Gun Nuttery

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Jun 21, 2006.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    This is why the NRA has a reputation as a bunch of gun-nuts (with the emphasis on nuts)...
    (My emphasis)

    See, the thing is... The UN doesn't even meet on July 4th. And the UN conference the gun nuts refer to only deals with illegal weapons -- not legally owned firearms.

    And they claim Michael Moore is the font of all misleading gun propaganda...

    :rolleyes:
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    "using your tax dollars." i'd like to hear their rationalization for making that statement.
     
  3. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #3
    I dropped out four years ago because most of their members are nuts, not normal respectable citizens that want to make sure sane people can own NORMAL weapons.
     
  4. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #4
    U.N. dues, I would guess. :rolleyes:
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    are we paying those again? i don't know the current status.
     
  6. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #6
    I think our arrears have diminished but we still have unpaid dues.

    One thing that always amazes me about the case against UN dues is the fact that the US gets way more tax income from the UN being on US soil than it pays in dues to the UN. So much for rightwing extremists being pro-business.
     
  7. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    I read about this earlier. Facts don't play into this at all. It's like one of those bad e-mails you get about Target not allowing the military to collect donations and toys for orphans outside their stores, but they let gay and lesbian groups collect for their political agenda's. Plus their French. Which they aren't. Kinda sad how some guy can make something so ridiculous up and get so many people to believe it, but it just proves how many people there are out there love their guns (some a little too much) and hate even the idea of a UN. Same thing happened with someone spreading false propaganda about Iran's President acting like Hitler.

    Of course, if someone said Bush did something horrible but slightly unbelievable, how many of us would believe it. Now, he's kinda made it easy for us to believe some unbelievable things. :p But still.
     
  8. 2jaded2care macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #8
    Apparently the conference will take place over a 2 week period (June 26 - July 7), which includes July 4. Whether they or the UN observe US holidays (even those celebrating our armed revolution) in unknown to me.

    http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/index.html

    The conference is aimed at controlling the "illicit" trade in small arms and light weapons (IMO, weapons not "controlled" by the member States).

    While some of the weapons they aim to control are such things as RPGs, they also want to control (collect and destroy) many firearms which are indeed legal in the US, such as revolvers and rifles, as quoted below:

    “ 'Small arms' are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for individual use. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns."

    They do claim to recognize the "prerogative of each State to legislate the rights of its citizens to bear arms." However, pictures such as http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/images/small-arms-poster-e.jpg play right into the hands of the NRA.

    IMO the NRA is not entirely wrong to be afraid of the UN. Does the NRA exploit pictures such as the one above in their own (fund-raising) propaganda? Sure. Is this any different than any other lobbying organization would do?

    I am a current, proud NRA member. I consider myself sane, and while I do not care to discuss any weapons I might or might not own, I will say that I have fired many of the "small arms" which the UN wishes to control.
     
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    If you had looked at the schedule of events, you would have noticed that the UN is closed on 4 July out of respect for the US. Other American holidays are also observed.

    Illicit trade in small arms is a big problem. The insurgency in Iraq would have been a lot less powerful had illicit trade been made illegal. Latin America, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mexico and Somalia are other areas of the world where illicit arms are feeding cultures of death.

    The fear mongering of the NRA goes beyond exploitation and plays into the hands and minds of those who fear that US isolationism is under attack. Anyone who is proud of such blatant NRA propaganda needs to rethink their membership. Such propaganda can only lead to increased militarism around the world and the 20th century should make us aware that it's a zero sum game.
     
  10. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Why would the NRA need to be afraid of the UN? Do you actually think the US government will allow the UN to come take your guns?

    Then why do they get all butt-hurt when Michael Moore distorts facts to make guns look bad, if you admit that everyone does it?
     
  11. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11
    Like I've said before, there are aspects of the NRA that I like (ex. their push on gun education and gun safety), but it's the political stuff like this that kills it for me. I'm pretty sure one can denounce gun runners AND support the 2nd Amendment at the same time.:rolleyes:


    Lethal
     
  12. calculus Guest

    calculus

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    #12
    I'd really really love to see that.
     
  13. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Exactly. I support the social and community aspects of the NRA, their concern for gun saftey is definitely to be applauded.

    What galls me is their political wing. It's why I will never support them.
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Do you own them legally? If so, this has nothing to do with you. I, for one, don't mind them going after terrorists and drug dealers. As said, they don't work on July 4th and they don't care about legal guns in the US.

    This is an outright lie. It's irresponsible and the person who posted this to his website should be ashamed of themselves. Any sane person would be decrying them for such a low tactic.
     
  15. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #15
    Seriously, get rid of the gats. Problem solved.
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    I used to think that. But with this government, if anything, I think people should have more guns. Um, provided they know how to use them of course. :eek:
     
  17. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    The problem with the UN on the issue of illicit small arms is that there are those involved who believe that private, civilian ownership is a Bad Thing. Thus it is the definition of "illicit trade" that has people worried.

    E.g., if "illicit trade" includes transfer of ownership of an unregistered rifle or pistol, the bugaboo of registration of one's personal firearms becomes an issue. That is anathema to millions of gun owners. Historically, registration has always led to confiscation.

    As far as the NRA, its membership is as broadspread across the demographic spectrum as one could wish. All professions and ethnic/religious groups are represented. Politically, it is nowhere nearly as "hard core" as several other RKBA groups.

    'Rat
     
  18. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #18
    Isn't always just slightly over the top? What proof do you have to back this up?

    If illicit trade means convicted felons being able to buy firearms outside of the law, then, it should definitely be an issue with the NRA. Sometimes though, I think the NRA surreptiously supports the illegal sale of fire arms to felons. If there's nobody to protect onself against, what's the point of firearms?
     
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    "Always" is pretty much correct. Certainly it's been the case often enough that most of us believe it's just a matter of time if it hasn't happened yet. The only real weasel is that not all firearms have been confiscated (Britain; Australia). I imagine the website of Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has chapter and verse on it. JPFO is seriously hard-core about the Second Amendment.

    FWIW, the list includes all the Iron Curtain countries and all the countries occupied by the Nazis; Britain, Australia, and New York state. South Africa is reported to be focussing on firearms owned by whites.

    "Sometimes though, I think the NRA surreptiously supports the illegal sale of fire arms to felons."

    That's whatcha get for thinkin' without thinkin'. :) After all, the NRA membership includes a whole bunch of cops. :) Anyhow, the NRA worked with the federal government to pass one body of law wherein: If a felon handles a gun in a gunstore, possesses a firearm, or possesses even a round of ammunition, it's five years in the federal pen. Use of this got a bunch of gang-bangers off the streets of Boston, MA, and of Richmond, VA. (I haven't kept track of reform or "cleanup", but at one time use of this law would have decimated the D.C. police department, under Mayor Cokesniffer.)

    'Rat
     
  20. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #20
    Doesn't have anything to do with that. It's about terrorists and drug dealers in other countries and their illegal guns. Has nothing to do with anyone in the US hunting or using a gun to legally protect their home. Don't go shooting people, and you have nothing to worry about. :)
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    solvs, you're more trusting than I am. I look at how "terrorism" is defined. I look at the original intent and meaning of the RICO act and how it's been used for much other than organized crime. I ain't trusting.

    Hey, if you're not doing anything illegal as government defines illegal, why would you care about phone tappings without a warrant, or somebody from the Gummint checking out your bank records?

    "Don't go shooting people, and you have nothing to worry about."

    In a sane world, I'd agree with you. But it's not about shooting. It's about possessing.

    'Rat
     
  22. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    And historically, listening in on phone calls has always led to dictatorships, right? Yet you're not worried about that...

    Look, member states of the UN are not supposed to torture either, right? Has that stopped any of them from doing it? No. So why whip up hatred of the UN for no real threat? Unless it's a political posturing ploy?

    Look, if the NRA is going to complain about Michael Moore taking a nugget of truth and spinning it into anti-gun propoganda, how is it not hypocritical to then turn around and do the same thing themselves? I thought they were from the group with the moral high ground?
     
  23. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #23
    mac, that little polemic wasn't worth reading, much less the bother to respond.

    :D, 'Rat
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    I didn't say I trusted anyone, I just know that the UN pretty much has no say over American guns. No one is touching your legal guns. If it comes to that, then we can go nuts, but it has nothing to do with us and it bothers me that people were so eager to believe an outright lie.

    Intent. If they get warrants due to reasonable intent, then there's no problem. If they came and tried to take your guns for no reason with no warrant, and therefor no intent, I'd have a problem with that too. Of course, last I checked, my phone couldn't kill people. ;)

    But it has nothing to do with what you or any other Americans possess, so what's the problem? If you aren't selling your guns illegally to a drug trafficker in South America or a terrorist in the Middle East, this won't affect you at all. Actually, even if you are, what the UN is trying to do wouldn't actually do anything either. It's just a conference so they can discuss what to do and then not do anything after everybody yells at everyone else.

    This guy doesn't have any idea what he's talking about, and that's what really bothers.
     
  25. DZ/015 macrumors 6502a

    DZ/015

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    New England
    #25
    The UN's wish to register, control, confiscate and destroy our guns is not some myth. Read their stated agenda. To me, this document is chilling.

    "To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament,
    demobilization and reintegration programmes, including the effective
    collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons,
    particularly in post-conflict situations, unless another form of disposition or
    use has been duly authorized and such weapons have been marked and the
    alternate form of disposition or use has been recorded, and to include, where
    applicable, specific provisions for these programmes in peace agreements."

    Particularly, not exclusively, in post-conflict situations. "Duly authorized", by whom?
     

Share This Page