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

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

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...

Well said navy_vet...I enlisted when I was 18, Navy Corpsman here...now that I'm 37, I feel the same way as you do. I guess that's what separates us from them...you and I already decided long ago what we believe and stand up for. I'll be happy dying on my front porch with my M4 in my hand.

It 's amazing how many people just dont get it. Our forefathers were brilliant men that were aware of the pitfalls of a powerful government. We ignore their constiution at our own peril.

reply to post by badgerprints


lol who cares?

there are other ways to skin a cat
or execute tyrants


+ the "ammo" ribbon used by this guy


you can strap it onto a homemade drone too [some assembly required]
diydrones.com...
homemade lasers, microwave, ultrasonic, subsonic, etc.
and most importantly:

"The most Dangerous Weapon on Earth,
only fires Neurons"

reply to post by stumason


You hit the nail on the head there. The gun ban people are up in arms about is not really a ban on gun ownership at all. It really is all about international gun trade. Which causes me to wonder why Obama is in support of it. The US government makes a lot of quick cash selling arms internationally. I am sure they would like to create an international law which would stomp out the competition.

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Havn't you learned, what a law says and what it does is two defferent things? Would you like some sugar for that Kool Aid?

Right. So you all are freaking out about a law that says nothing about taking away your guns, but rather stopping the illegal trade of guns, because "it will take away our guns". Love the logic.

I think you have had TOO MUCH sugar in your kool-aid.

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 .

Sir, I hope you jest. By the time that your city's finest arrives on the scene, your sh!+ is gone and you're dead. No thanks, I'll protect me and mine. As a man, it's my job to do that.

reply to post by TKDRL


How long before they take them away from you . The whole thing is not your safety or to stop the killing , it's to disarm you totally so you can not rebel against the self serving government soon to be the NWO .All that the Globalist preach about is population reduction . Why would they care about you .? Darfur is a poor country . Where is the money coming from to buy the weapons and ammo to feed that depopulation effort ? Wars like that cost a lot of money . Eugenics is big in the NWO as long as it is the right people . The bid to disarm people is to exact complete control over them .

reply to post by SimonPeter


How long until they are taken from me? Probably about the time hell freezes over. Most people don't know what it is like to stare death in the face. Been there, done that. If it means I have to die, so be it. I will tell ya what though, I will not be alone, and it will be on our turf. We know these here woods like the back of our hands, where the trails go, it will not be easy by a long shot. To get into or out of our town, a bridge needs to be crossed. We will take out both of them, so whoever comes, will have to swim across a tidal channel, then hoof it. Good luck to them.

reply to post by Cosmic911


We are being drug around by the government, because people have become lazy and complacent for the most part. We all have to be responsible at some point for our personal choices, whether it is action or inaction. I am not talking about the people who have been truly knocked down and need a hand back up either. People need to use that independence and use their hands to be productive instead of for a handout. I also don't believe that other peoples bad decisions should affect my ability to protect my family. Where I live the predators happen to be of the furry, big teeth variety.

I guess my point is that the US Constitution allows for my freedom to carry a gun. Other people, whether individual or collective, should not be able to make the decision for me otherwise. They are not there to protect or feed me and my family.

The government should not have a problem with this, unless they are reaching too far. In my personal opinion, the UN has no right to step in and make national decisions for anybody.
Forgive me if this is disjointed, I have tried 4 or 5 times to finish my thought. The chaos takes precedence.

reply to post by freedomwv

The US government makes a lot of quick cash selling arms internationally...

Very true....and it will make a whole lot more cash selling arms internationally...what for it....illegally...think of the cash!

IMO it would be easier to legalize cannabis globally than ban guns. The f'n US supplies most illegal weapons to the drug cartels. So basically upright citizens will have no defense against the criminal element.

reply to post by TKDRL


I hate to say this but the Predator Drones will hunt you down and kill you .They are flying over the US now and probably over Canada too.We need to stop our governments from enslaving us .

Okay unlike everyone who actually believes this BS, I've found an article on it, from yesterday. This is what it says: An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.
"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

Take a read here: news.yahoo.com...

I don't see much in the article about 'taking guns away', but you know Fox News they spin it any way they like. Curious though they haven't posted on the story since early July, so I call propaganda BS in the first place since if it wasn't they'd be all over it right now. Wouldn't they?

Originally posted by khimbar
Where are all the 'cold, dead hands people' that like to tell us they won't get theirs?

Oh and is there a link to the story at all please? I'm off to Google it.

edit on 8-11-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)

[/quot

All the "cold dead hands people" are waiting for the gun "collectors" to
grow a set and actually come and knock on their doors.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
Curious though they haven't posted on the story since early July, so I call propaganda BS in the first place since if it wasn't they'd be all over it right now. Wouldn't they?

I did explain yesterday to one poster that the original post title was taken directly from a live feed on a Sacramento newspaper site. It was early and the feed was unedited. The new step on the seventh was a renewal of talks on the July issue.

As I reiterated, it was worth doing a thread on because these things do seem to get swept under the rug. Other posters have found a few unedited feed stories and there was a Reuters link in there on the first few pages.

I think it's just a return to where they were in July but its not something the media is pushing for various reasons.

I am surprised the thread has hopped on this far but it may mostly be people reading the first page and then reacting.

I really hope this is BS cause if it is real, I am at a loss for words at how abrassively stupid liberals can be trying to back UN sanctioned tyranny. The UN is not what it used to be...to openly discuss topics at the general assembly to prevent wars, famine, destitution. It has evolved into a plutocratic get together of banker puppets, much like bohemian grove and the secret bilderberger meetings.

Today former communist countries in europe have more gun freedom than america, home of the slaved and land of the cowards. Don't get me wrong I do believe in some form of mild gun control(like no machine guns, artillery, aircraft, missles) but firearms should generally be available to everyone with a record clear of felonies and mentally stable.

The governments backed by bankers and billionares are the enemy. The last thing I want is for every nation to turn like london, uk with a hundred cameras watching your every move, probably even when you take a piss in the toilet. People should have a right to self-defense, a right to hunt for food, and a right to protect themselves from tyrannical government.

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 !!

Hasn't that already happened?

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by HolgerTheDane2

 

Accidents at a firing range...lmao. You crack me up.

BOO! *waves gun around and makes Holger piss himself*

So this never happened?

Accident at gun range

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2

Originally posted by jjkenobi

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by badgerprints

 

Isn't global gun ban a good idea ?

Are you 12 years old? 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.

Isn't it about time we see documentation?

How many accidental shootings by husbands, wives, kids in the US, where a domestic gun was used?

How many people have succesfully defended themselves against criminals?

How many shooting incidents by disheartened people gone rogue?

How many "Columbine" type shootings.

How many conflicts have escalated because some idiot brandished a gun to make a point?

In short

How many defended themselves succesfully compaired to how many shouldn't have died but did because some "normal" person wanted a gun to defend himself.

You want documentation here you go. Some white hat accidently killing or wounding someone while defending himself or others is so rare you would be hard pressed to find an example much less an actual statistic anywhere near close to how many defend themselves with guns...

The facts are that 2.5 million people a year successfully defend themselves or others with guns! Armed citizens stop more crime then all law enforcement in the country combined! Usually because they are the intended victims. That is why 911 is called dial a prayer...

Most gun crime is gang related and on each other honest gun owners as a group have a lower crime rate then police.

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense

*According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6

And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime... Read more: gunowners.org...

Thank you very much.

Much appreciated.

reply to post by badgerprints


Please stop propagating falsehoods. The UN weapons treaty only seeks to regulate international arms trade between countries, it does not seek to take away your precious guns. If you are going to post a link, here is one for you.

www.reuters.com...

Here is a direct quote from the article.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said. U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

Not to mention that any ratification of a treaty requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate which would never happen!

This should be moved to the junk bin.