UN vs US Gun Owners

-- Count Vronsky (Vronsky@anna.com), June 26, 1999

Answers

Count, hopefully one of the "silver linings" in the Y2K cloud that is about to engulf us is that it will circumvent any such best laid plans by governments.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 26, 1999.

This article opens with a picture of a soldier, and is captioned with: Canadian soldier searching for small arms under United Nations "authority" in the former Yugoslavia. Could this someday be a foreign soldier in the United States searching for weapons in your hometown? You are then shown an apparently "official" UN report. The author of the article however, has deceiptfully substituted words from the original UN report with words which would "shock" his audience. Instead of the original phrase of "Central African people" he has substituted the phrase "American people". Instead of the phrase "Captain Anicet Saulet, who has primary responsibility for the former rebels," he has substituted the phrase "Arnold Schwartzenegger, a well-known and popular actor,". He continued to do this throughout the page. [On the bottom of the page the author finally directs you to the "real" document.] The original UN report is in reference to a disarmament resolution which was REQUESTED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL. It was referring to some African nations which had been at war with each other and it addresses the surrender/collection of arms from "civilians, militias and illegal holders of weapons".

"Count Vronsky" states in his title to this thread: You be the judge. OK Count, I judge this to be a transparent attempt to sway the reader into buying a totally groundless supposition from an author who has some really weird agenda (of which I'm afraid to venture a guess). I now am left with 3 questions:

1. I realize I've had a couple beers, but why on earth did I waste my time researching this garbage?

2. What the hell could you have possibly meant "King of Spain" when you commented: "Count, hopefully one of the "silver linings" in the Y2K cloud that is about to engulf us is that it will circumvent any such best laid plans by governments". ???

3. Is this typical of your "research" King of Spain? (OR) Do you even read, let alone understand, what you comment on?

G'nite,

-- CD (not@here.com), June 26, 1999.

And let this failure to close Italics be a lesson to us all. DON"T DRINK AND TYPE! (I need a drink. Where's the space bar?)

-- CD (not@here.com), June 26, 1999.

Did you read all the way to the bottom in your research ? Nobody's hiding anything, or passing anything off.

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), June 26, 1999.

Good morning Count Vronsky. In answer to your question re: did I read all the way to the bottom - yes, I did. I also followed the links provided by the author. (BTW- are you aware that the "teaser" link entitled "Still skeptical? Why don't you click here merely takes you to a word for word repeat of the text he had linked you to previously? What's up with that?) Frankly Count, after once again re- reading the article(s) this morning, the only thing I would add to my previous comments would be an expression of self-contempt for having allowed "effort" to slip into "labor". If there is something you are trying to point out to me I'm afraid it is far too obscure for someone in my hung-over condition to recognize.

-- CD (not@here.com), June 26, 1999.

CD, while you are still sober (I hope), let me make it clear: I am not into "new world order" type doings. The Count obviously is. I did no "research" other than click on his link to get the jist of what he was trying to say.

I believe, honestly and truly, that even if there is some kind of master NWO plot that is being hatched (which as a matter of fact I don't believe), Y2K is going to be such a huge simultaneous horrible event, NOBODY is going to be able to control it. It will, I think, wipe out the "best laid plans of mice and men", no matter how evil, no matter how good. Because the truth is, you just can't do much of anything without computers these days, and without them it becomes impossible to carry out these kinds of "master plans" (assuming that they existed).

Plus, I HAD to be nice to the Count. He is a Count, for goodness sakes. You know, royal courtesy? Ahh, forget it commoner, you could not understand. Back to your drunken stupor with you.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 26, 1999.

"Plus, I HAD to be nice to the Count. He is a Count, for goodness sakes. You know, royal courtesy? Ahh, forget it commoner, you could not understand. Back to your drunken stupor with you".

LOL King! Tou7chi

-- CD (not@here.com), June 26, 1999.