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

page: 6
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:30 AM
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 .


Is a cop sitting in your house at night while you sleep to protect you from intruders? No?

They gonna get there in 2 seconds flat after you call them when an intruder breaks in your house? No?

You gonna protect yourself and your family from an armed intruder with a kitchen knife IF you can get to it in time?

Just asking questions ...

You say this won't happen? People in the wake of Katrina and Sandy might disagree ...

-------

Cops are law enforcement .... they come to take away people who break the law after they break the law ...

So after someone kills you in your house they can try and get them for ya
edit on 8-11-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Gun ownership in itself hasn't stopped any tyranny.


So you claim that gun ownership by my forefathers did not throw off a tyrannical government?




If the current administration would try to confiscate weapons then it might.


Am I to believe you are saying the average US citizen is tyrannical?



Meanwhile tyranny exists all dandy and fine armed with million times more firepower than the gun owning citizens.


Agree!



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.


Our Constitution precludes this in its very form. I'm still trying to figure out the facism angle though - maybe you can elaborate.



Also who I am is irrelevant.


Must have hit proverbial nail on head - Russian emigre' ? clue might be the continued reference to facism or am I wrong. Its relevant to place your commentary into context rather than just thin air. Again it is very hard to place your opinion into context of Finlands proud history of self defence and individualism.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2012 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
It is as simple as looking at both countries and states where guns are legal to carry openly and everyone has one, then crime is the lowest.

States and countries where guns are outlawed for the law abiding public have the highest rates of crime and murder.

Guns save lives. clear and simple. just do some research instead of spending your time shilling up ATS threads.

Oh I forgot that's what your paid to do... carry on, everyone has to feed their families.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
So you claim that gun ownership by my forefathers did not throw off a tyrannical government?


As I said gun ownership itself doesn't matter. What matters is peoples will to throw out the tyrants.



Am I to believe you are saying the average US citizen is tyrannical?


Yep. They allow a tyrannical government. They might be against it posting on anonymous boards or chanting hippie songs behind a mask in a rally. They are not however doing anything that would stop or even hinder the tyranny.





2nd amendment is not a thread to tyranny unless they try to dismantle it.


???????????????


Gun owning citizens are not a thread to tyrannical government unless they are willing to overthrow them? The might have all the weapons they desire and more but if they are sitting on their asses doing nothing then they are not a threat.



Our Constitution precludes this in its very form. I'm still trying to figure out the facism angle though - maybe you can elaborate.


A piece of paper or an individual right is meaningless unless it is excersised.





Also who I am is irrelevant.


Must have hit proverbial nail on head - Russian emigre' ? clue might be the continued reference to facism or am I wrong. Its relevant to place your commentary into context rather than just thin air. Again it is very hard to place your opinion into context of Finlands proud history of self defence and individualism.


As I said who I am is irrelevant. However I will say I'm pro gun person if that makes any difference.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:53 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 !!


You can do that also without guns. We have this law for ages already in Europe, and it works great.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AmenStop
 


I want to add that in jurisdictions where federal prosecutors did not plea bargain away penalties for crimes involving guns that the crime rate fell even further as the repeat offenders were truly locked away for long periods.

There are plenty of gun laws in this country that if actually upheld would prevent much crime from occurring, those penalties, usually stiff mandatory sentences are used as lever to get criminals to plead guilty to lessor crimes making for a revolving door policy and gives prosecutors a fine conviction rate but does little to actually mend the problem.

We dont need more laws when they wont uphold ones already passed.

Try that first, lets see it work or not, then lets discuss things.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
For me, the bottom line is that the UN shouldnt decide or be involved in crap in our country. They shouldnt be commanding our troops ( as they did) either. I will be pleased if we ever get kicked out of the UN. Id be even more pleased if our leadership left the UN cabal. Since the UN is so concerned, perhaps they will look at our own idiocy concerning F&F... Oh yeah, they are. SInce our apathy has led us into the clutches of global oversight and global government, Romney would have done NO different, folks. Make no mistake, Romney is a member of the team and has been playing ball the majority of his 65 years. He is NO different than Obama for we little people. Make no mistake, YOU are little people according to BOTH parties.

Im a gun owner, and though not bowing at the altar of the Donkey or Elephant.... IMO its the ammo you will worry about and not the weaponry itself. Cute little thing concerning our ammo have been done during this administration. You CANT take all the guns away. I have inherited firearms they would never know about. I have the skills, equipment, and knowledge to build my own firearms and devices. The majority of gun owners and those who are pro self defense do not. "They" will never "get all our guns"....BUT... "they" can take the ammo away, make it cost prohibitive, and make the equipment/supplies to make your own ammo unavailable or illegal. That way the majority of gun owners in our country are are in legal possession of hunks of useless metal. Ammo has disappeared before, it greatly aided tyrannical regimes to gain complete control and/or slaughter its citizens.


For "winners" the Dems ( libs/dems/whatever) are sure snide and condescending... STILL. Wont explain WHY they disagree with OP's article. Constant snide childish comments get old and Im sick to death of it from both sides. Seems we have to deal with it in overdrive now from the left.
Thread after thread.. nanny nanny boo boo BS.. grow the hell up. Its OUR country, geniuses. Telling people to go kill themselves or your many other cute little comments because they agree with a different of 2 evils... I cant even say what I want to and be TOS complaint. No, I didnt vote for Romney, so you can save the mocking childish comments, but I hope you all realize, youre not the greatest examples of your party. Youre NO different than the "gunna take our GUUUNNNSSS " folks youre mocking. Both of you.. extremes of both parties... are why OUR country is like it is now. Im starting to take it personally.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 



Not sure if this is true yet.


Maybe you should find this information out before creating a thread?

This is how propaganda and lies start to get spread, a non-credible partisan website releases something, people repeat it, in the next few days if it gets debunked it is already to late. It has made it into the echo chamber and will forever be party of the mythology that is repeated over and over.


Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
According to the Constitution, Militias are provisioned the same weaponry as our standing Army, so technically Militias should have nukes... Any surprise why Militias have been vilified?

Obviously, the Founding Fathers realized if the standing Army were allowed to possess superior fire power the people would not stand a chance against tyranny. Think Muskets vs. Cannons - this is why Militia bunkers were stocked with cannons.

The entire world would have to descend upon the US population to efficiently disarm it, or revolution would ensue over night. Logistically speaking it would be impossible for our Armed Forces to disarm the population by force, as soon as they ran out of fuel and or almost any supply - they would be quickly thwarted by kids with hunting rifles. Honestly, look at the track record since the Korean War. If you think the 'insurgents' gave our military trouble in Afghan and Iraq, just imagine what damage the armed population could do against our military. They would almost have no option but to nuke.

Tangent: I think this is a primary reason why the population has been indoctrinated since kindergarten to view our country as a 'Democracy' and not a 'Republic' because in a Democracy 51% can tell 49% how to live. In a Republic 99% cannot tell 1% how to live.

In 'Murica the mob rules...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
According to the Constitution, Militias are provisioned the same weaponry as our standing Army, so technically Militias should have nukes... Any surprise why Militias have been vilified?

Obviously, the Founding Fathers realized if the standing Army were allowed to possess superior fire power the people would not stand a chance against tyranny. Think Muskets vs. Cannons - this is why Militia bunkers were stocked with cannons.

The entire world would have to descend upon the US population to efficiently disarm it, or revolution would ensue over night. Logistically speaking it would be impossible for our Armed Forces to disarm the population by force, as soon as they ran out of fuel and or almost any supply - they would be quickly thwarted by kids with hunting rifles. Honestly, look at the track record since the Korean War. If you think the 'insurgents' gave our military trouble in Afghan and Iraq, just imagine what damage the armed population could do against our military. They would almost have no option but to nuke.

Tangent: I think this is a primary reason why the population has been indoctrinated since kindergarten to view our country as a 'Democracy' and not a 'Republic' because in a Democracy 51% can tell 49% how to live. In a Republic 99% cannot tell 1% how to live.

In 'Murica the mob rules...


^ Very, very well said.

Gun control is victim disarmament





posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by texasgirl

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 .


The British get shot at by their own police, and criminals, also Australia, do a bit of reading.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Oxize
 


Yeah, stellar record you've got there.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Excuse me, but Reuters reported this. Be part of the solution...not the problem.

www.reuters.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyBuff
 


CB, I do get you're point and am not arguing against,

I've heard that Nuke argument in Second Amendment threads and technically nothing in the constitution says ya cant have one, however the argument falls apart quite easily given that no private citizen has resources, money, land, factories and workforce to produce such a weapon for themselves much less for sale at walmart.

Even if I privately owned a 155mm cannon I'd have a hard time finding a safe backstop
and could maybe afford to shoot one shot a year if I happened to find a range that would allow it


As a practical matter, if ya don't roll your own its about $2-$5 dollars a shot just for a .50 browning chambered rifle - hardly something the criminal element would entertain but the civic minded might.

As a matter of principle there is no limit as a matter of practicality there is.

With the coming economic crash it gives me a certain peace of mind knowing my neighbors are well armed and if need be will band together for mutual protection - makes me warm and fuzzy just thinking of it, gives me shivers to consider the alternative though.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Its apparent that history class was not high on the agenda there


I'd say same seems true of many of our younger ones also as it seems history started with the invention of nintendo!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 
" Shall not be infringed upon".What don't people understand



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Excuse me, but Reuters reported this. Be part of the solution...not the problem.

www.reuters.com...



Did you read the article? Did you at least see the title? Not even close to what the OP said. THAT is part of the problem.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by khimbar
 
" Shall not be infringed upon".What don't people understand



Fear driven control freaks who didnt get enough hugs when they were children?

Nah, its Statists who believe in absolute power never to be questioned nor challenged in any meaningful way.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I'm pretty sure I read the article before you even crawled out of bed. And yes, the OP's title and opening post is spot on.


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.



I know the above was in BOLD LARGE FONT type, so maybe it was hard for you to catch.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Isn't global gun ban a good idea ?


If you are a criminal with guns it is, or if you are a government that wants control of its citizenry for whatever reason.

God Bless,





new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join