Should the United Nations Be Allowed To Disarm Amerika ??ns

Well unfortunately I missed the latest poll taken on whether Amerikans should continue to be allowed to own firearms as per the Second Amendment. Or perhaps Amerika should allow the United Nations to disarm us to the point where only the Armed Forces and LEO (that's Law Enforcement Organizations) are allowed to own firearms?

I believe we have sufficient laws on the books regarding the safe disposition of firearms by Federal Firearms Licensees, ie gun shops dealing in new and used firearms.

I firmly believe the ATF should concern themselves with enforcing firearms laws currently on the books. The ATF shouldn't concern themselves with covertly allowing known straw purchasers from buying new guns and then smuggling them into Mexico. Don't the Mexicans have enough problems without the ATF supplying them with arms? Besides if the Mexicans want guns why don't they buy AK47s or the venerable SKS from China?

Just because we buy alot of stuff from China doesn't make them our friends. They are after all a Communist country. :devil:A communist country and a republic like Amerika are about as similar as a bag of oranges and a box of rocks wouldn't you agree? Or would you agree that a box of rocks is exactly the same as a bag of oranges?

 

I had a bit of trouble with my poll so I doubt it will be viable. If possible I will try to make it work in next day or 2. I'm not real hip with this type of thing. Dirt and gravel is my thang.

 

guns are bad, cant we all just get rid of them,including the police/armies

 

Yeah, all we have to do is get rid of greed and anger.

 

hmmmm, that'll take longer than just taking a harmful possesion

damn people!

I wish all us hippies were evil super villans!

then we could steal all the guns and mass brainwash society for peaceful thoughts!

 

Guns cannot be gotten rid of, once a technology is out of the box , so to speak ,it cannot be put back in, like nuclear weapons or nuclear power plants, that knowledge of nuclear shit cannot be put back and everyone act like its not there...An old man once told me, what's once known, cannot be unknown.. In other words we cannot go back centuries and change things..too bad really, I know things I would like to change, but thats not how it works.

 

Trying to pull that off is a good way to start a real bloody civil war.

 

Americans who own guns will not give them up. They will bust back if forces try to take possession. People who don't have any, one day will wish they did.

You hear all the time about people being killed by guns, but you don't hear much about the people saved by guns. I guess it's hard to make statistics when not many people will call in "Oh yeah, I was almost robbed/murdered/kidnapped/raped, but I showed my 9 mm and they ran away"

 

How is it that inanimate objects such as firearms could possibly be bad? After all a firearm,(here after we will call them guns) is not a sentient being. A gun has no brain. It has no feelings or emotions. A gun is merely a collection of parts assembled in such a manner as to dispense a projectile when picked up and used by a human. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

criminals will only have guns as long as guns are manufactured. the solution lies there. (not JUST in america of course, but at all)

 

i agree that the united nations should be able to disarm the US.

but good luck cuz nothin comes between a redneck and his gun.

that and everyone'd scream new world order :willy_nilly: and nothing will change.

 

What did "man" and "men" do before guns were invented? I am pretty sure some of them managed to find a means to murder others.

 

Another gun issue thread and once more we get the same stale arguments from the pro-gun handbook that I’ve heard and address many times now.

What follows is basically cut and paste’s from past gun threads -

The idea that a gun is just a tool is crap, it is a weapon designed specifically as a weapon, a knife can be used as a weapon but has many other uses, a car can be used as a weapon but it was designed as a means of transport, a gun is a weapon it can be used to frighten, threaten, maim or kill, it cannot be used for anything else.

A knife or baseball bat (the mostly commonly cited example of other weapons, if guns were banned) were designed with other purposes in mind, and yes they can be misused to kill - but shooting and killing something with a gun is not a misuse of the gun that is what the gun was designed for so basically that is its purpose (not for hunting or collecting but for killing other human beings).

What seems to be implied here is that the same amount of Americans would be murdered but just with something else (it has nothing to do with the ease with which guns can kill).

But the US has one of the largest gun related homicide rates in the world (which boosts its general murder rate up) so this argument seems to imply that the Americans are much more murderous than most other people.

So if you follow this arguments it begs one huge question – what is it about US society that causes Americans to be so much more murderous than other people?

 

guns aren't bad, people with guns are

 

ah, but they did have to be sneakier or more personal, and a lot more skillful.

the point i think though, is that a culture that romanticizes aggressiveness probably shouldn't be trusted with them. (or even scissors without rounded tips.)

 

Here's something for you to ponder. Thanks for spelling the united nations without capitalizing the words first. That is an effective way to in effect tell the un to f*ck off and eat sh*t. Which is my stance.

But seriously folks it is my belief most gun owners in America are NOT REDNECKS. Whats more many of those Americans just might pop you one in the mouth for calling them rednecks when they aren't.

Just because I consider myself to be a gun owning redneck as part of my heritage don't make the mistake of lumping all gun owners together in that regard. Because if you do some of you may be getting your loose teeth fixed at the dentist.

One last thing. The day un forces drive into America with the idea of disarming Americans they will need 2 things. A really BIG LUNCH cuz some Americans won't give up their guns without a fight. The un will need ALOT OF BODY BAGS for their people. At least until they wise up and get the Hell out of My Country.atriot:

 

A proud american with a excellent point about why you should NOT give up your guns, instead invest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRN7lWem3oE"]YouTube - NEVER Give Up Your GUNS! The Middle East is a Prime Example!

 

Thank you 7point

Once more someone comes along and backs up my theory.

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

*

I mean look at the aggression here, the threat of violence on display

“f*ck off and eat sh*t”

“pop you one in the mouth”

“getting your loose teeth fixed at the dentist”

“need ALOT OF BODY BAGS”

*

Wonderful, just wonderful.

 

broony

Not exactly excellent points just another rehash of the same old stale and deeply flawed arguments that have been presented before.

Again all I really have to do in reply is cut and paste from past posts –

*

The best defence against tyranny is a balanced political system and the best hope of bring one down is an army that isn’t willing to open fire on its own people.

In the name of anti-communism the American people were happy to countenanced repression of people both domestically and abroad. They’d been taught (especially those on the right) to see such repression as legitimate.

As to the Middle East maybe you should look at US foreign policy there since the end of WWII – from the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran to the Iraqi occupation.

*

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

Here is the long version –

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

*

Thing is that once more in this video fear is being used to sell guns

It is the attitude that nothing can be done, that it shouldn’t even be attempted, that there is just no point in even trying to get guns out of the hands of criminals – so since there isn’t an alternative the only way to protect yourself from that pistol totting crack addicted gangbanger that at any moment could break through your door and rape your wife and child before putting a bullet in your head is to get yourself a gun - no get two or maybe three…..

But guns cannot deal with the underlying problems - they are only attempts at tackling the symptoms of those problems through the threat of violence.

It is saying – I’m frightened of society so I’ll make society frightened of me – I’m frightened of the ‘government’ so I’ll make the government fear me.

But this attitude just seems to accept the fear rather than ask why they have it. Why is there society so frightening to them that they feel they need a gun to make it frightened of them – what is it about the political system they live under that makes them so fearful that they think they need a gun to protect themselves from it?

*

 

Someone PM’ed me to ask if I felt safer since “the government of the UK disarmed her people”

I don’t know why they felt they needed to PM me with this point since this is an open debating forum and that is a very legitimate and pertinent question to ask and therefore I feel it would be better to answer it openly.

*

The thing with this question is that there is the assumption of fear, as if I should somehow feel frightened because I don’t have a gun, the thing is I don’t.

It should be remembered that few people had guns in the UK even when there were no restrictions on gun ownership and those that did mostly had shotguns and rifles for hunting and keeping down vermin in rural areas. And the thing is that farmers and landowners still can own such guns. So the gun control measures that have been taken in the UK had very little or even no effect on the vast majority of the British public.

Now we have crime in the UK and that includes violent crime, but there doesn’t seem to be the same level of fear of being a victim of it as there seems to be among many of the pro-gunners I’ve meet on these forums.

Maybe it’s just because I and the people I know have not had much experience of it or where they have a gun would have been of little use or made a bad situation worse.

This is why I ask what is it about how many Americans perceive their society that makes them fear it so much that they feel they need a gun to protect themselves from it?