U.N. Human Rights Chief Says U.S. Needs 'Robust Gun Regulation'

He's entitled to his opinion. Granted, its worth less to me than something I might scrape off the bottom of my shoe, but he's free to say it. I wonder if he feels the same way when the United States starts butting into his country's domestic affairs? Somehow, I suspect that this is not a two-way street.

Yeah, well Saudi Arabia needs more suicide bomb regulations.

a reply to: paraphi

Now your just making ridiculous statements.
You point to stats and when asked about chicago you reply "stats are all over the place" as if they are worthless.

Now you make a statement about uncontrolled guns. There are already gun laws in place in the US. The only "uncontrolled" guns are the ones in possession of criminals. Are you saying there are societies in which criminals do not exist?

a reply to: paraphi

Aim to eradicate hunger - World Food Program

And what are they doing about it ? Banter ? The food comes mainly from the US which would be provided anyway

- Support for refugees fleeing conflict and other ills - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

And do tell how they are going about that ? All I see are individual countries doing that? Mostly in the EU . Please , do tell how they support them other than words (Just words , just speeches)
Think how the UN owns absolutely no land to provide for them to live on.

Help to mothers and children - United Nations Children's Fund

Want to talk about how many times UNICEF has been under fire for fraud ?

- Support the global battle against HIV/AIDS

That would be true in name only. After all , WHO is a separate entity loosely under the UN . Mostly medical specialists from around the world.

Global fight against disease - World Health Organization

Again ,see above (this one was redundant)

And you forgot at least one -Oil for Food. Wait , how did that turn out again ?

Ok , back in your court . At least you are good at debates. I like it. No inane banter here
I even starred your post most honorable opponent .Very rare in these parts.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

you mean like the mujaheddin? they are two for two against super powers, or the Vietcong who beat usa and china and forced them to leave their nation? or how we beat a super power to gain our independence(help and money from the french) or how egypt had 3 frigging coups/revolutions in arab spring? or the Israelis in the 1948 war?

a reply to: shooterbrody


They just said on FOX that Trump is meeting with the NRA to discuss the idea of "if you are on the terrorist watch list you will not be able to have a gun".

The problem with that is the FEDs can put anyone they want on the watch list and there is so far no real way of finding out why you are on it or contesting it.

The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.

Over the years, the Obama and Bush Administrations have fiercely resisted disclosing the criteria for placing names on the databases—though the guidelines are officially labeled as unclassified. In May, Attorney General Eric Holder even invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent watchlisting guidelines from being disclosed in litigation launched by an American who was on the no fly list. In an affidavit, Holder called them a “clear roadmap” to the government’s terrorist-tracking apparatus, adding: “The Watchlisting Guidance, although unclassified, contains national security information that, if disclosed … could cause significant harm to national security.”

The Secret Government Rulebook for Labeling you a Terrorist

To get off the list there is a "Redress Form" that can be filled out BUT it just goes to the agency that put you on the list WITHOUT allowing you to know which agency OR WHY you were put on it! Then it is up to them if you stay on or get off.

So where is the due process?

Will the average citizen be able to afford an attorney to spend years in the legal system to get off of the list?

As you can see, the whole process is involved in secrecy!

a reply to: seeker1963

I think its something that's worth looking into, but the standards and situations where it can be applied need to be very well defined and very strict in order to prevent misuse and abuse. Its not enough to say that, 'well, if you get denied on that basis, you can petition the gov't to have your rights restored'. That's bull. The protections of due process and of our constitutional rights need to be much higher than that.

a reply to: seeker1963

The "being on a terror watch list and buying a gun" is smoke and bs IMO. If the FBI was investigating someone suspected of being a "terrorist" the FBI would have access to that persons data(bank account, credit cards). When said person made the purchase a record would be created(transaction reciepts,background checks); a record the FBI would have access to.

Why can we not ENFORCE the laws we have before making new laws?

originally posted by: shooterbrody


Now your just making ridiculous statements.
You point to stats and when asked about chicago you reply "stats are all over the place" as if they are worthless. ?

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "Chicago", that's why I ignored it.

The murder rate and research in the US around gun violence is well publicised, that's what I mean. If you cannot find them (the stats), or think they are made up then that's your affair. There have been numerous discussions on ATS that have covered that topic, including the almost weekly mass shooting, children shooting each other and police taking pot shots at anyone and anything.

The OP concerns a bleeding obvious statement on the fact that uncontrolled guns is a concern. If you can come up with a reason why it is not, then please do.

Here's something Shooting tracker

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: seeker1963

I think its something that's worth looking into, but the standards and situations where it can be applied need to be very well defined and very strict in order to prevent misuse and abuse. Its not enough to say that, 'well, if you get denied on that basis, you can petition the gov't to have your rights restored'. That's bull. The protections of due process and of our constitutional rights need to be much higher than that.

I agree! That's why I posted that. The idea wouldn't be bad in of itself, but the secrecy of the current system needs to be addressed and transparent BEFORE it is considered an option IMO. :u:

a reply to: paraphi

The areas in the US that have the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of crime. New laws wont fix that problem.
Criminals are prevented by law from purchasing guns. People with mental problems are prevented by law from purchasing guns. As there are gun laws on the books there are no "uncontrolled guns". The argument of "uncontrolled guns" is false from the start.

a reply to: Gothmog

Best keep it to topic. In the meantime I suggest you research the erroneous points you made. It's not that difficult. If you want to start a tread, do so and I'll be happy to help you on the path to correctness.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The argument of "uncontrolled guns" is false from the start.

Ok, I accept my error in suggesting otherwise. I agree fully that all guns and rights to possess are neatly controlled, and that there are robust laws in place to prevent guns getting into the hands of malcontents and others. Any evidence to the contrary is just wrong.

I agree with the U.N. and I own guns.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The argument of "uncontrolled guns" is false from the start.

Ok, I accept my error in suggesting otherwise. I agree fully that all guns and rights to possess are neatly controlled, and that there are robust laws in place to prevent guns getting into the hands of malcontents and others. Any evidence to the contrary is just wrong.

National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevent firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products

I guess these laws(only federal laws listed) are not robust enough for you.
The op and you are arguing like there are no gun laws in the USA.
But hey the "guns" are the problem right.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Like I said, I totally agree with you. Just think of the numbers of mass shootings, accidental shootings by kids and other violent mayhem if there were less laws and controls. It would be like Mexico!

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.cnsnews.com...

The United Nations’ human rights chief called on the United States Tuesday to enforce more effective gun control measures in the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack, dismissing as “irresponsible pro-gun propaganda” the notion that firearms make societies safer.

So the UN human rights chief is effectively crapping on the US Constitution.

If its nothing but a butt-wipe, it should be handled as such.

Need for milia, yeah right. As if any such milita could even dream of fighting a full-worth army.

I will never understand the fear of a US-citizen for the UN. Like that the UN would want to rule a country, or even could. The UN is such a piece of red tape, they couldn't govern their way out of a paperbag..

All in all: relax, nobody will want to touch your itzi-bitzi-rifles. Nobody cares for them. It should just be forbidden to buy new ones. The problem would solve itself then in the next 10-20 years.

So your countrys founding documents must be grade a toilet paper then. No need for militia or personal guns? My i wonder what the holocaust victims would say to that one. ALso A miltia can effectively fight a guerilla war against a proper army especially when most of the armed forces will stand with the people instead of the tyrannical government. Just look at the viet kong or taliban for examples.

Also Not manufacturing new Guns abridges the second amendment so its a violation to do so.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: shooterbrody

Like I said, I totally agree with you. Just think of the numbers of mass shootings, accidental shootings by kids and other violent mayhem if there were less laws and controls. It would be like Mexico!

I'm pretty sure Mexico has pretty strict gun laws that includes registration, banning certain firearms, people have to get permission before they leave their house with a gun, you can only buy firearms and ammunition from one outlet, need a permit before you can buy a weapon, 10 gun limit, if you aren't a member of the Mexican hunting and shooting federation then you can only own 1 handgun for home defense, ect. So your example of Mexico was a bad one since they they have pretty strict gun laws.