UN to take over the Alamo

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status


    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 19, 2013


    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    No. Just...no. That piece is alarmist crap.

    This has been covered before, so I'll just copy, paste, and do some minor editing to something I wrote previously. To wit -

    The World Heritage Site was originally an idea from the U.S. We led the world in creating the whole idea of National Parks and in 1965 a White House study group proposed that something similar be done internationally. A bunch of nations got on board with that idea via the U.N.

    Mostly, it's a bureaucratic waste of money. A U.N. plaque will be placed somewhere on the grounds where it does not detract from the overall appearance of the site. There is absolutely no requirement to fly the U.N. flag. Yes, the Infowars piece references a site that does fly the flag. However, it's not required or even mentioned in the Operational Guidelines for the World Heritage Convention. The decision to fly that flag at the example site in Illinois was purely the bright idea of some local administrator.

    The World Heritage Site designation sometimes serves a legitimate purpose. If something of real historical, cultural, or natural significance is threatened with destruction, theoretically all the nations that have signed on to the program will chip in a few bucks to save whatever is threatened. Some good work of that sort has been done on multiple occasions, especially along the Nile.

    Also, designation of a location as a World Heritage Site automatically puts it under the protection of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. So, since these sites are supposed to be off-limits during war, neither side is supposed to use them to support their war effort. Also, neither side is supposed to willfully damage such sites.

    That means if we ever get into an all-out war again, no signatory to the agreement that created the site registry should ever attack:

    Now, just because this is all basically a nice idea that has grown a bureaucracy to administer it doesn't mean it is or isn't a legitimate government or U.N. function or worth the money spent on it. Everybody will have their opinion on that. The reason the U.N. pays any attention to historic or significant sites like national parks is only because the U.S. asked them to back in 1965.

    UNESCO doesn't "take over" or "manage" anything. This is not worth getting worked up over.


    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 4, 2009
    Fort Worth
    Alex Jones is a government plant to make alternative news look crazy. The guy has got to be on the .gov dole......or he's insane.

    I'd buy either of those stories but not much out of his mouth.


    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 3, 2010
    Occupied Texas
    No doubt that the Alamo is a sensitive subject, and nobody with half a brain should trust the UN to do anything except foster corruption. I have to wonder why anybody bothers with such a crap like this world heritage stuff.


    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 3, 2013
    Richmond/Rosenberg, TX
    Welcome to Texas(b).jpg



    Greeneye Tactical
    DK Firearms
    Tyrant Designs
    Every Day Man
    Weapon displays
    Defender Tactical
    Orion Cooker
    Firearms Legal
    Target Sports USA

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Latest member
    Deaf Smith
    Top Bottom