Rebecca Peters almost single-handedly brought gun confiscation to Australia and to England and is now the most feared gun-banner in the world. With more than 500 gun control organizations under her command worldwide, and with the unlimited financial backing of billionaire George Soros, she's determined to make gun confiscation a reality here in the United States -- through a U.N.-backed treaty that would be binding on every American citizen.
You and every American gun owner need to watch this debate -- and see first-hand this enormous and very real threat to our Second Amendment rights. Tune in on October 12th, and you'll see how gun banners have taken over the U.N. -- and how they intend to infect America with their anti-gun poison. You'll see for yourself how the biggest coalition of gun-ban organizations ever assembled on earth is working with the U.N. and with U.S. politicians to take away your rights.
You'll learn the truth about George Soros -- the foreign-born American financier who is spending his personal fortune to advance the global gun-ban movement as well as elect John Kerry to the White House on November 2nd. And you'll see for yourself why U.N. gun-ban extremists will be rejoicing around the world if John Kerry is elected President.
To prevent our nation from living under this soon-to-be-drafted United Nations gun control treaty in the years ahead, every American needs to know what the U.N. intends to do with our Second Amendment rights -- and every gun owner needs to watch this debate.
Please tune in to this historic debate. See the threat for yourself. And invite your gun-owning friends, neighbors and co-workers to watch with you.
I promise you, you'll never look at the U.N. in the same way again -- and you'll get the information you need to help defeat this U.N.-backed effort to ban our guns. Thanks in advance for watching -- and for Voting!
SHOWTIME:
Tuesday, October 12 9:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time HOW TO ORDER
iN DEMAND is the world's largest provider of Pay-Per-View television programming. Ordering methods vary from one local cable system to another, with the use of either your cable remote or your telephone. Call your local cable company for more information about its pay-per-view ordering process. Pricing is also determined by your local cable system. Please note that this debate will not be available on DIRECTV, Dish Network, or any other satellite network. Remember, the calling volume increases immediately before the start of an event. In order to avoid getting a busy signal we recommend that you place your order several hours beforehand. Thank you in advance for watching this important debate!!! For more information go to www.thegundebate.com.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DEBATE: DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!
At the end of the debate, you'll be provided a password allowing you to vote, using the Internet or your telephone, on this critical question: Should the United States Senate ratify the proposed United Nations treaty that bans private ownership of firearms?
It's vitally important for gun owners to win this vote -- and show the world that we won't give up our Second Amendment rights without a fight! But only those who have ordered this Pay-Per-View show and obtained the password are allowed to vote. So please, make sure to watch at the end of the show for your password, then cast YOUR vote for freedom!
Um... that won't happen here. I dare say the consequences would be disastrous.
Sorry, This country does not listen to the UN.
If any foreign entity (or domestic enemy)attempts to remove our Constitutionaly Protected Right to "Keep and BEAR ARMS", they will face an ARMED RESISTANCE.
Get US out of the UN, and kick the UN off US soil.
When will we learn this organization is crap.
One question: why are issues that directly impact our Constitution only being shown on PAY-PER-VIEW?
Something is incredibly fishy here.
I'm sure that the UN will think it's OK for "insurgents" or "freedom fighters" to keep their guns. Anyone but Republicans or white American males.
The UN, a good reason to keep and hide if necessary your guns. The best reason for keeping your guns is to keep the government, any government, afraid of you.
Good post. Next time, you might put the article first, and your comments below, to follow the standard practice.
perhaps she should travel to Iraq and tell Zarqawi to turn his gun in.
Well isn't that special. As a Life Member I should feel special that Wayne the money grubber LaPierre wants me to pay for a debate between him and some limp wristed Euroweenie?
Eigth years of Clinton, and I saw him get off his knees once and complain. What wayne has to say I have heard many times.
If push comes to shove, there's just one thing to remember: Blue Helmet=Target.
As I always say to any and all with some interest in political issues that I find it extremely ironic that "America's" push for internationalism and the assistance in the creation of supranational institutions in the Twentieth Century is finally coming round to bite us all. In fact, it’s almost poetic justice. What “we” have done is coming back to haunt us and our interests. It would be extremely funny if it the situation were not so bloody serious.
We marshaled (pun intended) support for the original version of the EEC (European Economic Community), (then EC > EU), EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and development), World Bank, IMF, U.N. and a whole host of other nascent international organizations. It should be duly noted that none of these organizations would have survived, let alone would have "prospered" without US assistance and backing in the post World War II period. As proponents of the liberal international “idealist” global regime constantly remind us all, we “felt” the need to rebuild Europe which in many parts showed effects of a significant World War, among other concerns they floated. We have all been repeatedly bludgeoned by the media and the mainstream historians with the virtues of globalism in general and the establishment of all of the new international institutions in the Twentieth Century in particular.
Did we really need to adopt the grand strategy that was actually employed (IE: Morgenthau’s et. Al.’s creation of the pan European institutions) in the post World War II period? Or were there other "arm's length" approaches possible that were not employed? Put another way, did "our" participation in the building of supranational/transnational institutions betray our own long term national interests when we assisted with the creation of international institutions in the Twentieth Century?
Lest we forget, we footed the entire now ungratefully unpaid-for bill for European reconstruction (excepting Finland). And to add insult to financial injury, we encounter significant political resistance from some quarters when we legitimately defend ourselves from attack from a determined, unpredictable and ever lurking terrorist enemy. The American taxpayer has been crucified on the altar of liberal internationalism for the better part of the last 60 years and no one seems to notice or much less care. As a bonus, American taxpayers (wittingly or not) through the involuntary tax system, are forced to fork over cash and loans for a wide array of foreign assistance programs, including but not limited to, governmental and nongovernmental grants, international loans and guarantees and direct foreign aid. The so-called international community now seeks to reward our generosity and beneficence by seeking to remove our personal American Right to lawfully keep and bear firearms.
If the U.S. wanted to pull out of them all and let the entire international system tank, we could stand on our own two feet. We have the national resources, we have the military, and we have our own National Constitution that is preeminent above and beyond the interests of any other. We need to re-think the development of international institutions in the last 200 or so years, with a particular emphasis on the last 60 years. Some fairly significant questions arise that have been buried by the mainstream media and historians.
Are our best interests being served? Are our vital, National strategic interests being served? Should our National Security and National Economic Security be vouchsafed to these benighted international organizations? What are the disadvantages to our being enmeshed in the present international system? Do international and global institutions protect American Citizens and their interests in the same manner that the U.S. National Constitution does? Can we trust the international institutions to preserve our rights? Do they take individual Liberty and Freedoms as seriously as the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Are there any other options available that can replace or retire the present international order? Can Sovereign Nation States break free from the present international regime and conduct diplomacy, trade and negotiations on a more bilateral or informally collaborative basis? How do the advent of multinational and global business enterprises compromise national laws and tend to reinforce the developing international regime?
From a reform standpoint, other questions naturally arise. For example, what political party could effect significant and lasting “regime change” in the international political and economic system? Or more generally, what can be done to move in a less unipolar, Globalistic direction, and move toward a more multipolar (at least) National world order that reinforces National Sovereignty and national laws over and above global and international regimes? If “push came to shove” could we take on the entire international system and win?
In the final analysis and at the most basic level, are individual American’s rights potentially threatened by the U.N. and/or any other pretentious world body?
You bet.
Heck, the UN won't stay in Iraq when 20 - 30 of their people are killed, just think what would happen here. They would lose 100s a day and that would just be in the cities.