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

Should the United Nations Be Allowed To Disarm Amerika ??

I don't get it.

The United Nations has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America. So why this question.

They'll never take my sling shot away.

The Second Amendment says right to bare ARMS. Back then 1779 that also mean a cannon. Today ARMs can mean Nuclear. "Smoke 'em if you got 'em." If I had Bill Gate's money and if I wanted nuclear missiles, I'd have 'em. That's exactly what the Second Amendment says. If the ATF or the Supreme Court wanted to argue about it, then I would have the Constitutional right to redress. (a red button.)

Top that!​

 

There is no "counter argument" to a position that assigns an imaginary mindset to tens of millions of people. You say that's how you see things, I say it's horseshit . . . That's about as deep as it can get.

The only way that there can be something to debate if you have developed your theory beyond the superficial (which it is obvuios you haven't). The inspection of that development was the focus of my questions. . . .

So, if you resist or are incapable of discussing your theory past the statement of the hypotesis then I guess you win, it is as immune to attack as the ramblings of the homeless guy screaming about aliens in his shopping cart.

No, that hasn't happened because we would be beyond you re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-r-re-re-re-repeating your theory . . .

So I think it is time for me to adopt your debate style and just refer you to my prior statements. Perhaps if I number them?

1) What is your vision of an America if her gun owners were to finally understand that they were only using gun ownership as, "a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems"?

2) What would you expect to happen if American gun owners then felt an "urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime"?

3) Do you expect that such an epiphany would really force a 180 degree course change in their feeling that, "if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them"?

4) Are you arguing that criminal action would disappear from America but for the selfish actions of gun owners reinforcing the beliefs you place on us?

5) Has your program been realized anywhere?

6) I know that armed self defense is quite restrained in the UK (as opposed to our widening "castle doctrine" laws in the USA) and homeowners have been prosecuted for firearm use on their property when intruders have been hurt.

Have those laws (which would obviously infringe on the right to arms in the USA) brought the UK into compliance with your program of altering this detrimental mindset of gun owners (or do these myths only manifest themselves in US gun owners?

7) Has that sentiment, "if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them" been completely erased from the consciousness of the few remaining gun owning Britons?
​

Without you addressing what you see as the outcome of gun owners surrendering that general attitude that accepts the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and reliving themselves of the near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them and Americans finally exorcising the irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible, I don't see much left to talk about.

 

Except, you know, the entire body of international laws and norms it is bound by.

 

Which have NO ability or authority to disarm US civilians.

Anyway, the UN is a tyrant, but it's OUR tyrant....

 

What are you talking about? The UN is not a tyrant.

 

i would submit that 'the tyranny of the majority', as regards the u.n., is, in fact, a tyranny of a minority. i cannot easily find how the voting delegates are 'selected', but i believe them to be picked by their governments. given that many governments are not picked by their populace, how does anyone pretend to say that the united nations represents the world population or their best interests?

tell me, someone, how are these delegates representative of my best interests? will they shoot a coyote when one comes after my calf? will they be there to run off a burglar who tries to steal my truck? will they pick weeds from my tomatoes?

bullshit. suits with no real purpose except to line their already rich pockets. more jerks telling those of us who try to live what we 'must' do to fit in with their ideas. let them find a real job if they know how to work rather than run their pretty mouths and wave their manicured hands. they can have my rifle when they pry it from my dead fingers....it most certainly will not be the suits who pry it..it will be some underpaid poor bastard they send who bought their line of shit.

 

Roo

Please clarify – what legislation?

 

Scratcho

I took it the OP as a rhetorical question that was meant to bring about discussion on the US gun issue. I mean the UN has neither the means nor inclination to do anything like that.

 

Rick

All your questions have been answered by me at one time or another (some in this thread),

If you actually read my posts rather than just flying into a strop every time I post you might just find that I have actually answered your questions.

Just repeating questions that I’ve already replied to, is not very helpful, why not address by replies instead?

*

 

Rick

To repeat -

If they didn’t fear that a criminal was coming after them, then they might not feel they needed the means to deal with them.

As pointed out (in this thread) - if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).(Post 99)

I’ve said many times I think that if people moved from the mentality and attitudes I’ve described they might discern more prudent and sensible ways of dealing with the US’s social problems.

 

Rick

To repeat -

Let us first look at the Swiss who are often put forward by US pro-gunners as another example of a gun owning culture.

(This is from the thread ‘Should Guns be Banned in the US?’, post 335)

The Swiss have still got a citizen army and many there seem to see being able to use a gun as part of their civic duty. They also have a rich society with a lot less of the socio-economic problems prevalent to some parts of the US. It also has a well developed social welfare system and their mentality towards prison rehabilitation and drugs is very different from the US as reflected in their prison populations Switzerland 69 per 100,000, US a massive 686 per 100,000.

France has a gun culture (at least when I was there) but it was based very much around hunting rather than for personal protection. The country also has a well developed social welfare system (and a prison population of 85 per 100,000).

Hunting is also very prevalent in Finland (I believe personal protection isn’t seen as a valid reason for gun ownership while hunting is) The country also has a Scandinavia style welfare system (and a prison population 59 per 100,000).

Thing is that it is difficult to compare ‘national psyches’ but from my point of view many Americans seem to have a much more pronounced ‘individualistic’ ideas (as in freedom from government or pulling yourself up by your bootstraps) while many Europeans have a much more community based viewpoint (seeing government as a means of helping people).

This also colours their view toward guns, in the US they are seen as a protection against government and socio-economic problems such as crime, while in Europe personal protection isn’t seen as such a priority and social welfare is seen as a means of tackling socio-economic problems.

In England there is a rather conservative attitude toward crime encouraged and enforced by a right wing press, which is reflected in the fact that England has one of the largest prison populations in Europe with 148 per 100,000 (still way off 686 per 100,000). But it also has an established welfare system although due to neo-liberal policies it has had a widening equality gap. At the moment there is an interesting discussion going on about the effectiveness of prison sentences.

(Figure based on World Prison Population List (fourth edition) by the UK Home Office)(post 98)

 

Rick

To repeat -

I am talking about attitudes and mentality – and as I’ve said the only way to change such things is through education. And attitudes and mentality can change – it was once a widely held belief that white people were mentally and morally superior to other races, ideas that underpinned many people’s views on slavery and imperialism.(post 98)


I don’t expect the attitudes or mentality of many Americans to change overnight and even if things did change there would still be those that hold onto the old views (for example some people still think white people are mentally and morally superior to other races).(post 99)

 

Rick

Answered many times – no, but if they didn’t fear their society they might not feel they needed a deadly weapon to protect themselves from it.

 

Rick

What ‘program’ are you talking about?

But I’ve said many times that -

I am talking about attitudes and mentality – and as I’ve said the only way to change such things is through education.(post 98)

 

Rick

Let us first look at the Swiss who are often put forward by US pro-gunners as another example of a gun owning culture.

(This is from the thread ‘Should Guns be Banned in the US?’, post 335)

The Swiss have still got a citizen army and many there seem to see being able to use a gun as part of their civic duty. They also have a rich society with a lot less of the socio-economic problems prevalent to some parts of the US. It also has a well developed social welfare system and their mentality towards prison rehabilitation and drugs is very different from the US as reflected in their prison populations Switzerland 69 per 100,000, US a massive 686 per 100,000.

France has a gun culture (at least when I was there) but it was based very much around hunting rather than for personal protection. The country also has a well developed social welfare system (and a prison population of 85 per 100,000).

Hunting is also very prevalent in Finland (I believe personal protection isn’t seen as a valid reason for gun ownership while hunting is) The country also has a Scandinavia style welfare system (and a prison population 59 per 100,000).

Thing is that it is difficult to compare ‘national psyches’ but from my point of view many Americans seem to have a much more pronounced ‘individualistic’ ideas (as in freedom from government or pulling yourself up by your bootstraps) while many Europeans have a much more community based viewpoint (seeing government as a means of helping people).

This also colours their view toward guns, in the US they are seen as a protection against government and socio-economic problems such as crime, while in Europe personal protection isn’t seen as such a priority and social welfare is seen as a means of tackling socio-economic problems.

In England there is a rather conservative attitude toward crime encouraged and enforced by a right wing press, which is reflected in the fact that England has one of the largest prison populations in Europe with 148 per 100,000 (still way off 686 per 100,000). But it also has an established welfare system although due to neo-liberal policies it has had a widening equality gap. At the moment there is an interesting discussion going on about the effectiveness of prison sentences.

(Figure based on World Prison Population List (fourth edition) by the UK Home Office)(post98)

 

Rick

As I’ve said many times before there doesn’t seem to be the US pro-gunner’s level of fear in the UK.

As I’ve said before it is possible to get a gun in the UK, many people have shot guns and if you are law abiding and seem responsible it is possible to get a license. It is just that most people don’t feel the necessity to have a gun. I mean what would I do with a shotgun in the city? Hunting, I’d rather preserve the wildlife we have rather than shoot it. Keeping down vermin, I think calling a professional exterminator would be more efficient and less time consuming that sitting out on my porch in the hope a rat will show up. As to home defence, well as I’ve said there just doesn’t seem to be the US pro-gunner’s level of fear about that here.

 

Rick

As I’ve said just saying I’m wrong is not a rational or reasonable counter argument.

Saying it is ‘horseshit’ is not a counter argument.

Saying it is just ‘ramblings’ is not a counter argument.

Just calling it ‘superficial’ is not a counter argument.

*

Thing is if someone who obviously dislikes my ideas and who must really want to present counter arguments that knock my ideas out of the water, can’t seem to present any then it would seem to imply you can’t think of any, which means my ideas must have some validity.

 

You can call us afraid all you want.

Fear is pretty natural. There are things and people to fear.

I'm glad your neighbor is always there to save you from baddies. Glad everyone in the UK loves each other. But that's now how it is here.

As you yourself said, americans like to be self reliant. I hope the police do their job and protect me, but they're usually too busy murdering our war veterans. I'd rather be able to handle myself.

Not to mention how far police or even ANYBODY live from many people in the US. I live 16 miles outside of town, and 50 outside an almost normal small town (6000 or so, 50 miles away) So even if I did trust inept drug obsessed police to protect me, they're not out here to do it.

A lot of (most? not sure) our states are larger than your whole fucking country, and we have FIFTY of them. There's not always a friendly local cop to save you and then arrest you for smoking a joint. And if there was, I still would want to be able to handle my self.

I want to be able to do it myself, and I don't want to depend on our corrupt pork barrel project police departments.

And for all of this, I don't even own a gun, and again, have no intention in purchasing one in the forseeable future.

All you seem to see is murder/violence rates, and the fact that guns can be used to hurt people. You're oblivious to the general atmosphere int he US, especially the sheer amount of land and sheer independibility of police.

Basically what you're saying is that we should submit to our government so that they save us. Which would be fine if I trusted my government, but I don't. There's very deep social rifts here, caused by the government basically praying on the people. Again, war on drugs. I don't trust them, and a large number of US don't trust them. It's an us and them thing, and I don't want their help until they are not corrupt scumbags leeching off the citizenry. "just hand over your gun and you won't need a gun" sounds great, except that police are not about to hand over THEIR guns.

Again: deep rifts. And I will not close those rifts by submitting to this government, they must close them by submitting to ME, a legitimate government rules with the consent of the people. Until there's a government that I can safely fall back on and consent to, I need the right to have my own protection, should I feel the need.

 

Roo

Again this fits in with what I’ve been trying to say.

There is this idea of either/or among pro-gunners that it is about banning all guns or no guns and there is no alternative to that. But as I’ve said I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun I would just like to try and get guns out of the hands of the criminally minded and irresponsible.

You lambast the police for being ineffectual, corrupt and bullying, but I’d ask the question you don’t seem to – why? Why are the police that way and once you understand that – what can be done to change it?

Same with the ‘government’ you don’t trust it but again why don’t you trust it and what could be changed so you trusted it more?

If someone fears their society so much that they feel they need to have a gun to protect them from it then to me something is deeply wrong with that society. A society is a persons home the place where they live and grow up in, it should be somewhere were you feel relatively safe, and a place that nurtures and protects you. If a child said it found its home frightening that it didn’t trust its parents not to abuse it and feared been attacked by its brothers and sisters, so much so that it felt it need to be armed. Would you say that was natural or that something was wrong in that household?

 

To answer the original question:
YES!!!
There are way to many nutcases out there that own guns and misuse them.
The feds and states are unwilling to bring in effective gun control laws to curb this out-of-control gun culture.
The next logical step is a UN action to disarm the us population.
Only registered rifles and shotguns shoul dbe allowed to be owned, only if they are stored safe (police controls) and the owner has taken a mendatory training with exame and is licensed to own guns.
Once he has his license and a safe storage facility, only then can he go and buy a sporting arm.
NO assault rifles, (sub) machin guns, pump guns or handguns with barrels less than 4 inch in lenght and more than 7 shots in magazine or cylinder.
Not more than a total of 5 firearms per license!
That will keep the nutcase survivalists and militias under wrap!