It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.N. Wants Global Gun Ban

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
This same story is popping up on some other forums, too.

Much ado about nothing.

Exactly how would the U.N. enforce it? Send in the French Army? I'll pull out my wrist rocket and they would all surrender.



BTW -- Notice the 9/11 terrorists aimed the planes at the WTC and not the UN building? They wouldn't do that to their comrades-in-arms and fellow America haters.




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
this is just a theory, but what if global disarmarment is the tip of the iceberg? with our beloved weapons gone, we wont be able to resist the overtaking force, and we'll be completely open to a change for the worse.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Our arms won't ever be "gone". It's just a matter of time before someone tries to take them away.
I can't see it going well for that someone here in America.


[edit on 9-6-2005 by Fry2]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Oh no, i can see the New world order is coming, i guess the nwo has taken control over the UN... no no not the UN, wait nevermind, the UN can only wine and can't take any actions to enforce it, never minds guys hehehe

let the fire works begin if they begin to take away all our rights.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Well this same thing was said in Britain during the 1950's, they could never get our guns, nobody could take them from us, etc.

If the idea that the United Nations are owned by the "Big Banks" who aslo own the "media" then given time and state by state, I personnally think they will try to get it changed. All it would take would be a "string" of "Terrorist" attacks using legal weapons to get say sniper rifles banned, then maybe a set type of ammunition and move it on, slowly, year by year and then 20years from now - bang.

Gone easily as that and the people will think they're being made "safe".



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
I don't know what the UN is up to, but I can tell you that anyone from outside the US thinks that the US gun culture (or cult, if you will) is one of the weirdest things about the US. Nowhere else will you find an organization like the NRA, willing to argue that possession of machine guns is a citizen's right. Frankly, in Canada, one of our most serious crime issues is the smuggling of guns from the US into Canada. Of course, easy availability of guns in the US hurts the US more than us, but we all wish you would wake up to the problem.


The problem is not THE LEGAL GUN OWNERS WHO BELONG TO THE NRA. It is the ILLEGAL GUN OWNERS who have stolen and smuggled unregistered firearms. How many times does that have to be said before people understand it. An armed populace is a deterrent to crime. I do not want to have to defend myself with a golf club against a man armed with a machine gun. Criminals will always have guns, and unless the police can guarantee they will instantaneously materialize out of the ether whenever danger threatens, then I will not give up my guns.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Having an unregistered gun technically is not illegal, because forcing the registration of guns runs contrary to the Second Amendment. As I've said before, the Second Amendment (here in America) IS your gun permit!

And freedom wasn't won with registered guns! I bet if you suggested that to our Founding Fathers, they would roll on the floor laughing their collective rear ends off!



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
In respect to the US, I suppose the UN has the authority to override the US constitution?



No they don't. Not yet. There was a time in the US when the states were considered to be independent governments as well (hence the title "state" instead of province), rather than just adminstrators of federal law. Lincoln fixed that.

The UN should have no conferred power whatsoever. Its only function should be a global conference table to facilitate the resolving of conflicts. The day it gets the ability to tax or to raise an army is the day that will be remembered by the grandchildren as the fall of the entire earth to global fascism.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
if some government officials comes knocking on doors asking for guns people arent going to easily give them up. that is what makes the US so great is taht we have the power to own firearms. and if the un tries to invade, well, they wont get very far.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
We didn't?What about the Bill of Rights of 1689
freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for self-defence, as allowed by law.

Apologies, my understanding of English Law is, apparently, lacking. I was in error in thinking that they didn't have a legal right to bear arms.

groingrinder
The problem is not THE LEGAL GUN OWNERS WHO BELONG TO THE NRA. It is the ILLEGAL GUN OWNERS who have stolen and smuggled unregistered firearms

I agree, however, I would add that the problem is also the gun manufacturers. They are businesses, and there business is to sell guns. Muich like the tobacco companies will 'turn a blind eye' to illegal smuggling of cigarettes to south america, the gun companies do nothing to help the problem of gun control. Gun Control should mean preventing people who don't legally own guns from using them. The gun manufacturers can certianly do a number of things and adopt industry wide standards to help in this area. Indeed, if they can really do something about it, then things like actual machine guns and the like could be sold legally.

amethyst
Having an unregistered gun technically is not illegal, because forcing the registration of guns runs contrary to the Second Amendment. As I've said before, the Second Amendment (here in America) IS your gun permit!

IF you are part of a well organized militia. Generally, I think we can agree that if a person can qualify for a general blank 'gun ownership' permit, then they shoudl be able to have whatever they want because they aren't part of the problem. Its criminals that have guns without any kind of permit that are really the problem, they are the ones that make it excessive. If gun owners were smart, they'd agree to work something like that out, along with the manufacturers, because that would really have a positive effect on preventing the so-called 'anti-gun hysteria' in the media.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
[I agree, however, I would add that the problem is also the gun manufacturers. They are businesses, and there business is to sell guns. Muich like the tobacco companies will 'turn a blind eye' to illegal smuggling of cigarettes to south america, the gun companies do nothing to help the problem of gun control. Gun Control should mean preventing people who don't legally own guns from using them. The gun manufacturers can certianly do a number of things and adopt industry wide standards to help in this area. Indeed, if they can really do something about it, then things like actual machine guns and the like could be sold legally.


It is not the gun manufacturers resposibility to enforce laws, or to seek out and stop those who are breaking the Law. Anymore than the tobacco companies for teenage smoking, or McDonalds for making people fat.



IF you are part of a well organized militia.



That is only part of the phrasing of the second amendment.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

a well regulated militia (remember the comma), the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



[edit on 10-6-2005 by nathraq]

[edit on 10-6-2005 by nathraq]

[edit on 10-6-2005 by nathraq]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

The problem is not THE LEGAL GUN OWNERS WHO BELONG TO THE NRA. It is the ILLEGAL GUN OWNERS who have stolen and smuggled unregistered firearms. How many times does that have to be said before people understand it. An armed populace is a deterrent to crime. I do not want to have to defend myself with a golf club against a man armed with a machine gun. Criminals will always have guns, and unless the police can guarantee they will instantaneously materialize out of the ether whenever danger threatens, then I will not give up my guns.


So many logical errors, its hard to know where to begin. OK, firstly, I do hope you understand that "legal gun owners" are just as capable of illegal acts as anyone else. And they do. The legal gun owners beget the following:
- simple availability leads to a temptation to use "in the heat of the moment"
- the kids get at them and shoot others accidentally
- criminals break into your home and steal them
The issue isn't "who" is allowed to own them, but the ubiquitousness and general availability of guns. If they're out there, they will get used, one way or another. If you dry up the supply of guns, the incidence of use will fall. Its just as simple as that.

The concept of "legal" gun owners vs. criminals is false, since there are no meaningful controls on obtaining guns. If you believe that the "criminals" shouldn't have guns, what do you propose to do about it? Remember, the NRA will fight ANY controls of ANY kind whatsoever.

As for deterring crime, wouldn't you feel safer if your burgler were armed with a knife, instead of a gun? Then your golf club might be adequate. But I can almost guarantee you that the criminal will have the drop on you, if armed with a gun. He's expecting to be confronted; your gun is somewhere in the closet where the kids won't find it. The idea that you will someday be confronted with a criminal and you will heroically defend yourself and your family is pretty much a Walter Mitty fantasy.

May I also point out, that the American public is one of the most heavily armed in the world - how much crime do you claim has been deterred?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   


As for deterring crime, wouldn't you feel safer if your burgler were armed with a knife, instead of a gun? Then your golf club might be adequate.


Maybe the burglar is a 300lb man that has been using steroids and pumping iron 5 days a week while taking martial arts classes for the last 5 years. How confident due you feel with your golf club now? Wouldn't you rather have smith and wesson on your side?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Alex,

I live in a model of the world that precludes people with your view. You want to make it the responsibility of a few to govern the actions of the many. That is wrong on so many levels that I will not even start to call it a series of logical flaws.

Unfortunately, our world society has "evolved", or perhaps even worse, "devolved" to a point that virtually everyone accepts that they should not be able to think for themselves on certain issues.

The right to go through the world as a free man or free woman should be paramount and not given to being modified by every person who comes along with a personal vendetta, or a personal fear.

What about the right to being innocent until proven guilty? There are a good many people out there who are registered gun owners who do not have it in their minds to commit mayhem or murder. They are called, innocent. Your view of the issue indicates that they are just as surely to be guilty as the person who goes out and purchases a weapon with the sole intent of eventually using it to commit murder and mayhem. Why not use the same legislation to mandate car ownership?

People are out there who are, right this moment, driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. There are no mandatory checks in place to prevent that. The only way to completely prevent that is to take away everyone's right to ownership of an automobile. There are people out there, right this moment, who are driving with no insurance, or no license. There are no mandatory checks in place to prevent that. The only way those people can be caught is to be caught in the commision of a crime, and that usually involves the impact they cause on someone else, i.e. hit and run, impairing the safe transport that everyone else is entitled to by driving erratically, speeding excessively, or going extremely slowly. Yet, the laws that are in place only impact the people who are caught in the act, so to speak.

No... I will keep my firearms close to my side, because they are mine, because I want them, because I have purchased them, because I have no intention of acting in a felonious manner. Because I am a freeman in this world. Because I am innocent until proven guilty. OH... And I happen to have a car for the same reasons. Er ... Not to mention that the car, and the ownership of guns allows me to live my life the way I see fit, and not simply at the whim of someone who would take my guns... Or my car away ... I'm innocent until caught in the crime and proven guilty. That's the way it works here in the goodl old USofA.

But... That's just in my neck of the woods. Results may vary where you live ... Canada, isn't it? BTW... Seems I read not too long ago where the Canadian government's attempt to confiscate all weapons is becoming an ineffective government boondoggle and somewhat of an expensive government albatross, 'cause lots of people don't want to give theirs up.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
May I also point out, that the American public is one of the most heavily armed in the world - how much crime do you claim has been deterred?


Why do you jump at the chance to name america though? Losts of Nations have statistically higher gun ownership than America does and a much lower crime rate. Also Finland banned hand-guns several years ago and are now re-legalizing them due to the fact the crime rate increased - just as it is in England/Wales and not the other way around. It has been linked in several nations that once guns get outlawed only the crimianls have them. Which is easy enough to understand. Isn't it?

Also these crimianls have to pay for firearms in a "certain" way when they're illegal, due to the lack of checks and a record of this, this tends to lead to them doing more crimes to fund getting the gun and more crimes after once they are "safe".



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
SCARY !!!

It makes you think ? Why does the UN have any control over us as americans. One reason is that some former presidents have signed away our rights to the UN. Does anyone know how many rights have been signed away already that will affect us as americans in the future ? I used to follow this years ago but have purged my files. Will try to find on Govt Pages.

Can anyone help with this ?

Truth



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Give it 10 years and the UN will get its way with gun control.

UN have wanted it for years now



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ulshadow
...let the fire works begin if they begin to take away all our rights.


They already have. It's being done slowly and methodically so that you don't notice.

Here's how it works for gun control:

First they make sellers register new gun sales.

Then they pass legislation to make everyone else register their guns. They generate a few high profile cases of people being being locked up for life on "weapons charges" for what would otherwise have been petty crimes, so that almost everyone registers. After all, it's just registration, not confiscation.

Then they place tighter and tighter controls on which guns can be sold to who, and what types of ammo can be purchased, and all kinds of registrations and permits for gun and ammo sellers. The hoops get more and more complicated for those who want to own high caliber weapons, or automatic weapons, etc. Technically, the guns are not illegal, but the hurdles are set so high that few take advantage. This is a tricky way of skirting the 2nd Amendment.

Then they start gun "buy back" programs, where they ask people to voluntarily sell their guns to the police. They know who has them legally already, so you'll be hounded incessantly if you don't.

People with registered guns who refuse to sell them back find themselves being audited every year by the IRS, pulled over on the streets constantly, they find themsleves "under investigation" for bogus crimes etc. Most will get the hints at this point and "voluntarily" turn their weapons in.

Slowly, it becomes harder and harder to even get ammo legally.

Eventually, there are no gun sellers still in business, nowhere to buy ammo, and most weapons have been turned in. At that point, they finally criminalize anything more powerfull than a BB gun altogether.

Don't believe it can happen? How many individuals do you know who own major armaments? There used to be quite a few. Bit by bit they've been reducing the firepower that's legal to own.

Note that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms, not merely low caliber guns. From a constitutional perspective, you have the right to own unregistered machine guns, MOABs, bombers, and fighter jets, not just registered hunting rifles. But even hunting rifles, in enough hands, pose a risk to those with dictatorial aims. That's why they'll eventually have to be dealt with.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001



As for deterring crime, wouldn't you feel safer if your burgler were armed with a knife, instead of a gun? Then your golf club might be adequate.


Maybe the burglar is a 300lb man that has been using steroids and pumping iron 5 days a week while taking martial arts classes for the last 5 years. How confident due you feel with your golf club now? Wouldn't you rather have smith and wesson on your side?


Maybe he is, but I'm sure you'll admit how unlikely this is. Let's be realistic, instead. You haven't addressed my point. Of course, we can all dream up scenarios where we just happen to have our trusty revolver handy and ready to repulse the bad guy. And given the number of incidents that happen constantly, you will also be able to find an incident or two in the media where that scenario played out. But its unlikely. Its far more unlikely that the burgler (or psycho, or whatever) will have you at the disadvantage.

And if you do have a practice of keeping a loaded weapon at hand, your likelyhood of being involved in an accidental discharge is much greater. I still say its a fantasy to think you'll get the better of the intruder.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
In some respects he is right though Alex, it happened in Finland. They banned guns, violent crime and gun crime increased so much that now they're removing the ban on handguns.

Also if you look at the major difference between American and British Burglary, in America over half is done when nobody is home where as nearly two thirds is done with a victim at home.

Two Threads:
One
Two

Those give out statistics and show trends as well as peoples views on the subject. The World is better off when the people have guns, that way "we" still "have" are say.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join