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

reply to post by woodsmom

They understand that an armed populous is a stronger, more independent populous.

I agree with this 100%. I enjoy all the benefits that the 2nd Amendment has afforded me. However, I can't help but feel we're not as independent as we think. I guess if the SHTF I'll be glad I have my guns, but in the here and now, the American populace is still being dragged around by our noses by Washington. We have horrendous healthcare, record high unemployment, no manufactoring, high rates of homelessness, uncontrolled college debt, stagnant math, science, and engineering jobs, increasing gas prices, decreasing trust in politicians. For an industrialized nation we are behind so many countries in so many areas. Ugh!

reply to post by Cosmic911


I don't think we can really be considered an industrial nation anymore. We don't have that much industry left.

reply to post by SimonPeter


What are you on about? You think canadians are gun free?
Not even close buddy. It's about the same as the US, the liberal cities are where the unarmed are. Here in the country, almost everyone has multiple guns.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

I don't think we can really be considered an industrial nation anymore. We don't have that much industry left.

Great point. Construction, engineering, the auto-industry.....what is flourishing right are unemployment and house foreclosures....sad.

These are the rights we have possessed from the beginning when we accepted our constitution. I have had guns all of my life for hunting and competition shooting. Don't even try to take them away from me. I live in the country and the law is at least 1/2 hour away. that is, if they are not busy.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson

"It is also in the interests of a tyrant to keep his people poor, so that they may not be able to afford the cost of protecting themselves by arms and be so occupied with their daily tasks that they have no time for rebellion."
Aristotle

reply to post by TKDRL


You can not buy any gun you want . I have read the calibre restrictions you have . Your government is linked heavily to the NWO and they are worried about you fighting them not killing each other .We still have the ability to resist our government . Soon even your small bore guns will be gone and you the commoner won't be able to keep the ROYALS in check . Have you forgotten your history .

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 .

What do you do when the guy breaks into your house and you call 911 and the cops don't show up for 20 minutes? That bad guy with the gun will have already killed you, raped your wife and daughter, stolen all your money and been long gone.

What if it only takes 5 minutes for the cops to get there But in that time the bad guy has already killed your wife and daughter and left? If you had a gun to protect yourself you could have stopped it.

Defending your life and the lives of your family is a Right and is Not considered taking the law into your own hands - Big difference. Taking the law into your own hands is being a vigilantly. Defense of your life and families is the least reasonable act you can do and are expected to do. I bet you not married. Most women don't want a man too afraid to protect her from harm.

reply to post by SimonPeter


The only guns I could not bring with me across the boarder where my handguns, and I wasn't that broke up about them to be honest. I don't really like handguns much, I prefer long guns. Had no problem bringing a truck load of guns(suburban) literally across with me. Two of them rifles can bring down a moose

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


UltraMarine , what a name for a person who wants to disarm the people . WHY ! You don't fit the name . A Marine remembers the pledge to defend the constitution from the enemy both foriegn and domestic . With out guns we can't defend our constitution from what has become domestic NWO /UN or a muslim .

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by TKDRL

 

You can not buy any gun you want . I have read the calibre restrictions you have . Your government is linked heavily to the NWO and they are worried about you fighting them not killing each other .We still have the ability to resist our government . Soon even your small bore guns will be gone and you the commoner won't be able to keep the ROYALS in check . Have you forgotten your history .

As it stands right in the here and now, you can walk into any Gander Mountain and for $5000 pick up a Barett .50 cal sniper rifle...not much of a caliber restriction there bud.

reply to post by Cosmic911


Are we talking about Canada ?

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

Are we talking about Canada ?

United States. I thought you were talking about the U.S. I misunderstood. I was going to say, that's not much of a caliber restriction. Ha ha

reply to post by Cosmic911


It would seem that we are the last bastion of resistance to the Globalist . They do not have our best interest in mind . The Global Banksters and their cabal seek to make us literally slaves to them , just like the Royals and commoners of old Europe .

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

It would seem that we are the last bastion of resistance to the Globalist . They do not have our best interest in mind . The Global Banksters and their cabal seek to make us literally slaves to them , just like the Royals and commoners of old Europe .

I absolutely agree. I'm not even sure if Washington, or any government body, even knows what's in the best interest of the public. If they even care?

reply to post by Cosmic911


The word politician is synonymous with dirty crook that would sell his own mother for profit . They are selling the sovereignty of this country out to the NWO . They need us to be unarmed to complete this task.

I really dont want the UN to have any say what so ever in the rules and regulations of our country... EVER about ANYTHING. Especially dealing with our guns. If a country has a problem with crime and guns going into the wrong hands, then they need to fix it NOT ask us to put a ban of any kind on guns. AGAIN, its not the guns that are dangerous its the people holding them. For dramatic example... Our planes were not brought down and driven into buildings by guns, but by box cutters. If everyone else on that plane had box cutters, would that guy have been as scary? Would he/they have been able to acomplish what he/they did? I doubt it. Can we ban all box cutters? Well, lets see here, it was against the rules to bring box cutters/weapons on the plane.... so the only ones who had weapons were the terrorist. Didnt work out so well.

reply to post by SimonPeter


Best quote ever to sum up politicians....from Red October..."When I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops."

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Can I ask you a serious question? If the DOT changes our domestic shipping standards to match international regulations, does that negate your argument? I really am curious, I have always appreciated your posts. The DOT is changing the shipping standards, losing the ORM-D Air classification on 1/1/13 and the ORM-D classification for ground shipments on 1/1/14.

www.costha.com...

www.dot.gov...

I have a thread started on this, but I still haven't been able to make much sense of the repercussions of the changes. There isn't much out there, but what you said about shipping was a red flag to me, maybe a loophole for them?

Originally posted by 12MoonCats
..I curious about how that would work out. I always see gun supporters bragging how there would be "bloodshed" if they tried to take away their guns..how they say that the 2nd amendment is in place to protect civilians from a tyrannical government..so just how would that be done? And when do you decide your gov is tyrannical? Isnt it been taking away your rights for the last 40-35 yrs slowly but clearly, a sign enough? Do you define "tyrannical" only when concerning gun rights?

I get what you're saying, and I agree. Thing is, there has to be a lynch pin event that gets everyone pulling in the same direction. I don't know what that event is, but when it happens, you'll know it. It sounds to me like you think the U.S. is the only country immune to civil war. Is that a correct assumption?

Originally posted by 12MoonCats
ok..Lets imagine a law is passed taking away your guns, and the cops come up to your house to inforce that law, what do you do, shoot them?So they would surround your house and call in reinforcements. They would kill you and your family.Is that what you want?

Yes. If the law is passed, and the police come to my door, I will do my best to kill them. If that means I lose my life, so be it. I'm a veteran, so the decision to give one's life for a cause has already been made a long time ago, and it was a sacrifice I was willing to make when I was 18, and now that I'm 40, the same holds true...just not for my government. No, I don't want that. Is that what YOU want? I mean, you just elected a guy that's trying to make that happen.

Originally posted by 12MoonCats
Another scenario: Lets say amercians civilians finally decide that their government is "tyrannical"..so they form militias in the suburbs, cities, towns..( via facebook? on forums? texting?haha)..and it becomes a civil war. The people versus the gov and all the governments advanced weapons (DARPA) and hired black ops, ect..How do you think that would fare? Of course then you would have civilians against civilians with different ideologies..reminds me of Syria for example, only far more bloodshed and horror because of the military might of weapons that the government has is clearly an advantage..so what would be the endgame of all this?
Look at Greece, the people are not rioting with guns but are clearly creating damage, but if it does come to being civil war there, God forbid, it will be horrific.

If you have to ask how people of like minded ideals communicate, you're not going to get an answer. Those who are like minded "get it". You keep bringing up the military might, etc. Most of the military will NOT fight against its people. Also, there are a lot of older vets around that have certain "skills". We'll leave it at that. And, as for it being horrific, I agree. I don't want it. That's why I didn't vote for a guy who had already tried to get us in this small arms treaty. I'd rather stop the threat before it happens...but the "give me, give me, give me" crowd cared more about birth control and cell phones. Oh well.

Originally posted by 12MoonCats
I think a lot of people say a lot of things, for instance bragging about how they would go up against the gov..if they "dared" take away their guns, but I dont think they really think it out or even would.

There are some, but don't kid yourself. I just hope we don't have to find out. I'd rather avoid it.