Obama supports UN global gun ban less than 24 hours after reelection

They stage these mass shootings like Aurora etc hoping that this will spark enough fear and outrage that people will plead for more gun control, but that's NEVER going to work. The crazier sh*t gets, the MORE people will want to protect themselves. You cannot trick even pacifists into leaving themselves totally defenseless against marauding armed criminals. A police force, no matter how effective, is in no way an adequate substitute for personal firearms for self defense.

All this will do is force a bloody revolution.

reply to post by murphy22


Bravo Zulu, my friend.

Originally posted by badgerprints
The title is from an article on the sacramento bee website.
PR news wire. US news wire.

Obama administration has finally started showing their stripes. They have joined a coalition of other nations at the UN in pushing a global gun ban.

Not sure if this is true yet. But if it is then not much else needs to be said.

Sorry,
Can't find details yet but it's PR News.
Link won't attach.
Sacbee.com
Unedited news wire. Not out on main news yet. Could be incorrect but I don't know.

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

Looks like the article title is spun pretty hard but implications are still not clear. Wording in the document is purported to cite the prevention of proliferation of illicit firearms.

Problem is, the US already does that.
Fast and furious for example.

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

No linky, no believy. You create a post and you can't provide a link to the article supporting your claim??? And you even edit your post saying it is not clear just what is true: "Could be incorrect but I don't know." WOW

Typical fear-monger, factless, anti-Obama post.

Just as I thought.

Thanks for doing the honors.

Hope and change, but for who??

Took them a long time. This was clumsily fielded in his 'cling to their guns n religion' gaff.

Hey, we know who's really doing this, right? They didn't keep him there so he could 'face the music', you know.

Holder...where's HOLDER! He's fast, but I'm furious.

Never again. Unless they put the noose around their necks first....

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by badgerprints

 

You have a bad habit of not including any links in your OPs. Not good.

Nuh-uh. No one needs a link for the obvious. It may be a pre-empt, but I doubt it. They may have put it out there to gauge the response. One ought to be behind bars, just for the thought.

If it's a [HOAX], that's a good thing. Don't bet on it.

The UN is the zionist latest hiding place. They don't really like hiding, but that sort of power does benefit laying low, places that generate a snow white tan. When all this is over, they'll emerge, saying they were tortured, kept in dungeons....

Originally posted by DJW001
Could it be that the reason you did not include any relevant links is because the UN measure Obama supports is not a ban on gun ownership, but a measure designed to control the illegal trade in weapons to militants and terrorists? It would not have any effect on domestic firearm possession, but would make it illegal for, say, Russia, to sell military equipment to pirates in Somalia:

www.un.org...

Righto. So we have nothing to worry about as long as they never categorize US citizens as "terrorists"...

Originally posted by DJW001
Could it be that the reason you did not include any relevant links is because the UN measure Obama supports is not a ban on gun ownership, but a measure designed to control the illegal trade in weapons to militants and terrorists? It would not have any effect on domestic firearm possession, but would make it illegal for, say, Russia, to sell military equipment to pirates in Somalia:

www.un.org...

Or the United States government to sell guns to the Mexican drug cartel?
[which in turn is used to kill our border agents]

Fast & Furious ring a bell??

The US government is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites!!!

One of the main selling points of the treaty is that it will apparently keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists, but as we saw with the fast and furious scandal, as well as with the long list of government gunrunning scandals before that, western governments are the biggest supplier of arms to criminals and terrorists.

With that being said, any measure that these governments take to control the sale or possession of firearms is a Trojan horse, designed to disarm the population.

We all know damn well that they will NEVER stop the criminals/terrorist from obtaining guns.......Never.

It's just an excuse, a ruse one might say, and I for one do not trust what they claim the treaty is designed for.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Havn't you learned, what a law says and what it does is two defferent things? Would you like some sugar for that Kool Aid?

reply to post by badgerprints


Thanks for the tip...will keep up on this come March 2013.

Makes me wonder what else Obama has in store for us over the next 4 years.

He's one sneaky devil.......he likes using holidays, when every one is preoccupied, to pass controversial executive orders.

Being as our government is one of the biggest gun suppliers, wonder how that will sit with the UN, with them trying to push for the Global Gun Treaty?
[Hypocrites !!! ]

Unless, of course, there is a hidden agenda that the general public is not privy to......

snarky


S&F

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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.

What would you have me edit? You asked at question, I answered. I don't retract any of it. If you can't find a reliable primary source then what you are reading is lying propaganda. And if you don't think a reliable source is required when promoting sensationalism, then you are holding your readers in contempt.

Originally posted by Thescripter
news.investors.com...

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

Its from the same Press Release as the one the SacBee printed. Its rubbish from go to whoa.

reply to post by TigaHawk

Take a look at Australia right now.

The only people with Guns are the Police and Criminals.

That is simply not true.

Repeat for emphasis: YOUR. ASSERTION. IS. FALSE.

Australians who need guns are free to own guns.

I am not a hunter myself, but I several of my buddies are. They own several guns each.

I am not a farmer myself, but I know several wine makers. They each have several shotguns for shooting rabbits in their vinyard.

I know of fox hunters and kangaroo cullers that have guns for their work. I know of small claims miners that have guns for self protection and snake control.

You simply do not know what you are talking about and really shouldn't pretend that you do.

reply to post by UltraMarine

what world do you live in without guns how do we protect are self.Do you no nothing on how America became free from England do some research .and after you do that why do you think it is in are constitution to bare arms there is a reason for that .i know they have dumb us down some more than others wow.really

reply to post by UltraMarine


Call a cop and see if he even comes .Your safety is up to you !

reply to post by rnaa


Your government is going to decide if you need a gun ????? Well maybe you should not have a gun .

reply to post by rnaa

Well, okay, then I'll simply thank you in some confusion for the rest of your post there....as you did a rather good job of summarizing what I made for points myself starting on page 10 with the DC Vs. Heller case which makes the whole idea of gun bans a moot point to begin with.....properly cited to the case law as it should be. Then my post on page 11 which cited and elaborated a bit on the cases establishing Constitutional Supremacy over any and all agreements or treaties. Again, properly cited to case law and texts of the Supreme Court Cases which established that precedent. For space, I simply used 2. That more than makes the point.

So I am confused about your point on "primary" sources, as I seem to have a pretty fair history of being down right particular on using nothing but original sources whenever possible.

Now, if using the United Nations website for the schedule of the United Nations General Assembly committees just a few days ago with....you may have noticed...other entries referring to future work by UNIDIR (which is related to the Small Arms Treaty activity among many other things) isn't a primary source on a thread about the UN Small Arms Treaty.... Umm... You have me at a total loss for what is. I may have misread your message though...but this seemed pretty clear..

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.

....and might make sense if I had, at any point agreed with the premise of the OP. The fact is, I haven't and actually, disagreed with it. I simply don't paint myself into an ideological corner where I can't see nonsense on both sides when it's there. There seemed to be a suggestion, as noted before, that this treaty wasn't even the subject of discussion at the United Nations right now, in November of 2012. Which clearly. it IS ... So, I shared the sourced material showing that..... The fact it's not relevant to the OP's concerns/worries was already something I replied on.

reply to post by UltraMarine


Someone is trying to kick in your front door what do you do? you run for your fone and dial 911, 911 whats your emergency? boom

reply to post by UltraMarine


Yeh but the current law is that you can legally own a gun and use it for your own self defense , therefore you dont need a cop to follow you around , you can legally use a gun for self defense !

its written in the constitution , the document that was written to protect american citizens from the same imperialist abuse that the Crown of England were forcing on the US colony.

So now your government are actively seeking to change that and force you all to disarm and surrender your own personal defense items. Making it easier for criminals to target unarmed citizens and easier for the government to inflict any damage they want as they know that the mass majority are now unarmed and not as dangerous .

reply to post by UltraMarine

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

Come to Brazil then, where you can`t legally have a gun but the police don`t protect you, awesome.

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by KaiserSoze

 

Its sad and pathetic to see your love for Guns . The same guns which kill innocent Souls . The same guns which were used in Mass Murder . A disciplined higher society believes in Rule of Law and prohibits guns from Civilian Hand .

Wait. They have soul-killing guns? Frak. I gotta get one of those...