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.

That be an interesting day. UN to emplace UN Troops to enforce this weapon issue......what UN country willing to gamble their um...contingent of their troops under UN command to deploy in the USA?

Its not UN trops that are the issue. Its enacting laws to enforce the treaty that is an issue.

Obviously it's Canada.

They have been preparing, making sure we think that they are weak, when in truth they have been developing a secret weapon to ensure their dominance!

Gah...I've been victim of Canada psychological warfare.....Many hours spent in Kanadahar rooting them on in their hockey game and drinking Tim Horton coffee...even when they moved the stand to their compound....

No he's not. Articles like this are the media version of trolling. I am so sick of everyone thinking that every non-conservative president is going to take away the guns. They haven't yet....

It's funny how this kind of story seems to pop up whenever there is a Democrat in the white house. Anybody reading the proposals would wonder if there is an election in November

I remember the Bill Clinton days and the claims of the Republicans that citizens would only be allowed to arm themselves with water pistols or be limited to buying three bullets a year or something like that (can't remember the exact details ) It was scare stories then, and it's scare stories now.
The only thing funnier than UN troops in America is the idea of taking guns away from Americans. You'll see Frazz claiming British citizenship and burning the flag of Texas before the above happens.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:No he's not. Articles like this are the media version of trolling. I am so sick of everyone thinking that every non-conservative president is going to take away the guns. They haven't yet....

cough ***Gunrunner followed by Clinton standing there saying 70% of id'd guns were from America LIES **cough.

I heard that Obama gave the deficit to the Chinese to let them buy all the Lead reserves, so that bullets would be too expensive for ordinary citizens.

Think we are gearing away from lead in the bullets due to its toxity...not just in a human body but land

Jihadin wrote:Think we are gearing away from lead in the bullets due to its toxity...not just in a human body but land

\

But then the "died of acute lead poisoning" joke won't work anymore...

FORBES editorials are impressively yellow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:That be an interesting day. UN to emplace UN Troops to enforce this weapon issue......what UN country willing to gamble their um...contingent of their troops under UN command to deploy in the USA?

I doubt the UN would be willing to act against a NATO state militaristically.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I doubt the UN would be willing to act against a NATO state militaristically.

They couldn't even they wanted to, not on a procedural level. The US, at the very least, would veto.

Shuma...don't derail a possible fun pokes at the UN pls

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
I doubt the UN would be willing to act against a NATO state militaristically.

They couldn't even they wanted to, not on a procedural level. The US, at the very least, would veto.

Presumably action against the US would follow our loss of security council status.

We do have NATO troops that are in the UN that do train in the US.

Jihadin wrote:We do have NATO troops that are in the UN that do train in the US.

Don't tell people that. We have people up in arms saying that every time a military truck is driving to training the military is taking up arms against the citizenry (at least in Oklahoma).

Yak9UT wrote:You can get a gun in America way too easy, no background checks, nothing.

This is patently false, btw.

d-usa wrote:This is probably the fault of Agenda 21. According to everybody on Facebook they are responsible for everything.
Also found this:
>snip image<

d-usa wrote:I was hoping the joke was obvious. Sad thing is that I could see some of the people that this is making fun of actually thinking this is real..

Heh, it's like that "Due to expected record turn out, all republicans will vote on normal election day and all democrats will vote on the next day" (and vice versa, depending on version) email that goes out every year.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:No he's not. Articles like this are the media version of trolling. I am so sick of everyone thinking that every non-conservative president is going to take away the guns. They haven't yet....

Read that as "neo-conservative" president and was horribly confused...

I thought the USA provided about 80-90% of the troops for any UN mission. Maybe this is why the president seemed to eager to get all our troops home from abroad?

Besides all that, the Senate would need a 2/3 majority of votes to give consent for ratification. I doubt they could get that many votes, though it may be closer than I want to imagine.

There is some pretty interesting reading out there. I once found a list of all the UN treaties the USA has never ratified. Seems to be the majority of them.

streamdragon wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:You can get a gun in America way too easy, no background checks, nothing.

This is patently false, btw

not really.

The proliferation of guns is such that I can get my hands on any number of firearms quickly and with little hassle. One does not need to walk into a gun store to get a gun.

CT GAMER wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:You can get a gun in America way too easy, no background checks, nothing.

This is patently false, btw

not really.

The proliferation of guns is such that I can get my hands on any number of firearms quickly and with little hassle. One does not need to walk into a gun store to get a gun.

Those are already illegal, so no new laws needed.

Frazzled wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:You can get a gun in America way too easy, no background checks, nothing.

This is patently false, btw

not really.

The proliferation of guns is such that I can get my hands on any number of firearms quickly and with little hassle. One does not need to walk into a gun store to get a gun.

Those are already illegal, so no new laws needed.

I was simplyspeaking to the ease with which guns can be obtained which the person I quoted was refuting.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I thought the USA provided about 80-90% of the troops for any UN mission

lolno

I don't think this has ever been the case. With few exceptions such as Ireland, First World countries contribute primarily with money, whereas Third World countries send the human resources (and in turn receive money for it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping#Participation

The US is the chief contributor to finances, however, covering about 27.14% of the peacekeeper budget - followed by Japan with 12.53%.

Oh thats right.. we provide the money for the UN.

The guy has no idea what the treaty proposes, but he's certain it'll include all his worst nightmares.

I mean, shooting guns is great fun, and I think the impact of gun controls has been fairly minimal, so I'm not really in favour of more gun controls (in the US, certainly, you should just better enforce the controls you've already got), but the gun rights lobby in the US is completely nuts. They're so tightly wrapped up in their fantasies about all their guns being taken away, no-one has noticed that isn't happening, and no meaningful increase on gun control has been even slightly politically viable since the Assault Weapons debacle, but they're going to be terrified of it anyway. I suspect this is because for a lot of people, actually dealing with politics is hard and confusing, but playing make believe games about buying guns means they're defenders of freedom who are constantly protecting their ability to protect themselves from evil government encroachment is a lot of fun, so they believe that instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yak9UT wrote:4th point is just as silly it just punishes honest people and won't stop the illegal trafficking of guns.

It needs to be understood that most of the black market guns hitting Africa and South America were produced from licensed, legal gun manufacturers, with a significant portion produced by apparently respectful producers in Germany and the USA, who know full well where those guns are going.

A registry, or some other form of control, would be used as a check on these manufacturers, to show the weapons they export are going to legal market only. Right now they ship weapons off the South America, knowing full well they're going straight to narcotics gangs. That really isn't an acceptable situation.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I thought the USA provided about 80-90% of the troops for any UN mission. Maybe this is why the president seemed to eager to get all our troops home from abroad?

Besides all that, the Senate would need a 2/3 majority of votes to give consent for ratification. I doubt they could get that many votes, though it may be closer than I want to imagine.

There is some pretty interesting reading out there. I once found a list of all the UN treaties the USA has never ratified. Seems to be the majority of them.

You're thinking of NATO.

The only real thing Obama has done concerning guns was pass a bill making it LEGAL to carry guns in a National Park. Yup, Obama helped pass along a pro-gun law.

Hey Conservatives, us Liberals don't want your dang guns. In fact, I don't actually personally know any Liberals that don't own at least one gun. I my self own several, though mainly for their historical value, as well as plinkin'.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Oh thats right.. we provide the money for the UN.

Not even that, really. Thing is, every country pays in to the UN according in proportion to its GDP. The US, being the richest country in the world, pays in the most, but there is a ceiling on payments to the UN, no country is required to pay more more than 22% of the total UN budget. The only country this applies to is the US, because until very recently they were something closer to 25% of world GDP.

So, basically, while me and everyone else in the world other than the US would end up paying about 7 cents for every $1,000 we earned, because of the special condition the US was able to extract for itself, you and other Americans would each pay about 6 cents for every $1,000 you earned.

In other news, US citizens continue to misunderstand the UN.

Its the stigma that for every major UN mission that happens the USA provides the bulk

Jihadin wrote:Its the stigma that for every major UN mission that happens the USA provides the bulk

That's not really particularly true. The U.S. acts unilaterally pretty often and we provide the bulk of all NATO missions. Our actual contribution to UN operations isn't particularly big but then actual UN operations aren't particularly big as a generality.