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

page: 5
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I don't think it will help to get hot headed with each other just yet.
It is concerning that this was out in July but they waited until the day after the election to support it.
I guess time will tell but I'm not feeling too trusting on the UN for anything.

Nothing on the MSM about it as I can see so I guess we can all go back to our rosé colored Thursday.




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starwise

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Isn't global gun ban a good idea ?


No its not. Gun ownership helps prevent governments from transforming into a TYRANNICAL BEAST !!


I see this argument for gun ownership all the time. It's complete and utter bs. US in it's current state is a facist fantasyland. Meanwhile they are free to have guns. They have not stopped tyranny at any level.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I disagree, it'll prevent regular folks from buying weapons and ammunition of their choosing such as Saiga's, AK clones or any other firearm deemed by UN to be of military use.

Semantics can be played but net effect is a defacto ban for civilians as well, that being the case is that the real goal here rather than the high volume trade thats claimed.

Little history lesson here that most should know,

Every single modern age tyrannical or "ism" government once getting political power has immediately removed small arms from their citizes in a consolidation of power.

Russia, Germany, China ring a bell - some numbers of deaths attributed are over 200,000,000 million with wars, pogroms and outright executions combined - how many innocents died without the means of self defence?









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



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 



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.


I was president of our condo board when one of our member's storage area was broken into and his guns stolen. Some members were shocked that guns were being kept on premises and wanted them banned. I pointed out that not only did he have a constitutional right to possess them, they were no more dangerous than some of the other sports equipment on site. The condo's bylaws do make storing hazardous chemicals illegal, however, so he would not have been allowed to make bombs.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

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.


Very true..

First we need to look at what group would actually follow the Ban...good citizens or criminals?

Lets fill up our prisons more...just like with Pot and other stupid laws to make things illegal there will be a VERY large number of good people who will disagree with it and they will go to jail.

It sheeple mentality. Let's make sure society has nothing more than those kiddy round scissors since we all know that society is nothing more than children that the Government needs to be the parent for...you know...for our own good...

We should probably ban cars first since they are a hell of a lot more dangerous.

Is it only me that gets kind of pissed off when the Government wants to tell me what I can or cannot do...for my own good?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:39 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...


Precisely. Star for you for seeing past the nonsense and hysteria from the RW. As you noted, the OP didn't provide a link knowing the story was just more innuendo. The President's itinerary is available, and he did not make any "UN gun ban" decisions in the 24 hours after the election. (White House Schedule)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

Russia, Germany, China ring a bell - some numbers of deaths attributed are over 200,000,000 million with wars, pogroms and outright executions combined - how many innocents died without the means of self defence?


Let's not forget Pol Pot killing fields where he killed about 2 to 3 million in a few short years...he was running out of bullets and so was just having people hacked to death and dumped into pits. The lack of guns sure saved that society...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Holy striper bass. Well glad it missed
edit on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:42:57 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
If it's just about fully automatic or the bigger semi-automatic or the 30-slot cartidges for 9mm or similar thing then I think it's ok. But if they're meaning to take away small arms like pistols then that's stupid. But I don't seriously think this is what they plant to do; they're not THAT dumb.

Basically, we need a strong licensing policy so that people who own guns aren't going to lose it and fill a theatre with bullets or shoot up a school. But know this: We'll never prevent all of them. Even a iron teeth licensing policy will not prevent every case of mass shooting. Just reduces it.
edit on 8-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

I see this argument for gun ownership all the time. It's complete and utter bs. US in it's current state is a facist fantasyland. Meanwhile they are free to have guns. They have not stopped tyranny at any level.


Actually - yes, the US revolution went to a shooting war because the British were attempting to confiscate weapons and we all know what happened after that.

I see your Finnish and your comment has me curious and I'd like to ask is your ancestry stemming from Russian immigration forced upon Finland by Stalin or is it long time Finnish?

Its difficult for me to believe someone from Finland would support gun bans given Finlands history with oppression.

If long term, then forefathers from WWII are spinning in their graves.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

I mostly agree with you. Governments get zealous and starts to want to prevent all bad things. Citizens can also get that way and become too sensitive to adversity. Not good to be that way. We need a citizenry that can survive adversity and come out strong and not be vulnerable to it.

Where I disagree (although maybe I don't really) is that I think we do need government for some things. People don't know everything and sometimes we do have to step in and stop them.
edit on 8-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Very bad ettiquette to start a misleading thread AND not provide a link. You are not a rebel, you are just being manipulative.

Here is a link for the real story. This has nothing to do with taking away citizens personal gun rights.

www.reuters.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Theres a good Website that I saw this on, a few weeks ago.

tatoott1009.com...

You should give it a read ( Aimed at everyone
)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SunnyDee
 

Thing is, the point is that Obama is doing this shortly after re-election and not before. It's clear why he'd do this. If he had done it before, Romney could have used it to bolster his campaign. It would have made Obama look like he wants to take gun ownership away. A slippery slope.

People on the right won't forget this stunt. This is politics at its finest. And this is precisely what drives the rampant arguing and strife between the two major parties. The emotions run deep.

Remember this?...

President Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”

President Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”

President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
edit on 8-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Lets start the global gun ban in rural Pakistan.

They have gun makers that set up shops in almost every market place.

It's almost a tradition, when you have a boy child, you go out and buy him an AK 47 knock off.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 



Lets start the global gun ban in rural Pakistan.

They have gun makers that set up shops in almost every market place.

It's almost a tradition, when you have a boy child, you go out and buy him an AK 47 knock off.


And yet Pakistan is such a peaceful country.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


The thing is that the vote for talks on this was postponed because of Sandy and the election. This was already on the table prior to the election. It's in the article I posted.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
No link because this is bogus.

But by all means, argue over something that the OP says "might" be true. Or might not.

But hey, it bashes Obama so let's put it out there, even if it is bogus.

No wonder people laugh at sites like this.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by blindlyzack
reply to post by UltraMarine
 

Ya, for the government.

Exactly. "Illicit" guns as described would be any weapon the US Industrial Military Complex didn't sell. Cuts into profits.

Also factor in the "criminal" intonations. If other countries are selling weapons, than that becomes the criminal excuse down the road to invade them too. After all they are illegally providing "Humanitarian Aid" to others. Namely, our enemies.

Of course it makes no other sense. Gun "bans" for safety and protection purposes are a lie. Stripping one of the ability to defend oneself is a prerequisite to slavery.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Gun ownership in itself hasn't stopped any tyranny. If the current administration would try to confiscate weapons then it might. Meanwhile tyranny exists all dandy and fine armed with million times more firepower than the gun owning citizens. 2nd amendment is not a thread to tyranny unless they try to dismantle it. Regulating it to fullest and being completely facist at the same time brings no conflict.
Also who I am is irrelevant.





top topics
 
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant