Truthful info about UN Arms Treaty, from the UN

[Paulyski 2,227]

This is a debate that happened between a UN rep and the NRA this last july during US/UN small arms treaty negotiations...
It was all about the US's 2A, but it was not aired in the US... For reasons that will become apparent if you watch it.

I was watching it as I'm working on a large GlassBolt run. After watching it, I stopped and renewed my membership in the NRA.

This is a must watch if you are wondering what's in store for our laws ultimately.
If you drank too much fluoride in your water & have a 5 minuet attention span, just skip to 57 min & 30 seconds to see what they plan to leave us with, if we can PROVE that we're long time hunters.
(hint, in the course of the debate, she says it was a mistake to leave the UK with BB guns)

God Bless, and keep up the fight.

Paul M. Pawlowski

[SwissyJim 117]

Wow. NRA re-up membership, here I come. 'US citizens will come to realized their obsession with guns is wrong...' fugg that bitch.

[kevinfreel 215]

God bless America and the NRA. Fuck that globalist carpet munching bitch.

[GREYLUPO 358]

Yes the UN wants control, they are a wannabe fourth reich. And you know what? America is headed that way quick fast and in a hurry and at least half of the population is going for it.

 

Hitler and Himmler would be proud of this bitch.

 

 

[storm6490 2,768]

i collect blue helmets. my grandpa collected lugers. this will be fun.

[thebuns1 4,323]

Thanks for sharing this Pauly.

 

Sadly the globalist elite have much deeper pockets, and have many pawns in place that are just waiting for the green light. Its gone on for far to long unscathed and now the layers are starting to be peeled back. The UN cares nothing for the naitions they mentioned in Africa. They helped slaughter many of innocent people under a false banner of peace and aid.

 

I like to think that we can trump these cocksuckers, but I have a feeling it will get really ugly before we come out victorious.

[GREYLUPO 358]

Thanks for sharing this Pauly.

 

Sadly the globalist elite have much deeper pockets, and have many pawns in place that are just waiting for the green light. Its gone on for far to long unscathed and now the layers are starting to be peeled back. The UN cares nothing for the naitions they mentioned in Africa. They helped slaughter many of innocent people under a false banner of peace and aid.

 

I like to think that we can trump these cocksuckers, but I have a feeling it will get really ugly before we come out victorious.

 

 

When it happens I think it will be small pockets of resistance utilizing guerrilla warfare, bombings IED ect, assassinations things like that. I doubt there will be a revolutionary army

[thebuns1 4,323]

Thanks for sharing this Pauly.

 

Sadly the globalist elite have much deeper pockets, and have many pawns in place that are just waiting for the green light. Its gone on for far to long unscathed and now the layers are starting to be peeled back. The UN cares nothing for the naitions they mentioned in Africa. They helped slaughter many of innocent people under a false banner of peace and aid.

 

I like to think that we can trump these cocksuckers, but I have a feeling it will get really ugly before we come out victorious.

 

 

When it happens I think it will be small pockets of resistance utilizing guerrilla warfare, bombings IED ect, assassinations things like that. I doubt there will be a revolutionary army

Most likely. But martial law would be enacted far before the people got organized enough to get to a small army status. Too many "what if" scenarios. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I hope for the better, but Im going to expect the worst.

[Long Shot 1,287]

Irony defined;

That bitch referencing "Animal Farm "

REALLY BITCH!!! You can't see that YOU are the pig created more equal?

 

Ol Wayne done good. The thing that keeps getting by these people when talking statistics is the tyrants Speek of gun crime as if it's isolated from other forms of violent crime.

 

They very Carefuly cite stats before and after gun bans on " gun crime " not violent crime rates over all. The fat little " social scientist " used the same deceptive double Speek.

 

Austrailia gun murders are down by a few percentage points. Murder rates are up thirty some odd percent. The bad guys just use a different tool and the good guys have less means of defense. Rape up 29%

Australian women are four times more likely to be raped than American women since they imposed the " moderate restrictions "

[evlblkwpnz 3,418]

I have saved MYSELF from a carjacking and a robbery.... with a gun. Was there anyone there to lend a hand, give a fuck, plead for mercy on me, or "open a dialogue" with the bastards? NO! No "big brother", no Police, no Military, no obama, no u.n., and no crackhead looking know-it-all leftist bitch there to do a damn thing. Had it not been for my "evil semi-automatic gun", in one instance I would have been giving up my work van and every tool in it, or dying for it, and the other instance I would have been giving up an entire week's pay when I was living paycheck to paycheck, or dying for it. I never had to fire a shot. They became extremely nice and polite when they realized it wouldn't come easy. They were going to have to work for my shit or die over it. I have a deep respect and appreciation for what our Police and Military do, but they aren't here to hold my hand and protect my family at all times. I have to do it. A man's duty to his family is to provide, protect, and guide. I am not waiting for the gov't to do it for me.

 

Something that rarely ever gets pointed out is that the elderly often need a firearm to protect themselves and give themselves a fighting chance against a younger offender. The elderly will be fucked if she has her way, but I do realize that it is probably the goal, so the gov't no longer has to care for them. We would be in sad shape, but the elderly American Citizens will suffer the most in her ideal world.

Edited December 29, 2012 by evlblkwpnz

[Wolverine 10,360]

I have extended my NRA membership by another three years. The fight over our rights is going to be ugly.

 

Who needs Diane Frankenstein?

[454496 71]

What do you think will happen in the USA if foreign hired help tries to override the Supreme Law of The Land?

[gunman1 1,753]

She's just pissed cause our forfathers probably killed a bunch of her limey opressive fucktard relatives

[patriot 7,197]

What do you think will happen in the USA if foreign hired help tries to override the Supreme Law of The Land?

 

DUH!

 

It will get ugly very fast.

[Salt1219 176]

i clapped when he said i dont believe a global nanny will protect you

[jimmy21 18]

@8:10 "gun violence is the most expensive gun violence there is"

 

i know what she meant, but it still sounded dumb

 

 

I hate gun debates because anti gun people always have the same tired arguments. "Guns kill people, blah blah blah." There are arguments to be had but they dwell over the same crap arguments. Here is what i would have asked the NRA:

 

 

 

1. The 2nd ammendment was designed with intent of a private militia. So private citizens could defend ourselves against our government or invasion. It was not designed for sporting purposes. Its intent was for american citizens to be able to have equal firepower to the goverernment. According to the second ammendment, citizens should be allowed to nuclear weapons, missiles, modern tanks, and fighter jets parked in their driveway without restrictions. Most people would agree that that would be a bad idea and therefor the second ammendment no longer applies in todays world.

 

2. The bill of rights, according to some, is a sacred unquestionable document. What makes the 2nd ammendment so sacred but we can simply throw out the 18th amendment with the 21st ammendment. If americans can decide that the 18th ammendment was a bad idea, why can't we do the same thing with the 2nd ammendment?

Edited December 29, 2012 by jimmy21

[garnaz 215]

Just watched a good part of the video.

Didn't this happen before.I think the revolutionary war became of it. They taxed and taxed and when they got a hint of the people becoming sick of being frivolously taxed got scared and try to take the ammunition, not the guns because that would have been too obvious.

Why is the US part of the UN.When all that happens is they go in sabre rattle and when gets too dangerous for them they call the US too protect them and fix what they couldn't.

 

Why can't they understand the Bill of RIGHTS was written for protection against organizations and gov'ts like them.

[Hudson Hornet 40]

The sick part of all this is USA taxpayers finance most of the UN !

[poolingmyignorance 2,191]

When she speaks of people in Uganda, Kosovo, and says they want less guns.. what she doesn't admit is these people want less guns(pointed at them). When it's your own oppressive goverment pointing them at you, the UN won't be there to stop them. At least not till >10,000 die.

Another thing I don't understand is why is that criminals importing guns to other contries is suddenly our problem, our fault? They have drug problems in other countries, that they treat as social and health issues instead of criminalization and that DOES seem to work. It drops the price on the drugs and makes them less profitiable for the criminals. So if you treated guns the same way, gave citizens the right to own guns the criminals there wouldn't have as much leverage. Problem solved, seems to be the working solution.

Edited December 29, 2012 by poolingmyignorance

[horatio 515]

When she speaks of people in Uganda, Kosovo, and says they want less guns.. what she doesn't admit is these people want less guns(pointed at them). When it's your own oppressive goverment pointing them at you, the UN won't be there to stop them. At least not till >10,000 die.

Another thing I don't understand is why is that criminals importing guns to other contries is suddenly our problem, our fault? They have drug problems in other countries, that they treat as social and health issues instead of criminalization and that DOES seem to work. It drops the price on the drugs and makes them less profitiable for the criminals. So if you treated guns the same way, gave citizens the right to own guns the criminals there wouldn't have as much leverage. Problem solved, seems to be the working solution.

 

 

Somewhere, a liberal's head just caved in. That is far too sensible a plan to ever succeed here.

[patriot 7,197]

Well said, except for the part about the govt. GIVING us the RIGHT to own firearms. Govt. doesn't GIVE us the Right to bear arms. That Right is ENUMERATED in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, the most important Right after Freedom of Speech. We are born with certain Rights. Govt. can only try to take them away.

 

They will if we let them.

[brandon402 86]

GREAT vid!!!! Love this.

[patriot 7,197]

[RedDevilGuns 25]

At least the host didn't say both are master debaters. Now that would have been hilarious

[RedDevilGuns 25]

5 bucks says she has armed guards wherever she goes. Hypocrites are worldwide. If you want to go after the violence go after the people that cause it. Guns can't fire themselves. Wishful thinking laws as I call them have no influence on the criminal behavior. Never has never will. Criminals pray for gun control to make it easier for them to get victims. Go to any prison all convicts will say that they're afraid of citizens with guns for protection because they know that they fear death.

[poolingmyignorance 2,191]

@8:10 "gun violence is the most expensive gun violence there is"

 

i know what she meant, but it still sounded dumb

 

 

I hate gun debates because anti gun people always have the same tired arguments. "Guns kill people, blah blah blah." There are arguments to be had but they dwell over the same crap arguments. Here is what i would have asked the NRA:

 

 

 

1. The 2nd ammendment was designed with intent of a private militia. So private citizens could defend ourselves against our government or invasion. It was not designed for sporting purposes. Its intent was for american citizens to be able to have equal firepower to the goverernment. According to the second ammendment, citizens should be allowed to nuclear weapons, missiles, modern tanks, and fighter jets parked in their driveway without restrictions. Most people would agree that that would be a bad idea and therefor the second ammendment no longer applies in todays world.

 

2. The bill of rights, according to some, is a sacred unquestionable document. What makes the 2nd ammendment so sacred but we can simply throw out the 18th amendment with the 21st ammendment. If americans can decide that the 18th ammendment was a bad idea, why can't we do the same thing with the 2nd ammendment?

1 is really quiet simple to answer:

Nuclear weapons, take a great amount of expertise to develop, and materials are incredible dangerous to transport and handle and percautions to defend against thier effects are incredibly expensive. Fighter Jets and armaments are also prohibatively expensive, as are tanks. There really isn't much stopping somebody with the skills and means from armoring up a bull dozer or adding some illegally fabricated machine guns on their private planes. Chances are that if you have the money to obtain a private plane/ jet. Secondly MOST IMPORTANTLY they aren't necessary in for people to form a civil defense against domestic enemies, or tyranical opression. Look at Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam,... very difficult wars for the U.S the most powerful miltary in the world facing completely under funded under gunned scantly clad armies. One of these wars we LOST, the other two... we still haven't really won. These are in countries that we barely care about maintiaing their civil structure.. it's not as if the US Gov could just carpet bomb say Miniapolis Wi, to take out a 100 rebelous citizens. Now look at Afganistan, and the how much difficulty the moutain terrian gave us.. the Rockies and Appliachain mountain trains are huge. The most difficult aspect of Afganastan were the great planes, (did you notice and area in the US called "the great central plane?) it was only more adventageous to our troops because the Taliban solders lacked the mathmatical skills to calculate great distance shots due to poor to no education. Thats not really a problem here is it? So thats why LARGE ARMAMENTS aren't required for civil defense.

 

Your second question:

The consitution and it's bill or rights can in fact be changed, and have been changed. What makes them so sacred is the peoples desire to defend them. What makes the second amendment so much in particular is it is THE LAST LINE of defense for rest of the bill of rights.

[jimmy21 18]

1 is really quiet simple to answer:

Nuclear weapons, take a great amount of expertise to develop, and materials are incredible dangerous to transport and handle and percautions to defend against thier effects are incredibly expensive. Fighter Jets and armaments are also prohibatively expensive, as are tanks. There really isn't much stopping somebody with the skills and means from armoring up a bull dozer or adding some illegally fabricated machine guns on their private planes. Chances are that if you have the money to obtain a private plane/ jet. Secondly MOST IMPORTANTLY they aren't necessary in for people to form a civil defense against domestic enemies, or tyranical opression. Look at Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam,... very difficult wars for the U.S the most powerful miltary in the world facing completely under funded under gunned scantly clad armies. One of these wars we LOST, the other two... we still haven't really won. These are in countries that we barely care about maintiaing their civil structure.. it's not as if the US Gov could just carpet bomb say Miniapolis Wi, to take out a 100 rebelous citizens. Now look at Afganistan, and the how much difficulty the moutain terrian gave us.. the Rockies and Appliachain mountain trains are huge. The most difficult aspect of Afganastan were the great planes, (did you notice and area in the US called "the great central plane?) it was only more adventageous to our troops because the Taliban solders lacked the mathmatical skills to calculate great distance shots due to poor to no education. Thats not really a problem here is it? So thats why LARGE ARMAMENTS aren't required for civil defense.

 

You argue that large arms aren't neccassary to defend ourselves, but they are our constitutional right under the second ammendment. I know if a cargo ship full of a million chinese soldiers unloaded tomorrow i would like to have a fighter jet parked in my driveway. You say i could illegally add machine guns to my home built tank, but why should it be illegal? It is my god given right and protected by the bill of rights. I should be able to fire self guided missiles from my rooftop if i think that is what it takes to protect my family. Most people would agree that this isn't true even if the out of date bill of rights says so.

 

Your argument that afgans have given us trouble with their inferior weapontry and therefor americans aren't required to defend themselves with equal firepower to the bad guys. How is this any different than in the streets of the united states? Why is it not sufficient to defend yourself with a revolver when the bad guys have ak47? Plenty of people have killed bad guys with revolvers in the past.

 

 

Your second question:

The constituion and it's bill or rights can in fact be changed, and have been changed. What makes them so sacred is the peoples desire to defend them. What makes the second amendment so much in particular is it is THE LAST LINE of defense for the rest of the bill of rights.

If the constituion can be changed when people see fit, then maybe now is the time. People are speaking out that the 2nd ammendment no longer applies to the world of today

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(these aren't actually my views. Im just arguing for the sake of arguing. After all, if you can't form your own argument for the opposite side, without just repeating what others have said, you probably don't understand the issue well enough to be arguing in the first place)

 

[poolingmyignorance 2,191]

1 is really quiet simple to answer:

Nuclear weapons, take a great amount of expertise to develop, and materials are incredible dangerous to transport and handle and percautions to defend against thier effects are incredibly expensive. Fighter Jets and armaments are also prohibatively expensive, as are tanks. There really isn't much stopping somebody with the skills and means from armoring up a bull dozer or adding some illegally fabricated machine guns on their private planes. Chances are that if you have the money to obtain a private plane/ jet. Secondly MOST IMPORTANTLY they aren't necessary in for people to form a civil defense against domestic enemies, or tyranical opression. Look at Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam,... very difficult wars for the U.S the most powerful miltary in the world facing completely under funded under gunned scantly clad armies. One of these wars we LOST, the other two... we still haven't really won. These are in countries that we barely care about maintiaing their civil structure.. it's not as if the US Gov could just carpet bomb say Miniapolis Wi, to take out a 100 rebelous citizens. Now look at Afganistan, and the how much difficulty the moutain terrian gave us.. the Rockies and Appliachain mountain trains are huge. The most difficult aspect of Afganastan were the great planes, (did you notice and area in the US called "the great central plane?) it was only more adventageous to our troops because the Taliban solders lacked the mathmatical skills to calculate great distance shots due to poor to no education. Thats not really a problem here is it? So thats why LARGE ARMAMENTS aren't required for civil defense.

 

You argue that large arms aren't neccassary to defend ourselves, but they are our constitutional right under the second ammendment. I know if a cargo ship full of a million chinese soldiers unloaded tomorrow i would like to have a fighter jet parked in my driveway. You say i could illegally add machine guns to my home built tank, but why should it be illegal? It is my god given right and protected by the bill of rights. I should be able to fire self guided missiles from my rooftop if i think that is what it takes to protect my family. Most people would agree that this isn't true even if the out of date bill of rights says so.

 

Your argument that afgans have given us trouble with their inferior weapontry and therefor americans aren't required to defend themselves with equal firepower to the bad guys. How is this any different than in the streets of the united states? Why is it not sufficient to defend yourself with a revolver when the bad guys have ak47? Plenty of people have killed bad guys with revolvers in the past.

 

 

Your second question:

The constituion and it's bill or rights can in fact be changed, and have been changed. What makes them so sacred is the peoples desire to defend them. What makes the second amendment so much in particular is it is THE LAST LINE of defense for the rest of the bill of rights.

If the constituion can be changed when people see fit, then maybe now is the time. People are speaking out that the 2nd ammendment no longer applies to the world of today

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(these aren't actually my views. Im just arguing for the sake of arguing. After all, if you can't form your own argument for the opposite side, without just repeating what others have said, you probably don't understand the issue well enough to be arguing in the first place)

 

 

You make a good point. It's important to think like the opposition so that we may foresee their next directive/ tactic. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the few gun owners and anti's who believe that our small arms would make no difference in securing/defending against an organized millitary threat, foriegn or domestic.

And I agree with you. Infact the problems with the weaponry we spoke of I think in and of it'self are enough to make any legislation against ownership or said articles a moot point.

Edited December 30, 2012 by poolingmyignorance

[thebuns1 4,323]

I seen a shirt today that said the 2nd Amendment: The one that protects the other 26. Thought that was pretty slick.

[misterT 174]

WOW that is all I can about it WOW, and to think this is just the beginning for these UN Natzis, read up on Agenda 21 and the animal farm reference will make much more sense. But FIRST they have to disarm everyone, they cant force you out of your home, take all your property and put your family in a people farm while everyone is armed!