UN Agenda 21/Small Arms Treaty - What do you think would happen if they really tried to take our guns away?

Quote from Xygonn : Drone striking terrorists got rid of all the terrorists. Am I right? Bombing the shit out of Vietnam won that war too. Am I right? Air superiority cannot win a war against a persistent insurgency.

run over them with tanks.

that said, good for you to equate the gun nuts with the terrorists and the viet cong in this hypothetical situation.

well seeing as how the whole Vietnam war was based on a lie, much like Iraq...yes I feel that would be accurate...

Quote from Xygonn : Drone striking terrorists got rid of all the terrorists. Am I right? Bombing the shit out of Vietnam won that war too. Am I right? Air superiority cannot win a war against a persistent insurgency.

You're assuming pudgy wannabes with cushy middle class lifestyles and a lot to lose are anything like the viet cong and the hardcore "terrorists". Shit, they'd turn themselves AND their neighbors in before choosing to live in a hole in the ground over some toys.

Quote from agent00f : You're assuming pudgy wannabes with cushy middle class lifestyles and a lot to lose are anything like the viet cong and the hardcore "terrorists". Shit, they'd turn themselves AND their neighbors in before choosing to live in a hole in the ground over some toys.

You'd give up your guns (if you had any) for a promise not to be arbitrarily shot.

Quote from Xygonn : You'd give up your guns (if you had any) for a promise not to be arbitrarily shot.

Most people living in the civilized first world do. They can always move to the US I suppose if they can't live without them, or if our immigration policy is too tough there's still plenty of shittier places to choose, too.

Agenda 21 and the Small Arms Treaty are different things. Agenda 21 is about "sustainability" and herding all the people into government approved urban areas and severely limiting access to the rest of the land, controlling resources and the like. Very "District 12" type of thing. It's a pretty massive document, but I don't recall anything about gun restrictions in there.

The Small Arms Treaty hasn't been drafted yet. They had a convention in NY last month to draft it but didn't come up with a final draft (coincidentally we suddenly have a rash of shootings, go figure). IMO, it remains a pretty serious threat to gun rights though. After the stall with the committee to draft the treaty it sounds like they are working on a work around that won't require our Senate to approve. The UN Programme Against Small Arms is meeting Aug 27 to Sept 7 to work on it. I'm too lazy to google it tonight, but I heard that the State Dept was bragging that Fast and Furious was part of the implementation of this "programme."

Quote from Deusxmachina : I think there'd be a lot of ducking due to all the bullets flying through the air. When I think of who would win by sheer mass of numbers, I think of the citizens. The U.S. military only has like 2.5 million people, and not all of those would be on the sides of a tyrannical government trying to infringe on constitutional rights.

I agree. Being outnumbered 100 to 1 counterbalances the superior weaponry they reserve for themselves.

Quote from Deusxmachina : They don't need to amend the Constitution to do it. They'd just keep adding "reasonable" gun-control laws until the good guns are outlawed and it's too much hoop jumping to bother getting any anyway.

Oh, I'm sure we'd hear the argument from some lawyer or "Constitutional scholar" that Article Six makes treaties the supreme law of the land so the treaty would supersede the 2nd Amendment if such a thing were to pass. I think we've even seen that argument here before.

Quote from thikthird : drop bombs on the houses of people who refuse to give up guns. problem solved.

Maybe you live next to one. Problem solved.

It's quite funny that someone with those views would have a Huxley quote for sig. Maybe one from Orwell can be added to round out that leftist circle.

I do like the one from the elitist, though, to tell these new populist conservatives what's up.

emails like this from Rand Paul are what prompted the idea for this thread. Once again, I hope he is wrong...

Joe,

I’ve just returned from the RNC in Tampa, and I have some bad news to report.

Bureaucrats at the UN are busy working on a UN Gun Ban at the Programme Against Small Arms conference in New York City.

Speaking for the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton has already given her blessing to this global gun grab, calling for "consensus" in order to "avoid loop-holes."

My suspicion is that "loop-holes" for Mrs. Clinton include our Second Amendment.

Right now, gun grabbers from around the world are in New York City for a few more days of negotiations.

They're working to "build consensus," and when they're sure their UN Gun Ban includes the demands of petty tyrants worldwide, I fear that Clinton and Obama will do everything in their power to force it through sometime before the upcoming election.

This UN Gun Ban would almost certainly FORCE the United States to participate in an international gun registry and could require the confiscation and destruction of ALL "unauthorized" civilian firearms in America.
That's why I hope you'll read the letter below from Dudley Brown.
Dudley is leading the fight against the UN Gun Ban, and the million-member army of the National Association for Gun Rights is on the front lines in the battle to stop it.

Please stand with us today!

Sincerely,

Rand Paul
U.S. Senator



Dear Rand,

The United Nations' Programme Against Small Arms meeting is in full swing in New York City.

And my sources inside the UN report countries such as Mexico continue pushing for a UN Gun Ban by the close of this year.

Both the "Small Arms Treaty" and the Programme Against Small Arms provide endless ways to accomplish this goal.

As you may remember, heading into the "Small Arms Treaty" Conference last month, anti-gun international bureaucrats were bragging that the conference would craft "the most important initiative ever regarding arms regulation . . ."

But thanks to your sustained grassroots pressure, no treaty was passed, likely because the Obama Administration could not get all the gun controls it wanted.

However, the gun-grabbers are back at it again this week and next, working to put together yet another anti-gun agreement -- and this time, such an agreement WOULD NOT require a vote in the U.S. Senate.

You and I know what these international anti-gunners really want . . .

Full-scale GLOBAL gun registration followed by confiscation, especially in the U.S.

And, as a reminder, to make matters worse, Hillary Clinton has already given this anti-gun nightmare the Obama administration's full blessing.

They're working to make it a reality in America.

But I have an answer to Hillary Clinton's schemes.



You see, with the November elections rapidly approaching, the gun-grabbers believe they're watching the perfect storm develop . . .

First, President Obama knows without every portion of his left-wing base energized and mobilized in November, there's no way he can win.

He simply must pay back his anti-gun pals to have any hope.

Secondly, as we've seen with his grandstanding after Seal Team Six's killing of Osama Bin Laden and the recent national security leaks coming out of the White House, President Obama has proven he'll stoop to virtually any level to appear "tough on terrorism."

Well, from day one, fighting terrorism has been the number-one excuse behind the "Small Arms Treaty."

In fact, the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs states, "Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower."

These bureaucrats see your gun rights as a "loophole."

And of course, the Obama administration has already labeled Second Amendment supporters as "terrorists" in Janet Napolitano's infamous Homeland Security report.

The solution? According to the United Nations, government bureaucrats need to crack down on the Second Amendment, and everything will be fine.

Third, with the recent tragedy in Colorado, anti-gun Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already taken to the airwaves demanding President Obama publicly exploit the shooting in favor of gun control.

And with a sinking economy and lackluster campaign, President Obama is looking for any advantage he can muster.

Make no mistake -- this is a dangerous time right now for our gun rights.




And as we've seen time and again, gun registration is always a major step toward full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

Worse, Hillary is calling for "consensus" to "avoid loopholes." In other words, she's demanding that the UN seek input from third world dictators on how to best shut down YOUR Second Amendment rights, and the UN is only too willing to oblige.

Once the finishing touches are put on the United Nations Programme Against Small Arms on September 7th, I'm afraid the UN's Gun Ban could also include provisions that would force the United States to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** Confiscate and destroy "unauthorized" civilian firearms (all firearms owned by governments are excluded, of course);
*** Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons including shotguns and other firearms commonly used for hunting;
That's why there's no time to waste. After the United Nations' meetings, I'm afraid you and I will not have much time to react.

In fact, we will only have a few weeks to kill the UN Gun Ban once the anti-gunners make their move on September 7th -- all while the White House and the national media continue falling all over themselves to sell the United Nation's Gun Ban as an anti-terrorism measure.

“Suggestions” from the Programme can be rapidly implemented by the Obama Administration via executive order, Department programs, “internal” policies and in countless other ways.

The number of options Hillary and her global gun-ban cronies have at their disposal makes my blood run cold.

And now in the wake of the recent shootings, the anti-gun crowd is screaming for a new “assault weapons” ban, along with bans on conventional ammo and standard capacity magazines.


Pro-gun champion Senator Rand Paul will use your pledge and the 1.4 million signed surveys we have gathered to prove that America opposes the UN Gun Ban.

If a UN Gun Ban gets to the floor of the U.S. Senate before the year is out, it is going to take more than just the signed pledges of NAGR members alone.

Contributions from members like you will help pay for a massive, nationwide mail, phone and internet program to turn up the pressure on the handful of Senators whose votes WILL decide passage or failure of the U.N.'s Gun Ban.

And if funds allow, in the days before the final vote, I'll launch hard-hitting newspaper, radio and TV ads calling on targeted U.S. Senators by name to vote to DEFEAT the Treaty.

Of course, you and I both know the gun-grabbers will spend MILLIONS to win this fight.


Defeating the UN Gun Ban won't be easy.

And with his reelection riding on support from his anti-gun buddies, you and I both know President Obama will do everything he can to renew efforts to push the UN Gun Ban before the November elections.

The truth is, unless we can succeed in turning up the heat on the U.S. Senate now, there could be no stopping this gun control freight train once it gets to D.C.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President P.S. The United Nations' Programme Against Small Arms meeting is in full swing in New York City.

The number-one item on the gun-grabbers' agenda is enacting GLOBAL gun registration -- setting the stage for international firearm confiscation.

**btw: if it seems like some parts above end abruptly, it's because I had to remove some parts of the email which I felt were "calls to action", which I know are not allowed here. I left only the parts of the email that are relevant to the OP.**

Quote from bridgeburner : To be proposed, yes. But to be ratified (actually approved), has to be either 2/3 of the state legislatures, or a ratifying convention (not sure what this is, hasn't been used since Prohibition). Seems like they just get a bunch of delegates from every state to vote as a group, rather than relying on each state legislature. My point is that, were this to happen, it wouldn't happen without a large majority of US citizens making it happen.

I believe you are wrong, as this excerpt points out:

"Agenda 21 is a two-decade old, grand plan for global ’Sustainable Development,’ brought to you from the United Nations. George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to it back in 1992, and in 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order #12858, creating a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ This effectively pushed the UN plan into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people."

http://www.readability.com/read?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffreedomoutpost.com%2F2012%2F09%2Fun-small-arms-treaty-passes-while-media-sleeps%2F#.UFuqWqyfwo4.twitter



Why couldn't something effectively banning guns be passed in a similar way, via executive order? Say during some kind of disaster? You know citizens were disarmed in NO during Katrina, right?

The us constitution as interpreted by the supreme court is the overarching law of the land, and cannot be trivially trumped by the executive.

Seriously, stop repeating claims by those unfamiliar with basic civics. It's not only trivially untrue but propaganda targeted at rubes.

OTOH, if the US military really wanted to forcibly confiscate everyone's toy guns, it would be like taking candy from a baby. I would question though that such a thing is necessary. Surely those so easily manipulated by the existing anti-intellectual propaganda would be easily tricked however the agenda swayed.

Quote from thikthird : drop bombs on the houses of people who refuse to give up guns. problem solved.

How does this jive with your claim that you wouldn't kill in self defense, because you believe your life isn't any more valuable then the life of the person trying to kill you?

Quote from OhNoItsDEVO : How does this jive with your claim that you wouldn't kill in self defense, because you believe your life isn't any more valuable then the life of the person trying to kill you?

killing in self defense bad. killing in defense of others good (conditionally). killing for a cause good.

Quote from thikthird : killing in self defense bad. killing in defense of others good (conditionally). killing for a cause good.

Whatever you say man...