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.


Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on May, 4 2009 @ 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Animal
I am sorry it upsets good people but there are a LOT of bad people taking advantage of the prevalence of guns in our society and something must be done to stop it.

I agree, something needs to be done, but I think its better enforcement of current laws, not new ones.

I don't think it accomplishes anything to institute any type of ban, except to stomp on the rights of legitimate gun owners. I don't think it would result in any significant dip in the homicide rate in the US and perhaps could make it worse. If necessary, they'd just find another type of weapon. 6,000 per year, or about 35%, are already committed without the use of firearms.

If you want to solve the problem, it would be better to let it be known that violent criminals will never be turned out of the prison system. A lot of them get out after only a few years, largely to make room for a few potheads and petty thieves. Additionally, we need to crack down hard on inner city gang activity and make a push to improve the quality of life in those areas and any others where poverty is an issue.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by vor78]

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 12:58 PM

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Animal

No its a shame that people like you, who wish to be sheep in a wolf's world keep thinking those of us who want to keep our rights and our constitution tell us to leave and for you to think that everything would be peachy keen if we did. If you wish to live in a world with no fear then get a pair and start living with out fear. Stop trying to make uptopia out of a world that would never accept it. We who wish to live our lives in the manner we wish don't need you to keep telling us we're wrong and your the one with the perfect reasoning! You live your way and we'll live ours and we'll see who is still standing when your rights get taken from you because you believe in the utopian ideal.

How humorous! Because I think guns are tools that generally tools get attached to and are therefore highly unsafe, does not make me a sheep.

Perhaps using the word 'fear of guns' was overly simplistic, but you assume too much Zindo.

You see to me it is all of you who fear a world WITH OUT guns that IMHO need to 'grow a pair'.

And also to clarify, if I did not, as I think I did earlier on in this thread, make a distinction between assault weapons and guns that are clearly 'tools' than I should have.

But even if I did it generally does not matter because the pro-gun people out there prefer to not pay attention to the details and choose to make it about the 'right to bear arms' in general.

I am all for people being able to use guns but not those designed for killing humans.

Also, your digression into 'Utopian ideals' is comical and a distraction for the topic at hand. I never said anything about utopia, I was simply talking about the control of guns.

Guns = more death. Be they owned by good people or bad more people die the more of them that exist.

But lets be honest the story here is not EVEN about taking them away, just keeping track of them, so why all the angst about your right to bear them, no one is changing that?

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:00 PM
Keep your guns.

This treaty outlaws the illicit gun traficking. If you are going to sell guns, do it legally. If you are manufacturing ammunition guns for the purpose of undocumented sales, then you have a problem.

Think of a car...if you are repairing, restoring or legally modifying a vehicle you are doing just that. If you are running an assembly line for the purpose of selling vehicles, then you are a "manufacturer".

Buying old or new guns in bulk and reselling them without legal documentation...BAD

Legally modifying personal weapons or creating ammo for personal use...FINE

The wording in this treaty was chosen carefully and contrary to the BS being shouted here the treaty needs to be ratified by the Senate which the NRA SIGNIFICANTLY contributes believe me the NRA will have its say on the wording as well....and honestly it will not pass anyways, that's just money and politics.

Again....Intelligent and HONEST assesment of proposed laws fosters credibility with the public and results in political capital.

Distortion and outright lies hurts the cause.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maybereal11]

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:01 PM
Wow, the ignorance in this thread is rife. Did any of you who were so quick to jump to conclusions actually read CIFTA, or did you all just take Alex Jones' word for it?

He's fear-mongering, and you all fell for it. The bill does not call for the banning of legal firearms, it only calls for the prevention of the illicit weapons trade.

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;

emphasis mine

So there it is, you all buy into Alex Jones' crap, and its no wonder people from other countries don't respect our right to bear arms. You guys make gun owners look like shortsighted fools. Any intelligent person who owns a firearm knows to think before you shoot. I wonder how many of you, who so readily jump to conclusions, are level-headed enough to handle yourselves with a weapon.

And before anyone jumps to conclusions, I support the second amendment in its entirety, just as I support the entire constitution. I support responsible gun ownership, and the day they do decide to take away legal gun ownership is the day they can pry mine from my cold dead fingers. Our forefathers saw the need for gun ownership for one reason and one reason only: to prevent the tyranny of government from overpowering the citizenry.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by maybereal11

Yes, it does say illicit. Who makes the decision of who is an illicit manufacturer? I have worked for firearms companies and built firearms and its not just slap some pipes together and go for it. Zip guns and other home built not withstanding, no one would buy a firearm like that! It takes millions of $ to start a company and millions more to keep it going. There aren't any illicit companies in this country so who exactly are those companies this is supposed to legislate against? These folks change rules like most people change socks and what they interpret in the language usually beres no resemblance to common sense. They will tie this to Obama's UN resolution S 2433 later on and make all US manufacturers illicit. Another sound business segment ruined by government meddling!


posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:07 PM
Unfortunately thanks to Alex Jones, he probably just raised the price of common caliber ammunition (.223, 7.62, 9MM, ect..)

People are going to buy into his panic.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by Anonymous Avatar
This a very simple matter of privacy.

Your right to privacy ends at the same place where my right to live without the threat of gun violence begins mate.

I am HAPPY to know the government wants to track handguns and assault weapons.

Don't like it? Then move somewhere where you can do what you like with your guns.

No one is trying to tell you how to live, they are simply trying to keep track of devices that have been increasingly involved in the killing of WAY too many humans to be ignored.

Just like my medical records, phone records, finances, and everything else in my life, including guns is none of your damn business nor is it the business of the government.

I disagree, a gun(s) is VERY different from your medical records, phone records and finances. Guns can be used to KILL people rather easily your phone or medical records can not. Who owns guns designed for KILLING humans is absolutely My business and the business of the government.

I am breaking no laws so leave me alone.

I have nothing to hide but I also don't need anyone else telling me how to live.

Cool, I am okay with that, buy I will not budge on making sure there is a balance between your freedom to carry a gun and my freedom to live without the fear of being killed by a gun.

This is my firt post on this forum so please don't jump down my throat.

Why is your right to live "without threat of gun violence" more important than my right to protect myself with a firearm if I need to. On a side note: I would feel much less secure if I didn't have a gun to protect myself against those armed bad guys.

Your right to live without threat will not be affected by any gun laws. Criminals already break the law. The only thing that gun laws do is hamper the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves.

With that said, this is not a gun ban. In fact a gun ban in America will never happen IMO. It is the quickest and surest way to get a large majority of the populace to turn against the government. Americans know that weapons in our hands keeps the government in its place.

But, more importantly, the only reason we have managed to avoid any major invasions in the last 200+ years is because of the weapons in the hands of our citizens. In essence, our guns are what keeps this country safe from the countries of the people telling us we should be happy to be disarmed.

Even the Japanese knew it in WWII:
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto WWII

Off topic:
Infowars is a good site [if you're just looking at the INFO, not the slant]. But I think Alex Jones sensationalizes things too much. It's like he gets a solid story and draws the worst possible conclusion from it.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:10 PM

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Our forefathers saw the need for gun ownership for one reason and one reason only: to prevent the tyranny of government from overpowering the citizenry.

This is absolutely the most saddening argument of them all. I honestly feel bad for each and every person who thinks they are going to stand up against the Us Military with the type of weaponry the public owns.\

We have long passed the point of balance between citizens and military.

Persoanlly if the time actually comes for open rebellion I will be there...

....practicing satyagraha...

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Miraj
Unfortunately thanks to Alex Jones, he probably just raised the price of common caliber ammunition (.223, 7.62, 9MM, ect..)

People are going to buy into his panic.

It won't have any effect. Have you looked around for any common ammunition on the internet lately? There isn't any. People are already buying it all the instant that the sellers get a shipment in. The ammo manufacturers can't keep up with demand and that's why prices are already through the roof.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by drwizardphd

Just what does "Shall Not Be Infringed"mean to you then? Like I said, the language says those words you posted but just 'WHO IS IT THAT MAKES THE DECISION ON WHAT CONSTITUTES LAWFUL PURPOSES OR SPORT PURPOSES"?
Who decides when it's time to make all US manufacturers illicit? This is the ground work for that to happen!


posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:18 PM
It's kinda sad..

Under the Bush administration, hundreds of important rights were
taken away by the dozens at a time.. rights that directly affect your
ability to sustain yourself, your right of privacy, free speech, social
security, health care, and so forth. No one made a peep.. Americans
just kept stuffing themselves with fastfood, ignoring Bush and his
crimes against the population.

Then a president comes along, who actually wants to improve things,
but he wants to reduce your insane gun crime numbers by limiting
this ridiculous free access to guns you have..

..and suddenly everyone cries foul!

Do you people care more about your guns, with which all you can
do is maim, cripple and kill, than the well being of yourself and your
fellow man? Apparently so!

Are you people such cowards that you cower in fear at the thought
of not having a destructive weapon close by your side?

Isn't THAT rather disgusting?

What is wrong with you people? Why are you so full of hatred and
fear, anger and selfishness? Can't you see that the way you are
acting is making everything much worse?

The world needs love, compassion, understanding, cooperation,
solidarity, connection, closeness. Not these twisted values of fear,
destruction, hatred, selfishness, anger and cowardice you seem to
hold so dear to your shriveled hearts.

You have got to change before it's too late, because you will
attract exactly that which you send out into the world. If you keep
spreading fear and destruction, then that is what will come to you,
and no amount of guns will save you.

[edit on (4/5/09) by Wehali]

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:20 PM
Well maybe taking away guns from America is a good thing. Guns cause nothing but trouble. There's nothing wrong with using a good old fashion bat to protect your family from intruders.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by impressme

What did you expect from a foreign born Muslim?

Obama was at the Bilderberg meetings. He knows the agenda and he's lockstep in line with it.

But all of you who swear that if *they* tried to take your guns away....come on. Actions speak louder than words. You mean you would shoot someone who tried to take your gun away? You're ready to die?

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the 2nd ammendment, but I don't see anything that tells me that Americans are ready to stand up to tyranny. Tea parties are one thing, but how do you all suppose we stand up and fight for the 2nd ammendment? You can't vote the bums out of office since they control the elections.

You have to take out the top members....the elite. How do you suppose we do that? You will be fighting your own...and members of the military aligned with the government. I'm not advocating violence, but it just seems that there are a lot of threatening words but nothing of substance to back them up with.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by Animal

I sure hope the majority of people aren't this clueless.

You see to me it is all of you who fear a world WITH OUT guns that IMHO need to 'grow a pair'.

Outlawing guns in the U.S. (or the world, or the universe, or our dimension) does NOT equal a world without guns. The law enforcement, military, "govt" will still have guns. Criminals always seem to have plenty of weapons. The only people without weapons will be the masses.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by doorbell412
There's nothing wrong with using a good old fashion bat to protect your family from intruders.

There's nothing wrong with it...unless the intruder has a .45. Or if there's more than one of them. Or if you're old or have some type of physical issue that limits your ability to fight back. In any of those cases, if all you have is a bat, you've probably got a serious problem on your hands.

As I've said before, I'm old enough to know that I'm not as much of a bada$$ as I may think I am. If someone breaks into my home, I'll take whatever advantage I can get. Nothing wrong with a 12 gauge shotgun to protect your family from intruders, either. And if it runs out of ammo, yes, it does in fact make a decent club, so maybe we aren't that far off the same page, afterall.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:35 PM

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.

That is EXACTLY what he is trying to say!
Making gun ownership illegal ensures that only the criminals will have guns - petty criminals on the streets, and the criminals in government. The right to bear arms was granted by the founding fathers to ensure that under no circumstances could a tyrannical government usurp the will of the people. We in America do not expect those of you who have already been usurped to understand.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:42 PM

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by maybereal11

no one would buy a firearm like that! It takes millions of $ to start a company and millions more to keep it going. There aren't any illicit companies in this country so who exactly are those companies this is supposed to legislate against? Zindo

5 Are indicted for Illegal Gun Manufacture
"The recoveries led special AFT angents to several convicted felons and drug traffickers, several illegal machine gun factories....",6308818

Yes illegal gun manufacturing does take place, but admittedly not so much in recent years as simply trafficking "legally" manufactured guns to Mexico is the easiest method of arming cartels. Here is a great article summing it up. A worthwhile read, 7 pages. I found it funny that Colt has had so many of it's guns end up in Mexico that they Manufactuer a special Colt .38 for Mexicans ...see below
Colt’s Manufacturing, having apparently caught on to the popularity of the .38 Super with certain customers, offers custom pistols with such titles as El Rey (the king) and El Presidente engraved on the barrel. When reached for comment, Carlton Chen, general counsel for Colt, tells me he was not aware that gun trafficking was a problem in Mexico or any other country

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by autsse

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.

What percentage of the proven to be U.S. guns do you think the CIA shipped down there?

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:52 PM
I hate guns. I never wanted to own one, see one, hold one, or be around one. That is, until Obama got into office. (but I NEVER had a problem with others owning them or the second amendment)

Now I want to go out and buy one just so I can exercise a right that I've taken for granted and is about to be taken away from me.

Also because people are getting more and more uneasy every single day. People who never used to give a you know what about politics and government are starting to see that we are being hoodwinked. Aside from that, all the people who have been stocking up on guns and gun supplies just waiting for the time to come where they will need one are also starting to get very uneasy.

This makes me want to go get one just so I can protect myself when SHTF.

It's sad really....

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 02:00 PM

Originally posted by kozmo
The right to bear arms was granted by the founding fathers to ensure that under no circumstances could a tyrannical government usurp the will of the people.

Did the founding fathers intend to grant the right to the american people to sell and supply arms to foriegn drug cartels and criminal organizations as a means of terrorizing civilian populations and subjegate freely elected governments?

I think our founding fathers would view that in stark contrast to their intent.

See the article summerizing the gun trafficking from the US to Mexican cartels that I linked to in my last post.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maybereal11]

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in