TexasCHLforum.com

erkfox wrote:People really are paranoid about the UN. Remember all those UN troops billboards here in TX years ago? I dont get it . The UN is one of the most inept and useless organizations ever created. They sit around passing resolutions all the time. Most of them condemning this or that, and none of them ever really getting enforced. I dont sweat it.

People have finally realized that gun control didn't work. Most of the country has changed on gun ownership. I grew up in Illinois and the majority are for CCW now. In the 80s people were happy with the gun laws. It didnt work so people have wised up.The only reason CCW hasnt passed yet is Chicago politicians, and the governor. They had enough votes to pass it last year but not enough to be veto proof all they need is 5 more and they can tell Chicago and the Gov to stuff it. So if a state like Illinois has come around, no way Americans let the UN write gun laws for them.

The UN Treaty is just a proxy, an end run around the more difficult process of enacting gun control legislation domestically. With the treaty they have a starting point that is far further down the path of confiscation than they'd ever be able to get if the legislation had to originate in Congress.

chasfm11 wrote:As a singular citizen, I have a limited opportunity to influence my local government but I can, at least, directly address my mayor and tell her about my concerns. State government is much harder and Federal government is harder still to influence. I believe that the Elites have recognized that World government makes them totally insulated

This was essentially the kind of government originally created in this country even at the Federal level. Senators were more remote, but Representatives were generally people of stature in the local community, so they were not only more accessible, but their real character was more generally known. Even in Lincoln's day people could walk off the street into the White House and express their concerns to the President. Now the President is more like a King with a Royal Retinue and all us commoners are expected to halt our activities and bow before the Monarch, as happened recently at the Air Force Academy graduation where an air show was halted so King Barrack could leave early.

chasfm11 wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

74novaman wrote:2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

VMI, there was a case in the UK some while ago where a group of three (IIRC) thugs were taken to court by a man's mother on his behalf, because he was a little too (permanently) messed up to do it for himself. They beat him pretty much senseless IN HIS OWN APARTMENT. However, he tried to fend them off for a few minutes, with his bare hands...and because he did that, the judge wouldn't allow the case to proceed because of it. So, you either have to simply take it, or simply take it; if you lose, you lose...and if you win, you lose because the "justice" system will convict YOU of injuring the others if you defend yourself successfully. I will ask the question again: why is it always okay to START trouble, but never okay to end it? Can any of our legal minds please answer this question for me, in a manner that a mere layman and mechanic can understand? Because otherwise, all I smell is a collectivist rat carcass by the name of Marx stinking the place up...

This is real easy to explain. The enemy of the statists is anyone who is willing to think for themselves. Someone willing to defend themselves IS thinking for themselves. Someone who does that is far more of a danger to the government than a petty thug and will be treated as such. Ever notice that tax evasion is punished more consistently and more harshly than many other crimes? Laws, especially in the UK are prosecuted according to the impact on the State, not individuals or the population.

Go through our States and look at similar situations. NJ, for example, is nearly as likely to punish you for defending yourself as the UK. You must retreat if attacked and you have to be able to demonstrate that you retreated. Then look at the crime rate in cities like Newark or Camden. They are right up there with the big boys - NYC, Chicago. Trust me, if you walked through Newark, your chances of being a victim of a crime are very high. But use a gun to defend yourself in Newark and wait until you see the jail sentence waiting for you. Heck, you'd get punished for for having it.

I think we're coming from the same place, but I look at it a little differently. I can't pinpoint exactly when it happened because it has been a gradual transition, but at some point we ceased being citizens in the eyes of the ruling elites and became "resources" to be managed and harvested for their benefit. Taking this forum as an example, there are clearly some who sense this change, whether or not they express it so explicitly, and some who still believe that the ruling elites are guided by some sense of morality, duty, or obligation to the country, it's citizens, and the rule of law.

A lot of us here agree about the problems we're facing as a country, but end up in disagreement because of the fundamental difference in perspectives from which we view these problems. Specifically, I view the ruling class (which in a country founded on our principles shouldn't even exist) as degenerate and corrupt, so I don't believe exchanging one set or faction of degenerates for another is going to fix anything (though I grant, it may expedite or delay the inevitable). No doubt many here consider this attitude absurdly cynical, and I admit, I am probably more cynical than might be justified by the reality --but since none of us can ascertain this reality, except as it plays itself out, it's also possible I'm less cynical than reality would justify. Fixing our problems will require us to stop churning the ruling class and replace them, wholesale, with people who believe in the principles of The Republic.

Self-defense threatens the State and the ruling elites in two ways: 1) it conveys the notion that we hold our lives to be as valuable as theirs; and 2) what you allude to above, independence, or put another way, a failure to conform to the social order of the Herd. Bloomberg typifies the attitudes manifested in the former by seeking to deny us peasants any means of self-defense while his "vital importance" is symbolized in protection by heavily armed bodyguards. In other words, HE is important, we're just resources to be managed and harvested, and any good manager knows he's going to lose a little product here and there. The latter is important as thugs are actually more valuable to the State than productive citizens as long as they remain a minority of the population, primarily because they help keep the productive docile and cowed and in need of the State for protection --but this value disappears if the productive class is allowed to eliminate thugs in self-defense, so self-defense is prohibited by the State. In other words, prohibiting self-defense fosters dependency, and dependency is essential to the preservation of the State, because once too many citizens realize they can take care of themselves, the power of the State is threatened with diminishment. That's partly what Obamacare and a lot of the other "entitlement" programs are about --fostering a large enough dependent class to make big government seem necessary and essential.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

74novaman wrote:2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

VMI, there was a case in the UK some while ago where a group of three (IIRC) thugs were taken to court by a man's mother on his behalf, because he was a little too (permanently) messed up to do it for himself. They beat him pretty much senseless IN HIS OWN APARTMENT. However, he tried to fend them off for a few minutes, with his bare hands...and because he did that, the judge wouldn't allow the case to proceed because of it. So, you either have to simply take it, or simply take it; if you lose, you lose...and if you win, you lose because the "justice" system will convict YOU of injuring the others if you defend yourself successfully. I will ask the question again: why is it always okay to START trouble, but never okay to end it? Can any of our legal minds please answer this question for me, in a manner that a mere layman and mechanic can understand? Because otherwise, all I smell is a collectivist rat carcass by the name of Marx stinking the place up...

A government that punishes self-defense has abandoned all claims to legitimacy. No one has any obligation to obey any law in such a country --or more to the point, since the government has abandoned the rule of law, citizens of such a country have no recourse under law, and so must find recourse for themselves.

74novaman wrote:2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

chasfm11 wrote:

gdanaher wrote:The proposed treaty would regulate the sale of weapons to nations in crisis both militarily and in terms of human rights. The UN concern is that every minute, someone in these various countries, largely Africa and the Middle East, dies from violent combative gun fire. The goal is to prevent the sale to and distribution of weapons to those nations. Unless you are in the business of selling AK's to Somalia, you probably don't have much to worry about here.

It is strange to me that the UN's "good intentions" seem to get applied to the US far more often than to the places where they really might have an impact. For example,
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29 ... ns-rights/ (sorry about the Fox News link but they seem to be the only ones reporting this.)
Yep, when I think of Iran, I think of the paragon of women's rights, a shining example for other countries to emulate.

The UN has accused the US of voter fraud (and I can agree with them in some cities like Chicago and NY) but somehow Iran and Russian don't even get honorable mention in this category. Why? Does the US truly disenfranchise its voters more than Tehran?

I have no respect at all of the UN or any of its "elected" officials. When it comes to the worst places on the planet for mass murder, somehow, like Somilia, they turn a blind eye to the problem while all of the voices are clamoring for US intervention. Bosnia was another horribly managed mass murder situation from a UN perspective. Where is the UN outrage about Mexico? Oh, that's right - it is all the US's fault that the drug cartels are heavily armed and slaughtering 10s of thousands of civilians.

The US should tell the UN to read Matthew 7:5. That said, however, there are enough anti-gun Elites in the US, some in positions of power, who would like nothing better than to use a UN treaty as a means to their end. It is a sad commentary on our Federal government when I, as a citizen, have to worry about the clandestine implementation of a UN gun treaty. And I am worried. Since no one would tolerate the implementation of much of what is happening at the Federal level if it were exposed to the light of day, far too much is being done by stealth, backdoor means. Our Legislative branch seems more than willing to cede extraordinary powers to the Executive branch. I fully understand the treaty ratification process but I thought I understood the taxation powers, too. Boy was I wrong.

I remember the old bumper stickers: US out of UN; UN out of US --and I still support the sentiment.