UN is Coming for your Guns

reply to post by whatukno


My Grandfather fought in Japan WWII (Calvary Division) and was a decorated officer. My father served Navy, Pearl Harbor as communications officer, and I served Infantry Desert Storm. I think I have earned the right to voice my opinion.

It's not over the top - it is pretty clear. Showing the 2nd Amendment and quoting Charlton Heston really un-nerves you huh? Look around, people are planning and getting ready. I am no different. No one will ever see my hardware unless their hardware is aiming at me. I am a little more stable than your reply implies, which to me is a little scary in and of itself.

Originally posted by Wotan
The UN doesnt have an Army, because it doesnt need one ... par se. Any enforcement by the UN on US soil will be by US troops.

If a gun ban comes into force in the US, YOU will give up your guns or you will be a criminal. You may not give them up at first, but given time you will. The constitution would be changed, so owning banned firearms would be a criminal offence.

All this ''from my cold dead hands'' is mostly just bravado from internet armchair warriors.

So what you are saying is that the US government will change the constitution and the citizens will stand right behind their government.

I seriously doubt it bud. The citizens will riot and protest no if and or buts about it.

reply to post by arizonascott


When you are locking and loading for no enemy. All it shows is that you are being paranoid. When you lock and load for an enemy that isn't coming, you just give the other side ammo to work with.

I am not against guns in the least. I am all for the 2nd Amendment. But you don't see me flipping out every time some bull crap comes up that has no base in reality.

You aren't going to get in a shootout with TPTB. They aren't coming for you. No one wants your guns. It is just not going to happen. Your guns are safe. You might not be mature enough to own a firearm, but thankfully there isn't an IQ requirement to own a firearm in this country.

Should you be vigilant? Of course you should. Should you freak out every time some idiot talks about gun control? No!

Originally posted by v3_exceed

Originally posted by jkm1864

You are canadian and I bet You don't know # about us southerners...

The south would rise again if this happened and I assure You their would be plenty of men to feed the meat grinder.

You must be used to those panzies up around new york because they just rolled over and took it up the poop chute.

The south is treated like its full of total dumb #s and the people in the north and the west always seem to remind us of it when ever they get the chance....

I assure You people are getting pissed and this will be the LAST STRAW to many a person down here...

They won't take our guns they will just keep taxing more and more until it becomes a hastle to have a gun because its to expensive.

Ok, obviously they don't have spell check in the South. And you haven't taken the time to read much, if anything of my previous posts in this thread.
Last map I saw, New Orleans was in the south. As I had explained earlier, what I saw on you tube, etc...were amateur videos of Americans taking guns from old ladies, families basically other Americans.

Know what I didn't see? Not one of you southerners stood up for your neighbor, not one fired a shot. So here on the inter web you and the rest of the Internet tough guys can tell me all about "the stand", but the reality is when or if it happens your guns will be taken and like the aftermath of Katrina, nobody is going to do a damn thing.

..Ex

Hmmm... I take this time to point out that Louisiana is the only state in the Union that still uses Napoleonic Law, and Not English Comman Law that the other 49 states use.

And The Government DID take the guns from the people during the incident. And right now, they lost a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the 2nd amendment, telling NOLA they have to replace the guns confiscated by either returning, or paying for them.

The Cops for the bridge incident ( my appologies, I forget the name.. Danzinger I think) have been charged as criminals for firing first, then suspected of killing innocent people, the suspected of filing a false report (I use suspected because they criminal trials are getting under way.. Innocent until proven guilty).

Martial Law was declared in New Orlenas, as it allowed under law, which has bene upheld by our Supreme Court. The State Govenor refused to allow state national gaurd troops to be placed under Federal Command, essentially creating 2 rescue efforts. The President refused to Federalize their troops, respecting the authority of the Governor and the states will.

Long story short.. It has been upheld the Government cannot take weapons from the people, even for martial law purposes. The Government was held responsbile for this, allowing the people redress of greivances for what happened.

Is our system / Government / Laws perfect? Far from it.. But in the end, the guns are still here, and are not goin away any time soon.

I think the difficulty is going to be for other nations that were created under their own circumstances, and not the ones we went through, will not understand what "our deal is with guns".

and while I do not understand why people of a country would willingly give up guns, I respect the decision if that is the will of the people.

Vox Populi, Vox Diety.

George Soros is one dangerous man.

I used to think he was 'ok' and really wanted good things for people.

Maybe he does.. maybe he does....but he might be an Antichrist too. Someone needs to do a head check on that man. Lately whenever I see him, he looks to be smoking.

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


So just because I'm a gun owner, that makes me a conservative?

Never have been, never will be.

reply to post by Xcathdra


A well thought out and intelligent reply. Thank you.
My post was in response to the many times I have been called out by those with the "cold dead hands". Although you are correct that the guns may have to be replaced, without receipts it is unlikely that anyone will get much returned.

Also with respect to the police shooting unarmed civilians on the bridge. It has taken what.. 6 years or more? to get to a point where someone is going to take the fall for that. Small condolence to the dead people, but at least its something.

I realize that no system is perfect and it is nice to see that some in your government still respects the foundation that your country was formed.

My point here is that 1) They (PTB) will, if they so choose, confiscate guns - legal or not and 2) Americans in authority will fire on unarmed Americans, regardless of what the armchair warriors are claiming.

Lastly, it is the nature of the government to shape the law in its own favor. We have seen this time and again with the illegal searches upon people; the seizure of property under false pretenses and the unlawful confinement of persons. To be sure, these seizures will be deemed legal when the time comes, and the sad part is a whole lot of people will be cheering for it.

..Ex

reply to post by whatukno


I didn't know that posting on a conspiracy website and acting over rational about certain issues makes you an expert in psychology. Oh wait, conspiracy website - never mind.

I live in Canada and I must say their gun law has failed. Almost 2 billion was spent on it. Thus far not one criminal has registered his gun. Harper has at least mentioned that he plans on abolishing that law making it legal to own and not have to register a rifle. I have yet to see that happen though.

America, please fight for your gun rights because fighting for your right to bare arms is not only fighting for your right to own a gun, its deeper than that. The US is the last place preventing tyranny from absolute control despite your Gov being disgustingly corrupt.. but hey.. what country's gov isn't. Being an American Canadian, I cannot for the life of me believe how people up here think owning a gun is criminal. Many people are changing their minds about it though which is a good thing. The Liberal gov at the time here made it appear as if; you supported the right to own a gun and not have to register it.. you must be a red neck hill billy or a criminal. Sad, but thats the truth. I'm not saying the conservatives are any better, because they're not.

No offence, but the U.N. are a bunch of powerless sacks of excrement who can only shuffle paper around and pretend that they make a difference. The only difference they make is to continue with economic sanctions that causes poor people to die needlessly.

But hey! They totally stopped that Dubya and T.B from invading Iraq didn't they?

Wouldn't worry about the U.N. They are just as weak as the League of Nations. Actually, they are like cobwebs. Strong enough to hold the weak, but too weak to hold the strong.

reply to post by Sean48


This is precisely the reason why I have a few self defense weapons I keep around which ARE registered to me, just in case I have to use them.

The rest of my firearms are not registered to me. So, if anyone comes for my guns they can have my $300 mossberg, as they walk away thinking how polite and easily I conformed, they'll hear the tat-tat from my AK.

Just kidding guys! I WOULD never not register a weapon

reply to post by kozmo


Sure are lots of bad asses chiming in. Somehow I'm guessing mostly bark, not much bite. Probably one day we all find out and we'll need to stop barking and start biting big time.

This is the kind of situation that calls for some common sense thinking.

"Always question your government, but always trust your military"

Government is made of many (not all) corrupt politicians.

The military is made from "US".

I would hold the police and military responsible if they did not uphold the Constitution (thats what they do). And in my mind they would not follow the order if it came down to it.
Until that day, save the trash talk, bickering and chest thumping. Its fully up to the men and women in uniform whether this takes place, not some career politician behind a desk. Politicians may write the laws, but the Police and sometimes the military must be capable of enforcing laws.

Theres a rumor that some Military folks were given a questionnaire that asked them if they would fire on American citizens...any truth to this?

I would like to hear from some law enforcement and military folks where they draw the line on following orders. Any takers? I know your here. Maybe you could calm some nerves.

Good luck. Even if the president signs such a treaty, Congress still has to ratify it. The GOP will avoid it like the plague, but so will the Congressional Democrats from rural districts. All told, I suspect that it wouldn't get more than about 30% of either house of Congress to vote for ratification even now.

But even assuming that it does, good luck to the UN on enforcing it. Aside from the gun owners fighting back, you'd also have a large number of states passing laws declaring their sovereignty on the issue and that any federal or UN agents attempting to enforce the ban and confiscate weapons within their state would be arrested by state law enforcement to be fined, imprisoned or both.

reply to post by v3_exceed


A few observations for some more clarification:

First - when Law Enforcement in this country seizes an item, it has to be logged and tracked by the department who took it, usually ending up in evidence. They cannot destroy evidence until a judge signs off on it. I know this sometimes falls through the cracks, usually by mislabeling / misplacing the item. Without a chain of custody form, any crimial charges would most likey be thrown out in court (no evidence, no real crime.. And again, depends on circumstances)

Second - The Bridge incident. The people were armed, and from what i've read the cops mistook their intentions and fired, retreated, advanced and fired again (this might change depending on court records on what happened). The other thing to take into account is in this country, If a Law Enforcement Officer shoots / stops the threat someone, the scope of the investigation / justification is what did the officer percieve at that exact moment. The Supreme Court has ruled on this in an effort to balance the right of the person to be free from an illegal seizure (which killing someone to stop a threat does violate the 4th amendment, as you killed them to seize them) and for Law Enforcement to do their jobs safely. Law Enforcement in this country is not in place to protect the individual, its in place to protect society as a whole.

The Government will create Laws they feel best affect the people they were sent to serve, so will never be 100 percent accepted by everyone. If a Law is passed, the Supreme Court has judicial review, allowing them to review the Law to see if it passes constitutional muster.

Third - Laws are interpreted / redefined through court process and through the opinion of the Prosecuting Attornys at the Federal / State and local levels.

Our constitution and Laws are meant to be enacted with the understanding that they evolve with the changing view of society:

Slavery, Gun Ownership, Religion, Same Sex Marriage etc etc.

I would agree that a lot of these theories / notions are fear mongering at its best. It only becomes real when the people become complacent and stop participating, giving the impression the Government rules the people, instead of the other way around.


The U.N. is the right idea, but has evolved into something more than it was created for. Origionally a place to talk instead of shooting.

The U.N. could try to pass whatever they wanted to affect the Soviergnty of other nations.. Enforcing it will be there problem, and not ours. As stated above, getting it voted on would be impossible since we hold a Veto on the council.

The only thing ive ever seen in the USA that has anything to do with the U.N. are some of the parks. They are double classified as World Heritage sites, protecting them on an international stage to be set aside for not just the People of this country, but for all countries.

I guess I find this topic intresting, yet funny, at the same time in the sense that people will say so and so is coming for you, but never really explain with hard evidence how they will, when they will, and why.

Originally posted by slitterpig
This is the kind of situation that calls for some common sense thinking.

"Always question your government, but always trust your military"

Government is made of many (not all) corrupt politicians.

The military is made from "US".

I would hold the police and military responsible if they did not uphold the Constitution (thats what they do). And in my mind they would not follow the order if it came down to it.
Until that day, save the trash talk, bickering and chest thumping. Its fully up to the men and women in uniform whether this takes place, not some career politician behind a desk. Politicians may write the laws, but the Police and sometimes the military must be capable of enforcing laws.

Theres a rumor that some Military folks were given a questionnaire that asked them if they would fire on American citizens...any truth to this?

I would like to hear from some law enforcement and military folks where they draw the line on following orders. Any takers? I know your here. Maybe you could calm some nerves.

I am Law Enforcement (Municipal Officer) and I can say I would not comply with legislation that would force people to surrender their weapons. The ONLY way that could happen would be for a change in the 2nd Amendment by changing the Constitution itself.

Law Enforcement and Military take pretty much the exact same oath. Yes, I am sworn to obey those above me, to the extent the command is lawful. However, The oath is to defend the Constitution, or the idea, from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

The Republic comes first.


As a side question.. Why does the U.N. care about trying to pass legislation that affects Soveirgn nations.. We can walk away from it, like we did the the League of Nations.

I think the U.N. needs to go back to what it does best.. ignoring parking regulations in NYC, instead of trying to ban weapons in the U.S.

The people's right to bear arms is the final line of freedom and security we have. Without that, they can move as quickly as they like toward greater evil.

WE MUST TREAT REGISTRATION AS CONFISCATION!

Let us suppose the UN did ban all privately owned firearms from the citizens of the US in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. Who would take them? The US military and LEO's? Not likely, even if they had 100% compliance from both, they are still outgunned 3 to 1 using very conservative figures.

Foreign nationals under the UN banner? Neither France nor England would officially recognize the CSA as a separate country during the Civil War because they did not want to risk (the expense) of a war with the Union. Most NATO countries only send a small presence to the past two US lead collations in the Mid-East during the two Gulf Wars. With the exception of the UK, the gang bangers in Detroit, Cleveland and Dallas could outnumber them if that is all they would send to the UN Army to strip US gun owners.

It is laughable, maybe if CHina and Russia were on board, then there might be a small concern. That might make it a fair fight on numbers versus equipment. But then again, who would pay for all this disarming? The US government doesn't have that good of a credit rating. The other countries of the world are not going to foot the bill. And the US taxpayer would fight before giving a dime to disarm themselves.

It would be easier and cheaper to militarily round up and deport all the illegal aliens in the US than to disarm the population. Besides, even if it somehow came to pass that every gun was stripped and the people were subjugated to paying for it. There is enough equipment, material and people with the know-how to replace every single gun currently held within 5-7 years. Only I doubt they would waste their time making single shot .22's.

When it comes right down to it, there are two things: Words and Actions. The UN can say whatever they want but the reality is that it would take far more for it to happen than it would be worth. Because if they went for it, there would be no holding back. I doubt the people would stop at our borders when it came to sending a real message to the rest of the world of what years of propaganda has taught them to think. And most of us are smart mouthed enough to ask "You want Freedom Fries with that?" as they started hitting the governments of other nations,like France.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Thanks for the reply maybe that will lower some blood pressure, and slow the testosterone flow.

I think there's some legal mumbojumbo that U.N. legislation is above our nations laws... making the Constitution irrelevant.
I'm not absolutely sure about this. But this could be the back door to making this "legal".

reply to post by Wotan



I know that a lot of people wont do anything just put their tail between their legs but if there was ever a gun ban they won't have to pry it from my dead hands because I will not be dead.

There are two kinds of people in the world the talkers and the doers. Most people are just talkers and talk is cheap but its the doers that the people who want a gun ban should be afraid of because we and the rest of the real people left in this world will not give up our rights because we know and live by them. I would rather die a free american than a fool controlled by the united states.