United Nations to pressure the US to ban private ownership of guns

[Philly_SWAT]

I just saw this on the Tucker Carlson show on msnbc. The guest said that the UN is pressuring the countries of the world to ban its citizens from owning guns, and that only "governments" should have guns. He said they have already pressured most of Africa and South America to comply, under the guise of "its safer for its citizens". Does Africa seem like a safe place to you? What do you guys think of this idea? It is a horrible imo and I hope that our Congress never succumbs to such pressure.

[panic]

I don't think you have to worry. There's that little matter of the 2nd Ammendment. Anyway, I thought the UN was mostly on about the cheap and ubiquitously availble "military-style" assault weapons. I don't think you handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun are going anywhere. Will we eventually see a nationwide assault weapons restriction? Probably. But its likely several decades off.

[Philly_SWAT]

There's that little matter of the 2nd Ammendment. Well, there used to be a little matter of the 18th amendment, which made prohibition the law of the land. Then the 21st amendment came along, which repealled prohibition. Do not think that nothing in the Constitution can be changed, it can indeed, as well as it should. It took until the 14th amendment before the "Land of the Free" abolished slavery. Anyway, I thought the UN was mostly on about the cheap and ubiquitously availble "military-style" assault weapons. I don't think you handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun are going anywhere. Will we eventually see a nationwide assault weapons restriction? Probably. But its likely several decades off. The report specifically said all guns, including handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns. Tucker was saying how horrible that would be for home owners if an intruder broke in, and in New Orleans after the police abandoned their posts and thugs were running the streets. The guest also said that this will be pushed at the UN sometime in the next few weeks. He went on to say that in one instance (some legaleese I dont remember) that it would take a 2/3 vote of congress to pass, and in another instance, it would only take a simple majority, which is how NAFTA got passed.

[OddDNA]

1st I think it is a huge difference in making new amendment and changing the bill of rights. I dont think any of the bill of rights will be repealed. But I do think they will find a way to circumvent our rights....Higher Taxes on guns and ammo? Changing who can own a gun based on arrest record, meaning make it stricter. Things like that I think are more likely than doing away with the 2nd amendment. Also most UN nations allow hunting weapons, at least the major ones do. I know England and Iceland allow hunting weapons, I assume France, Germany and the lot do too. Lastly why would the UN care if we allow citizens to own guns? Why are they even wasting time? The UN should worry more about its enemies than its allies.

[Exatreides]

Could it be the fact that the united states has more gun related cirmes and fatalites then every other country in the world combined?

[Arcades057]

Could it be the fact that the united states has more gun related cirmes and fatalites then every other country in the world combined? There is no other country in the world where so many different kinds of people live side by side. Dissimilar things residing side by side create friction; note there are countries with zero private ownership of firearms, and there are still gun-related deaths. Why is that? Look further into crime statistics, my young Padawan, to discover just how many murders are committed every year by LEGALLY owned guns. "From my cold, dead fingera," springs to mind. I have a feeling that if they tried instituting that here, us rednecks would show the Iraqi insurgency the right way to do things.

[Eyebiter]

The NRA (National Rifle Association) has a web page that explains the situation http://www.stopungunban.org/

[coma]

I support the second ammendment.It's fundamental to keeping a govt on it's toes. That's it's purpose. Home protection from stret thugs is secondary. If All the rouge militias and narco Guerilla Groups IN South/Central America and Africa were included, I am not so sure America is the most violent. If it is a comparison to other "industrialized" nations, they don't have rights to guns, but many don't have a right to free speech either (on paper). Or maybe we are just more violent, pound for pound. 10 years ago I heard gunshots ALL THE TIME (I mean every night. some Stop signs were ruddled with holes like a sign on a country road) . I almost got shot by a stray bullet in 1997. Haven't heard a shot since . Except 3 years ago when a guy got shot and bled out in my lobby. Nice. I plan to own a firearm, when I can fugure out how to legally do it. Gun Control is really strict here. And it's true "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".. On the flip side states like Texas have very lax gun control and they are crazy violent. That said, since when does the US give two s***s what the UN says, really. UN? pftt... They don't even have enough power to tell ME what to do! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[dmbfanintn]

I support the second ammendment.It's fundamental to keeping a govt on it's toes. That's it's purpose. Home protection from stret thugs is secondary. And we see how well that has worked, huh? Isn't it nice, that since this is the case, the Gov't so very well represents what the majority of Americans want?

[p2501]

Could it be the fact that the united states has more gun related cirmes and fatalites then every other country in the world combined? back this up. facts, figures, or something else. I just saw this on the Tucker Carlson show on msnbc. The guest said that the UN is pressuring the countries of the world to ban its citizens from owning guns, and that only "governments" should have guns. He said they have already pressured most of Africa and South America to comply, under the guise of "its safer for its citizens". Does Africa seem like a safe place to you? What do you guys think of this idea? It is a horrible imo and I hope that our Congress never succumbs to such pressure. i'm going to go to the usual "i need a link" response. every couple of years the news networks roll out the BS, so it's nothing new. quick responses. 1) the UN has suggested this before, and it always goes nowhere. frankly the UN has larger issues than our guns. 2) the NRA is using this as a fund raiser. 2 or three of the links on that linked site offer someway to give money to the NRA. this is reason 256 why i canceled my membership to those asshats. 3) the second amendment isn't going anywhere. so unclench your panties. no, and i say again no one is staking anybody's guns away. i think that covers everything.

[Andy]

I just saw this on the Tucker Carlson show on msnbc. The guest said that the UN is pressuring the countries of the world to ban its citizens from owning guns, and that only "governments" should have guns. He said they have already pressured most of Africa and South America to comply, under the guise of "its safer for its citizens". Does Africa seem like a safe place to you? What do you guys think of this idea? It is a horrible imo and I hope that our Congress never succumbs to such pressure. that is disgusting. here in england, they banned civilians from owning guns years ago and even took them off our police. all its done is raise the crime rate as crooks are still armed but the good guys arn't. its utter madness. i have been actively campaigning to lift the gun ban here ever since it was put in place.

[p2501]

And we see how well that has worked, huh? Isn't it nice, that since this is the case, the Gov't so very well represents what the majority of Americans want? these more so a result of the unending apathy of our society. it has little to do with the secnod amendment in and of it's self.

[dmbfanintn]

these more so a result of the unending apathy of our society. it has little to do with the secnod amendment in and of it's self. Yeah, I have to agree with you on that!!!!! Certainly not the second amendments fault and you are right, that is the primary reason the 2nd was put in there, the keep the gov't in check. Too bad we are too busy watching American Idol to give a shizznit!

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

I don't see any reason for anyone to have more than one hunting rifle, and maybe one handgun, in the house, for intruder protection. If anything, there should just be limits. In a perfect world, I would say I'm all for a complete ban. But I know that criminals aren't likely to follow a law like this, and that does just leave regular joes out to dry. I'd love to see a world with no guns, period.

[p2501]

I don't see any reason for anyone to have more than one hunting rifle, and maybe one handgun, in the house, for intruder protection. If anything, there should just be limits. In a perfect world, I would say I'm all for a complete ban. But I know that criminals aren't likely to follow a law like this, and that does just leave regular joes out to dry. I'd love to see a world with no guns, period. why one hunting rifle? most americans don't hunt. i don't see a need for limits as they serve no earthly purpose. all you need is one gun and an intent in order to commit a crime. so even that hunting rifle you allow could be used in the commision of a gun related fellony. the reality is treating guns as the problem, is like treating cars as the problem in relation to drunk driving. it's assinine, and does nothing to actually deal with the problem. having said that a nationalized database of all conviced fellons, and rigerous background checks coupled with a respectable waiting peroid. would be a positive step.