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

reply to post by UltraMarine


I got over 20 of those evil guns. Funny, none of them have jumped up and killed no one yet. I will be sure to keep a close eye on those sneaky bastards though!

In the future only government controlled sections within a society will be allowed to own a gun.
That's when a democracy will turn into a tyranny. From that point on we will not be able to defend ourselves from state authority.

This wont be done all at once. It will start with that common citizens wont be given a permit to buy a gun.
And a few at a time at different locations will have to hand their guns in for some kind of legal reason.
It will happen in a manner that prevents people from gathering or forming opposition to what is actually taking place.

The plan will be to clean you out before you know hove screwed you are.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Yes, the OP title is a bit misleading.

Took it directly from the title of the article in the SacramentoBee website.
Not spinning this.
Like I said. I didn't believe it at first.

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 .

In my State the LAW says I can protect myself from criminals threatening me or my family without that all the cops will do is show up and make chaulk drawings around our bodies.

Things from your stance would seem to go like this -

"Excuse me Mr. criminal would you kindly wait while I make a quick call then I'll be right with you. Um that was 911 dispatch and they said someone would be right along in 20 minutes or so to help you out, would you mind standing on the porch for a few? I can't promise they'll be right on time as they did sound awfully busy if you know what I mean, umm that gun looks really heavy you can set it down right there on the table if you like, Would you like a glass of water or something while you wait?"

Yup you go ahead and try it out and let me know how that works out for ya!

Could it be that the reason you did not include any relevant links is because the UN measure Obama supports is not a ban on gun ownership, but a measure designed to control the illegal trade in weapons to militants and terrorists? It would not have any effect on domestic firearm possession, but would make it illegal for, say, Russia, to sell military equipment to pirates in Somalia:

www.un.org...

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I laugh at this too. The average person in the US DOES NOT trust law enforcement. The average LEO thinks they do. LEOs only hang out with other LEOs. Policy makers ONLY hang out with policy makers. The way they cannot take the pulse of the average person is laughable. Not for the life of them. They have no idea, for all their technology, think tanks, ect, no idea, how the average person thinks. They might know WHAT they think in situations, but the process is a mystery to them.

People do not trust cops as a whole. Not everyone, but most people don't. Our generation of law enforcement from federal to local is completely different from the 50´s and 60´s. Even then it was more a racial and community unity.

Now there is not that, but there is more tensions since they have been tasked with collection through fines and tickets the way the TAX collector from the bible was. I am not even mentioning the increase of tactics the public hates. They have a social stigma they cannot get over, which is why they hang out amongst themselves, and why people don't trust them.

I don't call the cops unless I have no choice, but if I do I try and leave or stay anonymous. Most people do.

You only stay and identify yourself if you feel the law will protect you. If you have the slightest chance of being held accountable for something, you don't call, or you do so anonymously. You don't rat now out of a sense of dishonor or the fear of backlash from the criminal, but rather from the back lash of the police. Using too much force, and illegal gun, if you are drunk, or had A DRINK, or if you have a history of whatever, ect.

That says allot. They are looked upon like the biblical tax collectors, not public servants like in other decades.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Yes, the OP title is a bit misleading.

Took it directly from the title of the article in the SacramentoBee website.
Not spinning this.
Like I said. I didn't believe it at first.

And you shouldn't believe it, because it's not true.

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Originally posted by KaiserSoze
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

Are you talking about that constitution nonsense? You must not have gotten the memo about it's death spiral. It has been circling the drain for some time, now with nothing to lose watch the unconstitutional agreements and executive orders fly.

I agree with posters who say that would be call to a bloody civil war... Once they start attacking possession of guns rights, believe me they are gonna have some problems, too many people would get really ticked and take their guns right to the WH and I dont mean to turn them in.

You are absolutely right and I agree too that it would be a call to civil war.

That was sort of a tongue-in-cheek recognition that for some time now there has been a bipartisan effort to chip away at and beat the hell out of the constitution. You can now be detained indefinitely with no charges, trial or representation assuming your not simply executed. 100% unconstitutional yet 100% legal under the NDAA.

Keep in mind, what Hitler did was all legal. Just change the laws if they go against your goals, or in the case of our current administration if that's too much effort simply ignore the laws.

Originally posted by DJW001
Could it be that the reason you did not include any relevant links is because the UN measure Obama supports is not a ban on gun ownership, but a measure designed to control the illegal trade in weapons to militants and terrorists? It would not have any effect on domestic firearm possession, but would make it illegal for, say, Russia, to sell military equipment to pirates in Somalia:

www.un.org...

It's designed to after 'illicit' guns.

And who gets to decide which ones are illicit again?

reply to post by khimbar

And who gets to decide which ones are illicit again?

The Constitution of the United States of America makes yours licit. Got a problem with that?

No surprise. Here is the agenda.


“Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”

Sarah Brady quote

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by khimbar

 

And who gets to decide which ones are illicit again?

The Constitution of the United States of America makes yours licit. Got a problem with that?

I have no problem at all with it, why?

I'm just saying that the defence 'they're only after illegal guns' doesn't hold a lot of weight when the same people get to decide which guns are legal.

It doesn't infringe on our second amendment rights..Yet. Obama told us alot of things he wouldn't do and yet ended up doing them anyway. ( Obamacare is not a tax and is actually a penalty? Well, it was pushed through as a tax penalty.)

Like another poster said you have to take small bites so that many of us won't notice. I like how they quietly pass laws during a major event so that we're distracted and aren't aware.

reply to post by khimbar

I have no problem at all with it, why?

Because you seem to confuse keeping the arms trade legal and above board with an attempt to deprive you of your constitutional rights.

I'm just saying that the defence 'they're only after illegal guns' doesn't hold a lot of weight when the same people get to decide which guns are legal.

And in this country, you get to decide who decides that. That's why we have elections.

Originally posted by khimbar

They won't come and take them away, they'll make people not even want them. And that should be more terrifying.

My opinion of course might be wrong.

I think that people will want them, they just won't be able to afford them. Kind of like I would love to have a Ford F150 Raptor, but cannot afford one.

Yet.

Oh to hell with it.

Yes
Obama is coming for your guns and is about to proclaim the UN the new administration from the US.
You lot have been correct the whole time.

Now, there...the secret is out. so get to your bunkers and lock it for 100 years already!!!

Originally posted by DJW001

And in this country, you get to decide who decides that. That's why we have elections.

You, the individual, doesnt decide squat.

All your neighbors decide for you.

The real question is how much do you trust your neighbors? Enough to let them run your life?

Deny all you want, but letting the UN set any control over any guns will affect the American citizen. It has listed import, export, and transfer of illicit weapons. Transfer is a broad term and the one worried about by gun owners. Also does the term illicit weapons.

Granted there is now a provision allowing states(it uses the term states to refer to nations as well) to govern their own rules and abide by any constitutional rights given such states.

But!! the problem lies in interpretation of the law, and in America our constitution. If the UN decides say a 9mm is an illicit gun, then it could be banned here as well, because the Constitution merely states the right to bear arms. It doesn't mention capacity, rate of fire or anything specific that they can work around.

Its a tricky sticky slope. And its obvious why the president postponed this till after the election, or he may have lost it. A simple commercial not lying but being vague about future possibilities would have gotten gun owners up in arms.

Year after year, we are losing rights and we keep letting it happen. We are so dumbed down we believe the government has our best interest at heart. beware Americans, the terrorist may get ya. So they institute the patriot act, allow drones to fly the sky, warrant-less wiretapping, gun laws, smoking laws, sugar laws in NY, regulating natural growing herbs and vegetables via monsanto, regulating birth control, abortion, marriage. How much more will we allow the government to regulate and control "for our safety and health".

Apathy is the worst emotion.

Article 9 Brokering Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.

iapcar.org... (latest version of the text of the treaty I could find that hadn't been cut and pasted and dismembered)

reply to post by TDawgRex

I think that people will want them, they just won't be able to afford them.

Now you're getting warm. Gun manufacturers love to spread rumors that guns are going to be banned so that people want them all the more and are willing to pay more for them. It's an actual conspiracy, you know.

You guys have been sputing this 2nd ammendment nonsense for 4 years now.

you're not even giving us links now either? Come on.

Obama isn't taking anyone's guns away. Just stop. He won the election and to continue this nonsense is pointless. What are you trying to achieve by spreading the propaganda? Are you trying already to prevent a 3rd term? Don't worry.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com