Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession!

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, hid
e behind the second amendment all you like but that's a fact.

Hasn't there been a huge increase in knife related violent crimes in your country?

By the way, nobody is hiding behind the second amendment. What they are doing is trying to PROTECT the second amendment of our US constitution.

So yeah, take away guns, and gun related crimes will go down. People are resourcful though. Take away the guns, and people pick up a kife. Take away the knives and people pick up something else.

Banning gus is NOT going to stop crime and anyone who thinks that is the case is mistaken. There was crime before guns exsisted you know....

I have defended Obama's decisions in the past but if this is true, this is one I simply can not defend. In this day and age we NEED our constituion to be protected from such violations.

Now I am not going to type in all caps that civil war is coming because everytime some one types that on here, they always look like a fool when it never happens. Plus I do not believe it to be the case. however, people will not give up their guns with out a fight.

As I said earlier, take away our guns, and we pick up knives. Take away our knives and we pick up a sharpened stick. Take those away and we pick up a rock. Take those away and we pick up our fists.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

reply to post by Hawkwind.


Don't you understand if we give up our guns (which I will not) we're giving up our last protection. Do you think the government is going to give up their guns? I don't think so.

reply to post by ANNED


I guess I don't want to analyze WHY too closely....... but your post sorta brought a tear to the eye.

Thank you. You said it better than I could have. I don't know for certain if President Obama et al really want to disarm America, but I have high hopes that the American spirit won't let it happen.

Respect.

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

Probably all of them.

It's really quite simple.

Are you going to buy a fully automatic AK[which is not manufactured in the us] for 300 bones, or are you going to buy a semi automatic ar-15[which is manufactured in the us] for 1500 bones, that you then have to spend time and energy converting to fully auto.

Couple of points I want to take from past posters.

Banning guns just makes sure only cops and criminals have weapons, criminals don't follow laws.

A gun ban will increase violent crimes, as criminals know law abiding citizens have little means to defend themselves.

source

Gun ban' utopia creates violent crime increase

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.

Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI's figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Ver-mont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

The next point I'd like to make is this. If you look back throughout history, gun bans have been a tool used to commit the worst atrocities imaginable, namely genocide.

This site has some great examples - I'm not going to quote them.
source

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." ~ George Santayana


[edit on 4-5-2009 by djzombie]

reply to post by andy1033


Andy I understand, to some degree, where you're coming from. I currently live in a nation under British rule, and I am constantly amazed at the mindset that doesn't even want our police to be armed.

Too right i am not american, but americans do have an obsession with violence, and this is just projected throughout the world.

Americans aren't obsessed with violence, we are obsessed with freedoms, rights and defense. Might seem like the same thing to you, but it's a fur piece away from that to me. (most) Americans believe in the tenants of the Constitution, and moreover, believe that the Constitutution is a living document that, if required by the MAJORITY, can be modified. What we DON'T believe in is having the Constitution overruled by a Presidential coup.

I see my post has many people's knickers in a twist, good.

It's funny that in all of those posts that quote my post no one addressed my comment on your defensive weapons not having to be non-lethal isn't it? Why can you not use guns with rubber bullets or tazer guns or something else ''virtually'' non-lethal? The gun culture mentality is quite shocking.

So again, why does the weapon have to be a lethal weapon?

Why can you not use guns with rubber bullets or tazer guns or something else ''virtually'' non-lethal?

Because only the threat of death is enough to stop some people. People who have nothing left to lose.

Furthermore, how does non lethal weaponry fare against someone who is using lethal weaponry? Not very well.

As far as you getting people's knickers in a twist that's a far cry from the truth. How about you respond with facts like I've done in my above post.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by djzombie]

Originally posted by gimme_some_truthAs I said earlier, take away our guns, and we pick up knives. Take away our knives and we pick up a sharpened stick. Take those away and we pick up a rock. Take those away and we pick up our fists.
[edit on 4-5-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

My friend, how can you say that and at the same time have John Lennon under your name?

reply to post by Wehali


What the heck are you talking about? When the patriot act cam through, there were protests, maybe not many, some were not even televised, but they were there! When Bush wanted to illegally wiretap people, people DID make a rucus! some televised it, some don't but they were there! Just because you CHOOSE to IGNORE it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, it did! The problem is though, that the MSM and the govt. took advantage of 911 to make it seem like it was a good thing!

Take you partisan BS elsewhere! this is not about Rep vs. Dem many here in ATS know that the 2 party system is Bull and we've constantly voiced it. You just choose to ignore it in order to follow whatever ridiculous party train of thought you decided to associate yourself with.

Originally posted by djzombie

Why can you not use guns with rubber bullets or tazer guns or something else ''virtually'' non-lethal?

Because only the threat of death is enough to stop some people. People who have nothing left to lose.

Furthermore, how does non lethal weaponry fare against someone who is using lethal weaponry? Not very well.

I've seen on television what a shotgun using rubber bullets does to someone, it is extremely effective, it will take you down in an instant. The threat of death doesn't seem to stop the people doing the crime as it is.

Originally posted by maybereal11

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.

www.portfolio.com...

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maybereal11]

My eyes are spinning to the back of my head over this! To answer your loaded and over-baited question - NO, the founding fathers did NOT intend that. In fact, they DID intend for us to protect our borders, our sovereignty and our Bill of rights from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

If this slick group of crooks, aka politicians, actually did their jobs, we wouldn't have this (non)issue as a concern. And honestly, I'm not the least bit concerned about it either.

reply to post by roboboy


Excuse me, but you could not be more incorrect. Look at the crime stats from the UK and other countries with strict gun laws, Russia, etc. They have astronomical street crime rates.

If you want to stop the illegal flow of firearms into Mexico---STOP THE ILLEGALS!! They are the individuals purchasing the firearms and taking them to Mexico!

I realize it is not PC to say this, but if you are in this country illegally you have to GO! We are the only country on Earth that does not enforce our border sovereignty!

Try sneaking into France and living 20 years!

reply to post by Hawkwind.


It's quite simple. The "bad guys" AROUND the globe, have firearms. You've heard the expression "never take a knife to a gunfight?"

If I had an omnipotent wand that could vanquish ALL the guns worldwide, would I use it? Possibly. But, alas, that wand has never found its way into my posession.

I live in a nation that only allows firearm posession for the valued few. I am not valued in that regard. Still, most of the "violence" of this nation involves criminals with guns.

Do you want to bet if we could be armed that that violence would sharply decline? OVERNIGHT? I'll take that bet, if so.

A note: I have training in hand-to-hand, various weaponry, and while I'm 51 years young, I have no hope that if faced with a gun-weilding perp I will prevail.

It just IS.

edit to add: p.s. I don't WEAR knickers. I know, TMI.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by argentus]

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
Why can you not use guns with rubber bullets or tazer guns or something else ''virtually'' non-lethal? The gun culture mentality is quite shocking.

The second amendment is one of those passages that resonate with the american idealogy....the founding fathers looking at the world they lived in full of dictators and wanting to create a nation "of the people" "for the people". In essense they wanted the american citizens never to be at the complete and utter mercy of their government and to do that required giving them the "right to bear arms" along with the right to "peacefully assemble" etc. If the government ever sways too far toward dictatorship, the founding fathers wanted the "people" to have the final word.

An armed "guerilla" force is still to this day (even with modern technology) remarkably successful at holding back or even gaining ground on a given formal army, so it either through accident or profound foresight the second amendment still has relevance today.

That said...Nothing in this or any other Obama initiative I have examined would in any relevant way impact the peoples right to bare arms or diminish "the peoples" ability to overthrow the government if the majority of Americans felt it neccessary.

This thread title and associated propaganda are just that.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by maybereal11

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.

www.portfolio.com...

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maybereal11]

NO, the founding fathers did NOT intend that. In fact, they DID intend for us to protect our borders, our sovereignty and our Bill of rights from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Wouldn't protecting our borders and our bill of rights from "enemies foriegn and domestic" include disrupting illegal arms trafficking from the US to Mexican drug cartels?

Edit to add -- Did you read the article I posted? When colt starts dedicating a single line of fire-arm (Colt .38) to Mexican gangsters, complete with inscriptions in spanish like "the chief" or "the president"...well you can't tell me everybody doesn't know where those guns are headed.



[edit on 4-5-2009 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
I see my post has many people's knickers in a twist, good.

It's funny that in all of those posts that quote my post no one addressed my comment on your defensive weapons not having to be non-lethal isn't it? Why can you not use guns with rubber bullets or tazer guns or something else ''virtually'' non-lethal? The gun culture mentality is quite shocking.

So again, why does the weapon have to be a lethal weapon?

1) The criminals use real guns/bullets
2) Tyrantical governments use real guns/bullets (redunant but worth making the distinction)

reply to post by maybereal11




To be clear on my stance, I believe, as you do, that everyone has the right to defend themselves. I'm saying that the weapons used for defence don't have to be lethal.

Can I ask everyone who owns a gun, would you object to having to use only a gun that used rubber bullets? Bear in mind that these bullets will take down a person virtually as effectively as real traditional ammo? Or is it all about the kill?

I've seen on television what a shotgun using rubber bullets does to someone

I've seen on television pigs flying.

Being hit with a rubber bullet is comparable to being hit with a paintball. Many of us do that for fun.

A tazer - didn't you read the story where a man was tazered and then still shot and killed some officers, I'd rather not take any chances.

Our government doesn't want the people armed because it gives the people the power the government has derided for itself.

Try enforcing unjust laws on an armed population. In that same token, its much easier to enforce whatever laws you want and generally control a population that is unarmed.

It's entirely about control.

If it was about safety they would secure our borders.

Since I've answered your inane question, answer this for me.

Why risk civil unrest, a possible civil war by attempting to disarm america[should it come to that], rather than take the sensible action and secure our borders.

Because prison is a growth industry.

The more people they can make into criminals, the more control they have.

The reason this is the obvious agenda is easily observed by some of the other things our government has done.

If the ongoing ineffective war on drugs isn't enough proof for you, Obama has appointed 5 lawyers from the RIAA to the justice department. They intend on making file sharing a criminal matter instead of just a civil one. That's nearly an entire generation of "criminals."

This gun ban[if it should come to that] would serve to make half the country instant criminals if they don't give up their constitutional right to bear arms.

Isn't it obvious they're trying to build a prison? SoaD said this 10 years ago.

I'll answer the question I asked of you for you, since you're likely to just spout party lines rhetoric at me.

The reason they don't secure our borders is because we need those illegal immigrants and all the activity that comes from having unsecured borders - to fill our prisons.

Why is it necessary to have a one world government? Why can't people live their lives without infringement of freedom? So they can criminalize any behavior they want.

They've already started criminalizing dissent. Haven't you seen the reports from the propaganda factory.. I mean, the MIAC or whatever the frack its called... labeling even veterans as potential "terrorists."

And to answer your question from earlier, am I ready to die.

LIVE FREE OR DIE

[edit on 4-5-2009 by djzombie]

reply to post by djzombie


Great Quote and Link. Weapons bans have been proven ineffective time and again. Even the few rules in place that seem sensible sometimes cause more harm than good. The Virginia Tech shootings were far deadlier than they needed to be. If even a small percentage of those students were carrying weapons on school grounds, it would have been a much smaller death toll. That heroic professor who blocked the doorway and took bullets while his students climbed out the window may have lived or returned fire. The gunman certainly did not care what the law said about carrying a weapon on school ground.

An ad at election time in Missouri years ago featured a girl from Texas that was not able (at the time) to carry her loaded weapon (legal in her home state), and she respected the law. She sat helpless as a gunmen killed her parents and others in a fast food restaurant, even stopping to reload at one point. That gunmen didn't seem to mind violating the state laws.

I consider it a duty to carry my weapon 100% of the time. Chances are I will never need it, but in that once in a lifetime tragedy, I would feel terrible watching innocent people die, because that was the day I left my gun at home. Many police forces require their officers to carry a weapon off duty for that very reason. Someone may recognize and look to them for help in an emergency. I have faced fists, baseball bats, and knives without considering drawing my weapon. I have talked through many escalated situations, knowing the gun was there if I needed it, but not wanting to have to chose between my life or theirs. I think a large percentage of gun-carrying citizens will go to extreme measures to avoid a conflict.

As far as non-lethal weapons and baseball bats at home, I think it will be hard to get the criminals and foreign militaries to agree to that, but hey, if they do, I will. I would probably find it much more satisfying to meet an intruder with my baseball bat than my shotgun.

Originally posted by djzombie

I've seen on television what a shotgun using rubber bullets does to someone

I've seen on television pigs flying.

Being hit with a rubber bullet is comparable to being hit with a paintball. Many of us do that for fun.

Um.. No?

You honestly think a shotgun firing a solid rubber slug shoots with equivalent force to a paintball gun that shoots breakable projectiles at 300fps?

Have you ever played paintball? Have you ever fired a shotgun?

If the answer to both of those is "yes", then I have no idea how you could draw such a conclusion.