[Gun] Want to read something scary? UN and China on gun control

[ChuckMK23]

This stuff scares the sh!t out of me - and further proof thatthe UN is a useless and dangerous bunch of technocrats:

From the UN's web site:

http://disarmament.un.org/cab/salw.html

Small arms and light weapons destabilize regions; spark, fuel and prolong conflicts; obstruct relief programmes; undermine peace initiatives; exacerbate human rights abuses; hamper development; and foster a "culture of violence".

Even more dangerous: Think you'd want to live in China? NOT.

http://disarmament.un.org/cab/legislation/China/lawonthecontroloffirearms-e.pdf

 

[nittany03]

The UN seems to be focusing more on illicit arms dealing vice the overall banning of weapons. Though I suppose "illicit" could be interpreted liberally by some.

"Of 49 major conflicts in the 1990s, 47 were waged with small arms as the weapons of choice." Umm, paging Captain Obvious . . .

 

[Herc_Dude]

Excessive gun control is only used to give those in "power" more power over the people. First thing Hitler did ... implement some of the most strict gun control laws seen at the time...

nittany03, Captain Obvious runs all major news organizations, didn't you get that memo

 

[Fly Navy]

The UN seems to be focusing more on illicit arms dealing vice the overall banning of weapons. Though I suppose "illicit" could be interpreted liberally by some.

This is where you're only half-right. The UN has been actively trying to work with gun control advocates in the United States for some sort of oversight on gun control in America. It's utter bullsh!t is what it is. The UN can go fvck themselves.

"Of 49 major conflicts in the 1990s, 47 were waged with small arms as the weapons of choice." Umm, paging Captain Obvious . . .

Seriously, what a retarded statement. What else would they be fought with, feet?

 

[Fly Navy]

Excessive gun control is only used to give those in "power" more power over the people. First thing Hitler did ... implement some of the most strict gun control laws seen at the time...

Yes and no. Absolutely yes on the fact that gun control is ultimately about control. Sure, Susie Soccer Mom may be scared of an inanimate object, but in the end, the governments institute it for control, whether that is the intended result or not.

No because the quote about Hitler and gun control is false. It never happened, he never said it. That is what I assume you're talking about anyway. He did however prohibit Jews from owning weapons. Why? Well, we know why...

 

[nittany03]

Seriously, what a retarded statement. What else would they be fought with, feet?

That's it exactly. The other were minor rebellions in SE Asia fought by obscure clans of Kung Fu masters.

 

[gaijin6423]

Dude, nittany... I was seriously just going to type that. Great minds think alike.

 

[Dunedan]

"Small arms are responsible for over half a million deaths per year, including 300,000 in armed conflict and 200,000 more from homicides and suicides."

"Small arms and light weapons destabilize regions; spark, fuel and prolong conflicts; obstruct relief programmes; undermine peace initiatives; exacerbate human rights abuses; hamper development; and foster a "culture of violence"."

And I suppose the small arms just leap up and do it all themselves?

These thinkers in the government and the UN never actually put any thought into the matter: it's maniacal @ssholes that abuse, obstruct, terrorize, and foster violence. How the hell can anybody have ANY chance whatsoever of being free of people like that if their means to level the playing field in self-defense is taken away? How do you defend your rights and freedoms when you've been stripped of your means of doing so?

Why does ANYBODY (other than someone who wants to abuse and have control of others) think doing away with firearms is a good idea?

Do-gooders never seem to do anybody any good...

(edited to fix typos)

 

[Lawman]

I think they feel that there must be some illicet connection between the weapons in my Safe and the Bakara Market. Yes I bought my USP to foster violence and hate and undermine the general safety of the world at large, thats why I carried it as a sidearm. Because that was of course the first thing I thought about everyday when I strapped on my duty belt and headed out the door.


And yeah Nittany there were like 3 of us there were gonna type something like that. You have grown fast in your post whoring. It is time for you to face the trials and become a Post Whoring Master.

 

[Fly Navy]

And I suppose the small arms just leap up and do it all themselves?

Bad people aren't bad... they're misunderstood. Inanimate objects are obviously responsible for driving people to do bad things.

These thinkers in the government and the UN never actually put any thought into the matter: it's maniacal @ssholes that abuse, obstruct, terrorize, and foster violence. How the hell can anybody have ANY chance whatsoever of being free of people like that if their means to level the playing field in self-defense is taken away? How do you defend your rights and freedoms when you've been stripped of your means of doing so?

Why does ANYBODY (other than someone who wants to abuse and have control of others) think doing away with firearms is a good idea?

Do-gooders never seem to do anybody any good...

(edited to fix typos)

Guarantee you the numbers of people killed from small arms include terrorists, enemies of freedom, oppressors, etc. I also guarantee you they're being smart about homicide. If I kill a person in self defense, it's homicide. If I kill a person in cold blood... it's homicide. Homicide does not in itself imply criminal action, despite what TV says.

Not only does defending ones rights mean things such as freedom and liberty, it also means your right to live.

People that want to do away with guns are delusional. It's like trying to get rid of nukes in a sense. The knowledge is out there... they will ALWAYS exist from now on out. Why make criminals the only ones that have them?

Do gooders almost never do any good.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Re: Hitler & Gun Control

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government.

HOWEVER, the fact that Gun Control was not instituted by the Nazi's in order to quell any possible rebellion (except, of course, as noted with the Jews), does not change the fact that Gun Control laws are ultimately what allow powers (such as the Nazis) to gain and retain control.

Ultimately, when the average citizenry is denied the right to "rebel" authoritarian governments have a historical habit of springing up (IMO). One of the main reason Americans were successful in the Revolution is because most people were gun owning hunters who were used to large amounts of individual freedoms.

 

[Fly Navy]

Ultimately, when the average citizenry is denied the right to "rebel" authoritarian governments have a historical habit of springing up (IMO). One of the main reason Americans were successful in the Revolution is because most people were gun owning hunters who were used to large amounts of individual freedoms.

However, hunting and the 2nd ammendment have nothing to do with each other. I hate when anti-gunners do that. They don't understand, or they do and are trying to be clever.

 

[Fly Navy]

The first person who publicly attempts to amend the 2nd Amendment in a political way will most likely be sniped or gunned down somehow. Although that may give that side a little more fuel to their fire, it would at least show that we will not allow them to achieve anything. Without the 2nd Amendment, we would not have had the militias that were able to revolt against the British so long ago. Guns are here to stay.

No, they'd just be committing political suicide. While it'd be popular in MA, other states have high populations of gun owners.

 

[Fly Navy]

Very true. I guess that is more of a deterrent that getting neutralized by a legal gun owner. If you ever go up to Montana, people just go out and sit on there porch and fire away at a paper target that they set up on trees in front of there house. It is so cool. No problems at all.

You can do that in most free states provided you have the land. The further your neighbors, the more freedom you have

 

[HueyCobra8151]

However, hunting and the 2nd ammendment have nothing to do with each other. I hate when anti-gunners do that. They don't understand, or they do and are trying to be clever.

Didn't mean to imply that hunting had anything to do with it, merely to make the point that most Colonial Americans had firearms, and were at least semi-proficient in using them.