Is this with respect to the possibility of anti-gun legislation being passed, or was this in response to the nth rerun of the email claiming that the U.N. was going to take our guns via treaty? There's a huge difference...
With respect, please explain the huge differences. Especially when dealing with our current administration that is infested with anti-gun politico's that will stop at nothing to shred our 2nd Amendment.
Yes, we've had anti-gun legislation in the past with other administrations. So it's ok to discuss that topic. But it's taboo to discuss the real possibility of the U.N. requesting stricter gun control for the US and the 'powers to be' listening. Which this administration would love anyway.
And why is it out of the question to even consider having a discussion here of the possibility of UN troops helping to enforce these laws in the US ?
If this could NEVER happen here in the US... or it could... the reasons why it couldn't or how it could, would be a worthy discussion.