Why the NRA hates the UN

[welsh]

What do you mean? Colt can't sell M-16 to kids in Liberia?

China can't sell AK-47s to the Angolans?

What is this? Communism?

The coming threat to gun-owners

UNbelievable

May 25th 2006 | MILWAUKEE AND YEKEPA, LIBERIA
From The Economist print edition

The NRA takes aim at global bureaucrats
AFP

DUKU PAUL does not know how many people he has killed. Though still young, he is a veteran of one of West Africa's nastiest civil wars. For more than a decade, he helped to burn, loot and bloody his homeland, Liberia. Then, in 2003, the United Nations, with American backing, brought peace. Bangladeshi blue helmets took Mr Paul's gun and gave him $300. Interviewed last year, he said he was sorry that he ever became a soldier, and that he wanted to get back to school.

What? Go to school when you can rape and pillage?
Jeezus! Don't you know how rarely kids in the US get to go all Columbine?

Mr Paul was enrolled in what the UN calls a “disarmament, demobilisation, rehabilitation and reintegration” programme. The world body is keen to promote such programmes wherever appropriate. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the lobby for American gun-lovers, does not like the sound of that.

Let's do the math-

War needs guns
Guns need manufacturers
Manufacturers need profits
War needs guns = manufactuerers make profits.

Hmmmm.
Well it's the Christian thing to do.

“So, after we are disarmed, the UN wants us demobilised and reintegrated. I can hear it now: ‘Step right this way for your reprogramming, sir. Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilise your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.’ No thanks,” shudders Wayne LaPierre, the indefatigable executive vice-president of the NRA.

Does the NRA ever think outside their little box?

And who does the NRA work for? Not the gun owners, but the manufacturers.

Then again, you can get a AK-47 for like a couple bags of rice in some countries.

Why does the UN want to take away Americans' guns? Because it is a club of governments, some of which want to “strip opposition forces of the means to challenge their authority,” argues Mr LaPierre. During the 20th century, governments murdered 169m people in various parts of the world, he says. Individual gun ownership is the “ultimate protection against tyranny”.

Like in the revolutionary war.

Mr LaPierre was signing copies of his new book, “The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights”, at the NRA's annual convention in Milwaukee on May 19th-21st. What do rank-and-file members think? Joe Carlson, a rifle salesman, is serenely unaware of the threat. “I'd not heard about that,” he says. “I've been so busy selling these [award-winning semi-automatic weapons]. I'd better take a look.” Others are better informed. “All these pirate governments want to take from people their rights. That's wrong,” says Greg Johnson, who runs a lodge in Michigan where you can shoot imported Russian wild boars.

Unfortunately, civil war has already made those folks so poor that they can't afford the bags of rice to buy guns... but ...

For both men, their livelihoods are at stake. Mr Johnson's customers can, it is true, hunt wild boars with “stick and string” (ie, a bow and arrows). But most would prefer to bring their favourite firearm, for those “raging Russian” boars are fierce. “If you hunt him, he'll hunt you,” says Mr Johnson, adding that it is the kind of beast that was running around in the Dark Ages. Yes, “It's one primordial pork chop.”

And what better bullet to kill a killer Russian boar than the tumbling exploding bullet of an M-16 or AK-47.

Mr Carlson's position is even more precarious. The guns he sells are more powerful than the M4 rifles that the army uses. (As any gun-lover knows, with the M4 “there's a problem with one-shot kills,” says Mr Carlson: ie, soldiers are finding it tricky to take out distant targets with a single shot.) Under Bill Clinton, they were labelled “assault rifles” (inaccurately, in Mr Carlson's view) and banned. Congress let the ban lapse in 2004. If “the wrong people” are elected, says Mr Carlson, they'd ban them again in a heartbeat.

Of course- an M4 is a carbine! Just because it's a shortened version of an M-16 (and is preferred to the M-16) doesn't make it an assault rifle .. does it?

The NRA, like so many conservative American groups, has long detested the UN. But Mr LaPierre's claim that it is “the biggest coming threat” to gun-lovers represents a new emphasis. It reflects, in part, his organisation's astonishing success at home. The second amendment is in “the best shape it's been in for decades,” says Mr LaPierre. “Gun-haters” consistently lose elections. The president and both houses of Congress are solidly pro-gun. Last year Congress passed legislation protecting gun manufacturers from “frivolous” lawsuits. Of the 50 states, only two—Wisconsin and Illinois—refuse to let law-abiding citizens carry concealed firearms.

As long as they are law abiding.....
In that moment before they pull out the gun in the bank and say... give me all your money, motherfuckers.

Challenges remain, of course. During the post-hurricane lawlessness in New Orleans last year, the police confiscated a number of legally-held firearms from civilians. Last week, the NRA urged every mayor and police chief in America to pledge never to disarm law-abiding citizens. The governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle, has twice vetoed a law that would have allowed licensed citizens to carry concealed handguns. Gun-owners are urged to “Dump Doyle”, among others, at the mid-term elections in November.

Yeah.... like in the old west. When every man used to carry a concealed weapon.

We can be safe.... it'd just be like Deadwood.

(except didn't they ban weapons in Dodge City because things were getting too violent?)

For a truly all-embracing threat, however, the UN is hard to beat. Mr LaPierre predicts that the “global war on guns” will boost the NRA's membership from 4m to 8m, and reduce Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming president in 2008. This last point is crucial. The UN, whatever its evil aims, is hardly in a position to push Uncle Sam around. To disarm Americans, it would need Congress on its side, plus an American president willing to sign an anti-gun treaty and appoint Supreme Court justices willing to rule it constitutional.

Never happen.

Mr LaPierre anticipates that some people might find this far-fetched. “I can hear some readers now: ‘Oh, Wayne's just over-reacting’,” he writes. But that is what they want you to believe. “Just how sure is the United Nations that it can take your guns?” he asks. His answer: “The UN chose the Fourth of July to hold its global gun ban summit on American soil!”

Bullshit.
What this is about for the UN is the demobilizing of people in war-torn countries so that they can stop killing each other and rebuilding.

What this is about for the NRA is a loss of profits for gun manufactuers.

If a gun dealer sells a shipment of guns to a terrorist, knowing he's a terrorist, should the victims of the terrorist get to sue the gun manufactuer for negligence?

 

[SimpleMinded]

I'm sorry but the NRA is rivaled only by the christian fundamentalists as the biggest bunch of dumbasses. Can anyone give me a good reason that they should be able to carry around councealed firearms?

I hear you Welsh. The UN tries to help end the civil wars that are demolishing some third world countries and LaPierre gets his panties in a bunch that he might lose his privilege to hunt captured wild boars. Poor baby.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

NRA is rivaled only by the christian fundamentalists as the biggest bunch of dumbasses.

Maybe in the USA, but not in the world, ah this reminds of the American style of thinking, "everything big, is larger/huge in here".

Can anyone give me a good reason that they should be able to carry around councealed firearms?

Well, to kill people, it might not be the best for the nation, but it would be good for me. See.

 

[SimpleMinded]

Maybe in the USA, but not in the world, ah this reminds of the American style of thinking, "everything big, is larger/huge in here".

Aye, for future reference, whenever I say anything is the biggest/baddest/bestest, just add on a "in my little world of knowledge."

 

[Jebus]

Does that man really represent 4 to 8 million people?

 

[Pajari]

Does that man really represent 4 to 8 million people?

No. But sadly, the NRA seems to be the only organization that gives a whit about gun rights. So, if you think the second amendment is a good idea, he's your man wether you think war profiteering off of teenagers in Angola is a good idea or not as well.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

The biggest argument against the second amandment is that 98% of people are too stupid to be allowed to have a gun.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

Does that man really represent 4 to 8 million people?

It's so nice to take sides when you have multiple minds, but I personally would say no, he doesn't, though how could I know, cause I represent only one quarter of one, and I am talking to myselves.

is that 98% of people are too stupid to be allowed to have a gun.

So if I would have 52 personalities, is there any chance one would be eligible. Cause it gets easier after the first three.

 

[PhredBean]

I'm sorry but the NRA is rivaled only by the christian fundamentalists as the biggest bunch of dumbasses. Can anyone give me a good reason that they should be able to carry around councealed firearms?

Not true, I'm a member of the NRA, yes, I'm very pro-gun-rights; however, the leadership of the NRA doesn't tend to share the views of many of their card holders. The execs all seem to be chosen from the paranoid/gibbering maniac stock. Many still join because it's the best lobby group available as far as gun rights are concerned.

And yes, there is perfectly good reason for concealed firearms. Just carrying one has saved my skin once when I was doing nothing wrong, I just picked up a friend who was plastered in a bar and got assaulted while getting back in the car by someone trying to carjack me. You take guns off the citizens, it only leaves the criminals as the only ones armed.

I hear you Welsh. The UN tries to help end the civil wars that are demolishing some third world countries and LaPierre gets his panties in a bunch that he might lose his privilege to hunt captured wild boars. Poor baby.

I'm all for the UN disarming civil war torn nations, just as long as the UN stays the hell away from our gun laws. Since there is no way they'd be allowed to affect us in that regard - like Welsh said, they'd have to convince congress that the UN has a right to meddle in the US's internal policy and that just won't happen - I can't really say I care.
As far as boar hunting goes, there's very little reason to use an assault rifle over a semi-auto or even a bolt action. If you aren't skilled enough to take him down first shot, you have no business hunting it, that goes for any animal in my opinion.

 

[Wooz]

Merkins should keep their guns.

Increases chances of state dignitaries being shot by the vice-president.

 

[welsh]

You know if the VP managed to kill that guy, and he was drunk = manslaughter, and Dick gets 20 years.

 

[Bradylama]

I don't really see the problem.

Isn't pacifying and developing cultures how we control them as an economic empire?

Trade in your guns for a job at the Nike plant!


Honestly, though, it really does demonstrate who's pulling the strings behind the NRA. It's just a shame that they are the only effective pro-gun lobby.

It's also a shame that Umbutu isn't working for me sooner.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

It really is bad that the only organization effective in protecting second amendment rights is also one filled with such fanatics.

Honestly its an American organization and it should stay out of foreign politics. Its hard enough keeping our rights here anyway.

By the way if you cant tell though I own no weapons I'm totally supportive of the right to bear arms.

LOL @ Wooz.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

Ah, the madness grows.

I'm totally supportive of the right to bear arms.

So, what will the bears then have, fire arms.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

I am a bit uncertain how talking about the policy drifts into "all guns are bad". Now, I thinkt he NRA are pretty out there as well regarding their thoughts on what constitutes acceptable firearms, but it is also plainly ridiculous at some of the assertions made here on NMA as well.

Concealed carry permit? Completely for it, because most people who are sane don't like going around showing off a .44 in public just to get reactions. The whole idea is to prevent yourself from being a complete victim if someone decides they want to steal from you/injure you/kill you/rape you.

I am also in favor of private citizens carrying firearms. Sorry, but I *do* feel safer at night, especially when police take several minutes to arrive at the house and I live in a nice, secluded area near the woods. Plus, we have coyotes in our woods sometimes and I also found it enjoyable doing target shooting, back to my Boy Scout days.

As for the UN mandating calls for disarmament, I think that is pretty much a joke as well. The United Nations is a system designed to continue whatever constitutes the status quo. The only people allowed to possess firearms will be the government. What 'right' does the government have by agreement to use force? I want to see what the actual justification is that the government is the sole arbiter of force, and why? Necessity yes, especially in the police force and military, but how does that translate to private citizens not being allowed to protect themselves if the social contract...and the right to property (and its defense), are integral to our cultural values and the government can fail at this?

 

[Pajari]

The biggest argument against the second amandment is that 98% of people are too stupid to be allowed to have a gun.

Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy was a five-minute talk with the average voter. The fact that some people can't handle responsibility isn't really justification for taking everyone's gun rights away, just like the fact that most people don't care about/participate intelligently in democracy isn't reason to say "fuck it!" and close up shop.

If the UN wants to institute a weapons buyback program and attempt to defuse a potentially explosive situation, that's fine. It's a legitimate program that's not illegal at all and actually is sponsored by the US- there's hardly room to complain. I think a better solution is to get rid of the sources of conflict- economic inequity, horrendous government, etc, before heading straight for the weapons because they look scary.

Holy shit, did I just derail a gun rights thread into free trade? GG.

Anyway, the UN's methods notwithstanding, this is complete bullshit on the part of the NRA, and another example of how shitty it is to be even moderately conservative in America, since you have these crackpots claiming to represent you. I think we need guns and that people all over the world that want to protect themselves need guns, and that's as far as it goes. We don't need to make the world safe for Smith & Wesson or Colt.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

I want to see what the actual justification is that the government is the sole arbiter of force, and why? Necessity yes, especially in the police force and military, but how does that translate to private citizens not being allowed to protect themselves if the social contract...and the right to property (and its defense), are integral to our cultural values and the government can fail at this?

It translates by in the way of the law(s) and in the basic human rights, and today they should be, and most are, structured into a three layered pyramid.

The first, the most important, is the life, it can't be sacrificed for the others.
The second layer is the independence and the freedom and protection against injuries(or something alike).(it can't be sacrificed for the third, except...)
The third, is the right to own things.

So to clarify this, lets take a case of bank robbery, a man comes in to a bank, takes his gun and starts to threaten the bank manager pla pla pla. The police comes to the scene, and they can shoot the robber cause he is threatening the lifes of others with his gun, but the robber knows this and relinquish his weapon, but threatens to brake the bank managers arm, now the police can't shoot him any more, but they can and probably will try to get the robber arrested with non-lethal means, but they can't shoot him cause if he dies, they will be charged of the excessive use of force.
The robber gets way cause he exits from the bank and pla pla pla.
Ten years later the police get a tip that the robber has lived his life in a secluded area, and the police goes and this time he surrenders, without a fight. He will be charged with an armed (bank) robbery, assault, pla pla pla, and all the things that he did along his past that are not expired in the eyes of the law.

... if you cannot buy your way out, legally.

 

[Claw]

Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilise your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.’ No thanks,” shudders Wayne LaPierre, the indefatigable executive vice-president of the NRA.

Who wants to be part of civil society anyway.

 

[OnTheBounce]

Who wants to be part of civil society anyway.

Pretty much anyone who isn't willing to trash their computer -- which wouldn't work w/o a civil society seeing how all of its myriads of protocols needs shitloads of regulation -- and move off into some frontier where they can spend their days and nights watchng their backs and fighting for scraps to eat...

OTB