Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession!

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
So you are trying to say that if every gun was suddenly taken away from the U.S there would be no great reduction in murder? Could you explain how that would be possible? Dismiss yourself boy, you haven't got a clue.

Define 'great reduction'. Of the 17,000 or so yearly murders in the US, about 6,000 do not involve a firearm. Obviously, a significant number of murderers in the US are already willing to use any weapon they can get their hands on. Given this fact, its a good bet that a large number of those remaining 11,000 would simply choose another weapon. Again, that's assuming that every gun were confiscated, which isn't going to happen.

Would there be an overall reduction result from total confiscation? Probably, but since we already know that about 1/3rd of US murders are already commited without the involvement of firearms, I doubt it would be all that much.

In reality, however, they will never be able to confiscate anything close to every firearm. Even if they could go door to door (which isn't going to happen, either), there would be millions, perhaps tens of millions, that wouldn't be turned in, along with untold billions of rounds of ammunition.

Originally posted by impressme

Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession!

www.infowars.com

Obama has promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that he would urge the Senate to take up CIFTA. He is doing this under the cover of the drug cartel violence in Mexico. Obama and Calderon quoted a statistic echoed by the corporate media that 90% of the weapons seized in Mexican raids were purchased from U.S. gun shops and a reason why the U.S. needs to ratify this treaty. In fact, this is a lie — only a mere 17% of guns found at Mexico crime scenes havebeen traced to the U.S.

CIFTA would bury the Second Amendment under “pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.��

(visit the link for the full news article)

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.

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
I don't see what the fuss is about. We aren't allowed guns in this country and there's less violent crime/murder than there is in the U.S.

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)

Now, obviously I'm going to get a pro-gun rant aimed at what I've just said, 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.

I don't know what you're defining as violent crime but I'd say that assaults are violent crimes and the UK has MORE THAN DOUBLE the amount of assaults than the US has. I'll provide my source when you provide yours, just know that mine is VERY reputable.

There are more than a few examples of situations where people's lives have been saved due to gun ownership AND possession of it. In my small area alone, and I don't live in a city over 200,000, there have been 7 examples within the past 3 weeks of people HOLDING the criminals at bay until the police could get there. Only one of these resulted in the death of the CRIMINAL.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

I don't know what you're defining as violent crime but I'd say that assaults are violent crimes and the UK has MORE THAN DOUBLE the amount of assaults than the US has. I'll provide my source when you provide yours, just know that mine is VERY reputable.

I think the thing some people fail to realize, especially those just looking at the numbers from overseas, is that the murder rate in the United States is not uniform, nor is there a direct relationship between firearm ownership rates, firearm laws and the murder rate. Not even close. Vermont, for example, has some very weak laws regarding firearms, yet also has a low murder rate by anyone's standard.

Meanwhile, cities such as Washington DC, Baltimore, and Chicago all but ban firearms, yet have murder rates several times the national average. Combined, all US cities with populations over 100,000 have a murder rate over twice the national average. Clearly, the population centers are skewing the statistics. This is why in most other areas of the country, people do not support a gun ban. It simply isn't a major issue there.


[edit on 4-5-2009 by vor78]

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.

You don't quite read well...

prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials”

Meaning, NO private sales, NO trade and NO private reloading. Everything will have to be under control by the FEDs to ``combat illicit manufacturing and trafficking``... meaning probably permits approved by the FEDs.

Didn't Henry Kissinger just recently assure the Russian President that Americans would be disarmed by September?

And yes, I agree that they're going for the ammo and not necessarily the guns. I think 'they' had a lot to do with the huge spike in ammunition sales after Obama got elected. They get you focused on the gun itself, when the plan was actually to get rid of the bullets. Crafty devils no doubt.

Peace

reply to post by Vitchilo


I disagree. It does not directly apply to domestic sales and manufacture of firearms in the US.

RECOGNIZING that states have developed different cultural and historical uses for firearms, and that the purpose of enhancing international cooperation to eradicate illicit transnational trafficking in firearms is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties;

RECALLING that States Parties have their respective domestic laws and regulations in the areas of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and recognizing that this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character, and recognizing that States Parties will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention;

On the surface, this does not appear to threaten US private firearm ownership. That doesn't mean its not something to keep an eye on, but as of right now, it appears that the current language does not affect domestic private usage, manufacture or ownership of firearms.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

I disagree. It does not directly apply to domestic sales and manufacture of firearms in the US.

RECOGNIZING that states have developed different cultural and historical uses for firearms, and that the purpose of enhancing international cooperation to eradicate illicit transnational trafficking in firearms is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties;

RECALLING that States Parties have their respective domestic laws and regulations in the areas of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and recognizing that this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character, and recognizing that States Parties will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention;

On the surface, this does not appear to threaten US private firearm ownership. That doesn't mean its not something to keep an eye on, but as of right now, it appears that the current language does not affect domestic private usage, manufacture or ownership of firearms.

Still, 'tis a slippery slope...

I'm afraid the Chinese will need you to be disarmed before they come to take possession of all that is 'theirs'.

It's not personal, you understand.......just business.......Illuminati business!

One 'slave owner' selling 'his' slaves to another 'slave owner'!


In the UK the only people with guns are the criminals and the Police.....so the criminals and the 'criminals' really.
The rest of us are just sitting ducks!

Ah well! All will be right.....in the end!

reply to post by impressme


The world is going to hell in a hand basket and this is barely seen on the news! "Oh but never mind that! Obama and the first lady just went out on their first romantic date!" Honestly I'm starting to get really tired of the stupid drones that voted this monkey into office.

I do not know why people are so surprised that he is pursuing gun bans of every type he can accomplish. Many idiots voted for him without looking at his track record in the past as a Senator.

For those of you who did not do proper research, we can expect more of this.

Barack Obama on Gun Control
I will just list the topics and for detailed explanation as well as sources support these claims, visit the link provided above.

Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban

April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Cheers. I didn't vote for him but now I have to live with it.

to be blatantly honest with you all, based on the way you talk in this thread and many others on guns i HOPE the government takes them away from you.

so many of you act (or talk) like crazed killers. of course there is a growing movement to disarm you.

i grew up in rural america, with lots of guns, and i know the type well.

there are those who use them as tools and then there are the tools who use them.

HR45 scares you because they will now if you have a handgun or assault weapon? that is telling.



[edit on 4-5-2009 by Animal]

seriously, I have never said anything this extreme before...

If they come for our guns, particularly given what we have all purchased recently...

if they do we should come out fighting, they knock on your neighbors door you come out shooting too...

Just end this once and for all make it a damn blood bath they never forget, send a message to the whole world at one shot, no nation, islam or anyone else will screw with us for 50 years if we do it.

Originally posted by impressme
In fact, this is a lie — only a mere 17% of guns found at Mexico crime scenes havebeen traced to the U.S.

This is a bit disingenuous, if not a lie in itself considering almost 40% of the guns were never tested.

The FOX article says :

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In english that means, "of the guns we thought worth testing 90% were from America". Not, "only 17% of the guns found were from Amerca".

The other guns simply were not tested, for a variety of reasons. But the bottom line is that they were *not tested* and there for no one can say where they originated from.

And BTW, just because a gun isn't or can't legally be sold in America doesn't mean it didn't come from here, as the article tries to imply.

This one statement, and the language for most of this document is so misleading that it can be interpreted anyway the government in power wants to:

" CONVINCED that combating the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials calls for international cooperation, exchange of information, and other appropriate measures at the national, regional, and international levels, and desiring to set a precedent for the international community in this regard;

STRESSING the need, in peace processes and post-conflict situations, to achieve effective control of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials in order to prevent their entry into the illicit market;"

Who makes the determination as to which companies now legally manufacturing firearms and associated products will be considered later to be an illegal company because some other country deems it so. This is the back door to letting the most corrupt organization in the world, The UN, to run our country and that's not acceptable to any American citizen worth their citizenship!

Zindo

Obama wants his own private army, equipped like the military. Does anyone remember this famous speech?

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Has anyone wondered why? Also there are new rules go far beyond establishing a plan to activate the U.S. military inside the country to deal with social issues, domestic emergencies, , and other domestic activities or special events that seem to VOID the Constitution.

In fact, the Constitution is designed to limit what government can and cannot do. It is essential for making sure the government stays out of our lives.

Soon we will have our Constitution replaced by global treaties. We have become a passive society.

Our forefathers would have already started another revolution! I wish we could rattle them from their graves. They weren’t scared to fight for their rights.

What has happened to us? What percentage of the population will hand over their guns? I wont. I have the right to protect my family and hunt for food. I guess I’ll become a criminal simply for being a gun owner.

I find this treay far fetched and hope it doesnt go through. They wont give up on the back door gun banning though.

reply to post by Hawkwind.


What you don't understand is that the criminals in the U.S. won't give up their guns EVER and it's impossible for the government to confiscate ALL of the guns. Those good citizens who would turn in their guns will be easy prey for the criminals with guns. It would be like taking a knife (or in your example: Cattle prod) to a gun fight. I'll keep my guns just in case I have to defend my family against robbery or aggression.

I don't think you'd want to throw rocks and someone with a gun pointed at you. There's too many guns in America for any type of reasonable gun ban to be effective. People will fight before giving up their guns and I'm one of them.

i like how we have to hear from the peanut gallery aka "rest of world" about OUR, the US of A's, rights that were declared as individual rights.

read this and then you'll understand something....

We don't care what you have to say. You already gave up your rights, and now a lot of you are piss-scared and want them back. too late isn't it. Just because you want America to become as much of a wussy as you are, doesn't mean that anyone will listen to you.

Americans who have legally purchased arms, are not to blame for the crime. They don't even commit crimes with their gun, unless you call defending yourself a crime...

I guess if you are from england, then you are a criminal for defending yourself HAHA.

suckahs!!

well all i can say is i didn't vote for the guy

I can't believe so many people are jumping on this story from infowars and taking it at face value. People are too lazy to do some research themselves and see what the bill being proposed is really all about.

It has nothing to do with banning personal firearms people, read the bill, then comment. Don't take Alex Jones word for ANYTHING.