Read the following, wake up everyone!!!!!!!!!!!

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html

Well, I guess I will have to bury mine in the backyard if this happens. No one will take my rights away from me.

The UN doesn't want anything but more money. Bush and his super rich new world order want your guns. Why, because our quailty of life is fixing to take a big dip when they introduce us to their big scheme. That is not all they are going to take away. All chemicals we use, even in kid's chemistry sets, are about to be banned.

http://www.unitednuclear.com/legalaction.htm

They will not get mine. I will go down fighting.

If they want 'em, Come and get 'em!

I'm not saying lewrockwell.com is lying or that mr.yet is trying to mislead in any way, but I always wonder when I see sites like this: Is it all true?

We all know that anyone can say anything on a website. Is Ron Paul's article/letter/announcement posted on a news site or other site that is more well known?

... or is there a more known site that explains the details of the UN Conference?

Additionial information from CNN:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20060621/1735824548.htm

Very interesting. The CNN link describes the situation very differently than the headline of the lewrockwell link.

When people read things on activist's sites, they should always check reliable sources for "the rest of the story".

It would to appear the lewrockwell link has incorrect mis-info, I have been searching to another link to Ron Paul message.

From the CNN article:

"the U.N. conference will look only at illegal arms and "does not in any way address legal possession"

Rick got it right.

Ron Paul Link:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst062606.htm

Thanks for pointing to that detail Need.

... worthy of repeating in bold, then:


When you read things on activist's sites, you should always check reliable sources for "the rest of the story".

Does that mean they want my old Soviet T34 tanks back,that I bought? :D

This is so typical of the NRA. And I suspect Ron Paul is a card carrying member. They are so paranoid about ANY attempt to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, that they fight tooth and nail, usually with a load of misinformation, any reasonable gun control legislation.

Yes I know the argument that criminals don't follow the law, but lets look at one specific case. The LIRR massacre a few years back. The shooter, Colin Ferguson, traveled to California and took up residence in a motel for 2 weeks to get a gun. Is it unreasonable to require a more stable residential history before allowing the purchase of a deadly weapon?

As I said in another thread, I believe that Americans have the right own guns. But I also believe that reasonable gun control can help prevent many of the tragedies we hear about.

And I don't think rabble rousing like the misinformation spouted by Ron Paul helps the matter.

Well imagine that will you? The main stream press in America, which is owned by only a chosen few, might not tell us everything that is going on. Someone leaked the fact that we are all being illegally wire tapped and now the government is accusing them of treason! Snitched on the government for breaking the law, violating the constitution and that is treason? How about the North American Union, which is becoming a reality right under our noses... which one of your "legitimate" news sources told you about that?

Man, the people of this country have become exactly what Stalin said they would be. As long as everyone has a Television set and Hostess cup cakes, you could take over America without firing a shot! The funny thing is, anyone that tries to point it out, is considered a whacko. Well, I would rather be a whacko than just another sheep. Want to think outside the box Sheeple? Naaaa, Naaaa, Naaaa, Naaaaa!
http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/875

Asked by an audience member for his thoughts on Fox's larger ratings share than CNN's, Turner said, "Just because your ratings are bigger doesn't mean you're better."

"It's not how big you are, it's how good you are that really counts," Turner said, drawing hoots from the audience.

So, Mr. Turner equates the news business as a good screwing? That may be a Freudian slip but I say that pretty well sums it up!

Look closer: It seems that we're getting a much more accurate version of the story from the mainstream press (CNN) than we are from the site supposedly reporoducing something a Congressman said.

(Don't assume too much here: I have very little respect for mainstream press. I don't watch or read the news - and very frequently only learn of serious stories (like the Tsunami) long after they happen.)

Here is the UN and your "legitimate" American Press in action!

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/turner.htm

http://www.getusout.org/artman/publish/cat_index_22.shtml

Read the aritcle in the first link Rick and then tell me that CNN is not pushing their own agenda. With that, could some parts of world news be "doctored" or left out completely? Honestly.

I agree. I'm not defending them at all. CNN, in my opinion, is near the bottom of the dung heap of the big outfits that claim to give us "news".

CNN is definatley near the bottom of the dung heap. I have heard people call it Communist News Network.

But I watch more Blue's Clues than News, so what do I know.

Joe said that Steve went to College. Wonder what he is studying

I agree with you that we must look at all sides of the reporting. That is what I try to do and I do Not trust all of what one or the other has to say. But, there is a lot of private agenda being pushed through that leaves out the American people from participating. Government gone awry and becoming something too big for our britches. I honestly feel that a one world government is coming and we are going to lose our identity and individualism. All of these things that are happening are the sign posts along the way. If we are aware of the truth, which is getting harder and harder to find, then they may end up trying to drag us all kicking and screaming into the abyss. I'll not make it easy for anyone to take anything from me. When we lose our guns, we become the lowest slaves in the food chain for the simple fact that that freedom gives us the attitude, "If you want to take mine then come and try." That is not a good attitude for the subservient masses to possess.

Well imagine that will ya? The main stream press in America, which is owned by only a chosen few, might not tell us everything that is going on. Someone leaked the fact that we are all being illegally wire tapped and now the government is accusing them of treason! Snitched on the government for breaking the law, violating the constitution and that is treason? How about the North American Union, which is becoming a reality right under our noses...which one of your "legitimate" news sources told you about that?

I'm not a big fan of Peter King and I am a big fan of freedom of the press. But I agree with King in this case. What King is calling treason has NOTHING to do with illegal wiretaps. Rather it was the publishing of classified information about a LEGAL program. This program used a third party to follow money transfers from and to terrorist organizations and individuals. All information was obtained using court ordered subpeonas (unlike some of the wiretapping).

So what the Times did was tell the bad guys how the US is tracking them. Now they can change their methods making it harder for the US to find and prevent their activities. Is this treason? It comes mighty close In my opinion. At the least, I think it is irresponsible journalism that does nothing but protect the bad guys.



Comments on this post
magprob agrees: So in your mind, what is reasonable gun control?


Legislation that
a) delays actual sale until a thorough background check can be performed
b) requires the buyer to obtain a certificate showing attendance of a course in gun safety and operation
c) requires the buyer to obtain gun locks or similar protection if there will be young children on the premises where the gun will be stored
d) Limit the number of weapons that can be owned to a reasonable amount (note: this would not apply to collectors with non firing weapons)
e) Limit the types of weapons to ones that would be reasonable for use as sporting or protection pieces (i.e. Assault rifle bans).

ScottGem:

Now that is the kind of legislation that we really need!! I love those ideas, we do have a considerable amount of that kind of control here in Tennessee. You also have to remember "straw purchases." Those can be hard to stop.

I.E. Husband has a record, DUI, for example. He knows he cannot purchase, but wife has a clean record. They go into gun store to look for specific firearm. They find the one they want and come back next day, wife pruchases the firearm. This is a straw purchase... punishable by 10 years and $50,000. The owner of the store and the seller of the firearm can also be given the same sentence.

How do you stop this?

I wish I had all the answers. If I did, I'd be in the White House doing a better job than the puppet currently there. (heck even with the answers I have I'd been doing a better job, but that's not saying much).

One of the things that needs changing is American's attitudes towards their guns. As I've said before, I don't believe the second amendment gives an absolute right for every American to own arms. This means that Americans have to understand that the right to bear arms comes with responsibility.

That is a hard one to answer I know. We have it happen all the time. Luckily there are only three guys at the shop and this is a small town, so we are pretty good about watching for straw purchases.

I also agree with the second amendment discussion you raised. When the second amendment was written it was written during the times when people could have guns in their possession so that they could just leave their homes to fight in the war.

In reference to the OP, I'd sure love to see the actual agenda and purpose that the UN will be using at the conference...

In reference to the OP, I'd sure love to see the actual agenda and purpose that the UN will be using at the conference...

On the UN site (www.un.org (http://www.un.org)) I searched for gun control. The first thing I found was a list of committee members for this committee:


Preparatory Committee for the United Nations
conference to review progress made in the
implementation of the Programme of Action to
Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in
Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

at:
http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/pdf/N0620041.pdf

Note the specific reference to "Illicit Trade". I think that makes clear what was quoted in the CNN story that they are going after illegal arms trading between countries, not legal gun ownership by citizens.

I then found this:

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

which attempts to explain what their true goal is.

Excellent sleuthing. That's what I like. The scoop from the source. Now, I am sure some conspiracy theorists might think something else other than what's in the doc will go on but at least there we have it right from the horses mouth.

Yep, I'm sure some people here will still think this is all about totally bannning guns. But that will just be NRA paranoia.

Since Bush has been President I've learned to trust no one! Everyone has an agenda they are trying to push!

Since Bush has been President I've learned to trust no one! Everyone has an agenda they are trying to push!!

You only realized that since Bush? Of course everyone has their own agenda. However, not everyone's agenda is hidden, furtive, nefarious or dterimental to others. Some people's agendas are upfront and altruistic. Other people's agendas are multiple with various priorites.

Take Bill Gates for example. He has given a large chunk of his fortune to his foundation to give back to the world at large. Maybe part of his agenda is to pay back the world for foisting Windows on us ;) . But it should be clear he is trying to help others.

Now take Dubya. Its clear to me that he does not take the greater good of the American people as his primary agenda.

I have taken gun safety classes. I have gun locks. I even have a gun safe.
I have a concealed weapons permit. I have a lot of guns. Does this qualify me to have my guns.

I have put in the time and effort to do things right. So I do not want my guns taken away from me. If this makes me a bad person I am sorry. That is just who I am.

I don't have a criminal background I don't even have so much as a speeding ticket.

I have been shot and stabbed. I will do my best not to let it happen again.
That is why I want my guns.

You take the guns away from the good guys and only the criminals will have them

So I do not want my guns taken away from me. If this makes me a bad person I am sorry. That is just who I am.

Haven't you been reading this thread? The only one who is saying anything about taking guns away is Ron Paul. And he was just using typical NRA scare tactics.

Wanting to have guns does not (alone) make someone a bad person. It's the way the guns were obtained, the intended purpose and the lack of care and responsibility that can make a gun owner a bad person. It sounds like you have approached gun ownership the way I would hope all gun owners do. The way I would like to see all gun owners REQUIRED to do.

I'm working on it... just give me a little more time! :)

I was just justifying.
You wrote a list of rules you would like to see happen and just to show you that I am not a gun toting crazy. I told you how I have gone about gun ownership.
The NRA is not all bad you just don't agree with some of there rules.
They do offer gun safety courses and gun locks.

I am a card caring member of the NRA.

Scott have you ever been to a NRA meeting.
Have you ever read any of there fliers.
I now that you don't own a gun and I now that you where at the world trade center bombings.
But come on they take away any of are rights we are in trouble. Not just are second amendment. But any of them. Freedom of press.
How would you like to live in a world of absolutism.

Personnally I would rather they just let me live the way I want to live.
I don't want to have to worry about looking over my shoulder all the time.

I, also, would not liken Ron Paul's rant - or Lew Rockwell's site - as "typical" of the NRA.

... but anyway, back to the original question. Er... well... I guess it's not a question - it's a call to "wake up".

Yes, everyone, Wake Up and remember that there are activists out there who will go far to mislead us into supporting their cause, getting up in arms, protest this or that.

Scott have you ever been to a NRA meeting.
Have you ever read any of there fliers.
I now that you don't own a gun and I now that you where at the world trade center bombings.
But come on they take away any of are rights we are in trouble. Not just are second amendment. But any of them. Freedom of press.
How would you like to live in a world of absolutism.

Personnally I would rather they just let me live the way I want to live.
I don't want to have to worry about looking over my shoulder all the time.

No, I have never been to an NRA meeting and Yes I have read some of their literature.

I'm not saying that every NRA member or supporter is like Ron Paul. I know that they do a number of good things like teaching gun safety. But its clear to me that the NRA, as a body, subscribes to the "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" school of thought. A school of thought you just displayed. Again, I say no one has mentioned anything about taking away anyone's rights. That's simply paranoia speaking.

I've seen the NRA fight against gun control legislation that was fairly innocuous. I've seen them castrate reasonable legislation. I've seen them use scare tactics typical of the Ron Paul propaganda. If they would work with legislators to institute reasonable rules, they could head off the rules they might find draconian. The NRA should be putting their energies towards drafting such legislation instead of fighting any and all attempts at gun control.

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt; The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. " Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, don't make more.
24 When you remove the people's right to bear arms , you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. ".. A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
By A.Nonomous

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. Both are citizens
2. Depends on circumstances, a gun in the hand is just as likely to result in the death of the holder
4. Wrong, its about protection of the populace
5. You can now
6. A typical NRA obfuscation. Gun control is not about preventing crime, its about making the populace safer
11. What part of "a well ordered militia" don't you understand?
15. An oversimplification
16. If you don't shoot to kill you aren't shooting to stay alive
19. See 6
20. See 6
21. Gun control is not about preventing gun ownership, but about preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands. Again, its about protecting the populace.
23. Gun laws need to be coordinated and enforced. When someone can get a gun by establishing residence by living 2 weeks in a transient motel, then the existing laws aren't sufficient.
24. Ridiculous
25. Times have changed in 230 years, the colonists didn't have the checks and balances of the constitution to protect them.
26. Remember part of that is "FOR the people".

Those points I did not answer were because I either agree or there is no response. By the way, I don't need to hide behind anonymity. I'm not afraid to speak out for what I believe in.

It was sent by a friend the other day so I just decided to share it here. I was too lazy last night to write a disclaimer. I want no part of gun control until you can keep them out of the hands of criminals. Just my opinion

It was sent by a friend the other day so I just decided to share it here. I was too lazy last night to write a disclaimer. I want no part of gun control until you can keep them out of the hands of criminals. Just my opinion

But there you promote one of the fallacies of gun control. Its not designed to keep arms out the hands of citizens. Its designed to make it harder for people who shouldn't have arms to get them.

Of course you won't prevent criminals from getting weapons, but the harder you make it the more you prevent it.

The harder you make it the more ways they come up with to get them anyway. Have you ever heard a criminal complain of not being able to get a gun. Its easer than you buying groceries.

That's not the point. You are never going to stop a truly determined person from doing something. But, by making it harder, you do inhibit the less determined person.

The answer is not to reduce obstacles.

I suspect the less determined person will find a more determine one to get what he wants, but my point is, I think there are a number of laws on the books that hamper citizens a lot more than prevent criminals from by-passing the law which they do with flagrant regularity. I think the real answer is to make a criminal pay a hefty price for breaking the law, like life with no parole for even having a gun in his possession and double it for those that sell or supply him with a weapon.

I suspect the less determined person will find a more determine one to get what he wants, but my point is, I think there are a number of laws on the books that hamper citizens a lot more than prevent criminals from by-passing the law which they do with flagrant regularity. I think the real answer is to make a criminal pay a hefty price for breaking the law, like life with no parole for even having a gun in his possession and double it for those that sell or supply him with a weapon.

I can't really agree with that. It assumes that such penalties provide an effective deterrant which I don't believe. If someone is going to break the law, their sense of ethics has already diminished to the extent that such punishment is no longer a consideration.

I do agree that citizens may be hampered more than potential criminals. But as long as the fundamental rights are preserved, then I think that is a small price to pay. Franklin's quote ("Those who trade liberty for security have neither.") is an issue, but as long as the ultimate liberty is preserved, we can have greater security.

Darn it I thought that I'd get ten points for that life w/o parole thing! Anyway deep down nothing will ever be enough to deter a criminal,so I may as well lock and load. Can't LOL because it is so sad!