U.N. Gun Debate

[Mad Mardigan]

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre ~vs~ international gun-ban ringleader Rebecca Peters

 

I recieved this email from Wayne as part of my contributions to the NRA.

 

A Special Message from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre: Tune

in to iN DEMAND Pay-Per-View and Watch the U.N. Gun Debate!

 

Make plans now to watch iN DEMAND Pay-Per-View on October 12th for my

90-minute debate with international gun-ban ringleader Rebecca Peters.

And after the debate, be sure to Vote on whether the U.S. Senate should

approve the U.N.'s gun-ban treaty!

 

Rebecca Peters almost single-handedly brought gun confiscation to

Australia and to England and is now the most feared gun-banner in the

world. With more than 500 gun control organizations under her command

worldwide, and with the unlimited financial backing of billionaire

George Soros, she's determined to make gun confiscation a reality here

in the United States -- through a U.N.-backed treaty that would be

binding on every American citizen.

 

You and every American gun owner need to watch this debate -- and see

first-hand this enormous and very real threat to our Second Amendment

rights.

 

Tune in on October 12th, and you'll see how gun banners have taken over

the U.N. -- and how they intend to infect America with their anti-gun

poison. You'll see for yourself how the biggest coalition of gun-ban

organizations ever assembled on earth is working with the U.N. and with

U.S. politicians to take away your rights.

 

You'll learn the truth about George Soros -- the foreign-born American

financier who is spending his personal fortune to advance the global

gun-ban movement as well as elect John Kerry to the White House on

November 2nd. And you'll see for yourself why U.N. gun-ban extremists

will be rejoicing around the world if John Kerry is elected President.

 

 

To prevent our nation from living under this soon-to-be-drafted United

Nations gun control treaty in the years ahead, every American needs to

know what the U.N. intends to do with our Second Amendment rights -- and

every gun owner needs to watch this debate.

 

Please tune in to this historic debate. See the threat for yourself. And

invite your gun-owning friends, neighbors and co-workers to watch with

you.

 

I promise you, you'll never look at the U.N. in the same way again --

and you'll get the information you need to help defeat this U.N.-backed

effort to ban our guns. Thanks in advance for watching -- and for

Voting!

 

SHOWTIME:

 

Tuesday, October 12 9:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time

Want more information about the debate? Go To http://www.thegundebate.com

 

HOW TO ORDER

 

iN DEMAND is the world's largest provider of Pay-Per-View television

programming. Ordering methods vary from one local cable system to

another, with the use of either your cable remote or your telephone.

Call your local cable company for more information about its

pay-per-view ordering process. Pricing is also determined by your local

cable system. Please note that this debate will not be available on

DIRECTV, Dish Network, or any other satellite network. Remember, the

calling volume increases immediately before the start of an event. In

order to avoid getting a busy signal we recommend that you place your

order several hours beforehand. Thank you in advance for watching this

important debate!!! For more information go to http://www.thegundebate.com.

 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DEBATE: DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!

 

At the end of the debate, you'll be provided a password allowing you to

vote, using the Internet or your telephone, on this critical question:

Should the United States Senate ratify the proposed United Nations

treaty that bans private ownership of firearms?

 

It's vitally important for gun owners to win this vote -- and show the

world that we won't give up our Second Amendment rights without a fight!

But only those who have ordered this Pay-Per-View show and obtained the

password are allowed to vote. So please, make sure to watch at the end

of the show for your password, then cast YOUR vote for freedom!

[Mad Mardigan]

Why people get hurt by unloaded guns.

 

Diane Feinstien

 

 

A closer look.

 

[Caustic]

that bitch... will have to pry my shotgun from my cold dead hands...

 

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

— Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

[atinymonkey]

Rebecca Peters almost single-handedly brought gun confiscation to

Australia and to England and is now the most feared gun-banner in the

world.

 

That's not true, it's not even remotely true. In face, you could call it a lie. Rebecca Peters appears on no European media searches at all, and we have had gun control since the 16 century. Australia is part of the commonwealth and it's laws and govement is the model of Britain, therfore gun control in Australia is a direct result of the creation of the Australian model in the 18th century.

 

It seems the NRA are riling you up so you'll pay to see the 'debate' with an 'opponent' of gun ownership. It's rather pathetic to paint this one person as the reason guns have been banned in the more evolved democratic countries across the globe. The NRA has created it's own nemesis to shoot down, rather than be forced to deal with public opinion in the US which is half and half on the subject of gun control.

 

It annoys me somewhat that the NRA paints the populations of countries that have banned guns as weak willed dupes that were swayed by one persons extreme opinion.

[Sayonara]

Hilarious that you would choose to share such obvious propaganda.

[r1dermon]

its funny, thats probably diannes gun in the picture....heh.

[blike]

The NRA has created it's own nemesis to shoot down, rather than be forced to deal with public opinion in the US which is half and half on the subject of gun control.

 

Gun control is different from an outright gun ban, which is what Rebecca Peters stands for. If you would like to post some statistics regarding Americans who support banning guns outright, feel free to do so. So no, the NRA has not created it's own nemesis in order to avoid public opinion.

 

 

Should be an interesting debate, though.

[Sayonara]

Gun control is different from an outright gun ban, which is what Rebecca Peters stands for. If you would like to post some statistics regarding Americans who support banning guns outright, feel free to do so. So no, the NRA has not created it's own nemesis in order to avoid public opinion.

 

From the article:

 

Rebecca Peters almost single-handedly brought gun confiscation to

Australia and to England and is now the most feared gun-banner in the

world. With more than 500 gun control organizations under her command

worldwide, and with the unlimited financial backing of billionaire

George Soros, she's determined to make gun confiscation a reality here

in the United States -- through a U.N.-backed treaty that would be

binding on every American citizen.

 

How is that un-nemesis like?

 

[jattaway]

Grr they closed the our other gun thread, that was a dirty trick... ;-(

 

Anyway, the NRA does a lot of great things as far as gun safety and awareness classes go, among other things. That being said, they are a political organization that requires funding. Making Americans aware of UN pushes to effect our rights is important to both them (as a fresh revenue stream) and us (as an informed populous).

 

The UN has no place in our government. If they insist on meddling, the US should withdraw. There are other nations who are "world" powers that can pick up the slack. If they want to try to push their views via force of arms... Well, I think we have an answer for that also. The issue of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution is one where a very large portion of our population has a very serious and deadly view, and given that it is our final guarantee of Freedom, it should.

[atinymonkey]

Gun control is different from an outright gun ban' date=' which is what Rebecca Peters stands for. If you would like to post some statistics regarding Americans who support banning guns outright, feel free to do so. So no, the NRA has not created it's own nemesis in order to avoid public opinion.

 

Should be an interesting debate, though.[/quote']

 

Mmmm, rather than go to a random news source (let's face it we can find fact to prove opinion is almost anything) I'll point towards your guns thread in scienceforums.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=956

 

Hey, it may be tainted by outsiders but it's your site and your poll

 

I was really refering to the reference of Ms Peters alleged responsibility for teh gun ban in the UK and Australia. Which was just tub thumping claptrap. The quote seems to be building her up into a nemesis so they can tear her apart publicly. Which you have to pay to watch. Which you seem to be implying may be worth the money. It's your 10 bucks I guess.

 

The UN has no place in our government. If they insist on meddling' date=' the US should withdraw. There are other nations who are "world" powers that can pick up the slack. If they want to try to push their views via force of arms... Well, I think we have an answer for that also. The issue of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution is one where a very large portion of our population has a very serious and deadly view, and given that it is our final guarantee of Freedom, it should.[/quote']

 

To suggest you withdraw from the UN because it's pointing out the guns can kill people is missing the point of the UN. It's also rather petty, and blinkered as to the UN's primary function.

 

It would be rather funny if the US did withdraw, it would leave the UN in the position of dictating policy to the US rather than involving it in the voting.

[Sayonara]

Grr they closed the our other gun thread, that was a dirty trick... ;-(

Everything that can be said over there has been said already. It's got to the point now where people are arguing points that already got destroyed 300 posts back.

 

 

Anyway, the NRA does a lot of great things as far as gun safety and awareness classes go, among other things. That being said, they are a political organization that requires funding.

As a (presumably responsible) gun owner, do you think you would be happier if the NRA carried out its mandate of educating gun owners on safety and awareness etc, but did not have a political agenda?

(Assume for the sake of argument that removing their political side would not open the door to any anti-gun action.)

[jattaway]

It would be rather funny if the US did withdraw, it would leave the UN in the position of dictating policy to the US rather than involving it in the voting.

 

Dictated to us how? Via force of arms? With whose funding? Or whose army? Perhaps you should look up the percentages paid by member nations of total funds that go in to make up the UN before you jump off the deep end here. The numbers may shock you.

 

As a (presumably responsible) gun owner, do you think you would be happier if the NRA carried out its mandate of educating gun owners on safety and awareness etc, but did not have a political agenda?

(Assume for the sake of argument that removing their political side would not open the door to any anti-gun action.)

 

I would like to see gun safety taught in the public schools, but it should rightly be the option of the State. It is not practical in all States, though I wish it were. In short, I am not in favor of any government mandate unless it comes from a localized State level. Then again, I am in favor of a mandatory 2 years of service in the armed forces after high school. So when people refer to the far right wing of American politics... Well, I see those chaps on my left.

[jattaway]

Nevermind, I did the leg work for you.

 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm

 

We make up 22% of the total buget plus incedentals such as the HQ, various peace keeping forces etc.

 

Before you start talking trade restrictions, with out the US to buy foreign goods, many nations would go bankrupt, so I would avoid talks of huge sweeping economic sanctions. They are empty threats that most nations can not afford. The reality is, a new entity would be formed and while the UN would continue on, its effect on the world would decline.

 

In short, the US may lose veto rights, the UN loses its single biggest backer. I would call that even.

[Mad Mardigan]

The other thread did get out of hand, but this one is about an event coming up, and should the UN be allowed to ban guns in America? Hmm, should be a poll question added. I am all for gun safety courses lead by the NRA, I was raised around gun, and taught by my dad.

 

The NRA does keep tabs on everyone in politics to see which side they are on, and let the members know. I get emails all the time from them on these matters. Rebecca Peters is a big fighter against the right for people to own firearms, and is trying to inforce it world wide. Finally we get a debate from the far end of each side. I wouldnt mind seeing Ted Nugent chime in on this one. Lets get him and Fienstein to debate too.

 

The UN should not exist to make world wide laws, but to bring countries together to resolve issues.

[bloodhound]

 

Before you start talking trade restrictions' date=' with out the US to buy foreign goods, many nations would go bankrupt, so I would avoid talks of huge sweeping economic sanctions. They are empty threats that most nations can not afford. The reality is, a new entity would be formed and while the UN would continue on, its effect on the world would decline.

 

In short, the US may lose veto rights, the UN loses its single biggest backer. I would call that even.[/quote']

your point is valid, but its a two sided sword. Where will US gets it stuff from ? It will recover in long term, but it will probably be chaos for a while.

[Mad Mardigan]

your point is valid, but its a two sided sword. Where will US gets it stuff from ? It will recover in long term, but it will probably be chaos for a while.

 

It would be chaos for a little while, but I bet the unemployment rate would go down. Cause we would have to start up all of the mills and factories we lost to NAFTA and prefered trade with China.

[atinymonkey]

Dictated to us how? Via force of arms? With whose funding? Or whose army? Perhaps you should look up the percentages paid by member nations of total funds that go in to make up the UN before you jump off the deep end here. The numbers may shock you.

 

*Sigh* or it may' date=' in fact, not shock me. I'm well aware of the origins of the UN, and the funding structure that is based on it's conception. I'm even aware of the League of Nations funding stucture. You are not just missing the point, you are creating your own point and missing that as well.

 

Nevermind, I did the leg work for you.

 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm

 

We make up 22% of the total buget plus incedentals such as the HQ, various peace keeping forces etc.

 

Before you start talking trade restrictions, with out the US to buy foreign goods, many nations would go bankrupt, so I would avoid talks of huge sweeping economic sanctions. They are empty threats that most nations can not afford. The reality is, a new entity would be formed and while the UN would continue on, its effect on the world would decline.

 

In short, the US may lose veto rights, the UN loses its single biggest backer. I would call that even.

 

I hesitate to call your grasp of US economics vauge, as it's probably too strong a term. Considering that 2 out of three developing nations are tied to national debts owed to America that outstrip the GNP, causing a rather crude economy fostered to provide cash crops to the vastly decadent consumer culture of the US, I don't feel much bankrupcy would be rampant. Rather the opposite, in actual fact.

 

It odd how you would class the country with the largest debt in human history as the country in a position of economic power, and yet keep from laughing out loud.

 

If the US severed ties from the UN, the first thing to occur would be economic regulation on the trade pressed by the US on it's 'bread basket' third world countrys. Within weeks of that occuring, the US would suddenly become fully aware that they do not produce enough food to feed one tenth of the US population and are unable to buy food at current market rates. The words 'rats', 'ship' and 'sinking' would be used to describe the stock exchange at that point. I could go on and on about the levels of import of the US outstripping production capabilitys, and the positive impact this drain on resources being removed would have on trade, but I'm tired. I may pop back tommorrow and explain in laymans terms just how precarious an economic position the US is in, or even how economics works on basic levels, as I find it hugely entertaining when people make assumptions based on national pride, assuming somehow that would make an economy bulletproof.

 

The US made the UN, true. But it made it too well, supported it for too long and fostered too many countrys partnerships in it for the US to become arrogant about it's policys. China's involvement alone could crush the US out of the world markets.

[blike]

Which was just tub thumping claptrap.

 

I won't disagree that the majority of that article was dramaticized and overplayed. Sometimes I wish the NRA were a little more moderate. That poll isn't quite scientific

[jattaway]

Hahah That is laughable. As I am sure you are well aware, being the economics expert who you must surely be, I am certain that you are only speaking in jest. As I am sure you are aware, member contributions are calculated based upon the total percentage of member nation contribution to the global economy. As the US represents roughly one fifth of that global economy, principally as a consumer of world goods, do you REALLY think that most nations of the world would be able to afford any form of sanction against us that prohibited us from buying their goods? Oh, there would bankrupt nations to be sure, but the US would not be one of them. For one thing, you do not have to be a member of the United Nations in order to trade with other member nations. Our withdrawal only effects our trade relations IF the UN attempts to sanction us. Given that various members with Veto rights require our trade to be able keep their nations healthy, I don’t see those sanctions happening. For another, with a 20-25% reduction in funds, the UN itself would be in serious financial difficulties. Can other nations pick up the slack? SURE! So long as they are given additional concessions, nothing comes for free, and that is also assuming that a new entity is not created that makes the UN obsolete. Why do we need more than NATO to begin with?

 

Here are a few statistics that you may find interesting, spin them however you like.

 

Rank Country GDP Date of Information

1 World

$ 51,480,000,000,000 2003 est.

2 United States

$ 10,990,000,000,000 2003 est.

 

 

China, Japan and India combined are slightly larger than our economy, but no one else is even in the same league. Please allow me to get your expert opinion here… Given how dependent Japan and India are on the US economy and to a much lesser extent China, which way do you think the economic winds will blow with those nations? My opinion is that it will go in which ever way continues to allow them to sell goods in the US. Oh, another little tidbit for you. The top 5 nations are roughly equal to the GDP of the remainder of the world.

 

Then again, we are all off topic. The US destroys more grain each year than most nations could consume, our farmers are paid by government subsidy to grow food that will rot in crates. In the event the US were ever truly isolated, which is a pipe dream that I am sure you richly enjoy, then we could feed ourselves and our neighbors with only minor issue. We are not an over crowded nation that can not ramp up whatever production is needed to feed ourselves, I would be interested to see where you came up with that particular epiphany.

 

You may declare this egotistical; I would submit that the US flourishes because of our relations with other nations. That relationship does not have to involve supporting an entity, even one we created, whose goals are contrary to those of the United States, nor is our ability to trade with other nations necessarily tied to that relationship. The US is not an island, but the UN’s continued instance on meddling with our internal affairs has no place. We are a free people, we are more than capable of deciding what laws serve us best. A disarmed populous, which was the original post, serves no one other than our enemies.

[Sayonara]

A disarmed populous, which was the original post, serves no one other than our enemies.

I find that a really curious thing to say.

 

What exactly does it mean? Surely you aren't living in constant anticipation of millions of generic foreign devils suddenly swimming ashore one day?

[Pangloss]

Amusing that you guys started talking about guns, but are now talking about the Chinese economy. It's a "price of tea in China" digression -- literally! (grin)

[bloodhound]

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre

is it me or does that name sound suspiciously "French"

[jattaway]

I find that a really curious thing to say.

 

What exactly does it mean? Surely you aren't living in constant anticipation of millions of generic foreign devils suddenly swimming ashore one day?

 

I guess 60 years ago was a long time ago, though the French and the rest of us should remember it well, I am sure they felt safe and secure behind their little line in the sand.

 

I do not really fear an invasion of the US, though there was a great quote from a former soviet Flag Officer, ref there being no plan for the invasion of the United States due to the fact that our population was armed. A 100 million man armed militia is an impressive thing, even against modern weaponry. All that aside, we have gentle neighbors today, and I hope that it always stays that way, but times change. With terrorism changing warfare, it may be more appropriate than it looks at first glance.

 

Also, who could argue that a nation whose population was armed was not more secure from invasion?

 

Let me ask a couple of other questions, while I am at it...

 

What do you think would happen if the people of North Korea were armed?

 

What about China? That is an industrial nation, would the people rebel? I would be willing to wager that the government would be more open to their needs and wants if nothing else, at the very least!

 

Our backgrounds are so different, that i don't think we will find much common ground here... Our points of reference are too disparate.

[john5746]

This is kind of a macrocosm of Suburbia America. People in the suburbs(America) fear death or rape by some stranger from the inner city(Everyone Else). They want guns, police to save this "epidemic".

 

America is very safe from foreign invasions. You are much more likely to be killed by a relative or from your own stupidity.

[Sayonara]

I guess 60 years ago was a long time ago, though the French and the rest of us should remember it well, I am sure they felt safe and secure behind their little line in the sand.

I find that offensive. Go and walk around the martyred town of Oradour sur Glane, and then come back here and tell me what you think would have happened to anyone living in the Haute-Vienne if the 2nd Waffen-SS Panzer Division that arrived there that fateful day had met armed resistance.

That kind of disregard for civilian life on the part of the Nazis was the reason the French capitulated, not because none of them had the means to meet force with force.

 

I fully realise that you have been conditioned by your society to overestimate yourselves as some kind of gung-ho G.I. Joe sleepers, ready to save the American Way of Life® and the world at large should the need ever arise, but in truth you're more likely to run into a bullet with your face than someone who has not been spoon-fed delusions of heroism.

 

 

I do not really fear an invasion of the US, though there was a great quote from a former soviet Flag Officer, ref there being no plan for the invasion of the United States due to the fact that our population was armed.

Something tells me that was not the deciding factor, never mind the only factor involved. You'd have to be some kind of retard to take that alleged quote as being the entire basis of the USSR's entire Cold War strategy, as opposed to the logistics of invasion and the actual threat of the American fleets, air force and army.

 

 

A 100 million man armed militia is an impressive thing, even against modern weaponry.

It would be if it was (a) not an exagerration and (b) not spread out over an absolutely vast area. In an invasion of the US mainland, you would almost certainly lose cities to occupation forces. Good luck with finding out how much fun guerilla warfare isn't.

 

 

All that aside, we have gentle neighbors today, and I hope that it always stays that way, but times change. With terrorism changing warfare, it may be more appropriate than it looks at first glance.

Yes, the best way to ensure people don't ever die is to allow the general public to think that they are empowered and qualified to identify and shoot "terrorists". Winning strategy there

 

 

Also, who could argue that a nation whose population was armed was not more secure from invasion?

Someone who is not operating under the delusion that the general public are capable of organising themselves into an effective armed force at the drop of a hat.

 

Or possibly someone who doesn't think that hunting rifles and shotguns are going to be terribly effective against long-range ordnance, tanks, planes, APCs, offshore bombardment, military hardware, and - of course - lots and lots of trained soldiers.

 

 

What do you think would happen if the people of North Korea were armed?

Not very much, because I actually do know a bit about North Korea.

 

 

What about China? That is an industrial nation, would the people rebel? I would be willing to wager that the government would be more open to their needs and wants if nothing else, at the very least!

Yeah, because on all the occasions when the Chinese people actually have rebelled, with or without guns, everything worked out so well for them

 

 

Our backgrounds are so different, that i don't think we will find much common ground here... Our points of reference are too disparate.

Perhaps you mean because I am more likely to refer to something vaguely realistic, due to the fact that I come from a country that has been both the invader and the invaded, on many occasions, sometimes successful and sometimes not, while you come from a country that has a record of invading smaller countries that have comparably pitiful defences.

 

Or maybe you are referring to the little tiff 60 years ago, which apparently I "don't remember but should", during which the UK managed for five years to hold off an unprecedented invading force the likes of which the world had never seen. See, we didn't need to arm the general population because we had this amazing idea which involved intercepting the enemy forces before they arrived. Gee wow, we sure do have some crazy schemes up our sleeves.

 

 

 

ps - I realise that was a particularly scathing post, I suspect you were regurgitating things you've heard or been told rather than actually thinking about the question. If that's not so, then I apologise in advance.