It's time to defend our 2nd amendment rights.

[BlancoNino]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17276

Talk is one thing, but the Security Council then unanimously adopted the "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms," which had been released Aug. 19 to the General Assembly. The 26-member group's various recommendations, two dozen in all, add up to a comprehensive program for worldwide gun control, and call for a total ban on private ownership of "assault rifles." A few of the recommendations:
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan condemns the "easy availability" of small arms, calling them the "primary tools of violence" in the world.


All small arms and light weapons which are not under legal civilian possession and which are not required for the purposes of national defense and internal security, should be collected and destroyed by States as expeditiously as possible.

All States should determine in their national laws and regulations which arms are permitted for civilian possession and the conditions under which they can be used.

All States should ensure that they have in place adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the legal possession of small arms and light weapons and over their transfer in order ... to prevent illicit trafficking.

States are encouraged to integrate measures to control ammunition ... into prevention and reduction measures relating to small arms and light weapons.

States should work towards ... appropriate national legislation, regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine-guns).

--Thomas Mason (Attorney who represents the NRA).

Ban Assault Rifles? I love shooting assault rifles! They're extremely accurate and safe and I'll be damned if I'll ever have to give up shooting them. Controlling ammunition? Yeah I hope I have 3 shots to shoot the guy who's broken into my house with an illegal sub-machine gun.

"...which arms are permitted for civilian possession and the conditions under which they can be used. "

Yeah that's what we need...more thinking when in danger. "Hmmm...is it legal for me to shoot this guy? He's holding a knife and charging at me...hmmm".


"People have no idea that the United Nations is a totally closed process. There is no public records law or open meetings law. As a member of the public you do not have an automatic right to attend committee meetings. To get in the door you have to be an accredited NGO."

The U.N. is teaming up with Non-Governmental Organizations to steal our 2nd amendment rights. I see a lot of people here crying foul over free speech controversy and how important it is to protect our rights...well...why aren't the same speaking out against this?

 

[halik]

i think the controversy revolves around this

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
...
The U.N. is teaming up with Non-Governmental Organizations to steal our 2nd amendment rights. I see a lot of people here crying foul over free speech controversy and how important it is to protect our rights...well...why aren't the same speaking out against this?

I imagine it's because the actions of the UN don't have the same binding impact as those of our own government. The UN can form whatever kind of policy they wish in terms of gun ownership, they have no way to force the US to abide by it. This is quite a difference from policies already enacted by our government that significantly reduce other constitutional freedoms.

Pro-gun people love to complain about how civil liberties types rarely get their panties in a twist about guns, but I really don't think you can compare the two. There IS no assault on guns (if you'll pardon the pun), if anything, gun rights are getting stronger. Am I in favor of the 2nd amendment? Of course, but I really think it's doing a find job of standing up on its own at the moment. There are only so many causes you can take up, and quite frankly, the rest of the bill of rights needs a little more defending.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: halik
i think the controversy revolves around this

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And to think that the ACLU, the U.N., and all of these gun hating NGO's have a hard time interpreting that even though the courts have ruled several times in favor of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
...
The U.N. is teaming up with Non-Governmental Organizations to steal our 2nd amendment rights. I see a lot of people here crying foul over free speech controversy and how important it is to protect our rights...well...why aren't the same speaking out against this?

I imagine it's because the actions of the UN don't have the same binding impact as those of our own government. The UN can form whatever kind of policy they wish in terms of gun ownership, they have no way to force the US to abide by it. This is quite a difference from policies already enacted by our government that significantly reduce other constitutional freedoms.

Pro-gun people love to complain about how civil liberties types rarely get their panties in a twist about guns, but I really don't think you can compare the two. There IS no assault on guns (if you'll pardon the pun), if anything, gun rights are getting stronger. Am I in favor of the 2nd amendment? Of course, but I really think it's doing a find job of standing up on its own at the moment. There are only so many causes you can take up, and quite frankly, the rest of the bill of rights needs a little more defending.

QFT

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

:roll:

I am a gun owner and shooting enthusiast, but as far as I can see the gun lobby is the most paranoid bunch of conspiracy theory theorists this side of Charlie Sheen.

Here's a news flash: UN resolutions do not bind Americans, and unless our government enacts the regulations the UN suggests (which will never ever happen), they are irrelevant.

There is no bona fide threat to Americans' right to bear arms - this is a bunch of hooey. I only wish people were as motivated to protect the rights that really are at risk because of the actions of our government (most notably the First Amendment).

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: halik
i think the controversy revolves around this

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And to think that the ACLU, the U.N., and all of these gun hating NGO's have a hard time interpreting that even though the courts have ruled several times in favor of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Since when does the UN "interpret" the US Constitution? When has the ACLU ever taken any action to restrict the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
...
The U.N. is teaming up with Non-Governmental Organizations to steal our 2nd amendment rights. I see a lot of people here crying foul over free speech controversy and how important it is to protect our rights...well...why aren't the same speaking out against this?

I imagine it's because the actions of the UN don't have the same binding impact as those of our own government. The UN can form whatever kind of policy they wish in terms of gun ownership, they have no way to force the US to abide by it. This is quite a difference from policies already enacted by our government that significantly reduce other constitutional freedoms.

Pro-gun people love to complain about how civil liberties types rarely get their panties in a twist about guns, but I really don't think you can compare the two. There IS no assault on guns (if you'll pardon the pun), if anything, gun rights are getting stronger. Am I in favor of the 2nd amendment? Of course, but I really think it's doing a find job of standing up on its own at the moment. There are only so many causes you can take up, and quite frankly, the rest of the bill of rights needs a little more defending.

I'm not so sure about that. Every time I walk into the gun store I'm hearing the owner talk about how certain size clips aren't legal anymore, certain barrel lengths aren't legal, etc. I don't even know what my rights are in self-defense anymore...I keep hearing about cases where the person defending themselves are getting imprisoned because it wasn't "the right situation".

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I'm not so sure about that. Every time I walk into the gun store I'm hearing the owner talk about how certain size clips aren't legal anymore, certain barrel lengths aren't legal, etc. I don't even know what my rights are in self-defense anymore...I keep hearing about cases where the person defending themselves are getting imprisoned because it wasn't "the right situation".

LOL - what kind of gun enthusiast refers to magazines as "clips"? It sounds to me as though you don't even know what regulations do and do not restrict you - you might want to brush up before you get your panties all bunched up.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not so sure about that. Every time I walk into the gun store I'm hearing the owner talk about how certain size clips aren't legal anymore, certain barrel lengths aren't legal, etc. I don't even know what my rights are in self-defense anymore...I keep hearing about cases where the person defending themselves are getting imprisoned because it wasn't "the right situation".

Well, a line has to be drawn somewhere. After all, if you could obtain a nuclear weapon privately, there should probably be some law out there that would prevent you from using it. That's an extreme hyperbole, but think about something like an artillery piece.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: halik
i think the controversy revolves around this

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And to think that the ACLU, the U.N., and all of these gun hating NGO's have a hard time interpreting that even though the courts have ruled several times in favor of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Since when does the UN "interpret" the US Constitution? When has the ACLU ever taken any action to restrict the right to keep and bear arms?

They don't take action against anything, they're supposedly there to DEFEND our civil liberties. The reason they don't defend our 2nd amendment rights when they're under attack (such as the brady bill) lies within their clear political bias.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I'm not so sure about that. Every time I walk into the gun store I'm hearing the owner talk about how certain size clips aren't legal anymore, certain barrel lengths aren't legal, etc. I don't even know what my rights are in self-defense anymore...I keep hearing about cases where the person defending themselves are getting imprisoned because it wasn't "the right situation".

LOL - what kind of gun enthusiast refers to magazines as "clips"? It sounds to me as though you don't even know what regulations do and do not restrict you - you might want to brush up before you get your panties all bunched up.

I'm running on 3 hours of sleep and 11 hours of work.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

They don't take action against anything, they're supposedly there to DEFEND our civil liberties. The reason they don't defend our 2nd amendment rights when they're under attack (such as the brady bill) lies within their clear political bias.

So what is the basis for your comment that the ACLU has "a hard time interpreting" the Second Amendment?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm running on 3 hours of sleep and 11 hours of work.

I don't see the relevance - I would never, ever refer to "clips," and if you bothered to create this vapid thread, you should know at least the basics of what rules do and do not affect you first.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm running on 3 hours of sleep and 11 hours of work.

I don't see the relevance - I would never, ever refer to "clips," and if you bothered to create this vapid thread, you should know at least the basics of what rules do and do not affect you first.

How about having to wait a whole week to pick up a gun I've paid for?

How about not being able to legally carry it loaded in my car?

How about those recommendations to control ammunition into reduction measures?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm running on 3 hours of sleep and 11 hours of work.

I don't see the relevance - I would never, ever refer to "clips," and if you bothered to create this vapid thread, you should know at least the basics of what rules do and do not affect you first.

How about having to wait a whole week to pick up a gun I've paid for?

Having a right to own a weapon doesn't mean one can relinquish responsibility. Despite the fact that I believe almost all weapons should be legal, I also believe in long long waiting periods (say 3 months or more) for the FIRST WEAPON ONLY. Obviously, once you have one weapon, there is no logical reason to deny you immediate access to more.

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How about not being able to legally carry it loaded in my car?

That's an elementary public safety feature.

 

[spikespiegal]

I live in Michigan, which qualifies on a list of states with more liberal gun laws. I've gone to the gun range with buddies on several occasions to find several national guard troops on weekend target practice. Every single time we got dirty looks because we were significantly better armed (and better shots). The list of what you can't own here is short - real short.

We also have a state law that over-rides all local ordinances (I believe Detroit is exempt)and dictates that local gun boards cannot restrict somebody from getting a CCW (concealed weapons permit) unless they can prove the individual will be a threat. Personally I think it's a good law because it forces the benefit of the doubt on local law enforcement. Violent crime rates here are fairly low with home burglaries obviously risky.

If this makes me sound like a 2nd amendment guns nut, well, I'm not. I've always supported heavy restrictions on hand gun ownership as a well as mandatory gun certification and training. Even still for home defense in order of preference I'd choose (1) large dog, (2) Shotgun, (3) 9mm Highpoint carbine. The highpoint is cheap, deadly under 100meters, and far more accurate than any handgun or russian assault rifle.

I honestly feel that large cities should be allowed to restrict gun ownership without restricting home owners the right to defend themselves. The rest shouldn't be as controversial as it seems to be.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

How about having to wait a whole week to pick up a gun I've paid for?

How about not being able to legally carry it loaded in my car?

How about those recommendations to control ammunition into reduction measures?

I see the first two as legitimate restrictions (though I own a few guns), although many states have created "shall issue" rules for concealed carry. I am agnostic on that issue. Personally I have never had a desire to carry - for me the stress and personal liability that go with concealed carry outweigh the benefits in nearly all situations.

The recommendations of the UN have NO BEARING in the United States, hence the fact that only WorldNetDaily is brain-dead enough to report this as news. This isn't news, and it has no applicability to this country.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm running on 3 hours of sleep and 11 hours of work.

I don't see the relevance - I would never, ever refer to "clips," and if you bothered to create this vapid thread, you should know at least the basics of what rules do and do not affect you first.

How about having to wait a whole week to pick up a gun I've paid for?

Having a right to own a weapon doesn't mean one can relinquish responsibility. Despite the fact that I believe almost all weapons should be legal, I also believe in long long waiting periods (say 3 months or more) for the FIRST WEAPON ONLY. Obviously, once you have one weapon, there is no logical reason to deny you immediate access to more.

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How about not being able to legally carry it loaded in my car?

That's an elementary public safety feature.

I put my handgun on layaway when I was 20 and waited until I was 21 to pick it up only to find out my waiting period started as soon as I was 21 and had to wait another week (I had already laid down my money 6 months prior).

When I'm delivering pizzas and carrying a lot of money, I'd like to have some sort of protection especially in some of the areas I have to deliver to.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: halik
i think the controversy revolves around this

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And to think that the ACLU, the U.N., and all of these gun hating NGO's have a hard time interpreting that even though the courts have ruled several times in favor of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Please show me things the ACLU has done to remove our second amendment rights, or would like to just keep spewing non-sense?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: halik
i think the controversy revolves around this

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And to think that the ACLU, the U.N., and all of these gun hating NGO's have a hard time interpreting that even though the courts have ruled several times in favor of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Please show me things the ACLU has done to remove our second amendment rights, or would like to just keep spewing non-sense?

I NEVER said they did, only that they fail to protect that certain civil liberty (not that I would care I hate the ACLU).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: halik
i think the controversy revolves around this

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And to think that the ACLU, the U.N., and all of these gun hating NGO's have a hard time interpreting that even though the courts have ruled several times in favor of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Please show me things the ACLU has done to remove our second amendment rights, or would like to just keep spewing non-sense?

The ACLU hasn?t taken any kind of active role in trying to break down the 2nd. Though the fact remains that they wouldn?t lift a finger to protect it.

The usual small arm stuff coming out of the UN is hardly anything new. We here in the US can ignore it for the most part. The UN has been successfully pressing some other countries to destroy surplus small arms.

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: halik
i think the controversy revolves around this

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And to think that the ACLU, the U.N., and all of these gun hating NGO's have a hard time interpreting that even though the courts have ruled several times in favor of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

So basicly its not about defending the constitution but court decisions?

 

[BoomerD]

I NEVER said they did, only that they fail to protect that certain civil liberty (not that I would care I hate the ACLU).

I'm always amazed at the people who claim to hate the ACLU. An orginazation who's sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, For ALL people, no matter how many other people think they shouldn't. Hell, even I got mad at them when they defended Rush Analcyst's drug bust rights, but, what's right is right, and the government WAS trying to overstep their legal bounds...
WHY do people hate the Bill of Rights? It protects ALL OF US, not just the ones you like, or who look like you...
While you may not agree with some of the things the ACLU defends, understand that it's not the act itself they defend, but the RIGHT to that act...as guaranteed by the US Constitution, and/or the Bill of Rights...two documents that are the foundation of what this country stands for...

From the ACLU website;
"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled."

 

[JEDIYoda]

How about having to wait a whole week to pick up a gun I've paid for?

How about not being able to legally carry it loaded in my car?

How about those recommendations to control ammunition into reduction measures?


I actually see nothing above that violates any of your rights.
You sound like some snot nosed teenager who just turned of age to own a gun and has no idea of why certain Rules are in place and for whom those rules are to protect.

Nobody is failing to defend your rights.

From what you posted above there are no rights to defend!!