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.

 

Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession!

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I did not expect this from Obama, I have to believe the shadow government that was behind George Bush, and his administration is still in power and pulling Obama strings.


I find it ironic that many of the angry gun owners respondents to his thread have hijacked it as an Anti-Obama rant. Especially since the OP's implication goes much deeper.

I suppose short sightedness and poor aim count more than reading and comprehension skills in this thread.

KK


[edit on 5-5-2009 by kinda kurious]




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dsm1664
This is my first post on ATS, I've been a visitor for a while, interested in various topics, but this particular one has prompted me to join and post.

Why do the American people need/want guns?

Simple question, look forward to the replies.


Hunting
Protection
Sport
Because it is our right



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I read through the comments on that article and all I can say is LOL.
So many of those people think that the British still run the US. Wake up people. The UK collapsed and lots its strength before you. The British government is so incompetent that it can't even keep track of its own passwords or the insurance details of its own people. How are such a malcoordinated group of fools going to control a much larger country. The Blair government was Bush's lapdog and the Brown government is falling apart around their ears. It has been over a decade since Britain and a good and strong government.

Anyway onto the main topic if you read the fox news link in the article it tells you just how few guns really come from the US. When the government makes such claims with supposed facts to back them up you always have to look hard to make sure they aren't hiding something. What they have covered here should make you think about what else they might be hiding from you.

-Cauch1



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Tentickles
 


Yes, we do have some problems with guns here in the UK, but gun crime is far less here than the USA and the vast majority of British people have no desire whatsoever to own a gun and are quite happy with the current policy.

We have never had 'the right to bear arms' so it could never have been taken away from us.

I assure you we have enough problems here at the moment without adding to them!

However, I fully understand your stance and that of the majority of US citizens over this.
It is your constitutional right and something that is part of the 'American psyche'.

Right on you do have problems in the UK, and your going to have more remember the british Empire was one of the most Tyranical governments to ever exist, there Tyranny is what forced america to stand up and Kick there Royal buts back across the pond, and we did it because we had GUNS. I imagine the Brits would love to see Americans disarmed but its 200 years to late in there eyes. History repeats its self and unarmed populations never fair all that well.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Verd_Vhett
 


Plus remember that Britain has begun to pave they road in accordance of a way of tyranny.

1. Only cops and criminals have guns.
2. Britain has banned photographing or videotaping any law-enforcement. This makes me wonder why? Are they planning on abusing citizens?
3. Britain still have violent crime problems. Only mainly with knives. If they ban knives then the problem will be with bats and so forth.

Guns don't make criminals. Criminals become criminals of thier own accord. It is a person's choice to pull the trigger, thrust the knife, swing the bat, or throw the rock. Tools. They are only tools. Granted some are deadlier than others but they are just tools. Used correctly they can save your life.

Which tool would you prefer in this scenario?
2:00 AM You and your wife and kids are asleep when you hear your window being broken. You hear a group of burglers pile through. What do you do? It's dark and you don't know what thier intentions are. Steal your stuff, kill or injur you or a member of your family, take your wife? These things are running through your head. Are they armed? Remember, criminals are more likely to have a gun.

A) A Smooth Stone
B) A Baseball bat
C) A Telephone
D) A Gun

Which one is will be more effective in protecting your family assuming you know how to use all 4 choices and are skilled using all 4?



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by dsm1664
This is my first post on ATS, I've been a visitor for a while, interested in various topics, but this particular one has prompted me to join and post.

Why do the American people need/want guns?

Simple question, look forward to the replies.


Hunting
Protection
Sport
Because it is our right





Hunting - OK, fair enough as long as you eat what you kill.
Sport - Clay pigeon shooting is fun, agreed

Protection - Against what, other people with guns right? Ironic, yes me thinks.

Because it is our right - Because it's your right, therefore you need a gun?

I can go along with the hunting (if needs must) and sport (as long as sport does not mean killing for fun), but I was waiting for some poor deluded person to state protection. To which you did. The only reason you would need a gun as a form of protection is to protect yourselves from other people with guns. Are you getting what i'm trying to say. If guns were only registered for people to use for hunting, or for people to use safely as sport, then you wouldn't need to own a gun for protection. Reduce the ownership of guns to those who "really" need a gun and therefore you would reduce the number of guns owned by people that didn't, rendering the "for protection" argument null and void.

Just because long ago in a galaxy far far away, someone wrote that it is "your right" doesn't mean it should still be valid today.

A long time a go, someone wrote that the world is flat, is that still valid today? Why should it be the right to own a mechinsim to kill another human being. Should it also be your right to own a genade, how about a rocket launcher?

Time moves forward, we learn from mistakes. I think it's time for this gun ownship right to move forward. We do not live in that time, needs were different back then, it is not a valid argument in the present.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Verd_Vhett

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Tentickles
 


Yes, we do have some problems with guns here in the UK, but gun crime is far less here than the USA and the vast majority of British people have no desire whatsoever to own a gun and are quite happy with the current policy.

We have never had 'the right to bear arms' so it could never have been taken away from us.

I assure you we have enough problems here at the moment without adding to them!

However, I fully understand your stance and that of the majority of US citizens over this.
It is your constitutional right and something that is part of the 'American psyche'.

Right on you do have problems in the UK, and your going to have more remember the british Empire was one of the most Tyranical governments to ever exist, there Tyranny is what forced america to stand up and Kick there Royal buts back across the pond, and we did it because we had GUNS. I imagine the Brits would love to see Americans disarmed but its 200 years to late in there eyes. History repeats its self and unarmed populations never fair all that well.



Unarmed populations never fair all that well due to idots with guns.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaxium
 


If it was the UK, then it's likely to be hoodies with a knife.


So I'd just shout really loud.




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dsm1664
Just because long ago in a galaxy far far away, someone wrote that it is "your right" doesn't mean it should still be valid today.


So I take it that you do not support the "Bill of Rights" or the Declaration of Independance? Both were written a long time ago.

We can argue that if you outlaw guns that all of the sudden no one will have guns right? This is what I am getting behind what you say. Am I correct?

If so, then do you really think that criminals will not have guns? Harder to get, yes. More expensive which means the successful ones will have them, yes. But, they will have them. Mac 9's and other fully automatic weapons are and have been banned in the US for a long, long time. Yet somehow they still turn up in criminals hands? Hmmmm.... This makes me think that even if they ban guns period they will still find a way to get thier hands on them.

I do hunt and eat what I hunt and what I cannot eat I give to the local homeless shelters so they have meat to cook. Plus, you obviously are not familier with living on or near the country where rattlesnakes are common. Eventually, we in Texas suberbs find ourselves in a predicament where our ankles are in close proximity with rattlers. Not fun and what do you do? Wait and stay still hoping the rattler goes away? Possible but not always. Can you move faster than a snake strike. Possible but not likely. Small gauge guns are helpfull in this scenario. I have saved my legs many times from would be rattler bites because I do have a choice to carry.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
Isn't it possible that your guns being taken away is a price worth paying? You can use stun guns or cattle prods to protect you instead can't you? Does your defence HAVE to be lethal? Can you not use non-lethal devices instead? That way we won't have to read about kids accidently blowing their heads off because they've been playing with Daddy's gun? (okay I know tht particular example is rare but it's only an example)


More kids die from bad parenting (like falling into a bucket of water and not being able to extract selves) than guns, and many crimes are prevented by guns, which are not ever reported. FACT: Guns stop more assault than they cause. Assault has happened since someone picked up a rock. All a gun does is give you the biggest rock and you can use that rock to keep your family safe.

Stop projecting emotions onto hunks of metal. Its the human who wields it, that matters.



I'll probably be subject to a few examples of situations where people's lives have been saved due to gun ownership but when it comes down to it abolishing guns would save more lives than having them, hide behind the second amendment all you like but that's a fact.


No, your facts are wrong, totally pre-formed by people who want you defenseless, like it sounds you are. Your only hope, is to keep trusting your national shepherds who have seen best to disarm you.

But in America, I am comforted by the number of guns. I know that the biggest threat to humans will be a global army. That's it. A UN global army will be the ultimate horrible thing for humans, and so I am grateful that God provided Atlantis (America) to prevent that from happening. Electronics and tazers will not stop such a monster, should it ever show its face in the US.

I am glad Atlantis/America is armed to the teeth and yes, perhaps some day guns will be eliminated by each individual person, but if it is forced, it will always backfire. There will be no success or rest for whomever is trying to force the non-gun principle onto the US. I think someday we'll have peace, but now is not the time to seek it at the price you are claiming "was worth it" i.e. disarmament.

The disarmed sheep like yourself will surely put all their will behind the gun grabbers, but the armed commoners will see you as a sheep empowering your evil shepherd.

Atlantis/America was established on the idea of an armed individual and an armed family. The goal in that was to guard the country from tyranny. I think all sheep and elected officials ought to familiarize themselves with the Monroe Doctrine?



wiki/Monroe_Doctrine#Criticism

Other critics have interpreted the Monroe Doctrine as isolationist in intent.[who?]


Even on Wikipedia, there is a fight to determine what it means to be a patriotic American. But in fact, if you do the reading, it becomes clear that a Doctrine can be used by either side, for good or bad. In the case of Monroe, it's used for good by those who know it, but used for bad by those who would label the USA as 'isolationist'.

But even Chomsky must agree, that a UN global army, is the worst thing that could ever happen on Earth. The future tyranny comes in a blue robe and calls itself a peaceful King. Also it has a machete in its hand, not a gun.

It's pretty clear imo as to who has the moral high ground in 2009 and that is the armed American patriots. They know this is Atlantis, and they will never leave, and never give it up.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaxium
So I take it that you do not support the "Bill of Rights" or the Declaration of Independance? Both were written a long time ago.


Agreed. They were written a long time ago. When "Sate of the Art" consisted of a single shot muzzle loader not an AK47

Granted, I am not one to propose amending the Constitution or the core principles on which our great nation was founded, but times have changed.
I am not suggesting that you are hiding behind the documents or 2nd amendment, but I ask.

Would you want surgery or dental work performed with the archaic technology that existed over 200 years ago? I think not.

Regards...KK


[edit on 5-5-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
If true, (it is infowars, after all) this doesn't surprise me. It only makes sense that the anti-gun nazis would use the Mexican drug violence as an excuse to make an attack on the Second Amendment.


TA


hence the swine flu taking attention away from that issue.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Granted no I would not like dental work done using stone age tools. I do not entirely see your connection between modern single shot guns verses the single-shot muzzelloaders they did have during the writhing of those 2 beautiful documents. Again, just to clarify if anyone reading is misunderstanding exactly which guns I am for. I agree that all fully-automatic's should continue to remain in thier current status = banned. I do not agree that all semi-automatics should be banned. Why? Let's just say hunting is easier, ankles have been saved from a few rattlesnake bites, and I like comfort that I can protect myself and family if needed.

If there was a gauruntee that there is no chance, ABSOLUTLY NO CHANCE via black market or other illegla means that criminals could get thier hands on guns or make a gun I would be more apt to lean closer towards banning of more semi-auto's.

The scenario I painted in the previos posts in this thread actually happened to my neighbor. 2:00 AM 3 "hoodies" broke into his house. He hid his wife in the closet as there were no windows to escape out of. Afterwards he headed towards his 7 yr old daughter's room. The hoodies found him and his daughter as the daughter was crying out load. The hoodies only had a knife. All 3 of them had a knife. He had nothing except a golf club. The hoodies subdued him when they tried to grab his daughter. At that point the hoodies discovered his wife. The hoodies duct taped him and his daughter while they took turns on his wife in front of him and his daughter. (I cannot imagine a more horrifying experience) 2 Hours later of beating him and his daughter and the wife they finally grabbed what they wanted to steal and left. The wife spent 1 week in the hospital before being released. The wife was never the same and did not speak a word even to this day. 6 years ago! The daughter has mental problems having witnessed the event and the husband is suicidal because he blames himself for not being able to prevent this catastrophe from occuring. All 3 member of this family are now pro-guns and the husband and wife now know how to shoot and own guns for protection.

Just because a horrible event like this has not happend to you or someone you know does not mean this does not occur. Instances such as these give every justification for defending yourself and especially your family by any means necessary. Do not dilude yourself into thinking that the world is perfect and without crime. This occurs more often than you think. In the event that I woke up with the sounds of someone breaking in I will have my gun in hand and if the "hoodies" to do scram when I identify I have a gun aimed at them I will pull the trigger.

This subject is touchy to me because I have close experience that guns can and do save lives when used properly in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

The End.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


With that argument, anything that wasn't in vogue or invented then is now not covered under our constitution? That idea makes our founding fathers total idiots not knowing that, just maybe, we might invent new machines that do any job better than what they came up with then. Kinda makes Ole' Ben Franklin a real idiot for inventing all those things that he did because they didn't concievve of them when they wrote our founding documents!
Zindo



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Sorry to rain in your parade but you are wrong.

From that same article you posted.



MINDFUL of the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on measures to eradicate the illicit transfer of conventional weapons and on the need for all states to guarantee their security, and of the efforts carried out in the framework of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD);



And exactly where is this stating that they plan on taking LEGALLY owned weapons?

Again, they are talking about the "ILLICIT (ILLEGAL) transfer of conventional weapons"!



First of all, reloading would be viewed as being "illicit", even though many people reload their own ammunition.


I'm not sure about this one, you might be correct here, they do seem to be leaning towards a way to identify who bought ammunition so that if that ammunition was used in a crime they could trace it back to the person who bought it.



Second of all, this treaty will give sovereignty over to the United Nations.



Where do you dig this up from?

This treaty that they are talking about, CIFTA. Here is the link to the CIFTA website, listed here are ALL the resolutions for the treaty. Please look through ALL the resolutions, I fail to see any mention about what you are talking about here.


Third of all, one of the goals of the UN is to disarm the people in every nation, which is part of their "Global Disarmament" policy.


This treaty has nothing to do with the UN!

This is a treaty between the Organization of American States (OAS)!

The CIFTA DOES mention the UN United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons

CIFTA

]
BEARING IN MIND the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects and the hemispheric contribution to its implementation, and the importance of taking concrete measures in the Hemisphere toward implementation of the national, regional, and global components of that Programme of Action;


Now, let's see if there is anything in the UN's program that says it wants to take away legal weapons!

Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapon


All I read on this UN website is about illicit/illegal firearms trafficking, manufacturing, and disarmament of illicit/illegal weapons.

[edit on 5/5/2009 by Keyhole]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by andy133
 
As Americans, we DO NOT have an obssesion with violence. However, we do have an obsession about the law, because the law is what protects us from the government.
The founding fathers had a good reason for inserting the second amendment into the Bill of Rights. If the govdernment rogue, the the citizens would be able to protect themselves.
Our government is very, very close to going rogue. If national government turns against the constitution, as it appears they are trying to do, then the States will have to turn to their own militias to protect the citizens from the national government. Those militias will be made up of the citizens of the individual states who have the cojones to possess weapons in difiance of those who would become dictators tell us we must do, because it is the law of the land.
The Law Of The Land is the constitution and it can only be changed by the people. The process is somewhat difficult, but again we have the wisdom of the forward thinking founding fathers to thank for this. To add and amendment, or to repeal one is difficult, so that that great document will truly be the Will Of The People.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


This is one of the key debates that I believe we have failed to mention. One current example of legislation why it "appears" they are taking big leaps towards taking away legally owned guns is H.R. 45.

Here is a link to read HR 45 in its current form.

Some interpret the list of what they want to ban most if not all semi-auto handguns. (The jargon in the currently available legislation is not translated out of the lawyer language.) Some feel that this is the direction they want to go. I do know that Obama has a history of supporting seemingly anti-gun bills while he was Senator. There are many websites which show his track record and voting history on this and many other issues. First make it restrictive of who can or whom cannot own one. This appears OK at first. Who can argue that? But, they can also deem anything psychological since we have to submit a mental phyciatric test to apply for the license. Anti-gunners will end up using the new rules as a means of achieving thier goals. Granted there are some out there who should not have guns but do. The problem comes with this bill gives them the tools they need that they can exploit it to still accomplish a gun ban without actually having a law that states "all guns are banned".

Now that they can pick and choose whom not to get a gun. How can they deal with those who do have one? Oh, wait! Tax the crude out of ammunition and ban reloading. Much like they have done to cigarrettes and tobacco. Many who want to continue smoking cannot because they can no longer afford a $6 + pack of smokes. Yes, we all know smoking is bad for you but it is a choice. They are now slowly attacking a "sugar tax" for foods with sugars. If it has not passed in your state yet just wait.

OK, now we have a list of all persons who have a license and we have thier list of thier guns. Next step is to go door-to-door and confiscat. No HR 45 does not state anything like a gun confiscation but it gives them the tools they need to begin one if they want in the future. The List.

I believe some of us who are pro-gun rights are up in arms because we do forsee these events happening. Allowing such legislation to pass gives them a head start. Who knows what the bill will say if it is re-written once it comes out of the subcommitee. It may be fine after thier revisions or it could be worse. Point is, this is America. Most do not want to live in a world where only cops and criminals can have guns. Ask any former citizen of Soviet Russia during the time of 1950 - 1985 if that system works. We do not want America turning into what we once stood up against.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dsm1664
 


I'm sorry but if someone breaks into my house with a knife, I want to have a gun. If they have a gun, I want a bigger gun. I don't want to fight for my life on equal ground.

So yes, protection still plays.

Yep along time ago someone said we as Americans have the right to bear arms. Just like they said we have the right to pursue happiness.


Since all of those rights were written along time ago in a far away galaxy, maybe we should rewrite the whole thing?

But what do you care? You aren't American, it doesn't affect you one way or another. You can't have them so you don't think anyone else should.


[edit on 5-5-2009 by jd140]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


Well said, nothing p***es me off more than people from other countries who have NO knowledge of our laws trying to shove their stupid hippie "Kumbaya" ideas down people's heads without even bothering to ask WHY we need the laws that we have in the first place. It's like they honestly don't care, they just want to appear and "feel" as if they're right or righteous when in reality, they're coming off as an ignorant snob who thinks they know better than the rest of us (again, without even being here or living our experiences).

I'm starting to really wish we could go back to being an isolationist country just as the founding fathers originally intended this country to be. I get out of your business, and you stay the heck out of mine.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

ok...all you people...READ THE F'IN CIFTA PAPER COMPLETELY!!! it took me 5 minutes to find where they DO NOT ban ownership, sales, even trading of weapons...what's wrong with you.



Perhaps it would be prudent to not only read H.R. 45 but comprehend what it implies also.


The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things: a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. And those are only some of the requirements to be licensed!

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in America. Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" -- defined as "any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device without one of the proposed licenses
www.nraila.org...




top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join