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 I dont think any of the bill of rights will be repealed.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.

[deadwrtr]

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.

It seems as if you are suggesting people sit back and do nothing when issues like this come up. Perhaps it is all hot air. Perhaps it's not.

I don't own a handgun (though I'd like to) nor a rifle, but I believe in the Bill of Rights and the rights of people to own fire arms. Countries like the UK that have initiated a gun ban on its citizens still have violent crimes involving firearms, yet I imagine that if private citizens were allowed to own them, the incidents of violent crime would be reduced.

Personally, I am sending the letters to Annan, Kariyawasam and Bolton. I've added my own comments to the letters, though I doubt seriously Kofi will ever read it. It's not much, but even the hint of things of this nature is irritating to me. Not to mention, US dollars ARE being spent hosting this ridiculous, panty-clenching crapfest.

I'd like to see the closed door transcripts on the oil for food scandal. Whatever happened with that, anyway? Shouldn't the UN be focused on other issues, ones that originated within that corrupt organization?

It may be a revenue raising issue for the NRA... I am not giving money to them, and no one if forcing the issue on others either.

[Eyebiter]

p2501 - ask firearms owners in the UK, Australia, or Canada. First it's registration, then it's banning handguns and assault rifles, then it's everything else.

Sure the NRA is a fundraising organization. Then again they spend a good amount of money lobbying politicians and supporting the shooting industry in general. If the annual fee bothers you, it's possible to get a NRA life membership for less than the regular $750 price if you look around on the net. They frequently run deals - example a few weeks ago you could sign up a minor for a life membership for only $250.

[EvilNed]

Guns don't need to be banned, but restricted.

Of course, in a perfect world, there would be NO guns.

[slickwilly13]

First off the U.N. needs to mind their business. Second, banning guns in the U.S. would be a very bad idea. As others stated, it keeps the govt in check. That was one of the main reasons for the 2nd amendment after what happened between England and the colonies during the 1700's. Hate to bring up the past, but its a fact. Also, even if they banned guns people would still obtain them through the black market the same way people buy drugs and other illegal goods. Guns will be in the hands of the criminals. Think about it. If I'm a carjacker who's armed with a firearm then I will do it will great confidence knowing that you won't be able to do anything about it since you don't have any means to defend yourself against my gun. Finally, if they do take our guns away then there will probably be another civil war or revolution with the citizens vs the govt.

[Exatreides]

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html

"some of the locations boast more murders than suicides and vice-versa. (About 18,000 out of 31,000 people who commit suicide in the U.S. every year do so by gun.) "

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html
"The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence," Hemenway says. Violence, pace H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns. "



"The ways in which people die by guns would not make a good television cop show. Rarely does a suburban homeowner beat a burglar to the draw in his living room at 3 a.m. Few urban pedestrians thwart a mugger by brandishing a pistol. "We have done four surveys on self-defense gun use," Hemenway says. "And one thing we know for sure is that there's a lot more criminal gun use than self-defense gun use. And even when people say they pulled their gun in 'self-defense,' it usually turns out that there was just an escalating argument—at some point, people feel afraid and draw guns."

_________

UN Control of the United States? That ironic, being the US hosts the UN in New York on American Soil, and provides a large majority of funding for it.

You don't need a FN P90 with full auto 50 round magazine of 5.57 mm, shooting at 900 rounds a minute for hunting. You don't need weapons like that for anything. ANYTHING. That is unless you plan on a military coup deta, and if thats the case I Think you have a few other things to worry about.

Keep small caliber handguns and hunting rifles everything else has no reason to stay.

[Arcades057]

You don't need a FN P90 with full auto 50 round magazine of 5.57 mm, shooting at 900 rounds a minute...

I doubt you'd find one of those guns in this country. If you did, I can almost guarantee you that it'd be stolen.

I've gone through my prior illegal gun collection before, but I will again.

1) M-16
1) MAC-11
X) Couple Glocks
1) Colt 1911
1) Llama .380
1) Llama .357
1) .44
Couple things I can't remember

I remember when I was 15 someone asked if I wanted grenades. $100 a pop. I said no; how would I find out if they worked? The same guy once offered me a LAW for $500, but I couldn't find the money. Gun control, or banning guns altogether, would not have stopped me from acquiring those weapons, why would it stop criminals today, who will no doubt be more devious than I was? If a gun ban was initiated the very first thing I'd do is find me a stolen gun for protection, and that would take about 15 minutes.

[Tullaryx]

People seem to forget one thing. The UN has no authority whatsoever to change laws within the sovereign territories of any nation. The UN can suggest, and with the help of member countries, suggest forcefully if need be. Now the UN knows its blowing hot air and probably Kofi Annan's last minute dig at the Bush administration. Kofi Annan's tenure as Secretary-General of the UN is close to ending. So far, his tenure can be said as having weakened and made the UN a joke.

In the end, the only people who can ban all form of guns for civilians to purchase and own are Congress and that's if the President doesn't veto it and if the Supreme Court doesn't shoot it down for being unconstitutional.

[p2501]

p2501 - ask firearms owners in the UK, Australia, or Canada. First it's registration, then it's banning handguns and assault rifles, then it's everything else.

Sure the NRA is a fundraising organization. Then again they spend a good amount of money lobbying politicians and supporting the shooting industry in general. If the annual fee bothers you, it's possible to get a NRA life membership for less than the regular $750 price if you look around on the net. They frequently run deals - example a few weeks ago you could sign up a minor for a life membership for only $250.


No no no, sorry. i mean an nationalized data base of all class A fellons. the people that are for life prohibited from owning a firearm. not firearms owners, ****ing hell, that'd eb a defnitive step towards armed conflict.

as for the NRA, no i resigned my membership after they backed Bush in the last election. it was a cop out and a terribly poor one. Bush did nothing to assist the assualt weapons ban expring, and if i recall correctly even stated he would sign it back into law if it were floated to his desk.

so after that, i just don't feel the need to support them. as for the cost it was no biggie, i bought my lifetime membership back when they ran around $400.


http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html

"some of the locations boast more murders than suicides and vice-versa. (About 18,000 out of 31,000 people who commit suicide in the U.S. every year do so by gun.) "

this is largely irrelevant. people want to commit suicide will find a way to do it. guns just present a fast and painless (seemingly) way to go about it. personaly, if i person is going to kill themselves, and it is unavoidable, i prefer they atleast not suffer while doing it.[/I]

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html
"The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence," Hemenway says. Violence, pace H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns. "


[I]that's contrdictory. the quote indicates it's possible that there is currently more than one gun per person within the country. but the numbers in the next sentence fail to capture that level of saturation. 262m guns for a populous of 200m? that's a ratio of 1 gun for every 1.3 people. further and it gets worse when the last sentence quotes that those 200m guns are held by 35% of US house holds. this data is largely static, and totaly inconclusive.


"The ways in which people die by guns would not make a good television cop show. Rarely does a suburban homeowner beat a burglar to the draw in his living room at 3 a.m. Few urban pedestrians thwart a mugger by brandishing a pistol. "We have done four surveys on self-defense gun use," Hemenway says. "And one thing we know for sure is that there's a lot more criminal gun use than self-defense gun use. And even when people say they pulled their gun in 'self-defense,' it usually turns out that there was just an escalating argument—at some point, people feel afraid and draw guns."

while i'm skeptical of this data, and how it was gathered.

these conditions are due in part to a couple of things.

1) most gun crimes occur in areas with poor social services, due to that many victims are denied medical care following a shooting. this delay in care allows post shooting conditions to further onset and the vitcims health to deteriote

2) Some casual gun owners fail to take the time to acclimate to owning a weapon and even to bother training with the weapon. a gun is alot like a paint brush you do not simply pick one up and become an artist, nor can you just buy a gun and turn into Chow Yun-Fat

.




_________

UN Control of the United States? That ironic, being the US hosts the UN in New York on American Soil, and provides a large majority of funding for it.

True, but that hardly makes us their lapdog. the UN has issued requests on everything form Guantonamo bay to the Isrealies. and we routinely shrug them off.

You don't need a FN P90 with full auto 50 round magazine of 5.57 mm, shooting at 900 rounds a minute for hunting. You don't need weapons like that for anything. ANYTHING. That is unless you plan on a military coup deta, and if thats the case I Think you have a few other things to worry about.
deteroate
Keep small caliber handguns and hunting rifles everything else has no reason to stay.

I actually want a p-90, the 5.57 cartridge is pretty damn interesting, and it's force dump on impact is staggering. but the weapon is classified as a military grade firearm. so for all reasonable intents and purposes i cannot own one. having said that if i want to go through the trouble and cost with the ATF to obtain a class three permit to purchase weapons, i suppose i could do so.

but even if i could aquire one, it's not the kind of weapon you hunt with for any number of reasons. it's something you collect, because you can.

[general tbag]

i think opposed to looking at the states, have a look at countries like switzerland, and austria. for what can be bought there compared to places like the states it very apparent it not the guns that kills people, it people that kill people.

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

yeah, i'd love a world where i was fellated 5 times a day... it ain't happening:rockbrow:

Well, no ****.

Really, this is all a little silly. Read the bit in the yellow box:

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

I think the NRA needs to find better things to do with its time than getting its memebrs all bunched up about nothing.

[OddDNA]

...if they ban guns how are we going to fight back the hordes of undead that rise from their earthly tombs with the sole desire of devouring flesh.


Ohhhh Burnnnnnn answer that one Kofi!

[Philly_SWAT]

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.
Bravo, dude!!

[EvilNed]

Have they banned cutlasses yet?

Ima gonna go out and get meself a cutlass.

[Arcades057]

In a really perfect world, everything would have rounded edges and padding on it! Yayy, no more running into corners!! There'd be no guns or knives, or crossbows or spears!!! No fishing, because fish have feelings too, and no pets!!!! Everyone would be a vegan, and we'd all sit around and make hemp clothing, which we'd then wear!!!!! Water would be illegal, because people can drown in it, and no one would be allowed to drive a car, or fly a plane, or ride in a boat, because they can all kill!!!!!! There would just be sand, and dirt, and grass, and us!!!!!!! Except people can be killed by people, too, so there'd be no people either!!!!!!!! Just animals!!!!!!!!!!!

Yaayyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111zomg ROFLWAFFLE!!!!

[Graebel]

yeah, i'd love a world where i was fellated 5 times a day... it ain't happening:rockbrow:

Awww. Maybe you just haven't met the right girl. :evil:

[MinionZombie]

I wouldn't want citizens being legally allowed to own guns - can you imagine a chav with a gun, or the average British moron with a gun? - but I do fully support the police having guns (yes some coppers are bloody thick, but they're trained) as they're going up against armed robbers with sticks ... which in a sense, means our British coppers are harder than their American coppers!

Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough! :D:p

[coma]

which in a sense, means our British coppers are harder than their American coppers!

Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough! :D:p

But are Brit cops as useless? As obnoxious? As frustatingly stupid and condesending?
We win !
USA USA USA!:confused:

[Mike70]

i would file this one safely under the catagory of never. the citizens of the US are armed to the teeth and any attempt to take away guns would be met by an open, armed insurrection of epic proportions.

i own guns, have 3 of them in fact and while i don't really like guns very much (haven't even taken mine out in years) there is no way i would give them up without killing a few folks in the process. i am as serious as a rip in a spacesuit about this, all joking is definitely aside. i would feel like i had done absolutely nothing wrong in that scenario either.

the idea of only govts possessing guns frightens me to my core. in that scenario the people would have absolutely no way of defending themselves from a govt. gone out of control. i have no faith in govts all, matter of fact. i trust the US govt. about as much as i trust a squirrel in a room full of acorns. there is no plausible arguement under the sun or moon that people would be "safer" with the govt. owning guns.

guns banned in africa? have the people trying to get this done ever been to africa or even seen it on the news. i have. there are areas of africa where 14 year old are carrying around assault weapons bigger than they are. i would love to see someone try and "take them away."

this whole idea/concept is laughably ridiculous, childish and is born of people with way too much education and way too little experience of the way the world really works.


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.

no this would require an amendment to the constitution. which requires a 2/3 vote in BOTH houses of congress and then 36 of the 50 states have to go along with it.

article V of the US constitution:
the congress, whenever 2/3 of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of 2/3 of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states or by conventions in 3/4 thereof...

[p2501]

i am as serious as a rip in a spacesuit



great quote, better arguement.

[OddDNA]

The 2nd amendment states...

"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."

that last part shall not be infringed has already been trampled upon.

Waiting lists, applications, taxes these all all infringements of the right to keep and bear arms.

Im not saying for a second that I dont agree with those things, nor am I saying I do, I am just saying laws were made that infringed upon ones rights to keep and bear arms without proper amendments to the constitution being made.

[Marie]

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. <Snippage> It is a horrible imo and I hope that our Congress never succumbs to such pressure.

http://www.nra.org/.... join and support them, they're fighting the good fight for our Second Amendment rights.

M_

[Mike70]

great quote, better arguement.


do we have another babylon 5 fan in the house?

[Publius]

I wouldn't want citizens being legally allowed to own guns - can you imagine a chav with a gun, or the average British moron with a gun?

No need to imagine, it used to be the norm. Read a Sherlock Holmes story - back in the late 1800s - early 1900s no one thought anything was odd about a man carrying a revolver in his pocket, or at least having one in his home. And, amazingly, everyone didn't go around shooting each other.

[MinionZombie]

Back then they didn't really have the guns suited to doing a "carriage-by", *chuckles*, nor the climate I'd imagine. Guns and ammo would have probably been too expensive for quite a chunk of people and indeed things have changed a buttload since them thar days.

And if it ain't Chuck Palahniuk, I don't read it, ha! :D

[Mike70]

ohio has moved in the opposite direction from gun control. so has kentucky. if you are a citizen of ohio (without a felony conviction of course) you can quite easily obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun on your person. same goes for kentucky. that is why you see signs up in restaurants, hospitals and malls in ohio that say "no firearms allowed." you have to leave your shooting irons outside.

one of things that sealed the deal on this law passing was the spate of atm kidnapping/robberies/murders/attempted murders in cincinnati. a good, good friend of mine was damn near murdered by two scumbags that grabbed him after he used an atm, threw him in a van, robbed him; then told him they were going to drop him off - they did, then they proceeded to shoot him in the neck, damn near killing him. luckily for him they dropped him off in the parking lot of his church. he was able to make it inside where the minister was able to get the bleeding under control and call the fuzz/paramedics.

well a few days after jason was shot these idiots tried this on a dude packing a 9mm and they both got blown away - old west style. now it's legal to carry a concealed handgun in ohio.

[coma]

Thats the problem in NY. Everu criminal knows that you DON'T have a gun. Basically, if your not a meathead thug, the chances of you packing are almost zero. Thats why, maybe, Beranrd Ghetz was such a big thing. That and he shot like 5 guys.

[Neil]

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.

If it works in South Africa then that will be amazing!

[MinionZombie]

I'm not surprised Africa, and especially South Africa, is swamped with guns. It's got to be one of the most unsafe places on the planet. Hardly surprising when the government is run by a bunch of people who - when ANYTHING goes wrong - blame racism and white people ... kind of like how Labour blame EVERYTHING on the Conservatives...

South Africa also has the highest car jacking rate (in the world I think), so there'll be a shedload of guns involved there then. I have family living out there and my Mum was out there for 11 years back in the 70s, when it wasn't that bad. But I've been told stories of how a friend of the family parked their Mercedes outside the house and it was stripped in a matter of minutes without them knowing - they got a new Mercedes - it was stripped AGAIN in a similar manner.

And if everyone over there got as p*ssed off about the heat as I do here - and here it's nowhere near as hot - then no wonder guns are a bad idea. :D

[p2501]

do we have another babylon 5 fan in the house?

Guilty.

[Mike70]

i've to admit that i am impressed that you could pick that one line out from a relatively obscure episode - "by any means necessary",the one where the dockworkers are on strike.
there now i've revealed just how high my geek quotient is.

your geek quotient must also be high - i salute you.