Gun owners: Beware the UN

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lordhat**

From http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2010/01/11/ignatius-piazza-this-will-enrage-you/#video

Dr. Ignatius Piazza wrote: In the past, I have sent you Blog posts that I predicted would make you smile, or made you laugh, or bring a tear to you eye. As you know, I was right about your reaction.

Well, I have a blog for you this week that I must warn, will make you extremely mad. I believe it will enrage you.

I share it with you because every red-blooded, freedom-loving American needs to see it and understand that our CURRENT administration has broken ranks with ALL previous administrations and now supports the greatest threat to our sovereignty and liberty.

Watch this video, then see my comments below, then forward this blog to everyone you know…

Click the video below to play: (video on website)

The US has not signed any such treaty with the UN…yet.

The UN has been trying to negotiate an arms control treaty for years, but past US administrations have never supported such flagrant attempts by the UN to interfere with our sovereignty or strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

However, the CURRENT administration has reversed the long standing position of the US and has publically stated it supports an arms control treaty.

Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty, the Senate would have the power to squash it by refusing to ratify the treaty.

Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty AND the Senate ratified the treaty, then the final check and balance to protect our liberty and sovereignty would lie in the hands of tens of millions of American gun owners.

My question to you is, ARE YOU UP TO THAT TASK?

Or will you go silently into the night as gun owners in not-so-Great Britain, Australia, and Canada have done–surrendering their God given rights of self defense to an increasingly more intrusive, manipulative, and controlling world government?

You don’t need to tell me whether you are up to the task or not.

You need to look in the mirror and answer the question for yourself.

Our Founding Fathers understood that the greatest protection against enemies, both foreign and domestic, was an armed and train populace.

The MORE Americans that become armed and get trained to levels that exceed law enforcement and military standards, the LESS likely we are to ever see the day when Americans must use those weapons to protect our freedom from the UN or any other individual or entity bent on enslaving us.

The Japanese of World War II feared invading the US because of a “rifleman behind every tree.”

Arming and training YOU and every other responsible, freedom-loving American is the short term and long term answer to safety and peace in our country for generations.

Front Sight is here to help you and every responsible American place fear in the hearts of those in the UN who want to steal your freedom.

Here is your ticket. Purchase it and get on board…

A 30 State Concealed Weapons Permit, the world class training that Front Sight provides, and a Springfield Armory XD Pistol awaits you.

We stand ready, willing, and able to arm and train you at https://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

I post a different article on this blog each Monday so I look forward to your visit every week.

If you have an interesting photo, story or tip about a relevant topic of interest to gun ownership, firearms training or Second Amendment issues, please feel free to send it to me at:

info@frontsight.com or

Ignatius@frontsight.com

If you want to take advantage of the https://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

See you next week.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
P.O. Box 2619
Aptos, CA 95001
http://www.frontsight.com
info@frontsight.com
1.800.987.7719

**mattyrm**

Mate, honestly, im a commando with a genuine love of guns, but dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?

I just dont get why every fether has to have a gun. I mean, i might get one myself if i move over there.. but.. well.. im not that arsed either way you know? I dont get why its such a big deal when you are denied other freedoms such as not being able to drink till 21 or gamble and such?

**Lordhat**

mattyrm wrote:Mate, honestly, im a commando with a genuine love of guns, but dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?

I just dont get why every fether has to have a gun. I mean, i might get one myself if i move over there.. but.. well.. im not that arsed either way you know? I dont get why its such a big deal when you are denied other freedoms such as not being able to drink till 21 or gamble and such?

This is why you are a subject, and not a citizen.

**Mr. Burning**

more to the point YOU yes YOU can obtain a FREE pistol when you sign up for firearms training with Front Sight ( by the way have you heard that your second amendment rights are being destroyed by the current administration?.

**Frazzled**

Does this have to do with the Interpol thing?

I'll be honest I kinda skipped along until I saw the free XD thing. Then I got to thinking on the awesomeness of an XDM. Then I got to thinking that, despite the ad saying it has a match grade barrel, its stats aren't materially better than a stock 92FS. Then I got to thinking that Springfield's custom shop can modify the trigger, drop me in a Bar Sto competition barrel, and put me on some right proper tritium night sights. Then I started thinking about how I'd love to get a competition barrel for my 92, then I started moping around because my work/life doesn't permit me to train properly to do righteous shooting competitions. Then I realized I've blown the entire day on Dakka. Then I realized its Friday. All is right in the world. Yea me.

**dogma**

That video made my brain hurt.

The UN arms control agenda is about the regulation of the international weapons trade; primarily with the intent of controlling illicit trade in firearms. Even if anyone in the US might be worried, they can do nothing about it. The right to bear arms is not the right to be sold arms.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:That video made my brain hurt.

The UN arms control agenda is about the regulation of the international weapons trade; primarily with the intent of controlling illicit trade in firearms. Even if anyone in the US might be worried, they can do nothing about it. The right to bear arms is not the right to be sold arms.

There you are wrong Dogma. People can do something about it.
2010
2012.

**mattyrm**

Lordhat wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Mate, honestly, im a commando with a genuine love of guns, but dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?

I just dont get why every fether has to have a gun. I mean, i might get one myself if i move over there.. but.. well.. im not that arsed either way you know? I dont get why its such a big deal when you are denied other freedoms such as not being able to drink till 21 or gamble and such?

This is why you are a subject, and not a citizen.

What do you think this is the 13th century? If the Queen walked past me in the street i could happily ignore the woman and not worry about being dragged off to a dungeon.

What do you think we all mince around London cowering from the Royals? They hold a cerimonial position and our elected parliment makes the decisions. It aint rocket science.

Back on topic, if i was a 19 year old man in America id be more worried about why i wasnt allowed a beer after my combat tour in Iraq, why i wasnt allowed to go to a bookies and put a bet on my favourite football team and why blue laws infringe on my basic choices in life than being able to have an assault rifle in my bedroom. But whatever floats your boat, as i said, i kinda like guns.. but.. i feel there are more important things to worry about.

**Necros**

This is off topic, but I'd like to point out that I was watching Masters of Horror on the sci fi channel last night, and the guy from Oz used a super soaker to freeze up & kill an evil ice cream man clown ghost. Thus, super soakers are apparently much more lethal than regular guns. So, regular guns should always be legal. I think what really needs to be regulated is the illegal traffic and trade of ghost-killing super soakers. they could be very dangerous in the wrong hands.

**ShumaGorath**

Lordhat wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Mate, honestly, im a commando with a genuine love of guns, but dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?

I just dont get why every fether has to have a gun. I mean, i might get one myself if i move over there.. but.. well.. im not that arsed either way you know? I dont get why its such a big deal when you are denied other freedoms such as not being able to drink till 21 or gamble and such?

This is why you are a subject, and not a citizen.

This is why you shouldn't drink when you post. Or post at all.

It aint rocket science.

No, it's political science. Something equally as confounding to him.

**Tyyr**

mattyrm wrote:Mate, honestly, im a commando with a genuine love of guns, but dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?

Well, it's written into the Bill of Rights right after freedom of speech and before protection from quartering troops. Well, ok the 3rd doesn't get much attention but in general we get a bit worked up over anything in the Bill of Rights. Firearms just tends to be the only one that's constantly under pressure to be reduced. Frankly if you had lobbies trying to infringe on feedom of speech as hard as they want to limit the second amendment you'd have give the ACLU an anuerism. Honestly people seem to take many of the other rights just as seriously they just don't have instances of people constantly trying to infringe on them. You've also got lots and lots of gun owners in the country so they tend to react when someone starts talking about tweaking the second amendment. The number of people who want to walk around with "

You!" on their shirts or who want to burn flags tends to be significantly smaller and therefore not as loud.

It's also one of the only cases I know of where it's expected that people have to justify why they need a right that was guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights as opposed to the government having to justify why they don't.

I just dont get why every fether has to have a gun. I mean, i might get one myself if i move over there.. but.. well.. im not that arsed either way you know? I dont get why its such a big deal when you are denied other freedoms such as not being able to drink till 21 or gamble and such?

One, given that teenagers can't vote and are usually dependents on their parents no one really gives a damn if they can't smoke or drink. By the time they're old enough to vote most of them can drink and smoke anyways and still don't vote. So there's understandably little pressure to change those laws.

As for every fether needing to own one? It's not about everyone needing to own one, its about why should they not be allowed to own one if they want to?

**ShumaGorath**

Well, it's written into the Bill of Rights right after freedom of speech and before protection from quartering troops. Well, ok the 3rd doesn't get much attention but in general we get a bit worked up over anything in the Bill of Rights. Firearms just tends to be the only one that's constantly under pressure to be reduced. Frankly if you had lobbies trying to infringe on feedom of speech as hard as they want to limit the second amendment you'd have give the ACLU an anuerism. Honestly people seem to take many of the other rights just as seriously they just don't have instances of people constantly trying to infringe on them. You've also got lots and lots of gun owners in the country so they tend to react when someone starts talking about tweaking the second amendment. The number of people who want to walk around with " You!" on their shirts or who want to burn flags tends to be significantly smaller and therefore not as loud.

Right to privacy and fair trial have been under fire for years. I don't hear the same level of half slowed mewling there.

**Frazzled**

It's also one of the only cases I know of where it's expected that people have to justify why they need a right that was guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights as opposed to the government having to justify why they don't.

Good point. I'll use that on another site. Zoinks!

**Tyyr**

ShumaGorath wrote:Right to privacy and fair trial have been under fire for years. I don't hear the same level of half slowed mewling there.

*Shrug*
I've got no control over what people bitch about. All I'm trying to do is offer some possible insight. As for why people aren't up in arms over those things, "Well I'm no terrorist so it doesn't effect me right?"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

It's also one of the only cases I know of where it's expected that people have to justify why they need a right that was guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights as opposed to the government having to justify why they don't.

Good point. I'll use that on another site. Zoinks!

I expect full credit, 10% royalties, and a link.

**mattyrm**

Fair enough Tyr, as i said ive no issue with people owning guns really as i rather like them, just trying to look at the big picture, it must have negative effects right? It makes it easier to kill people.. and many of the best nations to live in with regards to crime levels and such have similarly strict gun control.

As i said, im not really opposed to guns, i like shooting! But.. i dunno.. it seems to me that having one isnt that important these days.

**metallifan**

In all honesty, I don't see what the big fuss is about.

When I was in the military, I loved my C7 and treated it well enough to make an Astartes green with jealousy. But did I care that I couldn't actually own one? Not at all. Sure, it would be neat, but it's not something I feel that a person -needs-. Long as I have food, water, a job, and shelter, I'm happy.

Part of the reason that the US has such a negative light is because a lot of the world disregards it as a bully nation full of gun-touting Rednecks, which couldn't be farther from the truth. While I'm sure taking away a US citizen's right to bear arms is like telling a Canadian he can't watch any more hockey, it might be beneficial to the way the rest of the world views the country, and I think that's something to keep in mind. Just because people here can't own automatic weapons, doesn't mean we're miserable or feel that our rights are threatened.

I guess I wouldn't completely understand without actually being American, but I just don't see what the big deal is (Other than the loss of money to both owners and gun shops due to not being allowed to legally own/sell restricted firearms)

**Frazzled**

Its a fundamental right. Period. It is on equal footing with the freedom of speach, press, and assembly.

Let the crowd foaming commence (yawn).

**Empchild**

I smell world war 3 a brewin!!!! They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands!!

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
There you are wrong Dogma. People can do something about it.
2010
2012.

Not really. The Security Council has veto power over substantive matters that utilize the UN's ability to create a binding resolution. However, they have no authority over procedural issues; meaning that if sufficient support gathers in the General Assembly an independent committee on small arms can be formed. This committee can then create binding resolutions for all signatory members independent of the actual UN charter.

It doesn't matter what the US thinks if there is sufficient global disagreement.

**Tyyr**

mattyrm wrote:Fair enough Tyr, as i said ive no issue with people owning guns really as i rather like them, just trying to look at the big picture, it must have negative effects right? It makes it easier to kill people.. and many of the best nations to live in with regards to crime levels and such have similarly strict gun control.

Taking a look at crime rates per capita between the US, UK, Australia, and Canada the United States does have a commanding lead in murders per capita, but that's it. In other stats like rapes, assaults, and total crime in general we're solidly in the middle of the pack or very close to the rest of those countries. So the murder rate is lower but violent crime in general doesn't seem to be influenced that much.

As for making it easier, yes it does, but if you really wanna kill someone you still can even without a gun.

Finally, a very small percentage of firearm owners ever use their weapon illegally, a very small percentage. Why should law abiding citizens lose their right to firearms because a tiny majority of non-law abiding citizens don't?

But.. i dunno.. it seems to me that having one isnt that important these days.

Which is your opinion but a very weak ground to eliminate a right from the Bill of Rights.

All that said, I'm not worried about the UN taking my guns. As far as the government is concerned I don't own any.

**Lord-Loss**

Empchild wrote:I smell world war 3 a brewin!!!! They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands!!

That can be arranged.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
There you are wrong Dogma. People can do something about it.
2010
2012.

Not really. The Security Council has veto power over substantive matters that utilize the UN's ability to create a binding resolution. However, they have no authority over procedural issues; meaning that if sufficient support gathers in the General Assembly an independent committee on small arms can be formed. This committee can then create binding resolutions for all signatory members independent of the actual UN charter.

It doesn't matter what the US thinks if there is sufficient global disagreement.

Er no. The US is not bound by any treaty it doesn't sign and have properly ratified by the Senate. Further, the US is not bound by any treaty deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Further, the US is always free to leave a treaty when it doesn't feel like it.

As management will be changing hands presently I don't view this as an issue.

**metallifan**

Tyyr wrote:
Finally, a very small percentage of firearm owners ever use their weapon illegally, a very small percentage. Why should law abiding citizens lose their right to firearms because a tiny majority of non-law abiding citizens don't?

Because Politicians love to blame the many for the actions of the few. Hell, that's why the world even has laws in the first place, if we want to go all the way back to the start.

**JEB_Stuart**

ShumaGorath wrote:No, it's political science. Something equally as confounding to him.

...Shuma....you owe me a new computer monitor, as I just spat hot tea all over it...and I am so sigging this...

dogma wrote:Not really. The Security Council has veto power over substantive matters that utilize the UN's ability to create a binding resolution. However, they have no authority over procedural issues; meaning that if sufficient support gathers in the General Assembly an independent committee on small arms can be formed. This committee can then create binding resolutions for all signatory members independent of the actual UN charter.

Who cares? The UN has how much power? They aren't going to try and force us that is for sure. Besides, the UN does not have more legal weight than the US Constitution in our country so I don't know why everyone is so scared. Even if it is ratified and signed, by the Senate and the President respectfully, it will still be struck down by SCOTUS.

dogma wrote:It doesn't matter what the US thinks if there is sufficient global disagreement.

Cuz we can see how that has stopped/impeded us in the past....

**Empchild**

Lord-Loss wrote:
Empchild wrote:I smell world war 3 a brewin!!!! They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands!!

That can be arranged.

hmph... good luck

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Er no. The US is not bound by any treaty it doesn't sign and have properly ratified by the Senate. Further, the US is not bound by any treaty deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Further, the US is always free to leave a treaty when it doesn't feel like it.

You're not getting it. The US doesn't have to be bound by the treaty in order for the treaty to have an effect on the US. Given sufficient signatories, and the proper construction, the regulation of global arms sales will be a de facto control on the US role in the international arms trade. It doesn't matter if the US wants to transact, if no one else is willing to do so.

Frazzled wrote:
As management will be changing hands presently I don't view this as an issue.

That's a nice little faith based statement you have there; especially given recent electoral history with respect to approval and election results (Presidential, Congressional, and otherwise).

**George Spiggott**

Dr. Ignatius Piazza via Lordhat wrote:Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty AND the Senate ratified the treaty, then the final check and balance to protect our liberty and sovereignty would lie in the hands of tens of millions of American gun owners.

This is always funny. What is it that makes you (him) think that you and your neighbours owning an assault rifle or even a 50 cal. machinegun or whatever is going to stop the most well funded and highly advanced military on earth doing exactly what it likes (on your lawn*) should it feel the need to do so.

Feel free to own a whole rack of guns but please give up on the stupid sticking it to the man defending liberty bs will you.

Can someone please photoshop that Clint Eastwood/Lawn picture with him facing down an Abrams tank.

**dogma**

JEB_Stuart wrote:Who cares? The UN has how much power? They aren't going to try and force us that is for sure. Besides, the UN does not have more legal weight than the US Constitution in our country so I don't know why everyone is so scared. Even if it is ratified and signed, by the Senate and the President respectfully, it will still be struck down by SCOTUS.

Why is everyone pretending this thing has anything to do with domestic arms sales? Again, there is a right to bear arms, not a right to purchase arms. If a weapons dealer, particularly a foreign weapons dealer, will not sell you a firearm you have no recourse (outside of anti-discrimination laws in domestic cases), as you have no right to purchase.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Cuz we can see how that has stopped/impeded us in the past....

It amuses me that you're comparing this issue to the Iraq War. They're not even remotely similar. We aren't going to seize weapons from foreign manufacturers because out citizens want a certain type of pistol.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Er no. The US is not bound by any treaty it doesn't sign and have properly ratified by the Senate. Further, the US is not bound by any treaty deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Further, the US is always free to leave a treaty when it doesn't feel like it.

You're not getting it. The US doesn't have to be bound by the treaty in order for the treaty to have an effect on the US. Given sufficient signatories, and the proper construction, the regulation of global arms sales will be a de facto control on the US role in the international arms trade. It doesn't matter if the US wants to transact, if no one else is willing to do so.

Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:
*Smith & Wesson
*Kimber
*Colt
*Springfield Arms
*Remington
*Ruger
*Marlin
*Kahr
*Fulton
*Bushmaster
*Savage
*Mossberg
*Sig USA (der uber krauten gunnen)
*Beretta USA (if you can't have Ducati, have Beretta)
*Browning
Those are just off the top of my head. Plus you have gobs of Eastern European manufacturers, Argentina, and Brazil. I'm pretty sure CZ and Croatia wouldlaugh at any international laws in this area. Thats pretty much everything but Glock, Sig prime, and Walther. So er, what were you aying again?

GUNS GUNS GUNS everywhere GUNS! Won't someone think of the children!!!!!

Frazzled wrote:

That's a nice little faith based statement you have there; especially given recent electoral history with respect to approval and election results (Presidential, Congressional, and otherwise).

You mean where Republicans won two out of the last three elections and a Republican, running against Obama healthcare, is ahead in Massachusetts. thats like Bush winning Berkeley, its just crazy talk...

**ShumaGorath**

Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:
*Smith & Wesson
*Kimber
*Colt
*Springfield Arms
*Remington
*Ruger
*Marlin
*Kahr
*Fulton
*Bushmaster
*Savage
*Mossberg
*Sig USA (der uber krauten gunnen)
*Beretta USA (if you can't have Ducati, have Beretta)
*Browning
Those are just off the top of my head. Plus you have gobs of Eastern European manufacturers, Argentina, and Brazil. I'm pretty sure CZ and Croatia wouldlaugh at any international laws in this area. Thats pretty much everything but Glock, Sig prime, and Walther. So er, what were you aying again?

Replace intent to sell with intent to buy. His sentiment remains the same.

You mean where Republicans won two out of the last three elections and a Republican, running against Obama healthcare, is ahead in Massachusetts. thats like Bush winning Berkeley, its just crazy talk...

Demographic alteration in the middle of a banking and insurance industry collapse isn't too surprising. The housing collapse changed voting districts for obama, and mid stream elections historically have not been a good indication of national trends. How many incumbent presidents were voted down over the lat 30 years?