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: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
What happened to CHANGE?


This is "change"....be careful what you wish for.




posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Total non-sequiturs! If the borders were closed and protected, there would be no gun running.
Colt has a right to market its guns to anyone it wishes. There is no law prohibiting it.

The slippery slope that you are supporting, the total overhaul of the Constitution, due to illegal gun running and the fact that Colt is marketing some firearms in Spanish is a bit over-kill!



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

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.


The answer to both of those questions is indeed yes, and I said comparable.

Comparable in that both do no real damage and only leave welts on the body. Any armed suspect hit with a rubber bullet is likely able to still fire back.

That was the point.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
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.


There in lies the dilemma. You will never be able to live without a fear of being killed by a gun. Even if they pass all the gun restrictions in the world. Some sickos out there will still have some guns. Don't you mess with my right to defend myself and my family because you were to scared to take the time to learn how to safely, competently, efficiently use a criminal activity deterrent device.

You go ahead and put your faith in the government. See how far that gets you...



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
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 would definitely object to that. I'm simply not convinced of the effectiveness of non-lethal ammunition as compared to a traditional round. I know what the capabilities are of the latter and that's something I can't say the same of for 'non-lethal' ammunition. I do not trust it to work as advertised to stop an intruder, and perhaps ironically, nor do I trust it to be 'non-lethal'. So what is gained by using it? Nothing that I can see. The results are far too variable for me to trust.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor

Originally posted by Animal
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.


There in lies the dilemma. You will never be able to live without a fear of being killed by a gun. Even if they pass all the gun restrictions in the world. Some sickos out there will still have some guns. Don't you mess with my right to defend myself and my family because you were to scared to take the time to learn how to safely, competently, efficiently use a criminal activity deterrent device.

You go ahead and put your faith in the government. See how far that gets you...


Come on people quite being so literal with everything I say.

As I have mentioned at least twice in this thread I have NO problem with the majority of guns, I have problems with guns specifically designed to kill PEOPLE.

I do NOT expect to live in a country / world completely FREE from guns.

I DO however think that tight regulations on a tool INTENDED to KILL HUMANS is a very good idea and I would find the streets of hometown USA (currently Santa Fe / Albuquerque) much more hospitable if I believed the government was ensuring the # of said 'tools of death' were limited.

Yes, limiting the # of guns will without a doubt have an effect on the # of people killed by said guns.

No it will not change over night, but that is fine, at least my KIDS wont have to worry about the same plethora of whack jobs with guns that I have had to.

And finally I would MUCH rather rely on the government that the typical militant freak who is touting his/her 'right' to bear arms and threatening 'revolution' should the government do anything to change it.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I wish I would have caught this thread back on page 1, as I'm afraid my post is going to get lost in the noise.

Anyway, I'm surprised no one has posted this interview on this exact topic with former US Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton:

www.nrapublications.org...


SIMONE: As long as I've been going to the U.N., I've heard critics and representatives from some countries say they'll wait as long as they have to in order to get the right person in the White House to move forward with their arms trade treaty. Is Barack Obama the right guy?

BOLTON: I think it's just as you say—people in the U.N. system, the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOS), basically concluded they weren't going to get anything through while Bush was president. So they've been waiting, they've been holding back, and it's precisely what they've been waiting for—the right guy to get in the White House. I think they believe they have found him. And that's why I think groups that care about Second Amendment rights—groups like the NRA and all of its members—really have to pay very close attention to what's going on in the State Department and New York for the next four years. In a diplomatic world, a lot takes place below the radar screen. You don't see it until it's essentially a done deal, when it's much harder to oppose.

SIMONE: When you logged onto IANSA's (International Action Network on Small Arms) website right after the election, there was a picture of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and that organization couldn't say enough about what this election means for moving forward with an arms trade treaty. Shouldn't that concern every gun owner in this country?

BOLTON: Absolutely. Nobody should be under any misimpression that these discussions are about preventing small arms and light weapons from going into conflict zones. That's a concern the United States properly has, particularly when its soldiers are deployed. That's a problem that can be dealt with. The hidden agenda, in fact it's not so hidden to many of these groups, is not weapons flowing to conflict zones. It's imposing their domestic agenda, particularly on the United States, to get gun laws enacted here in ways they couldn't possibly be successful in doing in Congress. They'd much rather lobby the U.N. than our own Congress.

SIMONE: And you hear Oxfam and iansa say time and time again, "This is not about civilian ownership, we are not out to get the Second Amendment." But you don't have any doubt that's what they are after?

BOLTON: There is no doubt. And they may not use phrases that we would understand. That's part of the problem with "diplo-speak," you can conceal a lot more than you reveal by the words you use. But that's why these ngos have been so active for so long. They see going outside the American constitutional system as the best way to advance their agenda.


Bold emphasis mine.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

I have problems with guns specifically designed to kill PEOPLE.


Weapons are designed to kill. Period. People choose the targets.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 



What guns are you referring to that are specifically designed to kill people.

All guns are designed to kill. I can take a rifle that was meant to kill deer and kill someone with it. I can also take an assault rifle and kill a deer with it.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


What kind of ridiculous dream world are you living in? ALL guns are designed to kill people! Yes, even hunting guns! Do me a favor, check in the constitution, where in there does it say that we the people can only bear hunting guns or guns not created to kill people? You done? NOWHERE does it say this! Grow a pair for god's sake! Do you even understand why the second amendment is there in the first place? It's to defend ourselves not just from criminals breaking into our homes, but also from our leaders if they become too tyrannical!

What do you think we should do? Bring them down with BB guns or paintball guns? Rubber bullets? God you hippies seriously need to get a clue into real life.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Animal
 



What guns are you referring to that are specifically designed to kill people.

All guns are designed to kill. I can take a rifle that was meant to kill deer and kill someone with it. I can also take an assault rifle and kill a deer with it.


Very good point! I have yet to find any guns or ammo that only seek human targets. Some people are just too dam* "idealist" to realize how ridiculous their comments are.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Total non-sequiturs! If the borders were closed and protected, there would be no gun running.
Colt has a right to market its guns to anyone it wishes. There is no law prohibiting it.


Just close the border? What do youhave in mind? A wall? How high? How long? Barbed wire? And then there will be no gun running? Really?

As long as there are buyers and sellers there will be gun running, drugs etc.

Mexico is at least trying to go after those selling drugs to America and they are paying dearly for it. We can at least go after those selling guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Close the borders ...LOL

Have you ever seen the this?
Drug cartels use homemade submarines to smuggle coc aine
www.mirror.co.uk... aine-115875-20621843/


If they aren't already doing it they will be using low flying UAVs next. The technology is there and they have the money....lots of it.

Why not just go after the people trafficking the weapons rather than spend trillions to create a bizzare police state blockading air, sea and land that would make the Berlin wall look like a picket fence?

Wouldn't the easiest solution be to go after arms traffickers...?

I don't get it the whole "secure the border" BS. It's great political speak, but everyone knows where there is a will there is a way. Supply or demand ...only on those two fronts do you gain ground.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Some of the responses in this thread make me laugh, the Kool-Aid Drinkers that never did the research on Obama are now surprised, they thought the election was for the "Homecoming King and Queen...LOL And guess what boys and girls, we're only 4 months into this presidency.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Just close the border? What do youhave in mind? A wall? How high? How long? Barbed wire? And then there will be no gun running? Really?


Well that would be a start. They have checkpoints with armed guards to terrorize American citizens a 100 miles within the border - why not on the border?

Because securing the border is not their goal. They need the illegal traffic and revenue to continue.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Hawkwind.
 
To take a gun away from a law abiding citizen will NOT stop anymore crime then to tell the criminals to "be nice stop crime" The murders that are done by a gun are illegal guns most of witch are bought on the black market.

And you can get them ANYWHERE in the world. So crime will increase with robbery as well as other crimes. And yes we Americans will not be able to stop the government from turning the USA into a 3erd world country or a Nazi one.All the freedom we have will be taking away if we sit there and do nothing.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GunzCoty
So crime will increase with robbery as well as other crimes. And yes we Americans will not be able to stop the government from turning the USA into a 3erd world country or a Nazi one.All the freedom we have will be taking away if we sit there and do nothing.


This is a prime example of the logic behind those in favor of no regulations on guns. And yet it is me that is a coward for saying regulating guns is important for safety sake.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I wish that those who want to take my rights away would just bring it about.
All the talk is getting to be too much. Let's go for it. Then, winner takes all... they can have my guns IF they win... IF NOT then just leave the 2nd Amendment alone forever!
Of course I am talking about an all out, open WARFARE, no holds barred, shoot 'em up taking of the guns... come get 'em... I'm ready for it to just STOP!



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I think it is very important that we understand our individual rights to own guns. To understand the law is our weapon against the government who are trying to find ways around the second amendment.


Your Individual Right
To Keep And Bear Arms


The states' rights reading [of the Second Amendment] puts great weight on the word "militia," but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the "states." As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical and when the Constitution means "states," it says so. Thus, as noted above, "the people" at the core of the Second Amendment are the same "people" at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely Citizens.

"The people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") . . . . While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

www.secondamendment.net...

The misconstruction of
United States v. Miller
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

www.secondamendment.net...

WHAT TO DO IF THE POLICE COME TO
CONFISCATE YOUR MILITIA WEAPONS.
The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police want to search your house without your consent, they need a warrant. Warrants may only be issued upon a showing of probable cause, supported by an affidavit. The facts contained in the affidavit must do more than support a mere suspicion. The test is whether the information in the affidavit would justify a person of prudence and caution in believing that an offense is being committed, e.g. that "prohibited" weapons can be found on your premises. The requirement of probable cause for the issuance of warrants is one of your most precious constitutional protections. NEVER GIVE THE AUTHORITIES YOUR CONSENT TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE, YOUR CAR, YOUR PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR ANY OTHER PREMISES UNDER YOUR CONTROL. Consent dispenses with the necessity of probable cause. While lacking probable cause, if the police conduct a search with your consent and seize evidence for use against you in court, your lawyer will not be able to suppress it on the basis that the search was warrantless.

www.secondamendment.net...

Let them knock on my door.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


What happened to CHANGE? 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. If the CIFTA treaty is ratified, then I could see a huge protest against this administration. For a long time our government has been looking for an excuses to squash the second amendment, so they will have the power to stop any militia from forming or to overthrow a corrupt government. This is what this CHANGE is all about.

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



We wanted change. He is giving us change. Just not the change we all thought it would be.

It is different change that could possibly get way worse before it gets better. Things will get better, I just hope those playing the role of bad guy and controller are almost done playing this role and allowed to let us begin our true meaning of life.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
CIFTA says nothing at all about taking legal guns away from their legal owners!

CIFTA


CONCERNED by the increase, at the international level, in the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials and by the serious problems resulting therefrom;

REAFFIRMING that States Parties give priority to preventing, combating, and eradicating the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials because of the links of such activities with drug trafficking, terrorism, transnational organized crime, and mercenary and other criminal activities;
******SKIP******
Article I
Definitions

For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply:

1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.
******SKIP******
Article II
Purpose

The purpose of this Convention is:

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

to promote and facilitate cooperation and exchange of information and experience among States Parties to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.


Hmmm, what does ILLICIT mean?

Dictionary.com


il⋅lic⋅it
   /ɪˈlɪsɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-lis-it] Show IPA
–adjective
1. not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful.


Nowhere in this treaty does it even mention taking guns away from their legal owners!

This is a treaty between countries to help stop the ILLEGAL trafficking and manufacturing of firearms (and some other things like explosives, ammunition and such) by cooperating with each other and sharing information.

The OP article is nothing but a bunch of paranoia and hype.

Read the full treaty (CIFTA) in the link above and try to find ANYTHING that even hints about taking away legally owned firearms!

[edit on 5/4/2009 by Keyhole]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join