when is the gun ban coming? and a question on home defense weapons

I did a search to find the best place to post this e-mail I received. It is a little over the top regarding individual gun ownership, but if our govt signs this treaty it pretty much ends states' rights, i.e. Montana's push to minimize the ATF. Its a little long and not spaced properly.

FYI, sneaky little devils.........Buzz

> Obama

> Finds Legal Way

> Around The 2nd. Amendment and Uses

> It. If This passes, There Will Be WAR!


> The
> Full Article
> Here

> www.reuters.com...

> Subject: Obama

> Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms

> On Wednesday Obama Took the

> First Major Step in a

> Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United

> States

>

> On Wednesday the

> Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to

> ban all firearms in

> the United States. The Obama administration intends to

> force gun control and a

> complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the

> signing of international

> treaties with foreign nations. By signing international

> treaties on gun control,

> the Obama administration can use the US State Department to

> bypass the normal

> legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government

> signs these

> international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to

> those gun laws

> created by foreign governments. These are laws that have

> been developed and

> promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and

> individuals such as

> George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed

> and intended to lead

> to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

>

> The Obama

> administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of

> gun control that will

> inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US

> citizens even understand

> what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and

> tell them that he does

> not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States)

> that will lead to

> new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his

> Secretary of State, Hillary

> Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and

> foreign gun control

> laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it

> means is that there

> will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or

> votes in Congress. We

> will wake up one morning and find that the United States

> has signed a treaty

> that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from

> selling to the public.

> We will wake up another morning and find that the US has

> signed a treaty that

> prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we

> will wake up yet

> another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty

> that requires US

> citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local

> government collection and

> destruction center or face imprisonment.

>
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.


> Read the Article

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

The Full Article www.reuters.com...

I amVERY CONCERNED about a end run around the 2nd Amendment.

i tend to believe it- esp after billary did the "assualt weapons"ban.
now the other billary is secretary of state- democrats in control of everything-and we know they hate guns and americans having them.
i hate the cliche but have to say "they will get my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands"
law abiding citizens should be allowed to have guns to keep themselves safe from criminals and the gov't(oh wait that is an oxymoron)
obama knows he is an illegal president and is running scared and a silver tongued liar

I never thought of myself as a sheeple until I realized how angry I was at this. This makes it real for me, I was a sheeple, one that knew it was a game, but stayed with the herd anyway. NO MORE. If its a marketing game...fine..I'm hooked. For 2 grand I can get a cheap AK and enough ammo to melt the barrel. Done. I am not happy about this, the reality of it, the clarity of it, the blatant arrogance of tptb that think they know better than the individual or the state.

reply to post by jacksmoke


has been going on for years- glad you finally awakened- god bless ats!!!
and i love my ak but if you get one watch because they are made in so many different countries that some magazines might not work with the one you get so you have to "try before you buy"
and obama was 1/2 hour from me today- boy was that tempting offer but would rather kill a deer for food lmao

I too am grateful for ATS, and friends that send me these kinds of e-mails. Communication, even if monitored, is essential for us to keep an eye on our elected officials

I grew with guns and hunting and also grew up being very wary of salesmen, I did tons of research and inspected about 15 different WASR 10's so far. I am patient and will wait until its on sale and can walk out with the one I want. I did find one thats straight but its over-priced. Sorry for the off-topic.

Er, that Reuters story report is a scam. The actual story it links to is about US involvement in international arms talks and tightening import/export controls and in particular sales to Israel. It says nothing about arms sales within nations.

So far we haven't seen any evidence that the supposed "ban" is anything other than a marketing ploy and/or anti-Obama slur. Attempts like this to fool people make it look even more dubious. Sooner or later people are goign to want to find out the truth and who's making up these stories.

reply to post by fmcanarney



On your list of infringements you have

prohibitions of mental health or substance abuse from purchase

Do you really think that meth smokers and schizophrenics should have guns?

Originally posted by Aircow
reply to post by fmcanarney

 

On your list of infringements you have

prohibitions of mental health or substance abuse from purchase

Do you really think that meth smokers and schizophrenics should have guns?

Neither the Second Amendment nor anywhere in the Constitution is there a distinction made about people and their rights that would preclude them from rights, except lawful incarceration. Schizophrenia is a psychiatric term of a non-specific category used to describe any of several psychotic disorders. In short, it is a catch-all phrase that has defied specific definition. Consider the various definitions offered on the internet as an example. wordnetweb offers this as a defintion:

(n) schizophrenia, schizophrenic disorder, schizophrenic psychosis, dementia praecox (any of several psychotic disorders characterized by distortions of reality and disturbances of thought and language and withdrawal from social contact)

faqs.org/health offers this for a definiton:

"Schizophrenia (pronounced skit-suh-FREH-nee-uh) is a psychotic disorder or group of psychotic disorders that cause a patient to lose touch with reality. It is marked by severely impaired reasoning and emotional instability and can cause violent behavior.

Schizophrenic patients are often unable to make sense of the signals they receive from the world around them. They imagine objects and events to be very different from what they really are. If untreated, most people with schizophrenia gradually withdraw from the outside world.

Exactly what schizophrenia is has been the source of considerable disagreement among psychiatrists (doctors who deal with mental disorders). There is some thought that the disease psychiatrists call schizophrenia is actually a number of different conditions classified under a single heading."

Under Wikipedia's article in the section entitled "standardized criteria" this is offered:

"The most widely used standardized criteria for diagnosing schizophrenia come from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, version DSM-IV-TR, and the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, the ICD-10. The latter criteria are typically used in European countries, while the DSM criteria are used in the United States and the rest of the world, as well as prevailing in research studies. The ICD-10 criteria put more emphasis on Schneiderian first-rank symptoms, although, in practice, agreement between the two systems is high.[20]

According to the revised fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, three diagnostic criteria must be met:[4]

1. Characteristic symptoms: Two or more of the following, each present for much of the time during a one-month period (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).
* Delusions
* Hallucinations
* Disorganized speech, which is a manifestation of formal thought disorder
* Grossly disorganized behavior (e.g. dressing inappropriately, crying frequently) or catatonic behavior
* Negative symptoms—Blunted affect (lack or decline in emotional response), alogia (lack or decline in speech), or avolition (lack or decline in motivation)

If the delusions are judged to be bizarre, or hallucinations consist of hearing one voice participating in a running commentary of the patient's actions or of hearing two or more voices conversing with each other, only that symptom is required above. The speech disorganization criterion is only met if it is severe enough to substantially impair communication.

2. Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset.
3. Duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least six months. This six-month period must include at least one month of symptoms (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).

Schizophrenia cannot be diagnosed if symptoms of mood disorder or pervasive developmental disorder are present, or the symptoms are the direct result of a general medical condition or a substance, such as abuse of a drug or medication."

Directly under the "standardized criteria" section is a section entitled "Confusion with other conditions"

There are psychiatrists, Thomas Szasz being one of them, who have railed against the efficacy of schizophrenia for a number of years. In his book Schizophrenia - The Sacred Symbol of Psychiatry, Szasz has this to say:

"There is, in short, no such thing as schizophrenia"

American psychologist Ted Sarbin PhD. and James C. Mancuso PhD, also a psychologist, together wrote a book called; Schizophrenia - Medical Diagnosis or Moral Verdict? that in its epilogue states:

"Among other things, we have tried to establish that the schizophrenia model of unwanted conduct lacks credibility. The analysis directs us ineluctably to the conclusion that schizophrenia is a myth"

There is just too much about the dubious term schizophrenia that is arguably unknown. Because of this, arguing that people diagnosed with schizophrenia should not be afforded the same rights as everyone else smacks of an elitism of the worst kind.

As to those who are addicted to methamphetamine's, they also are people who you seem to be arguing should not be afforded certain rights because of this addiction. The strength and universality of rights is that they belong to all people regardless of who they are and while those who commit crimes necessarily forfeit certain rights in order to establish justice, once any conviction that has been rendered against them has been satisfied, the notion that they are no longer worthy of rights only serves to undermine the unalienable nature of rights.

Rights are not granted by governments they are natural and preexist any artifice formed that we call government. The Second Amendment makes clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is a simple but clear prohibition placed upon the state and federal and even local governments.

Originally posted by mike84596
Everyone that is pro gun banning:
What are you going to do when someone breaks in your house with an illegal handgun and demands your valuables? Wouldn't you wish you also had one?

LOL, most people who that happens to are caught off guard and never get a chance to use their gun. Do I wish I had one so I could murder someone, hell no. I'd have to buy a new house.

Originally posted by December_Rain
I dont think a gun ban is coming, but it would be welcome if it was, atleast by me.

Edit: Second line

[edit on 19-11-2009 by December_Rain]

Your not to bright are you?

First off the Gov. could try to ban them, however there is no record in a lot of states of who owns what with regards to rifles.
The only guns that they would know you owned would be the ones bought at a store or a pistol (unless you have a class 3 or other things with tax stamps)
I have sold all my pistols and I own no guns anymore...honest
If you do have guns only keep the ammo that goes with those guns with them....I mean if you have a 30-30 don't have the ammo for that and a 357, .44 mag, ar15,ak, or 308 in the same cabinet if the gun is not with it.
That way if they do come to your door and take your guns in the cabinet while your at work or away from home they will not find the others or have reason to think that you have others...catch my drift.
Also 1 is none and 2 is 1...meaning that if you have 1 gun of a caliber buy a second and keep it somewhere else with ammo, in a hole
they only know about registered weapons and if you sold them or had a bad boating accident on the Great Lakes they will never find them.
I personally have no guns anymore sir...here is the bill of sale for selling them at a gun show 5 years ago, have a nice day...hehehehe

Gun control to an extend is a good thing but taking away our right to own firearms would'nt help anything. It would just lessen your chances of successfully defending yourself in a mugging, house invasion, or anyother life threatening scenario.