Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 130

Thread: The UN

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
    Posts
    272

    The UN

    Maybe this has been talked about before .... sorry if I missed it ... anyone care to respond to this artical ?

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38103

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I have to say something--whoever wrote that fictitious letter/article, whatever it is, should be shot. I have not seen a letter more viral than this one.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    226
    The article authors name is listed right there at the conclusion of said article....if you'd read the whole thing.

    ''Jennifer Kendall is a graduate of Arizona State University and preparing to attend the Annenberg School of Communication at USC.''

    I'm assuming you're being flippant about your desire to have Ms Kendall shot. I think she is to be commended. She appears to be a pro-gun, pro-rights writer for crying out loud, friendly fire!

    To the OP, do a search of the forum to see if the topic has already been posted. In this case, several times. That being said, how is reminding folks of the inherent desire of the UN to disarm citizens such a bad thing to keep in circulation? Directly relevant to Open Carry, no less. No guns, no OC.

    Tired of seeing it posted on the forum? Don't read it, read one of the many Off Topic posts instead.

  4. #4
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819
    The UN is the most dangerous organization in the world.I can't imagine any American condoning our participation in it..We as Americans asnswer to no one, Especially some toilet african pigstye that they think the American tax payer should be helping .We owe no one any apologies .I take these articles with a grain of salt but never condone the UN .Nor should we ever trust anyone involved in it.
    Last edited by DEROS72; 07-28-2010 at 12:58 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by aktion View Post
    The article authors name is listed right there at the conclusion of said article....if you'd read the whole thing.

    ''Jennifer Kendall is a graduate of Arizona State University and preparing to attend the Annenberg School of Communication at USC.''

    I'm assuming you're being flippant about your desire to have Ms Kendall shot. I think she is to be commended. She appears to be a pro-gun, pro-rights writer for crying out loud, friendly fire!

    To the OP, do a search of the forum to see if the topic has already been posted. In this case, several times. That being said, how is reminding folks of the inherent desire of the UN to disarm citizens such a bad thing to keep in circulation? Directly relevant to Open Carry, no less. No guns, no OC.

    Tired of seeing it posted on the forum? Don't read it, read one of the many Off Topic posts instead.

    Thank you for your posting ....
    Last edited by Bersa.380; 07-28-2010 at 03:06 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by DEROS72 View Post
    The UN is the most dangerous organization in the world.I can't imagine any American condoning our participation in it..We as Americans asnswer to no one, Especially some toilet african pigstye that they think the American tax payer should be helping .We owe no one any apologies .I take these articles with a grain of salt but never condone the UN .Nor should we ever trust anyone involved in it.
    I agree and thank you too for you're posting !

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
    Posts
    272
    One of the reasons I posted this is because I didn't feel like wandering through thousands of old posts, my intent was not to piss any one off. If any one was upset because this topic has been brought back up all that needed to be said was .... No worries Bersa it's bogus .... YET, our world could change in the blink of an eye !

    One minute you're alive ............... the next .......... ((( ?? who knows ?? )))

    And lastly .... I see a lot of repetitive postings ! So, whats the BFD ? I believe it is prudent to stay on top of a lot of things.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    This letter/article is not fictitious its a bit misleading but not fictitious. The treaty is very real and supported by much of the League Of Na.... oops er I mean the U.N. and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Obama supports and signs it. However even if Obama signs the treaty, it will still need a two thirds majority in the senate. I don't see that happening.

    U.S. Constitution Article 2 section 2 clause 2
    [the president] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..................
    http://topics.law.cornell.edu/consti...cleii#section2
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by DEROS72 View Post
    The UN is the most dangerous organization in the world.I can't imagine any American condoning our participation in it..We as Americans asnswer to no one, Especially some toilet african pigstye that they think the American tax payer should be helping .We owe no one any apologies .I take these articles with a grain of salt but never condone the UN .Nor should we ever trust anyone involved in it.
    Litteraly took the words from my mouth. To me the UN is a place for corrupt politicians or their cronies to live a life of luxury and privilege that they wouldn't enjoy in their home country. When you get right down to it though, isn't the UN just an international version of our Congress? Considering the disconnect with their constituents, graft and corruption, liberal spending of other's money, questionable decisions on issues not supported by science or other factual information, I can't see a much difference other than the scale.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    This letter/article is not fictitious its a bit misleading but not fictitious. The treaty is very real and supported by much of the League Of Na.... oops er I mean the U.N. and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Obama supports and signs it. However even if Obama signs the treaty, it will still need a two thirds

    OK, I will bite.

    I want you to show me what Obama has done with regards to the 2nd Amendment in the past two year in office that would lead me or anyone else to believe that Obama intends to sign this document. Also, I would like for you to show me some hard numbers in congress of congress-people that would actually vote for this UN garbage, remember, it takes 2/3 majority. In addition, I would like for you to show me in the Constitution or a SCOTUS case where the UN supersedes the US Constitution.

    I await evidence to back up your assertion. Good luck in proving your argument. You have my full attention.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 07-28-2010 at 11:57 AM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by DEROS72 View Post
    The UN is the most dangerous organization in the world.
    I partially agree, the UN is only as dangerous as the treaties we sign with it that are affirmed by congress. The UN has no teeth and serve to empower members of states that are Communist, Totalitarian, and Dictatorial. I think the US should withdraw the money we contribute to the UN and spend the money domestically--not likely under the current or any subsequent administrations.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvia Plath View Post
    OK, I will bite.

    I want you to show me what Obama has done with regards to the 2nd Amendment in the past two year in office that would lead me or anyone else to believe that Obama intends to sign this document. I stated that I think he would support and sign it, that was an opinion not a fact. I based my opinion on his record in the senate, on speeches/interviews where he said he would support a new assault weapons ban, speeches/interviews where he said he would support gun registration and speeches/interviews where he supported the dc gun ban and the Chicago gun ban Also, I would like for you to show me some hard numbers in congress of congress-people that would actually vote for this UN garbage, remember, it takes 2/3 majority. I know it takes two thirds and I said that in my post. I also said that they WILL NOT have enough votes In addition, I would like for you to show me in the Constitution or a SCOTUS case where the UN supersedes the US Constitution. This is a straw man argument I never said it did.

    I await evidence to back up your assertion. Good luck in proving your argument. my argument was that IF Obama signed it then it still wouldnt go into effect because it would require the approval of 2/3rds of the senate I proved this argument with my citation. You have my full attention.

    My post was not an attack on you it seems you took it personally. My main point was that the treaty exists so that the article is not completely false it is just misleading.

    here is a one example of a video of Obama supporting a treaty to register all firearms (its at about .24) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUCdygBmiQE
    I dont need to post more because we all know how to use google.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    My post was not an attack on you it seems you took it personally. My main point was that the treaty exists so that the article is not completely false it is just misleading.

    here is a one example of a video of Obama supporting a treaty to register all firearms (its at about .24) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUCdygBmiQE
    I dont need to post more because we all know how to use google.
    I promise I did not take your comment personally. President Obama can wish for anything he wants, it does not mean he is going to get it. The chances of him getting what he wishes for with regards to firearms, even with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, he will not have a snowball chance in hell.

    1:52, 2/3 majority, but we both know that and hopefully you know that even with Democrat majorities there is no chance that Obama would win such a battle, if he pushed it. The "assault weapons ban" talk is a waste of time to talk about because it WILL NOT happen, guaranteed, especially a treaty ban.

    I am more concerned if we have a double dip, the US descends into chaos and their is Marshal Law imposed, that is more likely that anything. Theoretically, Obama can impose Marshal Law right this second, and ban firearms, if he was hell bent on doing it, why hasn't he? Because he is political and knows firearm bans are a losing battle.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Simple answer folks:

    Treaties are international in scope and govern how we deal with other nations. No treaty can in any way impact 2nd Amendment rights within the borders of the USA. The cited article has been circulating in one form or another for months, and it is plainly and simply inaccurate.
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvia Plath View Post
    I promise I did not take your comment personally. President Obama can wish for anything he wants, it does not mean he is going to get it. The chances of him getting what he wishes for with regards to firearms, even with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, he will not have a snowball chance in hell.

    1:52, 2/3 majority, but we both know that and hopefully you know that even with Democrat majorities there is no chance that Obama would win such a battle, if he pushed it. The "assault weapons ban" talk is a waste of time to talk about because it WILL NOT happen, guaranteed, especially a treaty ban.

    I am more concerned if we have a double dip, the US descends into chaos and their is Marshal Law imposed, that is more likely that anything. Theoretically, Obama can impose Marshal Law right this second, and ban firearms, if he was hell bent on doing it, why hasn't he? Because he is political and knows firearm bans are a losing battle.
    I agree that what he may want to do is a lot worse then what he will try to do or what he can get away with. I suspect that if a vote on this treaty took place on the senate floor the treaty would have a very hard time getting a simple majority let alone two thirds. I think only a small handful of senators would vote in favor.

    "Martial law" or not I dont think the government has any legitimate authority to ban or collect guns.

    I have always wondered. Where does the notion of "martial law" even come from? I cant find it any where in the constitution. If a power is not in the constitution then the federal government does not have it. I doubt very much that the framers intended to give that much power to one branch of government let alone one person.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Warden View Post
    Treaties are international in scope and govern how we deal with other nations. No treaty can in any way impact 2nd Amendment rights within the borders of the USA. The cited article has been circulating in one form or another for months, and it is plainly and simply inaccurate.

    I agree treaties do not trump the constitution, and of course you cant amend the constitution by treaty. so the 2nd amendment should still apply.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I agree that what he may want to do is a lot worse then what he will try to do or what he can get away with. I suspect that if a vote on this treaty took place on the senate floor the treaty would have a very hard time getting a simple majority let alone two thirds. I think only a small handful of senators would vote in favor.

    "Martial law" or not I dont think the government has any legitimate authority to ban or collect guns.

    I have always wondered. Where does the notion of "martial law" even come from? I cant find it any where in the constitution. If a power is not in the constitution then the federal government does not have it. I doubt very much that the framers intended to give that much power to one branch of government let alone one person.
    Congress would have to approve FWIU...but it is Constitutional.

    Article I Section IX.

    "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

    The Federal Government runs the military--hence, the Federal Government can do whatever it wants. I know that people do not want to believe that this is the case, but it is. Would the Federal Government take such a step...regardless of the Administration, if the Federal Government feels that it might be compromised, it will take appropriate action to survive, and that includes killing Americans. The US government is like all other governments in that it will dispose of "enemies of the state" in order to maintain and exert power over "the people."
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvia Plath View Post
    Congress would have to approve FWIU...but it is Constitutional.

    Article I Section IX.

    "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The suspension Habeas Corpus is not martial law

    The Federal Government runs the military--hence, the Federal Government can do whatever it wants.Realistically yes, but do they have any "legitimate" authority to do so? I know that people do not want to believe that this is the case, but it is. Would the Federal Government take such a step...regardless of the Administration, if the Federal Government feels that it might be compromised, it will take appropriate action to survive, and that includes killing Americans. The US government is like all other governments in that it will dispose of "enemies of the state" in order to maintain and exert power over "the people."
    Thats funny the forum wont just let me post your quote with my comments It makes me type in the body also
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  20. #20
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvia Plath View Post
    Congress would have to approve FWIU...but it is Constitutional.

    Article I Section IX.

    "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

    The Federal Government runs the military--hence, the Federal Government can do whatever it wants. I know that people do not want to believe that this is the case, but it is. Would the Federal Government take such a step...regardless of the Administration, if the Federal Government feels that it might be compromised, it will take appropriate action to survive, and that includes killing Americans. The US government is like all other governments in that it will dispose of "enemies of the state" in order to maintain and exert power over "the people."
    The Federal gov't might issue "the order," but whether it would actually be followed by grunts in the street is another matter. I think our soldiers know why and whom they serve, especially those who have been to the sandbox, and I simply don't believe they would follow such an order. In the end, the Fed cannot simply "do whatever it wants," there is still a system of power checks in this country, the final one being a bunch of armed and pissed off citizens. Any attempt by this administration, or any other, especially in time of calamity, to institute "Marshall law" would very quickly degenerate into civil war.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    The Federal gov't might issue "the order," but whether it would actually be followed by grunts in the street is another matter. I think our soldiers know why and whom they serve, especially those who have been to the sandbox, and I simply don't believe they would follow such an order. In the end, the Fed cannot simply "do whatever it wants," there is still a system of power checks in this country, the final one being a bunch of armed and pissed off citizens. Any attempt by this administration, or any other, especially in time of calamity, to institute "Marshall law" would very quickly degenerate into civil war.
    I hope your right but,
    The military didn't refuse the orders to take guns from citizens after Katrina.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  22. #22
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I hope your right but,
    The military didn't refuse the orders to take guns from citizens after Katrina.
    OK correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the perpetrators of that act were local LEOs and perhaps NG under the authority of state & local officials?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    OK correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the perpetrators of that act were local LEOs and perhaps NG under the authority of state & local officials?

    a lot were LEO but also National Guard which is part of the U.S. Army
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    The Federal gov't might issue "the order," but whether it would actually be followed by grunts in the street is another matter. I think our soldiers know why and whom they serve, especially those who have been to the sandbox, and I simply don't believe they would follow such an order. In the end, the Fed cannot simply "do whatever it wants," there is still a system of power checks in this country, the final one being a bunch of armed and pissed off citizens. Any attempt by this administration, or any other, especially in time of calamity, to institute "Marshall law" would very quickly degenerate into civil war.
    Wishful thinking on your part. There might be some that will not obey orders, but they have a duty to the President Of The United States.

    Yes, there are armed citizens but given the lax response post-assault weapons ban in the early nineties...I will put my money on complacency.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Thats funny the forum wont just let me post your quote with my comments It makes me type in the body also
    That is pretty much what Marshal Law is.

    Marshal Law; (WIKI)

    is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread.esse
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 07-28-2010 at 05:57 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •