Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out!

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by AntiNWO

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I absolutely support our Right to Bear Arms and I am a Hunter and own a variety of Guns. Still I have no issue with having certain weapons banned as anyone with a bit of skill can easily convert a Assault Rifle that has been designed to be semi-automatic to becoming Full Automatic.

So it's OK to ban guns, just so long as they're not your guns? That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

When is the last time someone converted a semi-auto and then went on a killing spree? Can't say that I've ever heard of such a thing. And I could be wrong, but don't think it's quite so easy to convert a semi-auto to full auto. Sounds like Brady rhetoric to me.

Your posts are as intelligent as your avatar....

Converting from semi to full is relatively easy and common... a simple google search would've told you that...

As for a hunter being rational enough to agree with banning automatic weaponry, it's not hypocritical - it's sane.

Things are not black and white, but grey.

I know it's hard for gun nuts to process that (or in the OP case, do simple research without freaking out), but it's true none the less.

The US is NOT trying to ban a huge list of guns, or letting the UN write it's laws - that's paranoia - a dodgy trait for someone with a lot of guns; that being said, the US SHOULD ban a lot more and enforce a lot more... the gun fatality rate in the US is simply pathetic.

edit on 22-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

You should really touch up on learning the gun laws that are currently in place. It is illegal to own an unregistered automatic firearm already, and the automatic firearms that are allowed to be owned are so heavily monitored that it isn't even funny. Ignorance abounds in posts like yours. It is not as simple as you state to just modify a semiautomatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm.
If modifying was such a problem then why is it doing a google search I come up with 0 results on a search for news about modified automatic weapons?

reply to post by The only 1 who knows the


I'm not trying to sound like a gun-hoo bad ass, but first of all i think there would be a lot of trouble for the goverment from the people if this happened. and this is where i say you can get it fo my cold dead hands.

i've read some stats - most gun owners have 3 or more guns - an average.
this administration has boosted gun sales through the roof - on the bright side - the U.S. American civilian gun owners are consider to be among the largest armies in the world.
stock up...!
btw - 'an armed society is a polite society.'

reply to post by Benchkey


From the info that the OP provided I do not see any reason to even be slightly worried about any guns being taken away. All laws that have banned guns in the past were for new sales which means current gun owners would be grandfathered in. I am just saying that to set the record straight if something like what you guys are talking about would go down if it mean some other legislation however the legislation the OP refers to is an UN resolution will have 0 effects on us unless you are buying or transporting weapons outside the country.
Side note:
I also remember when we had gun racks in the back of our trucks and this back in the late 90s I used to keep a 30-o6 and a Mossberg 12 gage in my rack of my Chevy and had 38 smith and Wesson in the glove compartment. I never took anything in school though but I was parked in the school parking lot. No one cared, just about anyone with a truck did the same the teacher did as well. I had one science teacher that we would sometimes target practice with he was one of those cool kind of teacher that thought outside of the box. I learned a lot science out shooting with him he had a sniper rifle that he was real good with and would be explaining how you needed to take into account the speed and curvature of the earth. Those lessons really gave me an edge later when I joined the Army. I grew up in NC and my dad had been out of the Special Forces for a while but he could go back on base and take out pretty much anything he wanted it made new years and the forth real fun cause he liked to modify rockets with C4. I don’t know how he managed it but he thought me to shoot with an M16 and an M60. He used to bring back all kinds of stuff. Honestly I sometimes wonder about those times because he became a traveling salesman after he got out and would sometimes be gone for weeks. One of his good friends that would come by on weekend sometimes was a Full Bird Coronel. Those two gave me my first explosives class. Lol:

I also want to add the instance I talked about with the kid trying to be Rambo barley made the news here it happened in an area we call crime hills. I once stayed the night over there at a friends and I can tell you I heard less gunshot when I stayed in Tegucigalpa, Honduras which is one of the roughest places I have ever been in. Even considering some of the places I have been stationed. LOL. As far as Central America goes I feel pretty safe on whole but the strange thing I found were that the countries that had US backing in terms of military equipment were ones that were less safe. Places like Nicaragua had their problems but I never saw full on gang wars against the police. It’s just an observation about those places but I can’t say for certain why things are the way they are there. I will say this much my first trip into Nicaragua I bought a Ruger LCP from a guy I was eating breakfast with in the town square like it was nothing. I didn’t need it there but it kept a group of us from being robed in Guatemala that next week.

Anyway sorry for going off track. I pulled an all nighter and I am fixing to take a nap. My thoughts keep wandering off to much. Back on topic. IMO there isn’t much to worry about here from what the OP posted. The source isn’t considered anything more than tabloid gossip for the militia and it is designed to insight a knee jerk reaction. If there is anything to it you will see it being picked up by some established news sources by today.
Peace out
Grim

Originally posted by PMNOrlando
I ran across this article tonight and it bothers me because someone at work had mentioned that if BO got re-elected one of the first thing he'd go after was our guns. I'd didn't know much about guns or think much of it at the time, but when I heard that within 12 hours of being re-elected he signed some sort of U.N. Treaty or promissary note or something (maybe someone here can shed more light on this than I can)

Does this bother anyone else on ATS? I don't want to see our country go the way of China.

American National Militia Website
americannationalmilitia.com...

I don't go in for gun porn, which essentially that site seems to provide, but why on earth do you need an AK47?

ITT: Americans afraid of governments trying to protect them and believe that the government is some sort of anti christ and will kill you all if you dont have high powered rifles

>2012
>only in 'Murica

Originally posted by longlostbrother
We ALL know that some weapons are not for personal use and have no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians. There should be no need, in other words, for anyone to have access to automatic weaponry.

No one argues for the need instead it is for the choice. I don't know what your deffinition of "legitimate" is but I think that going to the range (or out here where I live just going outside to the berm) and enjoying a hobby is enough "legitimacy" to justify the choice to purchase and shoot for sport a fully automatic weapon. If we are going to let the government decide what is a "legitimate" hobby we are headed down the path to a dictatorship.

There is no "legitimate" reason for my wife to own a bunch of frigging goat figurines or nick-nacks either; heck we could feed a small third world country with what she's spent on nick-nacks since I met her. Why shouldn't the government be able to limit that too...you know for the good of the children of the world.

I have a freind who has an airplane - he doesn't need an airplane he only has time to fly a couple days a month. Also, an airplane in the hands of a civilian could be used as a WMD if packed with fertilizer to which he (working for Pioneer) has almost unlimited access.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Allowing someone that wants to commit a crime access to automatic weapons is, frankly, stupid.

Here is the problem - unless you are going to develop a pre-crime unit you have no idea who is going to commit a crime before it happens. I have access to fully automatic weapons and I have no desire to commit a crime using them...can I own one please? I promise... All, I can say is that the object is not the problem its the person who wields it.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
I also agree with your first point though, handguns are the main problem.

Handguns are not the problem (reason for violent crime) any more than whoppers are the reason people are fat.

One must chose to use the object in most instances a person will use the most handy and effective implement for any task. If you take away firearms people will just use baseball bats, and knives...or poison or any myriad of other deadly things.

Heck a person could kill more people by chosing to drive a car down the sidwalk at lunchtime in any big city than he ever could with a firearm. Best take away the cars too...

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Most countries aren't awash with hand guns and they do just fine.

Um, sure - I think there are still violent crimes people just use other implements like I said.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
The US governement has neither the desire or ability to become a dictatorship, and even if it did, the chances of the MASSIVE military going along with it is pretty insane.

That is nice that you trust the federal government to have only the best of intentions... I and many others do not share that view. Take it from a career military officer, (Special Forces and Military Intlligence) the military is staffed by people who need to feed thier families and most if forced to chose between losing thier livelyhood or craking down on the civilian polulation would choose the latter. Sad but true.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
If the US wanted to allow just hunting rifles, I'd be fine with that.

I'd not be personally affected if the government allowed only diesel trucks over 3 tons the road as that is what I have. Any ban on other types of faster (more dangerous) and smaller (more dangerous) automobiles wouldn't have any effect on my lifestyle at all... I'd also be unaffected by a prohabition against abortion, or gay marriage, or owning gold or any other number of things.

However, just becasue the restrictions don't affect me personally doesn't mean I should roll over and lie down for government control of things they have no business controlling.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
America's obsession with guns and paranoia is extremely unhealthy... in fact, most everything in America is unhealthy..

The most unhealthy thing in America is the willingness of people to subjugate themselves to the governments will based on lack of knowledge or fear.

The people seem eerily willing to surrender their rights nowadays.

However, the irony is they only want to surrender people’s right to do things that they personally don’t participate in. It’s easy to ask others to give up their legitimate leisure activities – smoking, drinking, etc., becasue you don't personally appreciate the activity.

I don’t see many willing to sacrifice their own freedoms, just those of other people.

Well as we probably all know or have figured, gun bans happen because crime happens with guns. As always the few bad seeds ruin it for the majority. But it's interesting to see how crime goes down in states with conceal and carry laws. And as always the freaks will continue to push for gun bans, which perfectly facilitate a breach of constitutional law.

Like Prohibition, this sort of thing will fail utterly and completely.

What happened with Prohibition? Speak easy's. Blackmarket booze.

The same sort of black market would arise overnight...already there are so many ways to bypass the gun laws it's almost silly to have any at all...with this sort of monstrosity on the books? It beggars the imagination...

But, I don't see it passing muster in either the Senate, despite dem control; or the House, with the reps in control...the only way this gets through is by Executive fiat. ...and that opens a can of worms that a President concerned with legacy doesn't want to touch, muchless open.

But...

The only way to make sure it doesn't happen is to make sure the Congress critters know exactly where you stand on the topic...either against, or even for.

Color me against...

Anyone who thinks these bastards are not trying to ban guns is not paying attention. Also anyone who doesn't think we need guns or military style weapons does not know history nor understand guns are what won and still protect what freedoms they have left...

We need guns most importantly to protect ourselves from government tyranny along with self defense etc. Also the 2nd amendment does not grant us the right to keep an bear arms it existed long before the constitution was penned. It is a natural inherent right available to any in the world who will exercise it and protect it. The 2nd amendment is only an acknowledgment of that right and a warning to government not to try and subvert it.

If people will learn their constitution and the land mark cases the affirm it none of this can touch them...

* Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425: An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

* Murdock v Penn clearly established that no state could convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.

* Shuttlesworth v Birm. Said that if the state does convert your right into a privilege and charge a license and a fee for it you can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right with impunity. That means they can't punish you…they have to let you go.

* Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn't exist in law.”

An example in today's timing as to how effective this is: This argument is so effective that it literally nullifies the Brady Bill, it nullifies the crime bill that takes away the right of the people to keep and bear arms on these 19 weapons that turn into 159 weapons, it stops the 666 bill that just went through that they're trying to take away the 4th Amendment, Because they have no power to pass a law that's in conflict with the United States Constitution, and it's automatically null and void of law from its inception; not from the day you go to court and brand it as unconstitutional.

A lot of people think they have got to go to court and brand it unconstitutional. But if you know your arguments and you can show your arguments, most of the time you will win.

Please post, print and distribute.

Taken from Carl Miller: privateaudio.homestead.com...

Heres the videos and a thread I started on this:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by PMNOrlando


Where is the list?

Originally posted by something wicked
I don't go in for gun porn, which essentially that site seems to provide, but why on earth do you need an AK47?

Why not? As with a great many things in life, the fact that I may not *need* something doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to own it. I don't need a Corvette, but I can own it. I don't need a 55" television, but I can own it. If a person may not need one, but if they want an AK-47 or AR-15 for their weekend trip to the gun range, I don't see the problem.

For the record, I don't own anything that would be subject to this potential ban, either.

Dick Morris wrote a book about this Presidency and how BO and Hillary were negotiating FIVE UN TREATIES the Small Arms Treaty being one of them, then there's The Law of The Sea treatie which gives away US sovereignty over our maritime rights.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Obama is totally for the UN control of our lives. This is why the Birthers made an issue out of his eligibility as POTUS because he obviously has no loyalty to America.
Another of the five is the RIghts of the Child. Sounds humanitarian but it takes away rights of the parents(just like in our public schools) and gives them to the UN World Govt.

Time to wake up folks, and especially those who support Barack thinking he's better than Romney.

Dick Morris: Obama Poised to Betray America Through 4 United Nations Treaties

newyorklibertyreport.com...

Morris also mentions the Intl Criminal Court, which I have seen people here support because they still hate Bush and want to see him convicted by foreigners. Too bad they don't understand the real ramifications of losing our sovereignty to America haters.

Here's what the ICC amounts to

In a series of articles (see here, here, and here, The New American revealed the campaign for the ICC as a colossal bait and switch scam. While proponents were selling the ICC as the institution that would haul the Hitlers and Stalins of the world before the bar of justice, what they were actually building is a global judicial monster that violates all the major principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and accountability

No right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers; No right to habeas corpus; No right to bail; No right to a speedy trial; No protection against indefinite pre-trial detention; No protection against being transported to foreign lands

Not that King Obama even needed the ICC to assassinate American citizens abroad in this manner.

reply to post by ColoradoJens

If this is a liberal agenda, why are there a majority of republican politicians who support it? Wierd, eh?

It's a NWO agenda. NDAA got sold as a way to fight terrorism domestically, when it is really American citizens the NWO fears, especially armed American citizens.
Now the liberal establishment is selling Small Arms Treaty as a way to fight Intl terrorism. (even though libs bashed Bush for fighting terrorism, now libs are allowing this stuff because a Democrat is in the WH).

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

If this is a liberal agenda, why are there a majority of republican politicians who support it? Wierd, eh?

It's a NWO agenda. NDAA got sold as a way to fight terrorism domestically, when it is really American citizens the NWO fears, especially armed American citizens.
Now the liberal establishment is selling Small Arms Treaty as a way to fight Intl terrorism. (even though libs bashed Bush for fighting terrorism, now libs are allowing this stuff because a Democrat is in the WH).

Libs bashed Bush for fighting terrorism? I seem to remember the dems backing Bush for his two wars...also, how does one fight terrorism exactly?

At least you stated what others haven't - it isn't a liberal agenda. It is a rep and dem agenda.

CJ

reply to post by Grimpachi


he did that with a couple girlfriends and one that got away he was spontaneious, the most recent two murders that he got caught for he used a bat. i lived in the tacoma/seattle area at a young age and you do NOT ask to see other peoples guns. john deere hat or not because you will be looking down a barrel if you do. lot of black market gun running where i used to live in tacoma plus drive bys. gary ridgeway. your best defense in me naming serial killers is the zodiac killer who used guns on unarmed people. the key word unarmed. all guns do is kill and i believe gun control means target selection and hitting your target. where i live now the requirement is to have no felonies, be 18, have a smile, be social and talkative when you buy a gun. i bought a really nice rifle where i live and the guy who sold it to me at the gun shop was real nice and the gun was a 1938 military relic. i own a piece of history reminding us that we were once allies with russia hunting down nazis and gun ownership is a point of joy and pride to own one. my father was in vietnam and he told me about some things that in my opinion rationalized me about gun ownership. i recommend that whoever does not own a gun get one for the sole purpose of direct defience of tyranny and the operational knowledge just in case of the scheisse hitting the fan. even if your best buddy owns one learn how to use it you won't regret it.

I haven't yet read all the posts related to this thread, therefore my apologies in advance if I repeat what another member has said.

Do not give up your guns! I am a Canadian who fully regrets giving up my own guns simply because I didn't want to break the new laws regarding gun ownership. Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! My intent was to register my long-guns that I had for hunting...a couple of shotguns and a couple of rifles. I personally had no use for a handgun, although I see nothing wrong with them if storage and other safety issues are strictly adhered to (the same common sense as applied to ownership of long-guns). When I took my guns in to register them, I never thought about an assault charge I was found guilty of in criminal court some 15 years prior, which resulted in my guns being taken from me. Other than that one conviction, my record is clean.
Never mind the drug dealers and street gangs who are armed to the teeth with better weapons than most police forces, and I'd bet big bucks (if I had any) that not one gang member turned in their Glock or Uzi! Anyway, at least Canada is now a much safer country in which to live, now that I no longer posess a rifle or shotgun for hunting!
Even if you must take your guns and bury them somewhere, do so! There just might come a time whether due to a natural disaster or civil unrest, you will wish to hell you had kept them!

reply to post by truthermantwo


oi buddy check out the switzerland gun laws. they are all required to own semi auto assault weapons and learn how to use them efficiantly. ONE IN EVERY HALF MILLION DEATHS are caused by gun violence

reply to post by Grimpachi


i also just wanted to say your avatar is awesome DEATHMETAL AND GRINDCORE FOREVER!

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by truthermantwo

 

oi buddy check out the switzerland gun laws. they are all required to own semi auto assault weapons and learn how to use them efficiantly. ONE IN EVERY HALF MILLION DEATHS are caused by gun violence

Yep... you've underlined the problem - AMERICANS can't be trusted with guns... the Swiss obviously can.

One day maybe AMERICANS will be responsible guns owners, but right now, they're NOT.

Thanks for reminding me, that it's not the guns, but the population...

The US population is unable to safely own guns.