UN wants to disarm the USA

[Aim64C]

I'm not too keen on the idea of every redneck and their Grandma owning a device invented to end lives. Just saying.

That's what they developed cities and gangs for.

In cities, people are protected by the police, and the civilians who own devices invented to kill people are "gangs."

People who do not like the idea of readily accessible firearms for the general public are free to move into cities that have made "gangs" illegal through the superior perceptive powers of their college enlightened legislators (who have been to law school, I might add).

 

[Gary777]

Hahha civilized people lmfao .... do civilized people hold guns killing inncoent children ... push ur luck man ... Anyways UN cant do much about usa as far as i c ...or north korea would be hlding hands with south like brothers

 

[Aim64C]

Hahha civilized people lmfao .... do civilized people hold guns killing inncoent children ... push ur luck man ...

... Can you structure a coherent sentence using actual words?

Just curious.

Anyway - as the U.N. report says - there are an estimated 500 million firearms in a country that has some 330 million people. According to your logic - there should be no children in this country. Or people, for that matter.

Anyways UN cant do much about usa as far as i c ...or north korea would be hlding hands with south like brothers

Well, that really depends upon how you look at it.

If we remove the U.S. from the picture in the 40s, then South Korea simply becomes communist and the people there would be worshipping the former Kim Jong Il under communist rule. The population would be a fraction of what it is and brands like Samsung and LG simply wouldn't exist.

Remove the U.S. from the picture, now, and nothing would change. The South currently enjoys the way they live, and the two nations would likely remain separate for another century. The wealth disparity is roughly 10:1 in favor of South Korea. When Germany re-unified following the collapse of the Berlin Wall - their wealth disparity between East and West was 4:1 in favor of West Germany.

The re-unification pretty much broke Germany as it went around trying to bring East Germany up to living standards of the time.

If you tried to do the same thing with North and South Korea, today, you'd destroy South Korea. A Re-unification is simply unrealistic. They are two different nations, and are even two different cultures, now.

Ask some of the older generations of Koreans - the ones who still remember the war - who will tell you stories over rounds of soju about how they would load munitions onto our aircraft that would take off, immediately drop their bombs, and land a minute later to be re-armed; how everything outside of Pusan was shelled to rubble; how many Americans fought and died alongside them to preserve their ability to be a nation.

I've been to Korea a few times. It's one of the only foreign nations I can honestly say that I would consider worth dying to defend. I felt more at home there than I have in some cities in the U.S. - and I know quite a few other Americans who feel the same. Quite bluntly - The South Koreans have better brothers in Americans than they do in North Koreans. The older generations understand that.

 

[HiraishinFTG]

"The conclusion of discussions led to the adoption of a proposed agenda to begin the process for introducing to member nations a framework by which they can begin codification of national laws to disarm civilians within their borders through a graduated process."

Proposed, begin the process, introducing, a framework, to begin, graduated process.
None of these phrases indicate they are "forcing" anything on the USA, just proposing to supply a framework for the US if the citizens and politicians decide in a majority that they want to. Nothing wrong with that.

I would also like to say this could easily be photoshopped by someone with anti-UN sentiment. Cite your sources if you can prove otherwise.

 

[Aim64C]

"The conclusion of discussions led to the adoption of a proposed agenda to begin the process for introducing to member nations a framework by which they can begin codification of national laws to disarm civilians within their borders through a graduated process."

Proposed, begin the process, introducing, a framework, to begin, graduated process.
None of these phrases indicate they are "forcing" anything on the USA, just proposing to supply a framework for the US if the citizens and politicians decide in a majority that they want to. Nothing wrong with that.

Ah, how nice it will be to prepare the framework for establishing fetus-based cuisine. Now remember - I'm not forcing anyone to eat the fetuses of others... just developing the framework of how to go about doing so in a safe and effective manner.

I expect regions that adopt these guidelines can see a booming industry generating billions in aggregate revenue. Most importantly, those who will benefit most come from the poor and downtrodden classes that generally have a high pregnancy rate. Unemployment could drop a whole four percentage points based on this, alone.

Doesn't really change what it is, though, does it?

Switching the context a bit... let's say I advocate the framework for eugenics - setting guidelines for who should reproduce with who (or simply not reproduce at all). Just guidelines.

But does it really change my goal? I'm only 'providing the framework' because that is all my authority allows me. Give me a few hundred thousand soldiers under my command and theater ballistic missiles... and my "framework for others" becomes a set of guiding principles for my own ambitions.

Give these people power - and they have already told you exactly what they will do with it.

Which is why it's best to go ahead and just make them disappear now, rather than wait until later.

I would also like to say this could easily be photoshopped by someone with anti-UN sentiment. Cite your sources if you can prove otherwise.

You must be registered for see links

You can get it straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[Jin Hayami]

You know I was starting to get bored with the middle east.
Its about time we beat the ever loving piss out of a real army.
US vs UN 2014!!!

 

[Darthlawsuit]

I'm not too keen on the idea of every redneck and their Grandma owning a device invented to end lives. Just saying.

Why? Rednecks are quite friendly and I find them to be very nice people. As long as you don't steal from them or hurt them they don't give a f*** what you do. How many rednecks do you know because I know a lot and they are all very friendly. Also somehow they are all either engineers, mechanics, welders, or carpenters <_<;;

You don't want Grandma's to be able to protect themselves against a gang of youngsters that break into their house and steal their stuff. There was a recent news article about a grandma's house being broken into, they stole all her valuables, then raped her. Last i heard she was in emergency care.

 

[Aim64C]

You know I was starting to get bored with the middle east.
Its about time we beat the ever loving piss out of a real army.
US vs UN 2014!!!

I'm not sure how fair of a fight that will be, considering the LHAs and LHDs we field by the dozen qualify as a full aircraft carrier for most countries.

A single Nimitz class carrier can trivialize the air force of those nations, as well. A carrier task group of two Nimitz class carriers can simply flood the local airspace with more aircraft than any coalition could muster.

Figure that we can put together three or so of those without many problems and back them with a few LHAs and LHDs packing around a few divisions of Marines - and you're looking at each one of them being able to pretty much have their way with any nation or group thereof.

The brits would be the ones to give us the best fight... and I somewhat doubt they'd be avidly against us. They have their own qualms with the U.N. and have had to put up with some of the same nations as part of the Euro.

But it's all fun and games until deficit spending begins to trigger hyper inflation.

 

[Jin Hayami]

I'm not sure how fair of a fight that will be, considering the LHAs and LHDs we field by the dozen qualify as a full aircraft carrier for most countries.

A single Nimitz class carrier can trivialize the air force of those nations, as well. A carrier task group of two Nimitz class carriers can simply flood the local airspace with more aircraft than any coalition could muster.

Figure that we can put together three or so of those without many problems and back them with a few LHAs and LHDs packing around a few divisions of Marines - and you're looking at each one of them being able to pretty much have their way with any nation or group thereof.

The brits would be the ones to give us the best fight... and I somewhat doubt they'd be avidly against us. They have their own qualms with the U.N. and have had to put up with some of the same nations as part of the Euro.

But it's all fun and games until deficit spending begins to trigger hyper inflation.

You lost me at Marines. Army would clearly be the superior invasive force for an assault on the European front. The jarheads could take the Pacific where they belong. Then again we already own the seas and the skies over the Pacific. Guess el diablos perros would just have to take a back seat to the Army. Its okay though we would finish up Europe real quick and come help you guys out...again.

 

[NarutoXL]

They got me ****ed up

 

[Aim64C]

You lost me at Marines. Army would clearly be the superior invasive force for an assault on the European front. The jarheads could take the Pacific where they belong. Then again we already own the seas and the skies over the Pacific. Guess el diablos perros would just have to take a back seat to the Army. Its okay though we would finish up Europe real quick and come help you guys out...again.

Just... how is the Army going to -get- to the combat theater?

Without secure ports and facilities to load and unload - the Army is heavily dependent upon the Navy (and by extension, the Marines) to muscle the opening of an amphibious offensive.

No mistake should be made - the Army is the main portion of our landward military capability - but the problem with such a massive force is how to actually get to the combat. You're either tracking over thousands of miles of terrain from nations that have allowed us to use their facilities, packing up like sardines in a ship or other tin can, or coming in pittance at a time from the air.

That... and the Army is really only necessary for controlling territory.

Control isn't the objective. Pure destruction is. We don't even really have to mess with land invasions in order to eliminate countries as valid military powers. Naval and air assets alone can pretty much crush the warfighting capability of any nation.

Granted, the Army could do a much more thorough job of it...

 

[Black Literati]

I saw this on Twitter. I was bit surprised.
I doubt such events will come to past.
I'm familiar with those Quotes from my History Studies. It's said that George Washington was misquoted.

The "Liberty Teeth" Speech by George Washington

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good. When firearms, go all goes; we need them every hour.”
********
---“Falsely attributed to George Washington's, Address to the Second Session of the First U.S. Congress; Speech to Congress of January 7, 1790, printed in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790; the Federalist No. 53; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1785.”

 

[Transcendence]

I'm not American so my opinion carries basically no weight; but it should happen. What people intended (In countries that allow civilian firearms) for others to do so with weapons was for personal defense. That has been largely contradicted in large part due to gangs and America as a whole has a large crime rate to begin with. Take the guns out of the hands of unintelligent people.

 

[Mighty Curtain Messiah]

Ahahah, disarm the USA !

 

[Aim64C]

I'm not American so my opinion carries basically no weight; but it should happen. What people intended (In countries that allow civilian firearms) for others to do so with weapons was for personal defense. That has been largely contradicted in large part due to gangs and America as a whole has a large crime rate to begin with. Take the guns out of the hands of unintelligent people.

"Gangs" predate firearms, my friend.

They are not a modern phenomenon.

That said; gangs are precisely the reason we need firearms. Most crimes are committed with illegal firearms - they never existed within the 'standard' market. Which means none of our regulations and laws regarding manufacture, transportation, or sale will ever have an impact on the weapons available to gangs.

Which is exactly why the civilian populous should be armed.

It's not the "stupid" people who cause problems with firearms. It's the people who have come to the realization that they can take what they want by force and desire to do so. You could give me a 155mm Howitzer, and not have to worry about it. I don't care to exploit others through threat of leveling their house.

But you can't give some people so much as a butter knife before they are trying to use it to intimidate people to get what they want.

That's not stupidity. That's actually the impetus for intelligence. Predators are always more intelligent than their prey. Those that aren't are quickly selected out of the population.

 

[Gary777]

... Can you structure a coherent sentence using actual words?

Just curious.

Anyway - as the U.N. report says - there are an estimated 500 million firearms in a country that has some 330 million people. According to your logic - there should be no children in this country. Or people, for that matter.

no according to my logic holding firearms in possesion is bad ... even if the other person is innocent he will have to live his life in fear of a psycho who might bring it to a fight of quarreling neighbors .. or just a argument ...u know wat people r not stable minded ... even army personal i may say r not ...give them pressure n they crumble n start threatning ...
its not good to hold something in ur hand by which people can get killed at whim of others

 

[Aim64C]

no according to my logic holding firearms in possesion is bad ... even if the other person is innocent he will have to live his life in fear of a psycho who might bring it to a fight of quarreling neighbors .. or just a argument

I live in a mixed suburban and rural part of the nation. Something around half the households here (or more) own a firearm or two.

Here's some crime statistics from this county:

You must be registered for see links

Crime in 2005 (reported by the sheriff's office or county police, not the county total):
•Murders: 0
•Rapes: 5
•Robberies: 2
•Assaults: 22
•Burglaries: 83
•Thefts: 177
•Auto thefts: 16


Crime in 2004 (reported by the sheriff's office or county police, not the county total):
•Murders: 0
•Rapes: 0
•Robberies: 3
•Assaults: 18
•Burglaries: 90
•Thefts: 210
•Auto thefts: 21


We have more problems with tweakers stealing shit than with firearms.

No one here lives in fear of a shooting. Firearms are a part of the culture. Guys will talk about their favorite firearms with their friends, and we'll even go out to someone's farm to shoot tannerite targets.

You must be registered for see links

...u know wat people r not stable minded

So why do we trust them with 1,000 pound rolling death machines that can plow through entire crowds of people at speeds in excess of 80 miles an hour?

You think I'm going to get pissed and kill people with a firearm? Sure - after I run my land-based cruise missile (car) through their living room and collapse half their house on their heads.

... even army personal i may say r not ...give them pressure n they crumble n start threatning ...

Not really.

You'll run into lots of people in life - but, generally, the ones who make threats are nothing to worry about. Those of us who can kill you simply will when we decide the effort is worth it. Usually, though, it isn't.

And we'll generally get more creative than a firearm. That's boring and is much easier to track back to us. I'm more fond of methods that involve the breaking of ligaments - stretching/twisting deaths. Others are more fond of impaling or crushing deaths. I also entertain the idea of poisonings and the use of minimally transmittable biological agents - but those are more subversive and feminine (though if you want to throw off investigators... males who poison victims are rare - we like to dominate and force a foe into submitting to death).

But the firearm is a simple, direct, and overt method. I've considered the prospect of 'going crazy' and busting up known meth rings by kicking in doors and going in blazing. Unfortunately - It just draws too much attention and is more likely to bring more people with firearms who are going to critique your actions.

its not good to hold something in ur hand by which people can get killed at whim of others

That's what makes people polite.

Look at areas that have embraced the idea of 'complete social liberty' where individuals are 'free from consequence.'

Detroit, Atlanta, portions of New York; the list goes on. You have people who have been allowed to simply act however they please without consequence. Throw them off the bus? You're a racist (if we're talking simplistic lawyering) or you've somehow violated some other civil right in the process (more complicated lawyering).

Start killing people for being rude and abusive - and you'll start hearing "Yes sir" and "No ma'am" in a ****ing hurry.

Example:

You must be registered for see links

Notice how quickly her behavior was corrected once consequences were administered for her behavior.

Though, also, notice how the kids start taking up the behavior of their mother. They will grow up in a society that does not beat the unholy shit out of them for speaking to people that way. They will grow up doing whatever they want without consequences.

The same thing happens with regards to criminals. There are no consequences for them in an unarmed society. At worst - they get caught and thrown into adult time-out with food and cable TV provided for a few years after having lived a relatively lucrative life preying upon others.

In an armed society - they may just get killed for their behavior before the "time out" system has a chance to protect them.

Countless studies have been done on the issue of firearm ownership and proliferation. Most of those studies have returned with the observation that crime rates are more cultural than a result of firearm proliferation (or lack thereof). Though most areas see a drop in violent and property crime after changes to laws providing more liberties to the population regarding firearms, and/or an increase in firearm ownership.

 

[Souji]

Isn't this essentially impossible? The US is the only military superpower left; as much as I'm not necessarily an advocate of big military, it's an institution that protects the citizens, and powerful enough to put up a helluva fight against the rest of the world. It's OP, yeah, but that's the role the States took up itself.

As for citizen firearms; good luck trying to take away what owners believe is their fundamental right. It's been tried time and again. I personally do not feel the need to own a firearm (larger weapons), but I'm content with owning one for self defense once I have my own family. If I have no need for one, that doesn't give me the right to take away what others believe they should have. What I am concerned about, though, is WHO these weapons are in possession of.