Our friends at the U.N. are at it again!

[Moose242]

I'd be very interested in reading an in depth look at how that would go down at this point. My perspective is that unless it was a swift and strong movement on the part of the secessionists, the government would just label it terrorism and use the military to do work. It's not the 1860's, when a bow and arrow wasn't too much of a disadvantage compared to a flintlock.

Just look at any modern revolution or civil conflict. Iran is a great example, as is Libya, Rhodesia, etc.

Also if you live in a Unibomber style shack you can read The Turner Diaries if you desire an American setting.

[Vertnut]

Just look at any modern revolution or civil conflict. Iran is a great example, as is Libya, Rhodesia, etc.

Also if you live in a Unibomber style shack you can read The Turner Diaries if you desire an American setting.

In that fictional book, the Aryans had control of some nuclear weapons (or some-such). Interesting read. It's been a while, but quite the pipe-dream.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Just look at any modern revolution or civil conflict. Iran is a great example, as is Libya, Rhodesia, etc.

Also if you live in a Unibomber style shack you can read The Turner Diaries if you desire an American setting.

We're talking about a revolt against a country with almost as much money devoted to military than the rest of the world combined.

I just don't picture it going nearly as well for the "resistance" as say... Afghanistan.

[Vertnut]

We're talking about a revolt against a country with almost as much money devoted to military than the rest of the world combined.

I just don't picture it going nearly as well for the "resistance" as say... Afghanistan.

No shit. The armed forces won't come a' calling on camels. In a true attempted takeover, they would lay waste to entire cities. Ironically, something our military won't do to other countries. Hmmm.

[Moose242]

We're talking about a revolt against a country with almost as much money devoted to military than the rest of the world combined.

I just don't picture it going nearly as well for the "resistance" as say... Afghanistan.

Surely not, but I do believe that a large section of our vastly right wing military would support the rebels if the head of state was someone like Obama.

[Vertnut]

Surely not, but I do believe that a large section of our vastly right wing military would support the rebels if the head of state was someone like Obama.

God, I hope you're right.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Surely not, but I do believe that a large section of our vastly right wing military would support the rebels if the head of state was someone like Obama.

Cross your fingers.

[YALE]

Has anyone seen the text of the treaty?

[LANTIRN]

LOL! Sure, put a multi-billion dollar a year industry out of work. Oh wait, you have to ban ALL guns in the country first somehow. Sounds legit.




George Bush (a republican) did that in 1989.




They have done this. Hell, every gun I want nowadays requires an additional $200 that back in '34 was a shitload of money.

Modern military weapons (select fires/full autos) were banned by Reagan in '86, 2 supreme court rulings say you can have pistols, and they cant take away your hunting rifles and shotguns. What the fuck other gun rights can we lose?

Right, because they never outlawed alcohol and put all the legitimate breweries and distilleries out of business.

[Jimbo]

I understand that it may not be a pressing issue, but any movement to limit firearm possession is going to make me wary. I just just can't see having a IDGAF attitude about it, especially with the current administration's disregard towards constitutionality.

[Moose242]

Right, because they never outlawed alcohol and put all the legitimate breweries and distilleries out of business.

Look how well it worked out!

[GhostTX]

Amendments have to be STATE approved, not congress.

And Treaties have to be ratified by 2/3 of Congress. I don't think the that'll happen.

[LANTIRN]

Look how well it worked out!

I am not even going to argue with you. Just keep your head buried in the sand while reminding yourself that the government would never hurt you or your rights.

[ceyko]

Yeah there is some ignorance being shown. I can't really blame someone who has never really been involved in the nasty side of the UN and may not really seen some of their peacekeeping operations - or has otherwise researched how f'ed up they really are in that group.

IMHO, the UN is the ultimate anti-gun group. However, they are an armed anti-gun group.

Ever read up or researched their "peacekeeping" missions? It could take 1-7 days to get approval for close air support/other tasks when the battle/shooting...etc is over in 1-5 minutes. Meanwhile the UN troops are dead and the refugees they are there to support are not any better off either.

I'm going to avoid going too far into this, but I truly believe that the UN would like nothing better than to disarm US citizens. I also believe our politicians are jacked up enough to try and make it happen.

Again, nothing good / plenty bad from it.

[onemeangixxer7502]

We're talking about a revolt against a country with almost as much money devoted to military than the rest of the world combined.

I just don't picture it going nearly as well for the "resistance" as say... Afghanistan.

We saw how well it worked for Russia when they invaded Afghanistan... While a drastically different environment money and technology is not always the answer