NationStates Jolt Archive

Not sure if this has been posted, and not sure if I care. You may or may not know that the UN is planning a conference on July 4th to have a conference to ban gun trade in all countries. One more reason for me to hate the UN. Why does it seem that the UN thinks that they can control everyone simply because they ARE the UN? What if, say, Congo decides not to comply. Will the UN invade them? Of course! Why? Because they can! Why can they? Because they're the UN! The UN says they fight for civil rights? Bull shit. They fight so that they may become the rulers of the world. Hell, they are all ready, just not officially.

Uh... right. And do you have proof for this?

I don't know the details, but have a vague memory of being irked some months previous by this or something related to it. It seems that the status quo is becoming more important than what's right. There seems to be an acceptance that armed conflict is not the way to resolve a problem, while Yugoslavia's infrastructure is bombed into oblivion and Iraq is turned into Hell-on-earth.

I've not enough specific knowledge, here, but I'm concerned that established authorities will only gain more power over potentially-correct revolutionaries, you know? Cutting-off a revolutionary army doesn't solve the problem that raised it: the Saharawi are still utterly screwed, after all.

Uh... right. And do you have proof for this?
NRA website. Look for it. I'm too lazy to get the link.

NRA website. Look for it. I'm too lazy to get the link.
Oh Skuld's Holy Hammer!

You mean THIS, don't you? http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14852.html

Not only is that filled with the normal paranoid ramblings of tin foil hat uber-conservatives who probably belived that email about how Clinton was going to sign over sovrenty to the UN, it's also flat out wrong.

Checking the UN itself, it's this: http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/
A confrence devoted to stopping illegal small arms trade, something you'd THINK the NRA would approve of. And even then,


Does the Programme of Action aim to curb the legal trade in small arms and light weapons?


No. The PoA outlines measures to help curb and eliminate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. It is the prerogative of each State to legislate the rights of its citizens to bear arms.
http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/faq.html

So this has nothing to do with legally buying and selling guns and and purchance of weapons, legally, isn't even up for debate.

Gesh, not to mention that the UN can ONLY take military action at the behest of the Security Council, you know, that august body that not only cannot agree on anything, but the one that the US has veto power on.

Got anything actually serious?

the UN wasn't designed for global dominance, it was designed so that nations can settle disputes with one another in a diplomatic fashion and not go to war with one another.

and the gun trade ban thing, theres obvious some reasonable logic behind it otherwise they wouldn't legislate it, right?

Oh Skuld's Holy Hammer!

You mean THIS, don't you? http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14852.html

Not only is that filled with the normal paranoid ramblings of tin foil hat uber-conservatives who probably belived that email about how Clinton was going to sign over sovrenty to the UN, it's also flat out wrong.

Checking the UN itself, it's this: http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/
A confrence devoted to stopping illegal small arms trade, something you'd THINK the NRA would approve of. And even then,


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

So this has nothing to do with legally buying and selling guns and and purchance of weapons, legally, isn't even up for debate.

Gesh, not to mention that the UN can ONLY take military action at the behest of the Security Council, you know, that august body that not only cannot agree on anything, but the one that the US has veto power on.

Got anything actually serious?

Hey maybe if they're so hot to trot to ban illegal weapons maybe they're eager to ban illegal aliens too.

Hey maybe if they're so hot to trot to ban illegal weapons maybe they're eager to ban illegal aliens too.
Human trafficking you mean? It's banned. Whatever each country decides to do with their illegal aliens? That's up to each individual country.

I'm angry that out of all the days to do this it has to be done on our nation's most sacred holiday.

Human trafficking you mean? It's banned. Whatever each country decides to do with their illegal aliens? That's up to each individual country.

Lotta good that did. It's gonna be the same way with the illegal weapons.

Sometimes I wonder how such moronic people manage to write coherent sentences, much less come up with conspiracy theories surrounding an organization with the same enforcement capabilities and usefulness as a Floridian neighborhood association.

I'm angry that out of all the days to do this it has to be done on our nation's most sacred holiday.
Oooow! That means you won't be attending? Poor you! Well, what day is good for Your Highness? :rolleyes:

Lotta good that did. It's gonna be the same way with the illegal weapons.
So they shouldn't even raise the issue then, eh?

Hey maybe if they're so hot to trot to ban illegal weapons maybe they're eager to ban illegal aliens too.
:rolleyes: Oh yes, because all those illegal aliens are being used to start bush wars in Africa, pirate ships in the Indian Ocean, smuggled in by drug runners, and funding terrorist orginzations and rebelions across the globe. Matter of fact, the US Navy recently had an encouter with pirates that threatened the two Naval destoryers with people who said they would mow the lawn cheaply.

FYI, assuming your rebuttal actually worked, the UN has a standing commitee to fight human traifcing and human slavery. Indeed, that body is credited with applying pressure on some of the South East Asian countries, as well as Japan, to start tightning laws against that.

That work for you?

I'm angry that out of all the days to do this it has to be done on our nation's most sacred holiday.
So what will you do if you ever go to, say, England and they aren't celebrating the 4th of July?

Hate to tell you this, but the world doesn't come to a stop on July 4th. Not only that, but the confrence starts in JUNE and runs till JUly 7th, that rant was waaaaaaay off base.

So they shouldn't even raise the issue then, eh?

Perhaps raising an issue on enforcement?

Oh wait, the UN doesn't really have any enforcement.

As far as I'm concerned they're in bed with IANSA, and anything they do regarding guns and "light weapons" is bad for me.

ETA: I don't care what everyone else does on the 4th of july but it pisses me off that the UN is stepping closer to regulating the internal affairs of countries (AND ON OUR SOIL). This act is merely a first step closer.

Perhaps raising an issue on enforcement?

Oh wait, the UN doesn't really have any enforcement.

As far as I'm concerned they're in bed with IANSA, and anything they do regarding guns and "light weapons" is bad for me.

ETA: I don't care what everyone else does on the 4th of july but it pisses me off that the UN is stepping closer to regulating the internal affairs of countries (AND ON OUR SOIL). This act is merely a first step closer.

Now where did I put that "predictable" stamp...

:rolleyes: NRA website. Look for it. I'm too lazy to get the link.

Wow, the NRA, very reliable source of non biased independent information...:rolleyes:

Perhaps raising an issue on enforcement?

Oh wait, the UN doesn't really have any enforcement.

As far as I'm concerned they're in bed with IANSA, and anything they do regarding guns and "light weapons" is bad for me.

ETA: I don't care what everyone else does on the 4th of july but it pisses me off that the UN is stepping closer to regulating the internal affairs of countries (AND ON OUR SOIL). This act is merely a first step closer.

Does anyone really believe the UN has the power to enforce anything anymore? Just because a proposal bounces around the halls of the UN does not make it an international law.:rolleyes:

ETA: I don't care what everyone else does on the 4th of july but it pisses me off that the UN is stepping closer to regulating the internal affairs of countries (AND ON OUR SOIL). This act is merely a first step closer.
What part of "Illegal international small-arms trade" did you not understand here? The UN is doing what it was designed to do, provide a forum for nations to come together and work out solutions to international problems.

The idea is to stop the bad guys (You know, like, say, AQ) from getting illegal arms through an international market. This confrence doesn't target countries abilties to regulate legal arms deals within their borders. It doesn't remove any national rights of anyone. It's making a legal frame work to go after gun runners!

It's like talking to the poster child for gun nuts!

Perhaps raising an issue on enforcement?

Oh wait, the UN doesn't really have any enforcement.

As far as I'm concerned they're in bed with IANSA, and anything they do regarding guns and "light weapons" is bad for me.

ETA: I don't care what everyone else does on the 4th of july but it pisses me off that the UN is stepping closer to regulating the internal affairs of countries (AND ON OUR SOIL). This act is merely a first step closer.Since when is illegal international gun trade a solely internal affair?

Not sure if this has been posted, and not sure if I care. You may or may not know that the UN is planning a conference on July 4th to have a conference to ban gun trade in all countries. One more reason for me to hate the UN. Why does it seem that the UN thinks that they can control everyone simply because they ARE the UN? What if, say, Congo decides not to comply. Will the UN invade them? Of course! Why? Because they can! Why can they? Because they're the UN! The UN says they fight for civil rights? Bull shit. They fight so that they may become the rulers of the world. Hell, they are all ready, just not officially.
So... You know nothing about the UN then? Nothing about how international law works? Do you worry that the United States will invade Congo? And you disagree with any actions taken to stop the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, and the misuse of these weapons?
Perhaps raising an issue on enforcement?

Oh wait, the UN doesn't really have any enforcement.
Concerning human trafficking it has done a lot of good, but there's still much left to do. There are still about 900.000 people being trafficked every year. Enforcement is the responsibility of the member states.


As far as I'm concerned they're in bed with IANSA, and anything they do regarding guns and "light weapons" is bad for me.

ETA: I don't care what everyone else does on the 4th of july but it pisses me off that the UN is stepping closer to regulating the internal affairs of countries (AND ON OUR SOIL). This act is merely a first step closer.
They are not. The UN is concerned about transnational and illicit trading of guns.

If the day comes, and guns are banned in the US, then it will be because the politicians in Washington wanted it that way and NOT because of the wishes of the UN. Worry about the politicians, not the UN.

It's like talking to the poster child for gun nuts!

Naah, I just figure he suffers from the same thing most NS'ers have. Short attentionitis. They don't bother to read the whole story. Not that the OP helped in this case, being too lazy to post a link. And getting a story from the NRA about the UN in this aspect is like getting a story from the KKK about how whites are superior. Can't trust it.

Naah, I just figure he suffers from the same thing most NS'ers have. Short attentionitis. They don't bother to read the whole story. Not that the OP helped in this case, being too lazy to post a link. And getting a story from the NRA about the UN in this aspect is like getting a story from the KKK about how whites are superior. Can't trust it.
But it is still a bit funny (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14852.html):
Sure they help feed hungry people around the world, but other than that deed of kindness, the UN is an organization strattling the line between reality and science fiction.
Guns have never killed anyone. People kill people because of SIN.
Many people put bad labels on guns because of a negative past experience or from a fear derived from watching too much mainstream media news which always paints a bad picture of guns. The media can never get much of anything right-especially gun truths and myths.
...
Every day we can read stories about how a firearm saved the life of an elderly citizen or a single mom whose house was being broken into in the middle of the night.
:D

Oh Skuld's Holy Hammer!

You mean THIS, don't you? http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14852.html

Not only is that filled with the normal paranoid ramblings of tin foil hat uber-conservatives who probably belived that email about how Clinton was going to sign over sovrenty to the UN, it's also flat out wrong.

Checking the UN itself, it's this: http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/
A confrence devoted to stopping illegal small arms trade, something you'd THINK the NRA would approve of. And even then,


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

So this has nothing to do with legally buying and selling guns and and purchance of weapons, legally, isn't even up for debate.

Gesh, not to mention that the UN can ONLY take military action at the behest of the Security Council, you know, that august body that not only cannot agree on anything, but the one that the US has veto power on.

Got anything actually serious?

Umm, you're expecting Naliitr, of all people, to actually be informed of the things he's trying to talk about? That's almost n00bish.

Not sure if this has been posted, and not sure if I care. You may or may not know that the UN is planning a conference on July 4th to have a conference to ban gun trade in all countries. One more reason for me to hate the UN. Why does it seem that the UN thinks that they can control everyone simply because they ARE the UN? What if, say, Congo decides not to comply. Will the UN invade them? Of course! Why? Because they can! Why can they? Because they're the UN! The UN says they fight for civil rights? Bull shit. They fight so that they may become the rulers of the world. Hell, they are all ready, just not officially.

I don't think the UN has a mandate for all that, but if all those things you're extrapolating were at all possible, it would probably be a jolly good idea. I think we should give the UN teeth and claws, and empower them as a supragovernmental body to be the final arbiter of international disputes, by diplomacy if possible, by force if necessary.

The UN should also weight its General Assembly votes according to national population. I see no good reason why the 418,000 citizens of Cape Verde have as much say as the 1,306,000,000 who inhabit China, or why Iceland, population 296,000, should have the same vote as India, population 1,027,000,000. Africa has 680,000,000 people, far less than India, yet there some 56 African nations, each of which has a vote in the General Assembly. India has one vote.

Umm, you're expecting Naliitr, of all people, to actually be informed of the things he's trying to talk about? That's almost n00bish.
Hope springs eternal and all that. ;)

Hope springs eternal and all that. ;)

And barring that, we get to spread his lack of credibility to the world. Educating the populace to guard them from ignorance is a very noble goal. :p

Eyyyy...Waitaminute...Weren't you supposed to have killed yourself Naliitr?

Eyyyy...Waitaminute...Weren't you supposed to have killed yourself Naliitr?
The UN took away his weapons, so...

Not sure if this has been posted, and not sure if I care. You may or may not know that the UN is planning a conference on July 4th to have a conference to ban gun trade in all countries. One more reason for me to hate the UN. Why does it seem that the UN thinks that they can control everyone simply because they ARE the UN? What if, say, Congo decides not to comply. Will the UN invade them? Of course! Why? Because they can! Why can they? Because they're the UN! The UN says they fight for civil rights? Bull shit. They fight so that they may become the rulers of the world. Hell, they are all ready, just not officially.

'Bout time they get serious about banning guns.
Took 'em long enough.

Pro-gun = pro-murder, so just chuck all the proponents of firearms into the slammer.

So they shouldn't even raise the issue then, eh?
They're just doing it to put wind in their sales?