surrendder theirs.
#3 Jun 22 2006 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
they have no vested interestet in anything but peace.


Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh
Smiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lol
Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh
#4 Jun 22 2006 at 8:58 AM Rating: Decent
Took only 9 sentences for shadowrelm to turn this into a stab about Iraq. Is that a new record? Smiley: confused
#5 Jun 22 2006 at 9:03 AM Rating: Decent
shadowrelm wrote:
it isnt U.N. dirty tricks you should worry about.


Yeah, the title was sarcastic, as if it was from the point of view of those lovely folks at the NRA.

Though I don't see how the right to self-defense (however they call it) has anything to do with guns. Surely a kitchen knife thrown with accuracy, a nunchaku, or a couple of kamas wields the same results.

Kung-fu films ftw...
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#6 Jun 22 2006 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Could the NRA possible get any nuttier?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#7 Jun 22 2006 at 9:20 AM Rating: Decent
They are trying:


Quote:
Repeal D.C.’s gun ban: NRA-backed legislation in Congress would repeal Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban, gun registration requirement, and unconscionable law that effectively prohibits people from using guns to defend themselves in their homes.


How dare they try to require people to register guns. Murderers.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#8 Jun 22 2006 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
The 'roo wrote:
Could the NRA possible get any nuttier?


We both know the answer to that one.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#9 Jun 22 2006 at 9:59 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,829 posts
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
The 'roo wrote:
Could the NRA possible get any nuttier?


We both know the answer to that one.


The NRA is a prime example of a group that uses the letter of the law to sidestep the spirit of the law. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to the kind of latitude the NRA advocates.

#10 Jun 22 2006 at 10:02 AM Rating: Decent
Ambrya wrote:
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
The 'roo wrote:
Could the NRA possible get any nuttier?


We both know the answer to that one.


The NRA is a prime example of a group that uses the letter of the law to sidestep the spirit of the law. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to the kind of latitude the NRA advocates.



I think you are misunderestimating the Founding Fathers. They knew Assault Rifles, semi-automatics, school massacres, and gangland driveby shootings were gonna happen.

And they wanted you to have the *right* to experience it all.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#11 Jun 22 2006 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Ambrya wrote:
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
The 'roo wrote:
Could the ACLU possible get any nuttier?


We both know the answer to that one.


The ACLU is a prime example of a group that uses the letter of the law to sidestep the spirit of the law. The 1st Amendment was never intended to the kind of latitude the ACLU advocates.


Thats right I am a secretive right wing nutjob!!!! Smiley: tongue




____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#12 Jun 22 2006 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
I think you are misunderestimating the Founding Fathers. They knew Assault Rifles, semi-automatics, school massacres, and gangland driveby shootings were gonna happen.

And they wanted you to have the *right* to experience it all.

The phrase "right to bear arms" meant the right to wear one's crest or 'coat of arms' (one of the founding fathers' reasons for quitting these hallowed shores when the tricksy Royal Family forebade bearing arms).

I know by the time it became enshrined, it had come to mean gUnz0rzz, but it still makes me giggle.

You can take the "Lion Rampant on Sable Chevron with unicorn" from my cold, dead hands.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#13 Jun 22 2006 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
***
1,024 posts
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
They are trying:


Quote:
Repeal D.C.’s gun ban: NRA-backed legislation in Congress would repeal Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban, gun registration requirement, and unconscionable law that effectively prohibits people from using guns to defend themselves in their homes.


How dare they try to require people to register guns. Murderers.


We are real happy about this in DC. It is even better because we have no voice in Congress. I am glad they (Congress) know what is best for us since we obviously cannot decide we don't want guns in our district. Oh, wait, we did decide that, but I guess we don't know what we really want.

=/



#14 Jun 22 2006 at 11:59 AM Rating: Decent
Jetsam wrote:
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
They are trying:


Quote:
Repeal D.C.’s gun ban: NRA-backed legislation in Congress would repeal Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban, gun registration requirement, and unconscionable law that effectively prohibits people from using guns to defend themselves in their homes.


How dare they try to require people to register guns. Murderers.


We are real happy about this in DC. It is even better because we have no voice in Congress. I am glad they (Congress) know what is best for us since we obviously cannot decide we don't want guns in our district. Oh, wait, we did decide that, but I guess we don't know what we really want.

=/





Wait wait wait.

There are PEOPLE living in D.C.?
#15 Jun 22 2006 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Althrun wrote:
Wait wait wait.

There are PEOPLE living in D.C.?
Yeah, but don't worry. The only people that would be affected by this don't live in Georgetown, so it won't affect the shopping.
#16 Jun 22 2006 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
***
1,024 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Althrun wrote:
Wait wait wait.

There are PEOPLE living in D.C.?
Yeah, but don't worry. The only people that would be affected by this don't live in Georgetown, so it won't affect the shopping.


Hehe, I have lived in DC for over 6 years now, and I have yet to shop in Georgetown.

Chinablock is booming!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 218 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (218)