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 UN global gun ban less than 24 hours after reelection

page: 10
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
..ranted too much.. post deleted
edit on 8-11-2012 by alienreality because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I'm really confused here and I'm lost for where the point of this debate arises anymore? The UN treaty in question is not, in any way, targeting domestic U.S. 2nd amendment politics let alone domestic personal firearm ownership.

It is however targeting the international trade in small arms which is a mega-billion dollar a year industry. It makes this meaningful and important that the U.S. IS leading the way and I can be a rabid 2nd amendment supporter (which I sure am) and support some intelligent policy on INTERNATIONAL trade of weapons into and around war zones and nations who do not share our feelings about personal gun ownership.


Illicit arms trafficking fuels civil wars, contributes to sky-rocketing crime rates and feeds the arsenals of the world's worst terrorists. Particularly troubling is the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SA/LW). SA/LW account for an estimated 60-90% of the 100,000+ conflict deaths each year (Small Arms Survey 2005) and tens of thousands of additional deaths outside of war zones. They are also the weapons of choice for many terrorists. Of the roughly 175 terrorist attacks identified in last year's State Department report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, approximately half were committed with small arms or light weapons.



In the hands of terrorists and other criminals, these weapons have the capacity to kill dozens, even hundreds, of innocent civilians. A shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile - available on the black market for as little as a few thousand dollars - can bring down a commercial airliner. Even a couple of $100 assault rifles can inflict horrendous casualties, as evidenced by the November 1997 terrorist attack in Luxor, Egypt, during which 6 terrorists armed only with assault rifles, pistols and knives systematically slaughtered 58 tourists.

For these reasons, small arms trafficking is not a problem you solve; it is a problem you manage. By enacting strong export and border controls, safeguarding (or destroying) stockpiles, dismantling trafficking networks, and addressing the root causes of the civil conflicts and soaring urban crime rates, governments can reduce the supply of, and demand for, these weapons.
Source - FAS

There absolutely is a real problem and this is the approach to solve it where it exists in that ether between nations and among nations. Hence....United Nations. They do a couple things right, just occasionally.

Additionally, Obama may pass "assault" weapon bans....but we'll see how the court handles that. It's not gone that direction for quite some time now. In fact, going by the 2009 D.C. vs. Heller decision, almost ALL the debate about gun bans, gun seizures and just about anything beyond a possible assault weapon ban following the same lines as the last one, became a moot point. (Millions have been sold since 2008, as well. It's far too late either way) I wouldn't lay good odds for that level of 'ban' standing a Super Court challenge either. However, DC Vs. Heller held among other things....:


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.



2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.



3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.
DC Vs. Heller Legal Summary

Additionally, they incorporated the 2nd amendment which means it applies to states equally. Gun bans maaaybe could have somehow been worked before that decision. Now? It's a moot point and cannot happen by the law of the land. It would take a state's ratified Constitutional Amendment to alter that or a complete reversal (exceptionally rare) by the Super Court. International treaties DO NOT, by our system, over-ride this. It's a false debate all the way around, IMO.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


No it proves he wanted to be re-elected.



He hasn't lied about it so far - so, so far - I'm right and you're wrong. Yes, we'll wait and see what the next four years bring. Will you come back and admit you were WRONG when four years go by and Obama doesn't attempt to ban all guns in America?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Yes he has. He stated in writing in his questionnaire to run for Illinois Senator that he was for gun control laws. So, yeah, he's lied at least once because you can't be for gun control laws and not be for gun control laws. One of those things is mutually exclusive from the other.

Hence, a fact, he lied. You can pick which time, but it really doesn't matter to me because either time still makes him a proven liar.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


FINALLY - a conservative on this thread with some sense. Thank you!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It is, indeed, targetting domestic transfer of small arms and ammunition. It requires tracking and reporting of all transfers of both.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
OMG! OMG! OMG! GO BUY ALL THE GUNS AND AMMO YOU CAN!!!

Just like last time he got elected. It was the best thing to ever happen to the NRA and all the firearm and ammunition manufacturers. And lo and behold he EXPANDED gun rights in his first term!

But lets scream FIRE in a crowded place, again, so that everyone goes out and empties the shelves of guns and ammo. How much you wanna bet every executive in the NRA, and all the firearm manufacturers voted for Obama? IF they didn't it was a terrible business decision.

This is complete garbage. He won't take your guns, check that, he CAN'T take your guns. So take a deep breath and keep that money in savings, in case you really need it.

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Yes he has. He stated in writing in his questionnaire to run for Illinois Senator that he was for gun control laws. So, yeah, he's lied at least once because you can't be for gun control laws and not be for gun control laws. One of those things is mutually exclusive from the other.

Hence, a fact, he lied. You can pick which time, but it really doesn't matter to me because either time still makes him a proven liar.



You can support gun control and not support a total gun ban. Obama does not want a total ban on guns. He has never said he wanted a total ban on guns, he has never supported a total ban on guns, he has done NOTHING to prove that he wants a total ban on guns. Thus, the title of this OP is FALSE.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I heard about this before the election. There was an ad played here quite often about this upcoming proposal.
It may have been from the NRA..not sure. Best thing to do is keep pressure on Congress, they are the only ones that can allow this to happen.
I'm fairly confident that Obama can not use executive privilege to ram it through.
I'm guessing this is why Obama has been silent on pushing any other gun legislature in Congress.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I don't see anyone taking away your rights to these anytime soon.



There are simply to many people here in the USA that would go ape if it was attempted. Not happening, sorry.

Within the realm of posiblity, however, could be new restrictions.
edit on 8-11-2012 by MystikMushroom because: BECAUSE I CAN MWAHAHA!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





Yeah, so he doesn't like assault weapons. I don't either. I also don't think every Joe should have a nuclear missile either. Assault weapons and nuclear missiles are a little different than handguns and shotguns. Nowhere has Obama said he wants all guns in America to go away. Nowhere.


God I hate these discussions people are so goddamned ignorant it is maddening as hell they throw all these media propaganda terms around like they mean something. "Assault Weapon" is one of those propaganda terms designed to bias the uninformed against guns... Any gun can be used to assault someone. There are any number of semi automatic hunting/ranch rifles that are functionally no different then a military rifle. The only difference is looks. The anti gunners hate those evil looking black rifles but the same rifles with a pretty wood stock is not so bad.,..Sigh! Millions of kids are given ranch rifles every Christmas that will hold 30 round magazines and fire the same rounds as military rifles. They all will kill someone just as dead despite their looks. Its the operator that is responsible for how they are used... And they have all been rarely used in crimes... They even want to ban .50 caliber rifles when NONE have ever been used in a crime... Sigh!

Trying to associate them with nuclear weapons is just insane and just more propaganda designed to try and further bias people against them when there is no comparison whatsoever. The very presence of a nuclear weapon can cause harm to ones neighbor so no you cannot have a nuclear missile at your ranch... Rifles have to be picked up and a conscious choice made by an individual in order for them to cause harm to others...


edit on 8-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





You can support gun control and not support a total gun ban.

I believe in gun control also, proper usage, control and safety of your weapon. As for any more legislation, there is enough on the books already. Maybe Obama doesn't want us to cling to our guns and Bible?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I didn't say anything about him supporting a gun ban, now did I?

Gun control is infringing on my right to obtain arms for my own defense against any corrupt forces within or without my country. It's unconstitutional.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mugger
 





I'm fairly confident that Obama can not use executive privilege to ram it through.


Why? He has already rammed a bunch of crap through by EO that is illegal and unconstitutional and the republican controlled congress has done nothing...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
My perception....does it matter if there is a ban or not?...there's a ban on a lot of things in this world...does it stop people from obtaining or using these banned items?whatever they may be......?Point is there will always be a ban on something an always those seeking ways to slip passed the bans.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


But it's for your own protection don't you understand. If you have a gun you might hurt someone with it.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by UdonNiedtuno
 


Actually, right now, you can't buy all the ammo you want. The DHS made sure of that. Try to get some .223 HP ammo...let me know what estimated date they give you (if they give you any at all).



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Onewhoknowsjesus
 


I really hope you're being sarcastic. Right now citizens who are own guns and are not criminals... are not criminals. A ban would instantly make them criminals, against the constitutional right they were exercising. That's why it matters.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
This thread started out with an unsourced claim that President Obama supports a global UN gun ban. No evidence has been provided to support this claim. The thread has now deteriorated into a heated argument about gun control. I submit that the OP was merely baiting the members here, knowing that an unsubstantiated claim could provoke a knee jerk reaction that served his ultimate purpose. This is why I don't usually participate in these political threads.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
It is, indeed, targetting domestic transfer of small arms and ammunition. It requires tracking and reporting of all transfers of both.


Please post the relevant article of the treaty to support your claim.




top topics



 
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join