Author Topic: Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan  (Read 1021 times)

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« on: January 04, 2006, 11:07:39 AM »
LOL.. ran into this.. just had ta share.

"September 1 issue
Kofi: “Before you step on the rattlesnake...”

This letter recently received:

Kofi Annan
Secretary-General of the United Nations
(Temporarily) New York, New York
United States of America
RE: The Blue Helmet Blues

Dear Kofi,

You may recall that a couple years back I sent you a souvenir of how some of us here in Alabama celebrated United Nations Day - a thoroughly perforated steel helmet (painted U.N. baby blue), the result of a few minutes effort at our local firing range. You certainly did not take this hint of our disdain for your globalist gun-grabbing proposals to heart, for the reason I take keyboard to hand this day is to comment upon your scheduled "gun burning" by the U.N. Conference on Small Weapons scheduled for July 9.

First, as you grew up in Kwame Nkrumah's socialist Ghana and have been a global government bureaucrat since you graduated from college, I would be willing to bet you have little understanding of American history or Americans beyond the Hudson River. Of course there was that stint at Macalester College in St. Paul, but that was for a short time and very long ago (c. 1961). Much has changed in America since then, but much has not.

Let me tell you what has not changed: we still have men and women who will fight and die if necessary to maintain their God-given and traditional liberties. We are fewer in percentage of the general population than we were when you were going to college in "Frostbite Falls", but there are still enough of us to take on any combination of globalists and treasonous American Quislings-- enough to take you on and win. I share this with you for you are unlikely to hear such sentiments from the likes of Ted Turner or any of the circle of elitists you are acquainted with in New York, and it is important for you to hear the warning buzz before you step on the rattlesnake. Afterward, let it not be said that you took your step without being first warned by the natives that you were about to do a very, very stupid thing.

It's been tried before, you know, as His Majesty's General Gage could tell you were he alive today. General Gage, like you, did not want to start a war. Like you, General Gage thought his efforts to disarm our forebears were "reasonable". Like General Gage, you are apparently set upon a course that will, at length, precipitate another war to once again secure our inalienable liberties-- liberties that we derive not from an international bureaucracy's whims, but from God.

I note from the attached story below [the “Security Threat at the UN” AP story printed in last column] that other "gunnies", as I affectionately call my free brothers-in-arms, have written you in a similar vein. I also note that your bureaucratic servants have been frightened by these letters and emails, and while your minions admit that the messages carry no individual threats of harm they will be forwarded to "security experts" including, presumably, the FBI for analysis. This distorts and misinterprets our intent, I assure you. We are not threatening anyone personally. To announce publicly that any thief who breaks into your home will be shot can only be perceived as a threat by thieves, named and unnamed, and not the honest. The threat is contingent upon the act. And despite your stupidity in announcing your intent to achieve universal civilian disarmament, I certainly bear you no ill will, nor your Swedish-born wife, nor your children. Nor I daresay do any of the "gunnies" who have written you similarly.

It's just that as Americans, we never like to have to shoot somebody, even criminals caught in the act, before we warn them of their errant ways and give them the opportunity to cease and desist before deadly force is brought down upon them. It is the direct expression of American fair play for our police or armed citizens to call out, "Halt or I'll shoot". The same sentiment was expressed by the flag flown in our struggle against the British elitist gun-grabbers: "Don't Tread On Me" writ large beneath a nasty looking rattlesnake.

You must understand that having announced your intention to deny us our ancestral, God-given and inalienable rights you have placed yourself in the category of "criminal suspect". And while we would not shoot you lest we found you in commission of a crime on our soil, you should thank us for attempting to warn you against such folly before the unintended consequences of it catches up to you.

I didn't used to be so blunt. For many years I have argued history, law, facts and logic with liberal gun-grabbers of my own country. I have come to the conclusion that such arguments are useless exercises. In the end it always boils down to a conversation I once had with a child psychiatrist just before a "gun violence seminar".

The psychiatrist announced boldly (he thought): "Well, I think ALL guns should be banned."

"Really?" I responded, "Do YOU have a gun?"

"WWWWW Well, NO!" he stammered, seemingly as shocked as a lesbian would be if asked about male anatomy or Dracula if asked to hold a crucifix.

"Well, then," I smiled, "How do you propose to get mine then?" I asked.

That one puzzled him, but only for a second: "Why, we'll pass a law and you'll have to turn them into the government."

"Wrong, sport," I replied, "let me tell you how this works: If you want my gun you're gonna have to kill me to get it. You're gonna have to kill my son. You're gonna have to kill my brother. You're gonna have to kill all my friends. And if even 10% of American gun owners feel the way I do, you're gonna have to kill upwards of eight and a half million people, and that doesn't count all the godless gungrabbers like you that we'll kill in righteous self-defense before we meet our Maker, and we intend to make that more than a one-to-one ratio, so you've got to ask yourself: 'Is it worth it?'"

The psychiatrist, somewhat nonplussed by my vehemence, started backing up about half way through this oration and responded by stammering: "WWWWWWhy you're paranoid!"

I smiled and said softly, "Well, let's accept the expertness of that snap judgement, you being a psychiatrist and all. Let's say I'm 'paranoid.'" I offered. "Let's say I'm crazy." I winked at him. "I'm still armed to the teeth, that just complicates your problem, doesn't it?"

He turned to flee but I hooked him with one last question: "Can you just do me one favor, sport?"

He turned, listening.

"Just do me this favor: you want my guns, YOU come get them. Have the courage of your convictions and YOU come get them. Don't send somebody else's son or daughter in federal service to come get them. YOU come get them. And hey, I may even let you have 'em after I unload 'em."

The psychiatrist, like me, was on the seminar panel, and he waited in the back of the room until I took a seat, and then found the chair as far away from me as he could get.
[/b]

May I suggest Mr. Secretary-General, that if you're not prepared for the unintended consequences of your actions then it would perhaps be better if you did not send the UN down the American gun control road. It would also be wise to remember that a man who is willing to die for his country and liberty is most often also willing to kill for it. Just ask General Gage, another well intentioned gun-grabber, who fortunately for him escaped from this continent with his life after starting a long and costly war. A war, by the way, that we won.

May I also suggest that you step a little lightly when you're around free Americans like us, Mr. Annan. We don't take kindly to strangers trying to tell us which of our liberties meet the approval of the so-called "international community" and which do not. We may one day invite you to leave for your impolite temerity. We've whipped bigger and badder enemies than your globalist rabble before and we can do it again, any time you feel froggy.

MV, AL

P.S. We'll be celebrating July 9 by going to the range and perforating more blue helmets with 5.56mm, 7.62mm, 9mm, 11.4mm & 12.7mm holes. Just to keep our skills up, of course. No threat implied."

MV would not mind if we printed his name (or his address), but we omit it as a matter of practice.

----------------------------

There exists in this country a large contingient of 'paranoid' gun owning pain-in-the asses... and frankly, I'm happy to be one.
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2006, 11:40:04 AM »
I guess the writer forgot that the UN can't legislate anything that affects the USA that isn't approved by the POTUS and ratified by Congress; either that or the article is an attack on a paranoia-induced straw man issued on a rare trip out of the proverbial bunker.

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2006, 11:49:27 AM »
No doubt. I'm sure not concerned about Kofi, the UN or any other 'foreigin' threat here.

However, I did find the part I italicized and placed in bold print to be worthy of dissemenation.. because it mirrors my attitude pretty well. Most liberals are all for legislating guns outta the hands of American Riflemen. But, they don't have the testicles to take 'em themseleves.. they'd rather 'pass a law' and send somebody else to go get 'em.

Cowards. ;)
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2006, 11:58:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hangtime
Most liberals are all for legislating guns outta the hands of American Riflemen. But, they don't have the testicles to take 'em themseleves.. they'd rather 'pass a law' and send somebody else to go get 'em.


Hmmm... most?
sand

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2006, 12:04:00 PM »
Some libs think guns are A-OK.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2006, 12:06:57 PM »
Hmmm... some?
sand

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2006, 12:09:10 PM »
semantic nazi liberal bastage!

Offline indy007

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2006, 12:12:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... some?


Not many, but they exist. I can name.. uh... 2 friends of mine that are gun owning liberals. 2 out of a few hundred is still more than 0 :)

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2006, 12:22:02 PM »
Hmmm... not many?


Here's my point... The conservative/pro-gun versus liberal/anti-gun generality gets tossed around quite frequently. I'd like to see a poll asking people if they consider themselves to be liberal or conservative. Then, ask if they are for or against banning guns and see if there is a correlation.

Hell... it might as well happen here.

 
1. Do you consider yourself to be:
  a. Conservative
  b. Liberal

2. Do you believe that all guns should be banned?
  a. Yes
  b. No

You'll notice that each question is framed for maximum polarity. This is intentional. There is no gray.


I'll even go first.

1 = b
2 = b
sand

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2006, 12:36:24 PM »
Note that I said "MOST" liberals.. not "ALL" liberals. There are plenty of "anti-gun" conservatives too.. as well as anti-gun Libertarians.

Taking a stand on The Gun Issue by itself has had this kinda odd effect of coming with a PC label of 'Liberal' or 'Conservative' depending on which side of the fence you stand on.. which is foolish, really.

Good on Sandy for pointing that out. :aok
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline Debonair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2006, 12:44:42 PM »
Shell casing's rights have been ignored too long.
Out of the chambers & into the streets!

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2006, 12:46:46 PM »
Which leads to my other point. The so called anti-gun or pro-gun label paints the issue as if their are just two types... those that want guns banned and those that don't.
sand

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2006, 12:55:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Which leads to my other point. The so called anti-gun or pro-gun label paints the issue as if their are just two types... those that want guns banned and those that don't.


Ahhh.. and there's the shades of Grey?? !!
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline Debonair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2006, 01:15:26 PM »
as always it is



against


Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Letter in the Shotgun News to Kofi Annan
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2006, 02:46:22 PM »
If you put enough restrictions on firearms ownership you have in effect created a defacto ban.

If you make a firearm cost $5,000 in taxes and fees and licence and the storage device needed for it... then for a lot of people it is a ban.

If you make everyone have a huge gun safe then... for people who live in apartments that don't allow 800 lb gun safes then.... for them it is a ban..

If you ban handguns then it is a ban.

If you ban any gun that can't be used for "sporting purposes" then you have banned guns for what they constitution intended them to be used for.

A better question would be....

Do you consider yourself to be.

a) conservative

b) liberal

Do you feel that we have in this country.

a) too much gun control

b) not enough gun control

It matters not.... most would not admit to being either liberal or conservative (glad sandie finaly came out of the closet)

It is a fight of incramentalism tho... the gun banners are trying to undermine the strength of the gun culture by making owning guns such a hassel and so restricted that a lot of people will just not bother... when they get to number they can crush they will.    No gun restriction will ever be enough until they get a total ban.

My guess is that sandie would love to see even more restrictions on gun ownership and no restriction would ever seem unreasonable to him....  eroding rights a little at a time is the way of the gun grabbers.

I am positive that conservatives by and large favor less gun control than liberals...

In politics... the work of the poll has allready been done.   The NRA polls the politicians running for every office and grades them A-F   on their stand on gun control..more than 90% of democrats and liberals recieve failing grades.  the reverse is true of Republican candidates.    Sandies premis fails in the real world.  Liberal candidates don't come from the republican ranks.

lazs