Posted on 01/12/2006 2:33:20 PM PST by jdege
"The civilian possession of small arms represents a serious challenge to the security of the international community and that of the States."
I seem to remember reading, somewhere, that the civilian possession of small arms is "necessary to the security of a free state".
If that is true, what does that say about the nature of the international community and those States that are so threatened by the civilian possession of small arms?
They can take it from my cold, dead hands.
A concept paper submitted by Mexico?
Mexico?
It is to laugh....
And the UN is a distinct threat to the "security of a free state.
Our founders thoughtfully included in our 'national legislation' just such. Civilians are allowed to own "arms" as they see fit. NEXT.
It is important to underscore that the discussions on regulation and control of civilian possession of SALW do not necessarily presuppose support for outright prohibitions, bans or comprehensive restrictions.
Oh No?
Live Free or die. MFs.
Come and take them, if you can,
but I might just take YOURS!
I must confess, I've always wanted a blue rifle...
Oh, sure.
Would "To kill tyrant politicians and their thug agents" be a legitimate reason to the UN?
"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crimes routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late," Kozinski said in his fiery opinion. "The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed.... However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once,"
Judge Alex Kozinski
Where the Constitution establishes a right of the people, no organ of the government, including the courts, can legitimately take that right away from the people," Kleinfeld wrote. "All of our rights, every one of them, may become impediments to the efficient functioning of our government and our society from time to time, but fortunately they are locked in by the Constitution against permanent loss because of temporary impediments."
Judge Andrew Kleinfeld
"Mexico?"
Yep...GW's "good buddies". The same creaps that voted against us in the security council for Iraq invasion.
Don't you feel the love?
Well I guess it isn't all that peaceful.
The UN represents the interests of governments and that is all. It will never take a stand on any issue that does not futher entrench the existing rulers and will always act against the interests of the people where these conflict with the security and power of the rulers. Of course rendering the subject peoples as powerless as possible is one of the UN's top priorities.
"Well wouldja feel better if they tossed 'em outa windas, little goil?" </Archie Bunker>
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Those dead European-Americans knew what they were talking about.
Reason #1: To poke holes in blue helmets.
MOLON LABE.
THE UNITED NATIONS IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.