UN Cost up 25%...can we just pull the plug now ?!?!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Full of Win, Mar 22, 2008.

  1. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #1
  2. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #2
    Yes I think it's unfair for US citizens to have to contribute to the cost of all those black helicopters who are watching and taking note each time you speak of the "freedom to bear arms".
     
  3. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #3
    Provide proof of this planned gun seizure.

    EDIT: Since I know you probably won't provide any evidence from a credible news organization, I'll just link you directly to the UN's website. I'll assume you're talking about a conference that was held in the summer of 2006.

    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10537.doc.htm

    It was a meeting to review a program to stop the illicit small-arms trade.

    I was under the impression that all responsible gun owners would disapprove of illegal black markets on which guns are cheaply sold and put into the hands of criminals worldwide.

    In fact, here is a direct quote from the article, since I have a feeling you won't even click on the link:

    Emphasis mine.
     
  4. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #4
    He won't be able to. That was a myth perpetrated by someone even most of the legitimate NRA condemn. What was proposed had nothing to do with us, nor would they have any authority over us to do anything about it. This was disproved years ago, and I don't think I need to post proof of the obvious, especially since I'm not the one who made the claim, but I can hunt it down if someone absolutely needs it.

    As for the rest, those who defend spending trillions of dollars losing a war we started have little place to criticize supporting something designed to prevent such things, no matter how ill effective it can be.
     
  5. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #5
    I remember very well. My job (USPS) is to make sure poorly addressed mail pieces get to their correct address. It was that summer that I learned guns rights advocates apparently cannot look up the correct address for the United Nations before printing hundreds of thousands of postcards with the incorrect address.

    Oh, how much fun I had making sure that postcards that contained absolutely no trace of factual information got to the correct place. All so the UN could continue to disprove the misinformation (which has apparently fallen on deaf ears).

    EDIT: I'd also like to point out the irony of the original post. The article states that UN costs have risen due largely to the Bush administration, and has more than doubled since Bush took office. Yet the original poster has on more than one occasion shown his allegiance to Bush and the Republican party. Seems that something doesn't quite add up.

     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    You really think this is what the UN stands for? Try getting better informed and thinking outside the box of your own paranoia.
     
  7. Full of Win thread starter macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #7
    Well, they do have a committee of disarmament, including small arms. In my book, disarmament (e.g. of small arms) means the seizure of such arms. If you can give an alternative explanation of disarmament not including seizure, I’ll listen to it.

    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gadis3335.doc.htm


    edit... there is also this, which shows their hate of firearms. This is located outside their building. They hate firearms, if this does not tell you that, then I do not know what will.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #8
    Had a quick read through the document. Any chance you could post the section you have problems with?
     
  9. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #9
    Did you read that at all? It only reinforced everything my original post said.

    illicit |i(l)ˈlisit|
    adjective
    forbidden by law, rules, or custom

    I'll repeat it again. These disarmament programs do not apply to every country. It is in regards to countries in which UN Peacekeepers, with the consent of the host States, practice disarmament among former combatants. You seriously take issue with that? I think disarming rebel groups and former combatants is a "good thing", and most responsible gun owners would probably agree with me.

    Read this again before replying:

    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/20...m10537.doc.htm

    Because you really seemed to miss the entire point of this.
     
  10. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #10
    If you outlaw illicit trade only criminals will illicitly trade.
     
  11. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    Well we sure wouldn't want that, would we? ;)
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    You should try reading your links:
    Apart from that, thanks for the link, which shows how often the United States is either the only country voting against reason, or is siding with such paragons of international respectability as Equatorial Guinea.
     
  13. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #13
    It was quite embarrassing to see that my country was the sole vote against that. But not at all surprising.
     
  14. Full of Win thread starter macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #14
    It’s a subtle thing over time, where they add more and more restrictions and then over time they erode the right… and then move in for the kill. The fact that the document exist at all, and its push for 'contol' is proof enough. For example, I shoot mil surplus ammo, and the supplies from international sources (e.g. South Africa) had been in decline due in part to UN efforts. I cannot produce a document from the UN that has a map of the USA and collection times where we will need to drop off our firearms, but the overall direction is clear to anyone who reads these documents. Control of a freedom/right = erosion of a freedom/right (e.g. the Patriot Act).
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    So this whole delusional rant is based on the fact that you are finding it more difficult to get military surplus ammunition from South Africa? Wow.
     
  16. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #16
    Does anyone think this would apply to U.S. citizens?
     
  17. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #17
    I think you included all the buzz words necessary.
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    I can think of one person, offhand...
     
  19. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #19
    It will. It's a subtle thing over time.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    I'm off to the hills with my mountain men buddies.
     
  21. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #21
    Yeah, imagine that. He is finding it harder to illegally purchase surplus ammunition which he shouldn't even be allowed to buy in the first place according to South African Gov't policy.

    http://www.dfa.gov.za/foreign/Multilateral/profiles/arms.htm

     
  22. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #22
    By what I see as the essential structure of the UN, I have never seen them as much more than a supranational relief organization.

    I don't see the relevance, on a real-world level. To be frank (and perhaps incorrect), I see the UNs power as primarily only affecting the weakest and poorest nations of the world.

    In any case, I don't understand this thread at all.
     
  23. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #23
    So you have zero proof of your claims?
     
  24. scotthayes macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #24
    Firstly I'll admit I hate guns and I'm glad I live in a country where hand guns are banned and owning a shot gun or rifle takes a huge amount of paper work to get a licence.

    Am I right in assuming 'mil surplus ammo' is surplus military ammunition? If so what is wrong with regular ammunition? surely they do the same job?

    Secondly, what is wrong with the UN getting involved with the illicit arms trade? I'd say it was a good thing if they are trying to stop all the bad people getting hold of guns.

    As for the OP hating the UN, I'll agree all that peace keeping they do is a real pain in the bum, why not let these countries kick the crap out of each other?? And as for UNICEF, what a waste of money, as if kids in the 3rd world need help. Why do those kids need an education?? And so what if 2.1 million have HIV and who cares if over 9.7 million under the age of 5 die each year from preventable causes. And look at the waste of money that is OHCHR, hell I live in England and have human rights, so screw those who live in countries that don't have even basic human right, why should my tax money go to pay for them??? Yup, lets turn the UN building in to apartments and screw the rest of the world.
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    Holy crap! The UN is asking for the equivalent of a 3 days worth of Iraq war costs per year! And for increases requested by a "fiscally responsible" US President.
    Do you support disarmament of al-Qaeda, or do you support the terrorists?

    Assuming it's true that it's possible for an institution to feel emotions such as hate, this is a free country where you are allowed to hate whatever you want, so long as you don't go acting illegally on that hatred. You are free to hate the UN. No one is suggesting confiscating you, are they?

    Havin' a gay ol' time, eh?
     

Share This Page