What is your feeling about the United Nations attempting to dictate laws to the US and other countries about gun control (bans)? Keeping in mind this violates the United States Constitution.

Comments

• well put

  • Report
  

  by Cannabis its just a plant on June 13th, 2007

• Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by BAM@Cyberscrewed.tk on December 15th, 2007

• haha, very nice.

  • Report
  

  by The Wade on May 10th, 2008

• their more likely to fine you, then shoot you

  • Report
  

  by imortal on July 29th, 2008

Comments

• you neglected to mention that 75% of nations belonging to the U.N. despise America,Americans and Democracy and are guilty of attrocities(sp?) against there own people,do not allow women to vote or hold public office and are regarded as subservients, and have wickedly poor educational systems.And I agree,get the U.S. out of the u.n. and get the u.n. the hell out of the U.S.

  • Report
  

  by squirtgun on July 6th, 2008

• Thanks! and here here!!

  • Report
  

  by Scifisuz on July 7th, 2008

• Well said!

  • Report
  

  by Sugar-licious a bellydancing rum maiden on August 24th, 2008

• Yes they do and We have been forced to cover 60% of the U.N.s budget for nearly 40+ years now personally I say enough is enough, just one more corrupt Bureaucratic System buffer zone for the real criminals.
  
  ~Nemo~

  • Report
  

  by Nemo_S on August 25th, 2008

• Welcome to answerbag, Nemo_S!

  • Report
  

  by Sugar-licious a bellydancing rum maiden on August 26th, 2008

Comments

• They are HERE for a reason........

  • Report
  

  by Junk Yard Dog on January 27th, 2007

• yeah, to insult the US.

  • Report
  

  by The Wade on May 10th, 2008

• They are here strictly because it is the safest place TO be.

  • Report
  

  by squirtgun on July 6th, 2008

Comments

• yeeeeeeehaaa! cowboy

  • Report
  

  by imortal on July 29th, 2008

Comments

• And the US is doing a better job?`Just look at Israel, Africa and IRAQ!!!
  .
  Plus, talking about protecting your own is a bit of a stupid thing to do when you come from a country with the highest rate of "friendly fire" deaths in the world!

  • Report
  

  by slothmister on November 15th, 2007

• amen r f G. sloth, Russia has shot more of its own soldiers in the back INTENTIONALLY , during world war 1, than americans have been shot due to friendly fire incidents combined wwII+Korea+Vietnam+Iraq+Afghanistan.More Americans were shot in Washington D.C. in 2006 than were shot in Iraq and Afghanistan to date.

  • Report
  

  by squirtgun on July 6th, 2008

• squirtgun, over 2000 American soldiers have died in Iraq. If more than that have died in DC in 2006 then I am even more glad I do not live there.
  I think you need to check your facts before you try to argue a point.

  • Report
  

  by slothmister on July 6th, 2008

• i said shot .. not killed .. shot .. maybe you should check the facts.

  • Report
  

  by squirtgun on July 7th, 2008

• That makes it even harder to believe.

  • Report
  

  by slothmister on July 8th, 2008

Comments

• How exactly are weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons the same as gun control within our own country? Our laws don't effect other countries, and they can say they don't allow them in their countries and we have to respect their laws. Under this rationalization couldn't the US, as a "largely influential" part of the UN, dictate that all countries must allow gun rights as in our studies gun rights have proven to be beneficial in lowering violent crime rates? That would be ridiculous...as ridiculous as telling us we can't make laws to protect our own citizens.

  • Report
  

  by sheenashark on November 15th, 2007

• more peolpe are killed by conventional guns then by nukes anyway, im not saying their should not be stacks of weponds for civilian use, incase of invasion but why are you using them for petty gang crime instead of protection.

  • Report
  

  by imortal on July 29th, 2008

• freeluncher: Excellent and informed answer, yes a pariah nation if not one already +6.

  • Report
  

  by Carpediem COAT ab imo pectore on August 24th, 2008

Comments

• The United Nations works with Agreements/Resolutions between the member countries. The one related to fire arms was not in reference to what or how many weapons we US citizens may or not have.
  The proposed Resolution was regarding the TRANSPORTATION of fire arms from one country to another or from one continent to another. The US did not sign this Resolution along with three other countries North Korea, Somalia and Iran.

  • Report
  

  by Carpediem COAT ab imo pectore on December 31st, 2008

Comments

• That is a great idea it should move to Switzerland or any other serious country. We the US never pay our dues so we are not of much help anyway. We owe them 3 to 4 years and have done nothing to pay them.

  • Report
  

  by Carpediem COAT ab imo pectore on August 23rd, 2008

Comments

Comments

• The US on their own would not stand a chance in the world!
  You would not even try to invade Iraq without help from the UK. If they pulled out of the UN they would open the door for all anti-US countries to attack and would eventually loose.

  • Report
  

  by slothmister on November 15th, 2007

• I am deeply saddened to say this, we have become the most hated country in the world.
  slothmister: You are absolutely right. What a great pity +6.

  • Report
  

  by Carpediem COAT ab imo pectore on August 24th, 2008

• Nope, because this country is armed to the teeth! This nation will only fall from within.

  • Report
  

  by Monsterman on December 12th, 2008

• Monsterman: We Americans usually turn to weapons and violence when we feel the country may be somewhat threatened in any way, that is the bully in us. We are not armed to the teeth, our equipment is old and is suffering from metal fatigue, do you know who manages all the equipment and weapons that used to be in the hands of our armed forces? Allow me to explain, three months before 9/11 VP D. Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld took over and left our armed forces out of it. Read the enclosed article, you need Adobe Acrobat Reader for it.
  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E05E6DE1F3AE633A2575AC0A9659C946296D6CF
  .
  Our Intelligence Services are in a very low capability, if they would have been in due shape would the Intelligence have failed so miserably that it led us to war with Iraq? Couldn't we have taken Saddam as we did with Noriega in Panama? Unfortunately I can't provide any links to this as the documents are classified and thus unavailable. Sorry.

  • Report
  

  by Carpediem COAT ab imo pectore on December 12th, 2008

• To Monsterman: Check the enclosed video, it is about funding for our armed forces.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLQQ86XhH7M&feature=related

  • Report
  

  by Carpediem COAT ab imo pectore on December 12th, 2008

• Here is another link regarding Intelligence.
  http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/01/intel_contractors/

  • Report
  

  by Carpediem COAT ab imo pectore on December 12th, 2008

• No, I'm serious, and rather stoic. No country is going to invade this country. "We americans", first off, I'm coming from a practical and realistic standpoint: No nation will dare. I don't subscribe to the collectivist second amendment crowd, and I call myself a human being, not an "american". With that being said, I don't think you are an "american" to even come off with a tone such as that. I'm not "liberal", I'm not "conservative", I'm realistic and pragmatic. Salon and the nytimes sound like they want bad stuff to happen here, I know that much.
  
  Let me be frank: I'm going to live happily ever after, and god itself won't stop that.

  • Report
  

  by Monsterman on December 12th, 2008

Comments

• the only reason the japanese did not attempt a mainland invasion on the United States during World War II was because they knew that Americans could own weapons. they just didnt know how many Americans owned weapons.

  • Report
  

  by squirtgun on July 7th, 2008

• so if america colapsed and became the same as sudan, then they would not want peace keepers protecting them?

  • Report
  

  by imortal on July 29th, 2008

• what are you talking about burke ? the government may collapse, but that doesnt mean the people will, and it certainly wouldnt make the constitution null and void. I would rather defend myself against the combined forces of NATO then go up against the most well trained forces in the world, who also happen to be my countrymen

  • Report
  

  by squirtgun on February 24th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• sop your saying we should donate weponds to the UN so they can enforce it, good idea but iv only got change

  • Report
  

  by imortal on August 1st, 2008

• Not at all. I'm saying we need to scrap the UN and put something else in its place. The UN, as it currently exists, is really nothing more than a debating society. It would be better to spin off its constituent pieces (such as the ITU, UNICEF, etc.) and disband the general assembly.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 1st, 2008

Comments

Comments

• then next we can bomb that thier villiage coz they have oil.... i mean thier commies, as thiers no one who can legaly complain.
  
  rock on anarchy and dwath for all

  • Report
  

  by imortal on July 31st, 2008

• i mean death not dwath

  • Report
  

  by imortal on July 31st, 2008

Comments

• The Geneva Convention on War long predates the UN.

  • Report
  

  by mrbuddhafreak on December 31st, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• It is all about freedom and sovereignty in the end. Should we take the guns from the lawless and unregulated? Yes. Can we? The US or the UN can't force Sudan to do anything. Their citizens are making choices. Bad choices in a chaotic society, but choices none the less.

  • Report
  

  by Someguy on July 31st, 2008

• exept most of them choose to either ignore the violence and live in the city, or if their lack they choose to protect their children and run from the genocidel maniacs. those militants are supllyed unofficaly by the govermant of sudan. if the UN pushes gun restriction on the countries like them then less guns can be snecked tio the milliatants, it won;t solve the prblem, but the civilians that don't get raped or shot becoz of the militants lack of supplys won't complain.

  • Report
  

  by imortal on July 31st, 2008

Comments