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: 13
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 

Assume much?

Seriously. You don't even know if I own a gun or not. I just happen to believe that this recycled crap and how it stirs people up, what people think the treaty is, and the overall tone here to be pretty paranoid and deranged.




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


This is why a PRIMARY source is important to the story.

Your source is from before the election. The OP is about actions supposedly taking place after the election.

The UN treaty in question has nothing to do with gun control issues within a country's borders. That is any country. It explicitly goes into great detail to describe that it has no intention or authority to affect what any country does about weapons in its own jurisdiction. The treaty is about international arms trafficking.

International treaties MUST be APPROVED by Congress. International treaties CANNOT override the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. has delayed this treaty because international arms trafficking is one its largest businesses, and no administration, Democratic or Republican, wants to cross that lobby.

The whole premise behind the OP is to scare the crap out of people who can't be bothered to take the time to think about what they are reading. It is, in a nutshell, propaganda, and very nasty propaganda at that. It is lying about the situation from go to whoa - about Obama's intentions, about the U.S. Constitution, about the intention of the treaty, about the United Nations relationship to the United States and other countries.

The entire premise is a lie. So if you can't find a reliable primary source, that says this crap is going down, and this is how it will work then it means that your secondary sources are lying to you. I know that might hurt your self esteem to discover that someone you WANT to believe is purposely, premeditatedly, lying to you, but that is the simple fact.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Good..

how many school massacres, mall shootings, street rampages do Americans need until they realise life goes on without an extensive automatic weapons collection in your home?

Its easy to 'make' a gun for starters..

second, i doubt you'd allow the US government to go as far as to become a dictatorship and own/control you. Yes, its bad at the moment, but it can get 10000x worse, but im confident you wouldnt let it get that far.

Ahhh America.... you and your guns!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

Wow.....

Read my previous posts. You might consider an edit. I'll hold my reply ......as I believe I've made every single point you just did and in far greater detail in previous posts with cited sources, in fact and on this very thread. What I was posting the UN General Assembly Schedule in relation to was the seeming idea that this isn't actually being debated and discussed by the UN right now. Which it is. Beyond that? See above.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
i TRULY hope that the govt isnt so insane as to actually attempt this regardless of any interpretation of a UN bill.

When you have a company like Sturm-Ruger that REFUSES new orders due to back orders? Sorry.

This many people arming up are not likely to just say "ok. sorry. Here ya go mr soldier/FEMA youth".



Before they would attempt a grab or turn in, they would simple turn loose a really nasty virus made in some CDC room that would wipe out a few hundred thousand or so.

Agenda 21.

....or they could just sit back and go hide under a mountain while ww3 rages above.

I dont expect any late night "visits". They wouldnt go well and they couldnt do enough of them fast enough to get the desired effect. People would be "awake" instantly with blinders off.


This is the point in our national history where we need to pull together, tell the MSM to go straight to hell, realize that they are race baiting us, and UNITE!

Things are gonna get bad in the next few years. Meet your neighbors. Discover that the christian, muslim, jew, pagan next door isnt really a bad guy after all.

You may end up saving each others lives.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by new_here
why oh why would a sitting president even be discussing a global ban on gun ownership???


What a stupid claim, care to show us exactly where Obama is doing that?



I clicked on the thread title just like you. Did you read it? Maybe you don't believe it is true. Maybe you are right.

What is stupid about asking: "...why oh why would a sitting president even be discussing a global ban on gun ownership???"

Pretty important question if the premise is true. If not, it is irrelevant but not stupid.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by jjkenobi
 



The criminals will always have guns because they DON'T OBEY THE LAWS. That's why they are criminals. It just means the rest of us will be defenseless


We Civilians shouldn't possess guns . There are cops to protect us from Criminals . We cannot take law into our own hand .




you are obviously confused..

defending yourself is an inalienable right..

the laws are an after effect of legality fleshing out the sentiment in each state..

it would be idiotic to be defenseless & watch your family die

waiting for someone to save you.

criminals do not follow laws.. hence the term "outlaw".

so, to make a law, putting law abiding citizens in danger

is absurd & would defeat the purpose of safety of

not only your person & family.. but leave you defenseless of

your property.. which is the most important one..

after all.. do you not own your body & what you produce?

should you not be able to legally & lawfully protect yourself

from a criminal committing a murder, then explain to the cops what happened?

with your line of thinking, you would not be able to speak, you'd be dead

and just a statistic.. used to scare up more support for gun control of

citizens thereby leaving more people open to easy crime spree's against

gun less law abiding citizen's by people who do not follow laws.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Logarock
 

Assume much?

Seriously. You don't even know if I own a gun or not. I just happen to believe that this recycled crap and how it stirs people up, what people think the treaty is, and the overall tone here to be pretty paranoid and deranged.



Well if the discussion now or on any other gun plan confronts the 2nd amendment then it should not even be discussed......and to do so is treason.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Good..

how many school massacres, mall shootings, street rampages do Americans need until they realise life goes on without an extensive automatic weapons collection in your home?

Its easy to 'make' a gun for starters..

second, i doubt you'd allow the US government to go as far as to become a dictatorship and own/control you. Yes, its bad at the moment, but it can get 10000x worse, but im confident you wouldnt let it get that far.

Ahhh America.... you and your guns!

www.youtube.com...


Ok fine. But are you aware that the 2nd amendment is in the deal to insure that things never get to far down the road. Its a political tool just like free speech.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Yeah, im aware.

But hoarding mass amounts of firearms isnt doing you any good.

Go look at the grieving parents of any highschool/mall massacre and ask them whats more dangerous

1. Your government
2. Guns in the streets



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Yeah, im aware.

But hoarding mass amounts of firearms isnt doing you any good.

Go look at the grieving parents of any highschool/mall massacre and ask them whats more dangerous

1. Your government
2. Guns in the streets



My guns are not in the street.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
what if by some freak miracle guns are banned.

then what, a global ban on bows and arrows.

o.k. all the bows are gone.

some yokel stabs a guy for the usual ridiculous reason, knives are banned.

by this point, we'll be in the stone age.

and criminals will be fully armed, lock and loaded. why, because they aren't complete idiots and following some elitist rich douchebag surrounded by armed bodyguards like he is their leader.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
If the president signs something that starts definite action to take away our right to bear arms, we impeach him. If our Congressmen don't want to help we recall them and put someone else in their place. We can do this using their laws to protect us without an armed conflict. We can replace all of congress within months if we want to and put someone who is pro-gun into their job.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
the un bill is about international gun trade..not domestic gun ownership as i read it..it would be a much nicer place with less guns but i think the problem is too far gone..waaaayyy too many guns floating around to ever be able to control it now..take the guns away from law abiders and only the criminals will have them



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


And that's why I prefer State law over Federal law. Californian or New York has no idea of what's going on in Ohio, or vice versa. Federal laws tend to sweep over the nation like a wildfire.
My view is that it is more important to pick strong state government than the President.

To the persons that shiver and quake at the thought of a gun, does my owning a longbow bother you? It does relatively the same thing. Longbows are hip in movies. I'm sure you have a different opinion of them.
edit on 8-11-2012 by TheCounselor because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by jjkenobi
 



The criminals will always have guns because they DON'T OBEY THE LAWS. That's why they are criminals. It just means the rest of us will be defenseless


We Civilians shouldn't possess guns . There are cops to protect us from Criminals . We cannot take law into our own hand .


That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
news.investors.com...

Don't know if it has been posted yet or not.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

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


Sorry, the guy right before me posted the link, so I deleted my post.


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



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I'm left to wonder if anyone has actually bothered to research the U.N. Arms Trade treaty. It isn't about taking your guns away, just so you know.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join