Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession!

Originally posted by Logarock
Your view is certainly a global one my friend.

Thanks for allowing me my opinion. I made that clear in my post and am entitled to it with or without a weapon. ( Even if you put a gun to my head.)

Apparently I am not alone: (North American Members)
www.iansa.org...

I abhor gun violence. Besides IMO, "The pen is mightier than the sword."

Don't tase me bro.

Regards...KK

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
I don't see what the fuss is about. We aren't allowed guns in this country and there's less violent crime/murder than there is in the U.S.

Isn't it possible that your guns being taken away is a price worth paying?

That isn't true in every country that has outlawed guns.

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.

So, just because the public is not allowed to own a gun doesn't mean the crime rate will be lower than a country that allows people to own guns!

And very very few of the guns owned by US citizens are used in crimes!

99.56% of Guns Used as Intended

I’ve seen this number used a bunch, AmmoCoding.com as a source is as good as any: There are approximately 10 billion bullets sold each year in the United States.

From GunSafe.org, this juicy tidbit:

Firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotguns) owned by civilians...235,000,000

So how are these bullets and guns used each year:

* Fatal firearms accidents per year...1,100

* Suicides by firearm, per year...18.000

* Murders by firearm, per year...14,000

* Crimes committed with guns, per year...1,000,000

Let’s assume that each incident involves a separate gun. This will increase the number of guns claimed in this calculation, but we know the thought to be silly – a actor may commit multiple acts using the same gun: Total guns employed, 1,033,100.

Out of a total of 235,000,000 guns, that comes to 0.44% of the guns in the public’s hands used for purposes not as designed.

Bullets? Assume one per accident shooting and suicide, three per murder, and that 20% of the other crimes discharge a bullet (probably high). Total bullets employed, 161,100. Aw, let’s triple the number for fun! 483,300

Out of a total of 10 billion sold each year, that comes to 0.0048% used for purposes not as designed.

As a side note (from the link immediately above), how about guns used on an inter-personal basis but as designed?

Defensive gun uses (DGUs) by civilians, per year...2,500,000 to 3,500,000

[edit on 5/8/2009 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by kinda kurious


I abhor gun violence. Besides IMO, "The pen is mightier than the sword."

Regards...KK

Question for you while you are wielding your mighty pen.

Is it you or your mighty pen that is responsible for any misspelled words?

Hint: isn't the correct answer - you?

Now apply the exact same logic to firearms ...



And for all of you UK and European members, use your mighty pens while you still can. You'll only have them until someone (for lack of any other available weapon) kills someone with their mighty pen.



[edit on 5/8/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211


Wow, I am flattered Centurion. The last time I heard from you, it was to inform me that you had put me on Ignore. I suppose you just miss me too much.

I do get your response and believe what you are inferring is that "Guns don't kill, people do." Am I close? Sorry to be so brief but my Captain Obvious cape is in the Dry Cleaners.

BTW, I still Service What I Sell and Walk-Ins are always welcome.

Back On Topic:
I am for any legislation that curbs gun violence. Be it anger management, education or stricter gun laws. Just my .02¢

Regards...KK


[edit on 8-5-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


Glad you could reason that out without any extra help.

After awhile, I often give people on ignore another chance.

Don't make me sorry I did with you.

So, what is it that you are selling and servicing - pens, swords or guns?

[edit on 5/8/2009 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Glad you could reason that out without any extra help.

Please I beg. Un help me.

After awhile, I often give people on ignore another chance.
Don't make me sorry I did with you.

Your benevolence is wasted on me. I'm not worthy.
Lucky for you I have a couple of pesky warns to keep me on my best behavior. I won't allow you to finish me off.

Speaking being sorry, I don't think you need any help from me.

So, what is it that you are selling and servicing - pens, swords or guns?

Sanity, ring any bells?

Regards...KK


[edit on 8-5-2009 by kinda kurious]

Can't let the previous bunch of "hooey" be the last post on what should be a thread taken very seriously.

Obama seems to now be dancing around the gun issue like a moth dancing around a flame. A smart Obama would just fly away from this issue before he ends up singed ...

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by Logarock
Your view is certainly a global one my friend.

Thanks for allowing me my opinion. I made that clear in my post and am entitled to it with or without a weapon. ( Even if you put a gun to my head.)

Apparently I am not alone: (North American Members)
www.iansa.org...

I abhor gun violence. Besides IMO, "The pen is mightier than the sword."

Don't tase me bro.

Regards...KK

Yep the pen is mightier. I advise all to take political action of all sorts long before the need to use arms. Dont hunker down and dig a bunker but speak out, write, call, support, vote.

And man I would never put a gun to your head for expressing your view or anything! You do tend to suggest the worst of you opponents even though in this case I made no indication of such behavior.

reply to post by Logarock


The system has been corrupted beyond repair (just look at all the president's we've had in office the past 2 decades) the system no longer works that way where you can use your "mighty pen"

They're already using it against you and apparently are better at it than you. After all, they've just decreed that anybody that believes in the constitution is now considered a threat to the country.

Sorry, but the time for talk is OVER, they won that battle. Now is the time to get ready for ACTION.

edited for clarification

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Question]

So after 14 pages, nobody here can offer any kind of even slightly convincing argument as to how this treaty will "outlaw gun possession?"

Thought so.

You ever hear a story? It was about this kid who kept crying "wolf" and then.... oh nevermind.

Originally posted by centurion1211
And for all of you UK and European members, use your mighty pens while you still can. You'll only have them until someone (for lack of any other available weapon) kills someone with their mighty pen.

Well then if they finally overthrow the British government for being incompetent and we find that Gordon Brown has been stabbed to death with a pen we will know a reader of this thread did it . Seriously though this discussion has kinda devolved it really is not making easy reading at the moment.

-Cauch1

Originally posted by Question
reply to post by Logarock

 

The system has been corrupted beyond repair (just look at all the president's we've had in office the past 2 decades) the system no longer works that way where you can use your "mighty pen"

They're already using it against you and apparently are better at it than you.
[edit on 9-5-2009 by Question]

Well what they are better at is weaving and spinning. The public is trained and conditioned to react to certain words and sounds coming from the official sources. The children of darkness are wiser in this world than the children of light.

Americans no longer trust what grows along side of them yet will listen to those that use them on a daily basis. Collective Stockholm syndrome. Pavlov's Dog and all those other classic terms. Heck they even let them read Animal Farm and 1984 not as warning or alarm but rather as commentaries on the inevitable.

Do you realize, and I think you do, that with a stroke, just a stroke, they have colored the returning veterans from this latest war of liberation, as somehow weak minded and dangerous lose cannons to be kept an eye on? Susceptible to small cell ultra national propaganda, solders without a war, and frankly words escape me at this point.

The press made a big deal out of the fact that Tim MacVey had a copy of the Federalist Papers on him when captured. He who has eyes to see let them see is all there is to say about that.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Logarock]

Originally posted by xmotex
So after 14 pages, nobody here can offer any kind of even slightly convincing argument as to how this treaty will "outlaw gun possession?"

Thought so.

You ever hear a story? It was about this kid who kept crying "wolf" and then.... oh nevermind.

Yes its all here. Not so much in the treaty language but in the rhetoric surrounding it. The interpretation shows the direction of the intent and personally held philosophy of the president about the 2nd amendment and how, in his interpretation of the amendment, the amendment should be seen in light of the treaty and current events.

"And I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the 2nd Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we now know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence -- violence in our own country, as well".

Can you see it?

Assault weapons are clearly separated in the structure from sportsmen, hunters and homeowners.

Interpretation 1-The second amendment is reduced to trapshooting, pinking, hunting, home protection, all of which do not require the need to own assault weapons. Which is what is causing all the "violence".

Interpretation 2-The right to keep and bear arms is removed by definition far away from its original intention of providing the citizens with a means to repel tyrants and invaders foreign and domestic to a definition of the right to shoot coyotes, tin cans and home invaders. All of which can be done without assault weapons.

They clearly intend to limit the citizens right to fight by limiting the definition of the 2nd amendment.

We must also consider what other liberties they intend to curtail and thus the peoples ability to maintain its republic.

WAKE UP PEOPLE WAKE UP WAKE UP.

How in the world can anyone consider an amendment to the constitution a preservation of sportsman's rights?

Sportsman's rights are the great protectors of a free republic? The fruit of our great constitution?

This kind of thinking is the result of a Harvard education? I am so glad my son didn't go there as he had the chance. One of his friends that visited out there said he dint like Harvard becouse the people talk funny out there.

The sure do my friend. They sure do.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Logarock]

reply to post by Logarock


That's my point though. They've used the so called "mighty pen" to color every law abiding and patriotic american as a threat, including the very people that put their lives on the line in many wars to protect the sorry a**es of the pathetically weak politicians in office.

They can talk, they can even write well. But it doesn't hide what a bunch of pathetic cowards they are. I still say it's time we stopped talking (since that's what they're good at) and we send the battle to their doorsteps so these fat cats can see the real might of the giant that is the american public.

Originally posted by Keyhole

Originally posted by jd140
That looks to me as if they want to ban ownership, sales and trade of firearms to me.

No where in that document does it mention BANNING weapons, it only proposes issuing licenses to people who want to own one.

Here it is, straight from the HR 45 document itself.

H. R. 45

QUALIFYING FIREARM.—The term ‘‘qualifying firearm’’
9 has the meaning given the term in
10 section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as
11 amended by subsection (b) of this section.
12 (b) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
13 CODE.—Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code,
14 is amended by adding at the end the following:
15 ‘‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’—
16 ‘‘(A) means—
17 ‘‘(i) any handgun; or
18 ‘‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that
19 can accept any detachable ammunition
20 feeding device; and
21 ‘‘(B) does not include any antique.’’.
******SKIP******
IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any
person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license

Sounds pretty simple to me, get a firearms licenseand you can own any "qualifying" firearm you want!

I don't see anything in the HR 45 that would lead me to believe that it was intended to ban ANY firearm, it only is calling for the licensing of "qualifying" firearms.

You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car, I see no reason why people should feel like they are being denied the ability to own a firearm just because they might also have to pass a test and get a license to own a gun.

As for the mental health records thing, who wants some deranged person going out and buying a gun anytime they wanted to.

I am not an anti-gun person and own a gun or two myself, but I just feel that all of this is being blown out of proportion!

[edit on 5/5/2009 by Keyhole]

The people in control (the government) has the power to declare anyone deranged that they want.

It is not a right to operate a car. It is a privilege. It is a right to own a gun.

Why should we need a license in order to have our rights?

So after all this debate, exactly what is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not understood, especially since the recent Supreme Court ruling that the second amendment specifically defines an individual right to gun ownership?

"Shall not be infringed." What should or should not be, what other countries' laws have merits or not...none of that matters. The right of Americans to bear arms "shall not be infringed". Period. It doesn't matter what Canadians or Brits or Germans or Norwegians or anybody else thinks. This is our right as Americans, and our right to gun ownership is not open to question by any foreign powers or international agencies.

Discussion of gun crime rates is irrelevant, since the law is what it is. If Euros want to mistakenly think of the US as a "Wild West shoot-em-up" place then so be it (as unspeakably moronic as that attitude is). We are the ones who have to live with it and it is none of your business, anyway.

American gun laws are the business of nobody except Americans.

It very clear to me. They are jealous and fearful of the peoples rights becouse their ranks are filled with tax crazy crooks and pretty boys. And they answer to powers beyond our boarder it certainly looks like. Naturally they call all this something else.