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.

 

International treaty gives foreign troops identity of American gun owners

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 


A government sniper shot an unarmed woman holding an 8 month old baby in the head. - Ruby Ridge

The FBI injected tear gas into a building and then fired flashbangs into said building, knowing that when said tear gas burned it created hydrogen cyanide. That's not to mention the fact that any fine particulate matter suspended into the air will create a fireball when ignited. Seriously, try it with cornstarch in a squeeze bottle. 76 people were gassed and/or burned to a crisp, including 25 children under the age of 15 and two pregnant women. - Waco (addendum: The same government sniper that made the kill shot against Vicki Weaver was AT Waco.)

Seriously..people won't actually do anything until something affects *everyone* directly, not just the gun nuts. We have been marginalized and insulted ever since JFK, RFK, and MLK. Thankfully .gov is pushing its agenda regardless of what Joe Q. Public wants and the sleeping giant is stirring.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
No foreign treaty can possibly negate our Bill of Rights. First of all, it's unconstitutional, and it would have to survive the Supreme Court.


I think some people better look a little farther down the road on this one...lol

We all know this country is bankrupt, there's a G20 Conference coming up next week and these Leaders could very well tell the US to stick it, No More Money. China refuses to buy our T-Bills past 30 days now, the Arabs aren't buying either. Many analysts are saying the Stock Market is gonna Tank Bigtime in October, revenues to the Treasury are down 35%, in other words the Sh*t's gonna hit the fan. According to a couple sources on the internet Congress had a closed door session last April or May(1 of only 3 in the history of Congress) in which they were told how to cover their butt's in case of civil unrest. We have armed forces who have taken an oath never to fire on a US Citizen. When Clinton was in office he signed some treaty with the UN designating our National Parks as UN Biospheres, which I took to be technically deeding these over to the UN as property, I may be wrong. Other rumors of foreign troops already in this country in National Parks although I haven't seen any of this but I could be wrong, I do know we have a few thousand foreign troops engaged in ongoing training at our military installations. Then we have the Flu Vaccine scare and microchipped bracelets and detention centers. So whats to say everything goes to hell in a hand basket, Obama solicits the UN (now I hear he's going to be made head of the Security Council) for help in quashing rebellion in this Country, moves in tons of foreign troops, hands them a list of gun owners for gun confiscation, it's easier to shoot someone that's not your countrymen and doesn't speak your language.

What I've said should be construed as here-say or rumor as I'm not going to run down sources, and I will stand corrected. These are just thoughts garnered from many different sources on the internet I've read over the years. I don't necessarily take these as fact but I always thought it was good info to keep in the back of my head. But then What If?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LetTheTruthBeTold
This is the reason why the NRA jokingly named Obama the "Firearms salesman of the year." Due to his somewhat radical anti-gun views, people went out in hordes to buy firearms and ammo when he was elected.


Sounds to me like everyone who went out & bought enough guns & ammo to create a shortage got hit by the Beanie Baby syndrome. Having a liberal like Obama in ofice who is considered radical by the far right would be the perfect time to start a little campaign to scare everyone into spending millions on guns this year.

What I'm referring to is the notion of artificial scarcity created by those who seek to gain profit by an increased demand.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Boomer1941
 


Wow.... I see a very, very good movie coming out on that. I won't criticize your assessment of the events or offer up some startling evidence to contridict it but I am going to say that is a a lot of very, big "if's". A lot. There are several major break-downs that would have to occur in order for that to happen.

1. Where would our military be when all this breaks out? Say Iraq and Afg so I can counter with the hundreds of thousands that are still in the US. You can't send all of them out of the country. Even if you could send a majority, you don't think those pilots wouldn't load their troops up and fly them home or a ship sail them back?

2. What would there be to gain by having a complete collapse and allowing UN troops to come in and shoot us? Who would benefit? Those that love their big money (big pharmas and other big corps) are going to be fine with letting go of their lifestyle? Millions of their customers and workers killed for what?

3. Somewhere in the mix, we would have to completely lose the will to fight and be fine with our troops being snuck out of the country. From what I have seen and read (especially on this site), the UN and their soliders know that the US and its citizens aren't going to be waiting to hand over the flag and land. BS! They know better then that.

No way.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


This is too weird. I just laid out a thread because I saw some really strange headlines that added up to the government spying on us. I did this today because as I said, I didn't put two and two together right away and when I did I felt like people should know.

So now, I come across this! Awesome find my friend! This is just way too much. Why would foreign troops need to know who owns weapons in the United States and why would the current administration be pushing this? It all adds up to some serious stuff. S+F great find.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by suicydking

Originally posted by LetTheTruthBeTold
This is the reason why the NRA jokingly named Obama the "Firearms salesman of the year." Due to his somewhat radical anti-gun views, people went out in hordes to buy firearms and ammo when he was elected.


Sounds to me like everyone who went out & bought enough guns & ammo to create a shortage got hit by the Beanie Baby syndrome. Having a liberal like Obama in ofice who is considered radical by the far right would be the perfect time to start a little campaign to scare everyone into spending millions on guns this year.

What I'm referring to is the notion of artificial scarcity created by those who seek to gain profit by an increased demand.




Beanie Baby syndrome


One of the best analogies I have read on here. What's to say that those that are benefiting from the current purchase of survival gear, guns and ammo aren't the ones helping to cause the panic?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
A few quick(ish) points:

1. This seems like a potentially Draconian move on the part of the Government, but remember: the 2nd amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms (for the maintenance of a well-armed militia, no less). It does not guarantee the right to secrecy with regards to the guns. Yes, I understand that knowing where the guns are would be the first step to confiscating them etc etc, but you can't call the legislation in questions "shredding the Constitution".

2. Can we please drop this ridiculous canard that those of us with guns would stand any real chance against a full military assault from either the US or any other country? Can you see daylight where you are sitting? Then guess what, a military sniper a quarter mile a way could kill you where you sit. In your underground bunker? A drone piloted by a 19 year old kid 2 miles off shore can bomb you into dust. Granted, low tech insurgencies are giving our forces all kinds of trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan but they are hardly kicking anyone's ass and they are not living any sort of life that we would be interested in duplicating.

3. Points 1 and 2 being said, we should still be ready to take weapons, provisions, resources and loved ones into remote wooded areas for extended periods of time in the event that TSHTF, but I think that the actions of world financial markets and the stability of the dollar will have far more influence on both the trajectory of the feces and the speed at which the fan is spinning.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by House Of Mirrors

Originally posted by grayhawkz1
reply to post by House Of Mirrors
 


I think the presidents had a lot to benefit but we as a country did as well. Each one of our presidents had a personal gain but nothing compared to what we as a country gained. I also believe that those presidents had a lot of noise in their ears from congressmen and big business owners trying to steal some gov money. But in the end, we as a country have become bigger and stronger. No other country can match us and some how, we as citizens have lost that message. The vaccine is just a layer of protection offered to us at NO CHARGE by our government to help us. Sure they bought the vaccines from the big pharmas but someone had to make them. Why not them? I would hate to buy version xyz from WalMart.



no i have to disagree, the country didnt gain much if anything at all

the ones who gained were the politicians and the wealthy in charge

the big companies

as a country our military is weaker and spread thin

we the people have become incredibly weaker and have almost no power at all, it was sort of proven with the bush situation that its very arguable that we dont even have the power of the vote anymore

claiming our country has benefited more then it has been hurt is a severe misrepresentation of the facts, especially with the way our constitution has been completely destroyed compared to what it used to be

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Dramey]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by suicydking

Originally posted by LetTheTruthBeTold
This is the reason why the NRA jokingly named Obama the "Firearms salesman of the year." Due to his somewhat radical anti-gun views, people went out in hordes to buy firearms and ammo when he was elected.


Sounds to me like everyone who went out & bought enough guns & ammo to create a shortage got hit by the Beanie Baby syndrome. Having a liberal like Obama in ofice who is considered radical by the far right would be the perfect time to start a little campaign to scare everyone into spending millions on guns this year.

What I'm referring to is the notion of artificial scarcity created by those who seek to gain profit by an increased demand.



then that may go down in history as the best thing obama will do in office

the more people who are armed in the U.S.A. the better



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
It makes me sick that a large percentage of the population wants all guns illegal !!!! yeah, let's see what happens then. . . rising crime rate, Mexicans taking over America, and general anarchy.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Would it not be easier to just read H.R 215? instead of jumping to conclusions?

HR 215

Quick quote



SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009’. SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS. (a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting the following new section after section 922:


Now debate....

Yes this can be used against anyone that is deemed unsafe or is considered to be a terrorist....



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NoBrainer
 


Now this is more interesting than the thrust of the OP. Allowing the Attorney General [slightly] broad[er] powers to deny gun ownerships is a considerable step up from merely sharing lists of gun-owners with foreign powers.

Still doesn't do much that current background check laws don't do already, but much more of a power grab than what we had been discussing on here.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by RobertAntonWeishaupt]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Let's be honest a good portion of the other UN member nations hate us. Some for good reasons and others because we have what they want or need and some because of our unwillingness to submit to them or there religion.

The idea of giving a group like the UN a list of all Americans who own guns is as smart putting your security system on your electrical plans. Imagine you have a house being built, imagine you don't trust your neighbours. Now imagine you are asked to provide everyone in the same city as you with a copy of your plans including the details of your security system. Many cities used to require this, but some stopped when they realized the criminals could pay $20-50 to get a copy of the plans which detailed layout, location of sensors and how it was tied into power and phone lines. The the crooks would use this to rob a house and get away easily. If a room is marked as a safe room or there is a study or a dining room or a computer room those are more likely to be checked than the ones marked bathroom or guest room or kids play room.

Does this seem like a good idea? I certainly think it doesn't. It's the same thing. Currently under international law every nation can look up a gun serial number and see where it was built. Then they can contact the nation and ask them to investigate if the owner still has the gun. It works fine now. So the question is why would you want to give a hostile group a list of where the valuables are in your house?

Something people may not have considered.
Also a list given to other govt's means they have a name. If a gun is found at a crime scene and the serial number matches your one on the list they could demand you be extradited to them for a crime. Unfortunately there is a history of China building clones of US built guns with serial numbers and logos that match the originals and sold to less than legal groups. This is why Norinco firearms are no longer imported into the US.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Tbh I have never before read such idiotic statements on ATS before.
Let's consider this-
1. Why do people need guns? Dont you feel safe where you live now under the city's police? If not why are you staying there and dont go to someother country like afghanistan where people can keep as many guns as you want too?

It purely makes sense any govt. not only US should know which of it's citizens has guns and what type. A record of this kind would be very handy to lower down crime figures, gang wars, shoot outs, murders, robbery etc. How will you know if a unknown person buys a gun from some shop and uses it for murder?
A record of such kind will help the police to track down criminals.

If you are honest and dont intend to use guns for illegal purpose such as helping terrorists by giving them your gun I can't understand why would people be worried if govt. knows they own a gun and of what type.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
Tbh I have never before read such idiotic statements on ATS before.
Let's consider this-
1. Why do people need guns? Dont you feel safe where you live now under the city's police? If not why are you staying there and dont go to someother country like afghanistan where people can keep as many guns as you want too? What if you live rural, like I do? When seconds count...the police are only minutes away.

It purely makes sense any govt. not only US should know which of it's citizens has guns and what type. A record of this kind would be very handy to lower down crime figures, gang wars, shoot outs, murders, robbery etc. How will you know if a unknown person buys a gun from some shop and uses it for murder?
A record of such kind will help the police to track down criminals.
It has been proven time and time again that criminals don't obey gun laws, NOR do they use guns bought by them (and conversely use guns in which they filled out that little yellow form 4473)

If you are honest and dont intend to use guns for illegal purpose such as helping terrorists by giving them your gun I can't understand why would people be worried if govt. knows they own a gun and of what type. Because it is none of their business what I own (and not listed in my store's inventory..that stuff is MINE) I personally would like to avoid having my firearms confiscated by overzealous State Troopers and California Highway Patrol during a natural disaster like my family went through during Katrina.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
Tbh I have never before read such idiotic statements on ATS before.
Let's consider this-
1. Why do people need guns? Dont you feel safe where you live now under the city's police? If not why are you staying there and dont go to someother country like afghanistan where people can keep as many guns as you want too?


When do the police show up? My bussiness is 50 feet (across the street) from a police station. A guy came in one day and threatened the ladies at the front desk that he wanted the money from the till and safe, he also gave them his ID and demanded we give him a loan (before demanding the money from the till/safe, we don't do loans we are a small manufacturer). The ladies refused and he threatened to go get a knife from his car. As he left the place I jumped the counter and locked the front door and then the ladies called the cops. He banged on the door for 10 minutes and eventually got his knife stuck and then left. An hour later the sgt of the detachement comes over and takes a look at the video and the knife and then says "what do you expect he's *****", I was floored he refused to take statements or press charges against the guy saying that it was pointless he would be back out in 24 hours and would be vengeful against us if he was charged.

Back in high school I worked at a video store and it was robbed at knife point, the police detachement was 20 minutes away in another town. I was working the night shift for one of the girls who was out sick. The guy that robbed the store was pissed off the "cute thing" wasn't there because he said "he would have enjoyed her". I pushed the panic button when he pulled the knife and it was a silent type. He left with the money, I locked the door in case he came back and 5 minutes later my boss showed up. I also called 911 and they said a officer would be there in 10 - 20 minutes, we waited 2 hours and they never showed. One week later the police came by to get a statement because they had been too busy the night of the robbery with a check stop to come to the store. My boss told them to do something impolite and I was pissed that it took them so long to come by.

Lastly I survived a car jacking attempt two years ago, the police didn't see any reason to follow up the crime because even though I had gotten the license plate of the get away vehicle and a good look at the two attackers they thought it would be unlikelly they would ever catch them. The get away vehicle license was run and it was a stolen vehicle.

So tell me that when someone comes into attack/rape your employees and or family and friends that you would not fight? Because I no longer believe that the police have enough manpower to actually respond to crimes in progress in a timely manner. Some are so depressed by the legal system and criminals getting off easily that they don't care anymore.



It purely makes sense any govt. not only US should know which of it's citizens has guns and what type. A record of this kind would be very handy to lower down crime figures, gang wars, shoot outs, murders, robbery etc. How will you know if a unknown person buys a gun from some shop and uses it for murder?
A record of such kind will help the police to track down criminals.

If you are honest and dont intend to use guns for illegal purpose such as helping terrorists by giving them your gun I can't understand why would people be worried if govt. knows they own a gun and of what type.


If you buy a gun you need a background check so they already know which guns you own. The gov't has a record, no one is complaining about them having it they are upset that they are giving a copy to the UN and all the member nations. Some of who will not use it for purposes in our best interest. Criminals don't buy guns from shops because they know there is a record. They steal them or buy ones brought in from China/Russia illegally. What is to stop a unfriendly nation from selling the list back to domestic criminals who then use it as a shopping list of which house to rob (when they want guns) or which not to rob (when they want a easy time).

To everyone who is still thinking this is a good idea I have a way to prove a point to you. Post online your address and a list of all the items in your house valued at over $500. Then see how long it takes for your house to be robbed.

editted to fix my spelling.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by exile1981]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
A few quick(ish) points:

1. This seems like a potentially Draconian move on the part of the Government, but remember: the 2nd amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms (for the maintenance of a well-armed militia, no less). It does not guarantee the right to secrecy with regards to the guns. Yes, I understand that knowing where the guns are would be the first step to confiscating them etc etc, but you can't call the legislation in questions "shredding the Constitution".

2. Can we please drop this ridiculous canard that those of us with guns would stand any real chance against a full military assault from either the US or any other country? Can you see daylight where you are sitting? Then guess what, a military sniper a quarter mile a way could kill you where you sit. In your underground bunker? A drone piloted by a 19 year old kid 2 miles off shore can bomb you into dust. Granted, low tech insurgencies are giving our forces all kinds of trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan but they are hardly kicking anyone's ass and they are not living any sort of life that we would be interested in duplicating.

3. Points 1 and 2 being said, we should still be ready to take weapons, provisions, resources and loved ones into remote wooded areas for extended periods of time in the event that TSHTF, but I think that the actions of world financial markets and the stability of the dollar will have far more influence on both the trajectory of the feces and the speed at which the fan is spinning.




#2 is one of my new favorites. In the same breath that we speak about how mighty our armed forces are, we talk about the armed rebellion we would put together to go against those forces. Seriously? Think of any rebellion as a piece of gasoline soaked paper being put into a 1000 degree furnance. The time it takes for that paper to evaporate is 10 times the length any rebellion would last against these highly trained, extremely powerful fighting warriors. Time for a plan b, c, d and an e.

With that said, we would face much better odds fighting ALONGSIDE our military as we push out any UN forces that have been put here. But that is an extreme stretch to think we would ever get that far.

Our soliders will be here to protect us and we can store up ammo, weapons and other provisions as we each deem necessary. As long as the flag flies high and our military stands ready to protect us, we can continue to enjoy each other's scary stories about what is coming. In reality, what we are hearing was planned out months ago and we are just following the script.




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   


#2 is one of my new favorites. In the same breath that we speak about how mighty our armed forces are, we talk about the armed rebellion we would put together to go against those forces. Seriously? Think of any rebellion as a piece of gasoline soaked paper being put into a 1000 degree furnance. The time it takes for that paper to evaporate is 10 times the length any rebellion would last against these highly trained, extremely powerful fighting warriors. Time for a plan b, c, d and an e.
reply to post by House Of Mirrors
 


Um . . . where do I talk about taking up armed rebellion? The second half of point #2 was dedicating to pre-empting naysayers who would point to Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of asymetrical warfare "working".

This is why I call the notion that armed civilians would stand a chance against any national military force especially the US Military a canard:




[oun, plural -nards  /-ˈnɑrdz; Fr. -ˈnar/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-nahrdz; Fr. -nar] Show IPA . 1. a false or baseless notion, story, meme, report, or rumor


All the same you seem to automatically extend a reasonable and appropriate faith in the basic goodness of American Soldiers to the whole of the military industrial complex. True, some soldiers would defy orders in the event of a truly bad martial law situation where then Constitution was getting shredded, but to assume that evil and illegal actions of the United States government would not receive substantial military support is a fantasy. Even if the UN was brought on the scene, we would not have the full might of the US army fight against them, but rather a splinter faction of the military. Another large chunk would be fighting alongside the UN.

Remember, the Federal Government and it's Corporate Masters do not love you. They are not concerned with your individual rights beyond your inalienable rights to buy consumer goods, watch trash TV and cast your imaginary vote in our periodic politcal kabuki theater.

I envy your ability to see what was once Our Government as separate from and better than the various other forces on the geo-politcal scene, but you are missing the bigger picture here. It has been a long long time since anything was about the United States versus a foreign power.

Spend a couple of days reading the archives around here. Google the terms "Ruling Elites" "Illuminati" "New World Order" "Diebold" "Blackwater" "Pilots for 9-11 Truth" Read about RFID chips and the resemblance to the systems IBM built for Germany About 75 years ago. Remember to hope for the best (which you already do) but plan for the worst. There is no such thing as paranoia: it is all true and worse than you think.

I hope your view of the world is the more accurate one. I doubt that it is.

[edited for typos and clarity]



[edit on 18-9-2009 by RobertAntonWeishaupt]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
No foreign treaty can possibly negate our Bill of Rights. First of all, it's unconstitutional, and it would have to survive the Supreme Court.
...............
..............


Do you forget that President Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, and she was confirmed?...

This woman HATES our Second Amendment right, among other things, and alongside the other nominees which President Obama has put in government jobs are ALL advocates of giving up our sovereignty, and allowing the UN to control our laws.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
.............
I'll quote this so people have a chance to read it again, though they probably won't.


You are kidding right?.... How the hell do you think they can control whether firearms being sold are legal or not?.... They HAVE to have ALL RECORDS in order for them to decide whether firearms are being used illegally or not.... and yes this goes against the law of the land, at least in the U.S. and according to our Constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join