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

I don't think this "gun ban" is intended to disarm the general population; I think it's intended to limit the illicit arms dealing.

I don't think that is really going to change much though, since the main reason criminals need to be armed is because law enforcement officers carry guns.

Case in point: Japan. They severely limit gun ownership and even limit law enforcement's access to firearms, and consequently they have the lowest gun-related crime rate in the world.

www.theatlantic.com...

In part by forbidding almost all forms of firearm ownership, Japan has as few as two gun-related homicides a year.

In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal.

And for those who think we need guns to resist tyranny...

...the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force... it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship...

reply to post by HolgerTheDane2


The lack of "saturday night specials" that are relatively cheap and easy to operate, is what is causing poor people in urban and suburban areas to fall victim to those WITH ANY WEAPON that attack you for your money, hate crime or from organised crime.

Saturday night specials are a blessing in disguise. High end manfacturers have propagated obscene propaganda that they are too easy to get and thus should be outlawed. I would love to have any .22 or .25 for self defense. I don't want to spend $550 for a 9mm that I will use maybe once or twice in my life, if ever. Most gangsters have the same weapon or just a knife, so any gun by the victim is better than nothing. It is all about accuracy and quick trigger. Two in the chest with a .17 could kill you before a 9mm is shot.

Another VERY STUPID law is against short barraled rifles and short barraled shotguns. The so-called reasoning behind this is that they are easily concealed and can suprise people. Well guess what government, ANY PISTOL then should be banned FOR THE SAME REASON! It is a terrible gun law. Or the regulation of how many rounds your magazine can hold. WTF does it matter? If it is semi-auto it does not make a difference if there are 10 rounds or 100 rounds. Silencers should not be as well. They cause no problem! It is just a way for the government to collect $200 for each item that is strictly controlled. The gun laws need to stop and unravel themselves. I agree with the moderate conservatives in some ways!

reply to post by badgerprints


you can';t link your source... it is not in mainstream news and you have no idea if it is true...


i just read a story where republicans show their true colors by saying they hate all minorities and they want to finish the job on native americans with drone strikes.

I read it somewhere.. its not on mainstream media and I am not sure that it is true

The south will rise again..

I'm going to make a thread on this when I hit 20 posts, but until then, think about this. There are people in this country that honestly believe that only police and government should have guns. That somehow the government that was created for the people by the people should be in complete control of the people. It is completely and absolutely sickening.

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by badgerprints

 

Isn't global gun ban a good idea ?

Just think of it this way. Lets say guns where banned. And everyone did the right thing and turned their guns in. All lawful people the world over turned their guns in. (pretend time here).
Now the world is full of unlawful people now owning all the guns! Would you really feel safe in a world in only allowed criminal the firearms? As not everyone would be following the rules. But lets say you are a lawful person, and did follow the law as it states gun bun.
Just think of a world where only criminals now have the firearms. (pretend time still)

A gun ban will IMO never happen. They have laws in place where if you are a felon or have broken the law, there are means taken to take guns away from these people.
Still these people still own guns, its just when you get "caught" your in more trouble.

A gun ban simply won't happen here in the USA. And will not be happening in any of those 3rd world countries.
Man has had some form of weapon to get the job done. Be it a rock, or a branch from a tree. People will always find a way to protect themselves, and or kill others.
But lets be honest, pulling a trigger is much easier than beating someone to death with a rock.
But this is the day and age in which we live. Guns are a part of the world we live, and will not be going anywhere.
They are only going to improve and get more dangerous as time passes.

You know,
I really am surprised how much of a lather people are in over this thread.
Lots of traffic just to let me know how much of a liar I am.
If you don't actually read a thread then you don't see the line of discussion.

Guess ill make it a point to be obscure intentionally from now on and just watch the fun.
Otherwise

Anger
Confusion
Chaos

My job is done here.

Enjoy

reply to post by wagnificent


Less guns = less GUN RELEATED CRIME. WOW, whats your point?

What about other homicides? Any critical thinker would know that crime and murder are not limited to firearms.

Disarming law abiding people does not stop criminals from wanting to cause a crime, it only changes their methods I don't even WANT to talk about some of the horrific things that some people have done to others with chemicals.

I'm a gun owner who was converted from the same philosophy you follow. Do you have to guts to say that I'm a potential criminal by your logic?

edit on 9-11-2012 by GambitVII because: (no reason given)

reply to post by wagnificent


Not really. You take away guns but the mafia will have them anyway. If no guns are available anywhere then people will use knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, stones, poison, martial arts, etc.

As for tunisia, the peaceful revolution happened because the army sided with the muslim brotherhood. If it did not, then we tunisia would have turned into another libya or syria. Government officials, whether police or military always have the best weapons. Taking guns away from people because a few people do not deserve them and the government cannot be bothered to do background checks, or because a few accidents happend per year makes little sense.

reply to post by zysin5


How many tens of millions of people were hacked to death swords , run through by spears , chopped to death with hatchets or killed with arrows not to speak of poisonings ,death by knives and clubs .How many thousands die each year in car accidents , airplane and boating deaths .Guns make it easier for someone who is not young and a brute to defend themselves . I wonder what percentage of justifiable shootings of the crimminal element has been included into the hommocide by gun statistics . There are people interested in making things look as bad as possible . They are mostly the police and Government and NWO/ UN.

reply to post by GambitVII


Guns in England are outlawed , even the police don't carry except for special occasions . But the criminal element still has them! They used them recently over there during a riot .
It is mostly the young and strong that do harm , guns give the aged the ability to stop the terror .

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by six67seven

 

Wow, I didn't know we had a resident expert on the mentally unstable and how psych tests work.

There's a lot you don't know, get used to it. But in this case, it's common sense.

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by badgerprints

 

you can';t link your source... it is not in mainstream news and you have no idea if it is true...


i just read a story where republicans show their true colors by saying they hate all minorities and they want to finish the job on native americans with drone strikes.

I read it somewhere.. its not on mainstream media and I am not sure that it is true

edit on 9-11-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

Are you suggesting that Obama is not supporting this treaty?? Just because you never heard it on MSNBC... Guess what? You'll never hear it from MSNBC or NBC or CBS period...

How's Reuters for you?

Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

'MONTHS AWAY' FROM DEAL?

Countries that abstained included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran. China, a major arms producer that has traditionally abstained, voted in favor.

Among the top six arms-exporting nations, Russia cast the only abstention. Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in support of the resolution.

The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.

The resolution said countries are "determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty."

Furthermore, I posted information directly from the UN regarding this treaty and what it aims to do earlier in this thread.

Deny ignorance.... and stop your trolling....

www.reuters.com...

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by badgerprints

 

Isn't global gun ban a good idea ?

Magic fairy dust that instantly removes all firearms and knowledge of combustion and related physics from society is a "good idea"

An ban, any prohibition for that matter, is a pointless exercise in futility.

na it shouldnt be Guns at all well good bye hunting .. to feed the family hello Soybean & chemical induced meat at the Meat market ...

it should be All Be on the Historic Rap Sheeted Mental Defectives ,
Low IQ , The Crazies Just Plain Chemical imbalanced type
and Criminal Type Especaily Family with Issues of Violance

Labeling..

Well there was Eugentics once apon a Time

That even Hitler Copied from the Grand ol, U.S.A.

Eugenics
en.wikipedia.org...

But... isnt there a 5 day wait , Criminal Check when you buy a gun ..?

in THe Grand Ol, US of A

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by zysin5

 

How many tens of millions of people were hacked to death swords , run through by spears , chopped to death with hatchets or killed with arrows not to speak of poisonings ,death by knives and clubs .How many thousands die each year in car accidents , airplane and boating deaths .
There are people interested in making things look as bad as possible . They are mostly the police and Government and NWO/ UN.

You are right, to many to keep count on.
And its those very people who are trying to make it look as bad as possible so that they can gain that under hand once again. They know they have no control over a critical thinking population of people, but give those same critical thinkers guns and ammo, you have the makings of an uprising, and revolt.
They will do and say anything to keep that from happening.. They will protect what they seized from us. And by keeping the people unable of critical thinking, and keeping us at odds with each other, buys them more time to tighten their iron grasp over us all.

reply to post by jibeho


Nice of you to post the article from rueters, now would you please point out to me in said article where they are going to 'take all our guns'. Point that out and what your saying matters, don't and it is just our president doing what he can about illegal arms dealing.

From your article: An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.


Now would the republicans come on in and blow some more smoke up our asses please?!? The GOP dropped talking about this in July, if it was really that incriminating it would've been run all election season. Thanks but this is yet again the fear monging of your local republican cosmonauts.

Silly Republicans always thinking someones gonna take their guns away. Better cling tighter to those bibles they might be next.

Seriously as a Democrat I own plenty of guns no ones gonna take them get over it.

reply to post by gangdumstyle


Yup. I love America, but f I gotta fight my brothers in the government with lead to keep my rights. It will be so. Give me freedom or give me death. I am not trying to glorify death at all, but lets face it, if we rebel a lot of us are going to die. Better be prepared for the consequences.

I wouldn't hesitate to kill a blue pot any day of the week.

However, the only time I would pick up arms is with the backing of my state. Mississippi. Otherwise, I'd just be a terrorist and will die like one. So I'd be waiting for state support.

reply to post by milkyway12


Why not use legislation? Do you find writing too time consuming?

reply to post by SymbolicLogic


Apparently the treaty is a legal way around the constitution. I am just not afraid to do what it takes. The government does not fear a people with no teeth.