Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

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 .


I never said I love guns.

If I did love guns it wouldn't be the ones IN THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS which kill innocent Souls. Guns are tools, if I use a hammer building you a house you will be much happier than if I use the same hammer to crack your skull open. I could use a gun to help feed and protect my family, or I could rob a gas station. I could drive the little old lady next door to her doctor appointment, or I could slam a fifth of vodka and go try to outrun cops.

Those options rely solely on my choices, and while I personally would not choose the second option there are plenty of people who would.

I don't even know what this nonsense is supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that you are aware of some "disciplined higher society" somewhere in which crime does not exist?


A disciplined higher society believes in Rule of Law and prohibits guns from Civilian Hand




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Oh to hell with it.

Yes
Obama is coming for your guns and is about to proclaim the UN the new administration from the US.
You lot have been correct the whole time.

Now, there...the secret is out. so get to your bunkers and lock it for 100 years already!!!


Well, crap! The cat is outta the bag now.

You need to report to your local UN office and be processed.

I can't believe you just did that!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


It's the same thing with abortion activists.

Roe v Wade isnt going anywhere. Nobody is going to lose their ability to abort a pregnancy. Yet it's a top 5 issue election after election after election.

I'll stop living as though my rights are under attack when politicians and special interest groups stop attacking those rights.

I'm sure the pro-choice crowd feels the same way.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
In the future only government controlled sections within a society will be allowed to own a gun.
That's when a democracy will turn into a tyranny. From that point on we will not be able to defend ourselves from state authority.

This wont be done all at once. It will start with that common citizens wont be given a permit to buy a gun.
And a few at a time at different locations will have to hand their guns in for some kind of legal reason.
It will happen in a manner that prevents people from gathering or forming opposition to what is actually taking place.

The plan will be to clean you out before you know hove screwed you are.


First it will be semi-auto loading with certain feature such as pistol grips, folding stocks and large detachable magazines. Shotgun or Rifle

Second will be all semi-auto loading regardless of features and any that accept commom military cartridges.

Third will be opticle scopes, night vision devices, laser aiming devices and body armor.

All that will be left is single shot non-military cartridge weapons to throw sop at Second Amendment making claims that these are all thats needed for sporting use and does not constitute a ban.

Take specific notice that any banned weapon or item will be because it is a force multiplier that threatens military or para-military groups which is the ultimate aim of the gun grabbers - then no opposition is possible to their edicts and tyranny. It is not citizens who should fear assualt weapons but it is our very own government whos ultimately held in check that is very fearful - and that is as it was intended by the founders.

The Second Amendment was written not for hunter or sportsman but was specifically put there to give the people the means to throw off tyranny. In the US Constitution the rights are listed as god given not government given to taketh away, they existed before the constitution according to that document. The government has no right at all.



edit on 8-11-2012 by Phoenix because: sp



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Since alot of people are unemployed or underemployed (or just plain broke) if wonder if they will come up with some kind of offer: We will give you good cash for your guns. People could be swayed if it was a good offer. After all, they need to put food on the table.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



You, the individual, doesnt decide squat.


If you truly believe this, why don't you move somwhere else?


All your neighbors decide for you.


I take it you feel bullied by your neighbors. I get along pretty well with mine.


The real question is how much do you trust your neighbors?


If I didn't trust them, I wouldn't live here.


Enough to let them run your life?


I'm sensing control issues here.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by UltraMarine
 


What about hunting for food?? Gun ban would eliminate people's ability to provide food for their families. While much of the US relies on Grocery stores, there are still remote areas that have little access to a local Walmart and use guns to protect their livestock or hunt deer, rabbit, phesant for food. Would you have them starve??



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Being intentionally obtuse I see.

Neighbors goes beyond the house next door. It includes every voter in your district.

Control issues? You bet. I dont want a collection of voters in some city 50 miles away to tell me I cant keep chickens on my property. Would anyone?

I have no desire to control others or to let others control me. Too bad so many cant reciprocate.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 
there are ways to do it, fist make it so expensive that only the rich can have ammo or guns, this is being done now, second ban certain makes of guns, this is being done, limit the amount of ammo one can have this is being done what is next? Ban the sales of ammo then the guns, this is in the works.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Guess the ATF is trying to find more work since the legalization movement is gaining traction ... Lord knows they don't want any lay offs.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by UltraMarine
 


I got over 20 of those evil guns. Funny, none of them have jumped up and killed no one yet. I will be sure to keep a close eye on those sneaky bastards though!


One of my evil guns did try to kill me when I was younger and that is the truth.


No wait, it didn't...I was a idiot and tired. I forgot to safe the weapon while hunting, slipped on some ice and darn near blew my head off.


Lesson learned.


That was a scary lesson.

While we're at it let's ban Dogs too.

abcnews.go.com...




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainEnigma
 


They won't starve to death so easily. They will find other way to survive.
edit on 8-11-2012 by UltraMarine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

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...


This.... You get a star..

I was going to chime in, but the above summed it up nicely, as this was done to death months ago when it first hit the news. This has nothing to do with domestic weaponry and is all about controlling the international arms trade.

If you guys want to continue carrying weapons of war to protect you from whatever imagined threats you can think of, government, wildlife or criminal, you still will be able to. This thread is a classic example of people spouting off ill-informed opinions about a subject they clearly have not even done a modicum of research into.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
The control of illicit guns may be all they need.
Ever hear of fast and furious.
Obama's administration DID SUPPLY GUNS TO INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS.
Seems like a clear cut qualification for the UN to take guns from the US.

Just playing devils advocate here but you have to look at how the pieces fit together.



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

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 make it illegal for, say, the United States to sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels or arm domestic terrorists in Libya, Syria, etc, etc, etc,,,,

Why would we support that? We seem to be quite fond of illegal gun running and I don't imagine that would change our attitude.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
"We rise and fall together as one nation." That was part of his election speech. I found that kind of odd. Am I reading too much into it?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by DJW001
 

Neighbors goes beyond the house next door. It includes every voter in your district.

Control issues? You bet. I dont want a collection of voters in some city 50 miles away to tell me I cant keep chickens on my property. Would anyone?

I have no desire to control others or to let others control me. Too bad so many cant reciprocate.


The Condo Association where I used to live tried to ban guns in the community. It actually had support.

But there were those of us who contacted a lawyer who informed the association that it was unconstitutional.

They dropped it like a hot potato. I'll never belong to a HOA again.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



Being intentionally obtuse I see.


I assure you it is a natural personality flaw.


Neighbors goes beyond the house next door. It includes every voter in your district.


Correct. I would not want to live in a district that was dominated by people who are greedy, or hateful, or fearful.


Control issues? You bet. I dont want a collection of voters in some city 50 miles away to tell me I cant keep chickens on my property. Would anyone?


That is an issue for local zoning boards to decide. Surely you believe that you could win a local election.


I have no desire to control others or to let others control me. Too bad so many cant reciprocate.


You seem remarkably tolerant. Let's say a large corporation buys some land adjacent to your property and builds a plant that spews toxic chemicals into the air. Do you smile and say "it's their land, they can do what they please?"



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   


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 .
reply to post by UltraMarine
 


Dude, you sound completely brainwashed.

Anyway, I wish I had a gun so I could be one of those "cold, dead hand" people.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 





The Second Amendment was written not for hunter or sportsman but was specifically put there to give the people the means to throw off tyranny. In the US Constitution the rights are listed as god given not government given to taketh away, they existed before the constitution according to that document. The government has no right at all.


The US wasn't intended to have a democracy either. It was supposed to be a republic where the government authority/power was restricted by law and regulations.
Within a democracy laws will be regulated and changed upon new policy. The constitution is basically worthless.

The constitution is just a historical piece of paper with historical value only. As long as we want to fight for our democracy this is what we will get. New laws all the time that regulate our freedom but that increase the authority of the government/state.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join