It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:06 PM
Sigsung86, thanks for your interesting response. I suspect we'll end up agreeing to disagree. I don't usually make point by point responses, but I think several of the points you raise are close to the heart of the issue. So, let me try to answer.

Originally posted by sigung86

I live in a model of the world that precludes people with your view.

I don't understand this statement. The existence of other views and the people who hold them is an incontrovertible fact.

You want to make it the responsibility of a few to govern the actions of the many.

Not sure how you drew this conclusion from my post. Actually, I'm a strong believer in individual responsibility. I agree with you that we have gone way too far with the idea that "society" is reponsible for all of the greed, criminality, bad behaviour, boorish manners, road rage and other social ills. By no means do I believe that a few should be "managing" everyone else. That would be a prescription for tyranny.

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.

I agree with this statement. You think I have a vendetta or personal fear? Again, not sure how you got that from my post. My only personal phobia involves bears, for which l hope you will excuse me. It stems from past incidents when I was a prospector.

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.

Its not a question of innocence or guilt. I absolutely concede that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and have no criminal intent. I'm curious, though, why you mention "registered" owners. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Americans were NOT required to register weapons, and that this is something the NRA fights tooth and nail. I know that in the US there are many gun shows where anyone can show up and buy almost any kind of weapon. True?

Also, remember that one of my points was the general availability and access to firearms. I simply believe it to be self-evident that the more guns are out there, even if their original possessive intent was honest, then there will be more that are stolen by criminals, accidentally discharged, used in the heat of argument, and used for suicide. Keep the numbers down, and you keep all these outcomes down.

Originally posted by sigung86Why 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 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. ... Yet, the laws that are in place only impact the people who are caught in the act, so to speak.

Here I do have a complaint about logic. As you point out, all of the above is under a system of legal controls. Your concept of the role of laws, however, is flawed. Most laws are not preventive, they are meant as a deterrent. For example, we all have laws against robbing banks. Yet the law doesn't prevent them; they still occur. However, if there were no laws against robbing banks, then it would be open season on banks, and our economic system would fail. The law operates to minimize robbery, and make the activity safe - almost - so it can keep the banking system operating to everyone's benefit.

Most harmful drugs are banned outright. The sale and consumption of alcohol is controlled. The act of owning a car and driving is subject to all kinds of regulation. The purpose of all these controls and laws is not to prevent bad behaviour, but to deter and punish the irresponsible, as well as to impose a systematic method of common use so that social frictions, misuse and accidents are minimised.

And that's really my point about guns: in the US, legal controls are far too weak. I have no objection to gun ownership per se, just the extremely loose and casual way they are regarded.

Originally posted by sigung86
I'm innocent until caught in the crime and proven guilty. That's the way it works here in the goodl old USofA.

Yup. Same here.

Originally posted by sigung86
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.

Your information is incorrect. The Canadian government is NOT trying to confiscate guns. What they have done is set up a national firearm registry, but it has become an expensive boondoggle. It was originally supposed to be self-financing (through registration fees), but now is costing at least $1 billion (Canadian dollars) and on our way to 2. For this reason, its become a big political issue. Also, as many opponents are saying, "They're just registering the duck hunters. Criminals don't register. It does nothing for gun crime." Sound familiar? And I agree with this objection.

My stand? I am a member of the Conservative party, and we have been adamantly opposed to the gun registry. Canada already has strong controls on the sale of weapons, especially handguns. Some classes of weapons, such as automatic weapons, are banned outright (unlike the US).

I happen to believe that our biggest problem is the flow of illegal guns from (I give you three guesses). This is where Canada needs to concentrate its resources.

And that's one big reason I protest the overly lax controls on gun sales and ownership in the US. You are harming your neighbours.

Remember that with cars and alcohol, there are legitimate reasons to own and use. Alcohol is enjoyable and cars provide mobility. And yet both are subject to a tremendous web of regulation.

Guns, on the other hand, have only one use - to harm another individual. And yet many Americans have somehow convinced themselves that its wrong to regulate and control them even as much as you do cars.

I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:10 PM
"Are you tired of not getting the information you're look for on the net? Wasting time looking at ads? Tired of fighting about conspiracies? If you want to further the discussion about Conspiracy Theories, come to RESEARCHERS WELCOMED!"

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
Guns, on the other hand, have only one use - to harm another individual.

Or to protect yourself from some-one? You don't have to use a gun to "harm" someone; unless you count fear as (mental) harm?

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:12 PM

[edit on 12-6-2005 by Odium]

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:12 PM
How did I tripple post? Oh well...

[edit on 12-6-2005 by Odium]

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:56 PM

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.

To bad it is my right to own such a weapon. When the founding fathers of these great United States wrote the 2nd they ment that any weapon that the goverment possess, the civilian population is aloud to own. They wanted us to have this right so we could have the means to over throw an oppressive goverment. The Supream Court has even ruled that it is not the job of the police to protect the public from crime. When a armed man is in your house at 3:00 AM who are you going to rely the govertment who is to concerned with the rights of illegal immagrants or ..... yourself?

"From my cold, dead hands."- Charlton Heston

"Ted Kenndey's car has killed more people than my gun."

[edit on 13-6-2005 by svcadet32]

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:52 PM

Canada already has strong controls on the sale of weapons, especially handguns. Some classes of weapons, such as automatic weapons, are banned outright (unlike the US).

What are these "strong controls" on the sales of weapons, especially handguns? You may be surprised to find out what we face here.

As far as some classed of weapons being banned outright. Take a look at this:

§ 179.105 Transfer and possession of machine guns.

(a) General. As provided by 26 U.S.C. 5812 and 26 U.S.C. 5822, an application to make or transfer a firearm shall be denied if the making, transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the maker or transferee in violation of law. Section 922(o), Title 18, U.S.C., makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun, except a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986. Therefore, notwithstanding any other provision of this part, no application to make, transfer, or import a machinegun will be approved except as provided by this section.

(b) Machineguns lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986. A machinegun possessed in compliance with the provisions of this part prior to May 19, 1986, may continue to be lawfully possessed by the person to whom the machinegun is registered and may, upon compliance with the provisions of this part, be lawfully transferred to and possessed by the transferee.

So, we don't exactly have an outright ban on machineguns. We are however stuck with the very few left on the open market that fetch in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Not to mention all of the other requirements of The National Firearms Act.

As I have said before;
It's not as easy to buy a gun here as some seem to think! The "gun Show Loophole" myth has been perpetuated forever without any real evidence. No matter what any "media" tells you a potential buyer MUST at the very least pass an "Instant" Background Check (usually about a half hour) to buy any firearm (rifles and shotguns). MOST states require a waiting period as well.
Handguns are a mixed bag. Here in my state you pretty much need a concealed carry permit to purchase one (which I have). The concealed carry permit involves Handgun safety classes, Notorized application stating you are none of the things listed below*, Background checks by the State Department of Public Safety (DPS for short), The State Police and The FBI..
The hardest part I found was for them to get both of my fingerprint cards right. (One for DPS the other for FBI) My first card was rejected by the FBI after five weeks of waiting
. I went back and had new prints done and was a verified A+ citizen carrying a handgun after eight more weeks.

My point is that we don't have such lax gun laws as you may think.
The problem lies in enforcement.

*edit* oops, forgot this,

(1) Has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
(2) Is a fugitive from justice;
(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) Having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her 8 citizenship;
(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm. A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information. [18 U. S. C. 922( g) and (n), 27 CFR 178.32( a) and (b)]

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Fry2]

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by nathraq
It is not the gun manufacturers resposibility to enforce laws, or to seek out and stop those who are breaking the Law.

Of course not, however, it'd be smart of them to standardize some of the technologies that have been suggested to make it so guns are only fired by legal owners.

Anymore than the tobacco companies for teenage smoking,

It certianly is when they advertise to teens and if they don't have a program to make sure teens don't buy cigaretets illegaly.

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

Hmm, yes, I think that that is more correct. I shouldn't say you have to be in a militia to have a gun. Rather its saying 'militias are important, therefore the public needs to have weapons, so that we can have militias'. There's nothing about not having gun control or federal gun safety standards and the like tho.

I mean, if the 'left' or 'un' is out to disarm america, uin particular by emphasising gun violence in the media, then wouldn't it make a heck of a lot of sense for the gun industry to do something to pull the rug out from under them and really work, purely out of their own interests, to make sure that guns are only possesed by people who should legally own them?

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:22 PM
How odd here in the UK we get on just fine without guns. Although gun crime has risen in the UK the question is where do these guns come from? They aren't made in the UK so they must come from abroad.

In other words in a country where guns are not made and guns are not legal there is no need for guns.

If guns were banned world wide and all gun manufacturing facilities were closed and dismantled then there would actually be no need for guns since no one would have any, that would mean criminals and you.

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:52 PM
Do you actually think that it's a simple as that? Would all knowledge of firearms just "go away"?
It's too late to ban knowledge. You can't just "ban" them.
It's a lot like nuclear weapons. Look at N. Korea, Pakistan, India and Iran. The world does not want them to have them and they broke international laws to have them anyway. Do you think that the struggling machinists out there who, your initiative just made jobless, can't feed their families would turn down a job making black market guns?
Here's a clue for you "let's ban it" folks.
If you would get rid of the people that will cause you harm....FOR GOOD, you will be safe. Thinking that you will be safer from a murderer in your society because you made "pointy things" illegal will not. You now have to deal with blunt things ect ect.

From the way you folks portray us we should have masacres every day in every town in the country. We're not like that. The VAST majority of us just want to get on with our lives and get home for dinner. If I need to carry a gun every day to ensure that happens then that's what I do.
I have NO intention of being outgunned by the criminal element of my society. In fact, I think our firearms laws are nearly sufficient*. I just wish our justice system were a bit more effective with the violent criminals that none of us need.

* I would push for more stringent requirements on handgun carry permits as far as tactical use and firezones. Far too many people walked out of my class with NO CLUE as to what to do in a life or death situation but "aim and shoot". What about the old lady walking down the sidewalk 50ft behind the assailant? Perhaps the city bus driving by?
None of this was taught and I think it's wrong. Luckily, for me, My father taught me at a young age. I can't say the same for all of my classmates.

Every school in the country should be offering firearms classes from the kinder years all the way up through graduation. Look at the accidental death from firearms in Switzerland statistics if you don't believe me.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Fry2]

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:53 PM

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:04 PM

Originally posted by ShinjiIf guns were banned world wide and all gun manufacturing facilities were closed and dismantled then there would actually be no need for guns since no one would have any, that would mean criminals and you.

No offense, but if everyone would just hold hands and sing for a few hours each day the world'd'be a nicer happier place, but it ain't happening, there's not will, and its pretty much immpossible.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 12:15 AM
In my state purchasing a firearm is as easy as being 18(21 for handguns) and yet we have no significant amount of gun crime. I am generally angered by how many people don't own firearms. Most people that i meet are afriad of them and think, oh guns are bad. They could be so much saffer having them but think they are saffer unarmed and that will never make sense to me. If a crimiinal wants a gun he can get a gun, and if he can't than the victim will likely be killed in a much more painfull manor. So if the government wants to ban our guns and start a fight i believe they'll have one helluva fight on their hands.

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:17 PM
But will the American people fight? That's the real question.

If America is under-going a massive war (as people claim the will be) and this War results in the draft this would mean a large percentage of the population could be over seas. This would be all they would need to ban hand-guns and then get the Police to move in (individual states first) over a period of a few years. Then move on to assault rifles (the Clinton ban was a test) and just keep on going, till only a small minority of people have firearms anymore and shotguns and rifles will do very little against a Police Force - especially since those who fight back will just be "terrorists" and not "freedom fighters".

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 05:04 AM
UN = new wrold order they want to ban guns so no one can put up a fight when thewy take over and when i say no one i mean groups of rebels like in starwars

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:09 AM
Download "Fredom From War" State Department Document September 1960 ....Relative to UN Small Arms
edit on 18-7-2012 by richdav because: Didn't see smiley....

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:13 AM

U.N. Wants Global Gun Ban


That's so cute, really. While they are at it, why not ban internet pron.

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:18 AM
I'm all against guns but all for the second amendment. Enjoy your guns, it's your right!

In Reid vs. Covert (1957) the Supreme Court has already decided that

he Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.

Of all the things to fear, the U.N. is one of the most ridiculous.

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:38 AM
I think its edging ridiculous that these snobby little rich, private school kids that are worldwide officials think they have a right to stop people defending themselves.

I live in the UK (yeah, us pussies who happily handed them over) and have been thinking of moving somewhere Scandinavian, or Switzerland or somewhere that has lax gun control, so that I can actually protect myself in my home.

Any "westernised" countries that allow citizens to own guns without having to use hunting as an excuse?

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:11 PM
So the National Rifle Association is using alarmist and inflaming Chicken Little tactics to get American right-wingers riled up and scared?

So the United Nations wants some completely unrealistic and impossible to enact utopian thing to happen because they say it will make us all live in peace and harmony?

How is any of this new or even newsworthy at all?

If I went into my editor and told him about this story I know exactly what he'd do: He would look at me, blink a couple times, shrug his shoulders and say "so what?"

Of course the UN wants a world that will never, ever exist where life is like hanging out at some hippie commune, and of course the NRA is going to try to get everyone scared that jackbooted UN soldiers (which do not even exist, the UN has no army) are going to take your guns. Who cares? It's not like the UN is ever actually going to do this idiotic thing anyways.

On a side note, I do support the United Nations for their humanitarian relief efforts and as a global square for diplomacy between nations. I've got a big UN flag hanging in my office that was given to me by British soldiers in the Balkans, but if they ever want to be taken seriously at all, they have to stop with these frankly insane pie-in-the-sky ideas and do more real-world things to help reduce suffering today. Changing the world is a slow process, when you're trying to change it for the better.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in