Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,942 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,881,478
Pageviews Today: 2,526,851Threads Today: 458Posts Today: 9,709
05:22 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama

 
Epic Beard Guy
Constitutional Crusader

User ID: 26240425
United States
11/27/2012 01:18 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
1. This is OP's interpretation of the speech.
2. Are govt. agencies gonna go door to door and confiscate these weapons?
3. If these weapons were bought legally, but are now deemed illegal, is the govt. going to reimburse citizens for the cost of the weapon if it is confiscated?
4. Does the govt. expect it's citizens to bring knives to a gunfight?
5. A ban on these weapons is just not going to work out well.


My final point: The second amendment was written during a time when guns were a pain in the ass to load and fire...so maybe our founding Father's would agree to a ban on semi's and fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I own weapons...I've shot every weapon the USMC has in it's arsenal...even got my name on a plaque on the M60 range in 29 palms. I don't believe that I'd need and M60 to protect my family however. Some of the weapons that are legal now are a bit overkill-so I'd agree to a ban on those.

I don't agree to a ban on handguns with clips, six shooters, or bolt action rifles.
 Quoting: AFGW 21140569


"so maybe our founding Father's would agree to a ban on semi's and fully automatic weapons."
Yeah and let the "other guy" have them....very rational
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 144368


Automatic weapons are already "banned" for the most part unless you want to jump through hoops for the background check and have the scratch to pay the government to have one....so that canard is a moot point.

Why is it when anti's try and make their point they always go to the extremes and say that people like me want a belt fed automatic weapon, artillery piece, or tank?

To me, it shows their desperation and ignorance.
 Quoting: SFC_Swede


Most anti-gun libtards have no idea what they are talking about. It's just the party line, so they push to ban guns. Some ar smaRt enough to start small, like a ban on high capacity clips. But most just can't wait that long, the want to ban private ownership of all guns. In the middle we have the ones that just want to ban "assault rifles", or "high capacity clips", but they have no idea what those are. Some want to ban everything except hunting rifles. They don't understand the Constitution at all. The 2nd amendment was not ther to protect us from animals, it was written to protect us from our own government.
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
Epic Beard Guy
Constitutional Crusader

User ID: 26240425
United States
11/27/2012 01:22 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
Any firearms legislation MUST be approved by congress. No crazy gun bans are going to make it through the House.

Don't panic. Doom off.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19672960


Congress?


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23578537


Treaties need to be ratified by the senate, not the house. The only good news is that most democrats don't want to be seen as the guy that took our guns away. Then there is the problem of the 2nd amendment. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution. King Barry might try to sell that bullshit, but it wont fly. If he gets another activist judge on Supreme Court, we're fucked.
 Quoting: Epic Beard Guy


not so fast..there is a little agreement with the UN that twist that concept....he[obama] signs it...it does not have to be ratified by the senate...to be LAW OR A TREATY.. because it is with the UNITED NATIONS...it has to be disavowed by the prez or sectary of state....now watch and how oabama is gonna run with this...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1513486


ANY TREATY NEEDS TO BE RATIFIED BY 2/3s OF THE SENATE! NO EXCEPTIONS! IF YOU WERE RIGHT WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE THE UN GUN CONTROL TREATY. HILLARY SIGNED THE FIRST ONE, BUT COULDN'T GET ENOUGH DEMOCRAP SENATORS TO VOTE FOR RATIFICATION! MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ THE CONSTITUTION!
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20003334
United States
11/27/2012 02:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17389107


At 5:00 minutes in. The point is clearly made
clappa
Chrit

User ID: 27088294
United States
11/27/2012 02:26 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
You guys are still missing it; the UN gun ban is only about importing and exporting weapons. It has no power over domestic production. What it really does is puts gun producers out of business who import to the US, like Beretta. They do not need congress to ratify the treaty to enforce it the way and means are already in place. With a stroke of the pen the attorney general without any act of congress can ban whatever imported weapons it wants. The last time they did it was in 89. This is why you can’t get a Walther ppk/s anymore new, the new ones are made domestically by smith Wesson to avoid the import laws.

This is 100% circumventing the second amendment because the second amendment does not say a thing about importation. It is not even part of the issue by design.
Read it very carefully.

From 1968 when this Tax act was declared unconstitutional for a very short period of time till the word “firearm” was removed and replaced with "destructive device" They immediately enacted the gun control act of 1968 and both the GCA and the NFA are enforced by the ATF to this day.

If you read through the GCA it says a lot about this.

Article: The GCA created what is commonly known as the "sporting purposes" standard for all imported firearms, declaring that they must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." As interpreted by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "sporting purposes" includes only hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include "plinking" or "practical shooting" nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest.[4] Hence, foreign made assault rifles and machine guns such as the AK-47, the FN FAL or the Heckler & Koch MP5 could no longer be imported into the United States for civilian ownership (however, semi-automatic models of the same weapons were permitted until the definition of "sporting purpose" was further tightened in 1989).

[link to en.wikipedia.org] This


Now if you read through what was done in 1989 they gave the power to ban IMPORTED shotguns through the use of the GCA to the Attorney General. So the attorney general is in charge of what is legally imported and the secretary of the treasury is in charge of shotguns produced here in the States or shotguns that are already carrying a tax stamp.

[link to atf.gov] link is a PDF from the ATF.gov site on the study of importabily of shotguns for "sporting purposes"

This list below is about imported shotguns that are controlled by the Attorney General’s office sense 1989 defined as “not for sporting purpose.”

Following this review, the working
group determined that certain shotgun features are not particularly suitable or readily adaptable
for sporting purposes. These features include:
(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
(2) bayonet lugs;
(3) flash suppressors;
(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
(5) grenade-launcher mounts;
(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
(7) light enhancing devices;
(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the
shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.
Although the features listed above do not represent an exhaustive list of possible shotgun
features, designs or characteristics, the working group determined that shotguns with any one of
these features are most appropriate for military or law enforcement use. Therefore, shotguns
containing any of these features is not particularly suitable for nor readily adaptable to
generally recognized sporting purposes such as hunting, trap, sporting clay, and skeet shooting.
Each of these features and an analysis of each of the determinations are included within the main
body of the report.

I'm only human, it's my biggest flaw.

We must all realize a sink a chair and a pillow are all luxuries of home and a soldiers helmet takes the place of all three.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 03:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
1. This is OP's interpretation of the speech.
2. Are govt. agencies gonna go door to door and confiscate these weapons?
3. If these weapons were bought legally, but are now deemed illegal, is the govt. going to reimburse citizens for the cost of the weapon if it is confiscated?
4. Does the govt. expect it's citizens to bring knives to a gunfight?
5. A ban on these weapons is just not going to work out well.


My final point: The second amendment was written during a time when guns were a pain in the ass to load and fire...so maybe our founding Father's would agree to a ban on semi's and fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I own weapons...I've shot every weapon the USMC has in it's arsenal...even got my name on a plaque on the M60 range in 29 palms. I don't believe that I'd need and M60 to protect my family however. Some of the weapons that are legal now are a bit overkill-so I'd agree to a ban on those.

I don't agree to a ban on handguns with clips, six shooters, or bolt action rifles.
 Quoting: AFGW 21140569


And to imagine you took the oath to serve and protect. Traitor!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28360307


Guy is a FUDD only worse as former military.

[link to www.urbandictionary.com]

FUDD

The slang term for gun owners of what could be called limited tastes. They are thought of as being casual gun owners and not true supporters of the Second Amendment. These are the guys that Diane Feinstein is talking about when she talks about acceptable gun ownership.

Two characteristics normally identify a FUDD.

#1: Very limited range of shooting interests. A FUDD could have just 1 gun, or more than 153 guns, but all those guns fall within a very limited range of interests. The interest that defines a FUDD is "sporting purposes". All their 12 ga wood and blued steel shotguns, bolt action rifles, 44 magnum revolvers, and 9mm pistols only have one purpose: sport. These guns are either for hunting, or they are for marksmanship and trap competitions. Nothing they have is supposed to take the role of a dedicated defense gun, or a daily carry gun.
 Quoting: s. d. butler


I think this 'definition' of FUDD above is quite narrow-minded and defeats the purpose of the movement. Further division among second ammendment supporters is NOT HELPFUL to the movement. We have enough polarity in the USA as it is.

And whatever fool said you couldn't use any of the above as defensive weapons has obviously never been *shot* by one of those weapons.
 Quoting: tandym


You have completely missed the point. A FUDD by definition doesnot support the second amendment. Reread the definition.

FUDDs aren't in the movement. They are appeasers who don't understand what the second amendment is about.
AFGW
User ID: 21140569
United States
11/27/2012 04:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
Fuck you slimy civilian. I'm sorry I served for your stupid ass. And once again, I'm a woman...if you really read through the thread you would have known that, your just trolling. I may be many things...but a traitor I am not. Perhaps if you didn't quit school and moved out of yer mama's trailer...you'd git the gist of what I'm tryin ta say here. Go fuck a horse, jackass.
 Quoting: AFGW 21140569


You were no USMC Marine. Communist bastard you might be... but Marine, no.

YOU are a traitorous bastard if you do not support the non-infringement of the 2nd Amendment in which the right to bear arms exists.

Note it is a RIGHT. NOT a privilege.

NOTE it cannot be infringed.

You cannot change the Constitution unless there is a Constitutional convention and 3/5 of the States vote to amend the Constitution.

So STFU and be a Marine, if you are one. I am not at all convinced. You pledged an oath to the US code of Military Justice. Either do what you said or you are without integrity.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28445139


WTF does someone from Turkey care about what a Gulf War Marine thinks...take care of your own fucked up armpit of a country.
AFGW
User ID: 21140569
United States
11/27/2012 04:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
To all of the ungrateful, hateful, debateful ID10t's,

The only points that any of you haters made was that people like you shouldn't even be allowed to own a fucking butter knife.

Bans are in place already and more will be put in place as technology advances.
You're second amendment rights were infringed upon a long, long, time ago. Do any of you own a grenade launcher, or EMP device? Nope, but the military has plenty of them. Do any of you own a scud missile? I doubt it, but the military has lots of them...so your arguing over nothing...all I was trying to say was that all Americans have the right to bear arms in order to protect life and property...but you can't do it with a fucking cannon or a grenade launcher...and all you fuckers can say is that I am a traitor and deny that I was a United States Marine? You are the traitors for not having any respect for someone who served for you...and you know what the worst part of it all is...I'd serve to protect you assholes again if need be. I'm not the enemy here, if anything, you are being combative and not even trying to see my point, and for the 20 people that keep calling me a guy...it's obvious that you haven't even read the thread...you were all just ready to pounce...I have the right to my opinion...but your second amendment right was infringed upon since WW1.

Keep your attitudes up guys and your names will be first on the list for the "fabled" FEMA camps.

And remember boys and girls...just because they tell you that you have rights, it doesn't mean you actually do.
Dismissed Sheep.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1513486
United States
11/27/2012 04:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
...


Congress?


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23578537


Treaties need to be ratified by the senate, not the house. The only good news is that most democrats don't want to be seen as the guy that took our guns away. Then there is the problem of the 2nd amendment. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution. King Barry might try to sell that bullshit, but it wont fly. If he gets another activist judge on Supreme Court, we're fucked.
 Quoting: Epic Beard Guy


not so fast..there is a little agreement with the UN that twist that concept....he[obama] signs it...it does not have to be ratified by the senate...to be LAW OR A TREATY.. because it is with the UNITED NATIONS...it has to be disavowed by the prez or sectary of state....now watch and how oabama is gonna run with this...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1513486


ANY TREATY NEEDS TO BE RATIFIED BY 2/3s OF THE SENATE! NO EXCEPTIONS! IF YOU WERE RIGHT WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE THE UN GUN CONTROL TREATY. HILLARY SIGNED THE FIRST ONE, BUT COULDN'T GET ENOUGH DEMOCRAP SENATORS TO VOTE FOR RATIFICATION! MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ THE CONSTITUTION!
 Quoting: Epic Beard Guy


there is the treaty made with the UN..that the any treaty with the United Nations need only be signed by the prez or sectary of state to be binding...it can nulified by written or oral renoucefication by the prez or sectary to state...
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 05:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
There are a lot of people who really shouldn't have guns that do, no doubt.

But there are a lot of people who are bright and fully aware of the responsability.

So what we need is testing to assure gun owners are capable of cleaning, maintaining and properly locking up and storing weapons.

The test shouldn't be too hard but definitely should seperate the imbecile from the responsable.

After that, you have your second ammendment rights iron clad.

But I don't think Gov't is up to the testing or would spin the tests so no one who has any balls or political activism or force of will could have them.

And then theirs the very valid argument that if you take away the people right to bear arms, only those who would break the law will have them leaving the law abiding defensless against them.

In short I support the second ammendment wholeheartedly but would also understand we have to keep guns out of the reach of those who could hurt themselves or worse, others.


Frater
 Quoting: Frater



I understand your intent but again this is a slippery slope situation.

You are suggesting turning a right into a privilege.
Chrit

User ID: 27088294
United States
11/27/2012 05:03 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
Going to break down in very basic and simple terms.

The United States allows the importation of weapons that are for sporting purposes from foreign countries. The UN wants to stop it under the premise that we are engaging in illegal unsanctioned arms importation without UN consent resulting in global illegal arms trade, a lie.

All goes back to 2001 and the PoA. This eventually turned in to the resolution 61/89

direct UN pdf of 61/89

[link to ony.unu.edu]


Here is the study on the resolution. They incorrectly hypnotized in 2001 that the importation of weapons in to the US was responsible for the global illicit arms trade and required global UN action. BTW this is a reason they approved fast and furious to lend support the failed hypothesis.

[link to www.un.org]


The Us does not even have to approve any of this. Infact if we do not pass it they the UN will enforce it by having the exporting countries comply. Basically a UN arms embargo on the US if we do not pass this. This is why they will circumvent congress and the 2/3 vote for a quick importation ban through the sectary of state instead. It will be non-repealable and still have us in violation all at the same time.

By stopping the US from importing arms the UN will shut down 40% of the global arms trade giving specific company’s that are already invested in a monopoly and pushing others out of business altogether. This is a $55 billion dollar a year industry the UN wants to take control of.

It will also stop US exports.

Now where we are at today is they are arguing over resolution 64/48 that was put in to place just after 61/89 failed.

So here is the current draft of the ATT

UN PDF only three pages. Still so much double talk in this it is hard to wrap your head around it.

[link to www.un.org]




sportingpurpose
I'm only human, it's my biggest flaw.

We must all realize a sink a chair and a pillow are all luxuries of home and a soldiers helmet takes the place of all three.
oscanator
User ID: 24421278
United States
11/27/2012 05:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
You guys are still missing it; the UN gun ban is only about importing and exporting weapons. It has no power over domestic production. What it really does is puts gun producers out of business who import to the US, like Beretta. They do not need congress to ratify the treaty to enforce it the way and means are already in place. With a stroke of the pen the attorney general without any act of congress can ban whatever imported weapons it wants. The last time they did it was in 89. This is why you can’t get a Walther ppk/s anymore new, the new ones are made domestically by smith Wesson to avoid the import laws.

This is 100% circumventing the second amendment because the second amendment does not say a thing about importation. It is not even part of the issue by design.
Read it very carefully.

From 1968 when this Tax act was declared unconstitutional for a very short period of time till the word “firearm” was removed and replaced with "destructive device" They immediately enacted the gun control act of 1968 and both the GCA and the NFA are enforced by the ATF to this day.

If you read through the GCA it says a lot about this.

Article: The GCA created what is commonly known as the "sporting purposes" standard for all imported firearms, declaring that they must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." As interpreted by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "sporting purposes" includes only hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include "plinking" or "practical shooting" nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest.[4] Hence, foreign made assault rifles and machine guns such as the AK-47, the FN FAL or the Heckler & Koch MP5 could no longer be imported into the United States for civilian ownership (however, semi-automatic models of the same weapons were permitted until the definition of "sporting purpose" was further tightened in 1989).

[link to en.wikipedia.org] This


Now if you read through what was done in 1989 they gave the power to ban IMPORTED shotguns through the use of the GCA to the Attorney General. So the attorney general is in charge of what is legally imported and the secretary of the treasury is in charge of shotguns produced here in the States or shotguns that are already carrying a tax stamp.

[link to atf.gov] link is a PDF from the ATF.gov site on the study of importabily of shotguns for "sporting purposes"

This list below is about imported shotguns that are controlled by the Attorney General’s office sense 1989 defined as “not for sporting purpose.”

Following this review, the working
group determined that certain shotgun features are not particularly suitable or readily adaptable
for sporting purposes. These features include:
(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
(2) bayonet lugs;
(3) flash suppressors;
(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
(5) grenade-launcher mounts;
(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
(7) light enhancing devices;
(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the
shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.
Although the features listed above do not represent an exhaustive list of possible shotgun
features, designs or characteristics, the working group determined that shotguns with any one of
these features are most appropriate for military or law enforcement use. Therefore, shotguns
containing any of these features is not particularly suitable for nor readily adaptable to
generally recognized sporting purposes such as hunting, trap, sporting clay, and skeet shooting.
Each of these features and an analysis of each of the determinations are included within the main
body of the report.

 Quoting: Chrit


so that means no more cheap ammo from Russia?
Chrit

User ID: 27088294
United States
11/27/2012 05:12 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
There are a lot of people who really shouldn't have guns that do, no doubt.

But there are a lot of people who are bright and fully aware of the responsability.

So what we need is testing to assure gun owners are capable of cleaning, maintaining and properly locking up and storing weapons.

The test shouldn't be too hard but definitely should seperate the imbecile from the responsable.

After that, you have your second ammendment rights iron clad.

But I don't think Gov't is up to the testing or would spin the tests so no one who has any balls or political activism or force of will could have them.

And then theirs the very valid argument that if you take away the people right to bear arms, only those who would break the law will have them leaving the law abiding defensless against them.

In short I support the second ammendment wholeheartedly but would also understand we have to keep guns out of the reach of those who could hurt themselves or worse, others.


Frater
 Quoting: Frater



I understand your intent but again this is a slippery slope situation.

You are suggesting turning a right into a privilege.
 Quoting: s. d. butler


Have to keep the UN out of all of this even if you do want to limit anything.

That is the most important part of this entire thing; the UN does consist of our enemies after all.

They are also proven to be corrupt on many occasions.


Otherwise you are just letting the UN control US imports and exports and it will spread to other industries. Slippery slope is an understatement, more like going over a ski jump.
I'm only human, it's my biggest flaw.

We must all realize a sink a chair and a pillow are all luxuries of home and a soldiers helmet takes the place of all three.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 05:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
1. This is OP's interpretation of the speech.
2. Are govt. agencies gonna go door to door and confiscate these weapons?
3. If these weapons were bought legally, but are now deemed illegal, is the govt. going to reimburse citizens for the cost of the weapon if it is confiscated?
4. Does the govt. expect it's citizens to bring knives to a gunfight?
5. A ban on these weapons is just not going to work out well.


My final point: The second amendment was written during a time when guns were a pain in the ass to load and fire...so maybe our founding Father's would agree to a ban on semi's and fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I own weapons...I've shot every weapon the USMC has in it's arsenal...even got my name on a plaque on the M60 range in 29 palms. I don't believe that I'd need and M60 to protect my family however. Some of the weapons that are legal now are a bit overkill-so I'd agree to a ban on those.

I don't agree to a ban on handguns with clips, six shooters, or bolt action rifles.
 Quoting: AFGW 21140569


While I can agree with you on principle... the problem is, It is merely a stepping stone to getting rid of guns all together. That is what is ultimately wanted.

I still can't figure out what someone expects to do with fully automatic weapons, etc.
Do they think they can hold off the government using an automatic weapon if the government decided to take it from them?

That being said, I can not and will not agree to any ban on firearms because I understand the true intent is to remove ALL guns from private citizens.
 Quoting: mikebo2


I am the much hated poster that has been called all sorts of things tonight. Do any of you realize that they're are bans already in place? Like fully-automatic weapons? I don't agree with the banning of firearms in order to protect life and property... all of you hating me for my statement just gives me a list of non-critical thinkers. All I stated was that maybe the constitution would have been a totally different document if the founding fathers were here today in this time and age.

Oh...and by the way, if you don't like what I posted, that's fine, but don't disrespect a person who fought for your country just because you didn't agree with what they had to say or misinterpreted it. Also...I'm a chick...not a dude, AFGW= A Few Good Women.

I'm willing to bet that not one of the haters served at all and don't ever tell a Marine that they should be ashamed of themselves for having an opinion on a controversial topic.

If you have been trained in firing a weapon, all you would need was one shot...one kill.
 Quoting: AFGW 21140569



I said you were a FUDD. I stand by that. I also don't think military service or lack of it conveys much of anything germane to this discussion.

I suspect most of the posters are former military. You don't have to be former military to understand the meaning of the second amendment.

You have demonstrated that you don't.

Last Edited by s. d. butler on 11/27/2012 05:35 PM
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 05:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
There are a lot of people who really shouldn't have guns that do, no doubt.

But there are a lot of people who are bright and fully aware of the responsability.

So what we need is testing to assure gun owners are capable of cleaning, maintaining and properly locking up and storing weapons.

The test shouldn't be too hard but definitely should seperate the imbecile from the responsable.

After that, you have your second ammendment rights iron clad.

But I don't think Gov't is up to the testing or would spin the tests so no one who has any balls or political activism or force of will could have them.

And then theirs the very valid argument that if you take away the people right to bear arms, only those who would break the law will have them leaving the law abiding defensless against them.

In short I support the second ammendment wholeheartedly but would also understand we have to keep guns out of the reach of those who could hurt themselves or worse, others.


Frater
 Quoting: Frater



I understand your intent but again this is a slippery slope situation.

You are suggesting turning a right into a privilege.
 Quoting: s. d. butler


Have to keep the UN out of all of this even if you do want to limit anything.

That is the most important part of this entire thing; the UN does consist of our enemies after all.

They are also proven to be corrupt on many occasions.


Otherwise you are just letting the UN control US imports and exports and it will spread to other industries. Slippery slope is an understatement, more like going over a ski jump.
 Quoting: Chrit


I was in Haiti when the UN took over. Corrupt and stupid isn't the half of it.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 05:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
hf Haven't you learned the lesson yet?? How long before the next killing spree will soon exterminate again innocent lives as in Columbine? If BAN approved = wisdom

[link to tg24.sky.it]


august 2012 list:

20 July: James Holmes Aka Batman fired guns on 70 at the cinema.
5 August: 6 deaths at sikh's temple, Oak Creek. Michale Page killer
10 august: Wicksburg, about 100 miles off Montgomery. Ryan Clark Peterson killed 3 people and ijnured at least one.
12 august: Boston, Dorchester e Roslindale firefights.
13 august: ‘Texas A&M’ university campus, college station.- 2 people killed.
24 august: Empire State Building, Jeffrey Johnson, fired gund killing Steven Ercolino and injuring 9 people-
31 august: Old Brigde, New Jersey. 3 people died in a store, shootings.


In Italy, where guns are strictly forbidden, there aren't such things.
 Quoting: >:Aldabaran:<


u dont understand my friend,im bosnian i know what u are saying,italia is italia and usa is usa,u have to have weapons here because of those assholes like the one in colorado,u neevr know anywhere realy...but this talk about government like in case the government tries to kill us,how is that gona work ? in what world? yes protesters get killed,but becuase they went there with no fucking weapons to begin with,stay at home...
 Quoting: nocty


In what world? really? You never heard of ethnic cleansing and you are bosnian?
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 05:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
In this case robbery i think the pepper injects an intolerable pain into the eyes, that in turn, will cause so much stress on the crackpot that won't be able to stand up turn or aim. If you manage to spray all the bottle, the pain will be so unbearable his control will be lost. You then run away and call the police. Sure it is best
 Quoting: >:Aldabaran:<


rofl
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 06:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
1. This is OP's interpretation of the speech.
2. Are govt. agencies gonna go door to door and confiscate these weapons?
3. If these weapons were bought legally, but are now deemed illegal, is the govt. going to reimburse citizens for the cost of the weapon if it is confiscated?
4. Does the govt. expect it's citizens to bring knives to a gunfight?
5. A ban on these weapons is just not going to work out well.


My final point: The second amendment was written during a time when guns were a pain in the ass to load and fire...so maybe our founding Father's would agree to a ban on semi's and fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I own weapons...I've shot every weapon the USMC has in it's arsenal...even got my name on a plaque on the M60 range in 29 palms. I don't believe that I'd need and M60 to protect my family however. Some of the weapons that are legal now are a bit overkill-so I'd agree to a ban on those.

I don't agree to a ban on handguns with clips, six shooters, or bolt action rifles.
 Quoting: AFGW 21140569


Yea well I have shot many types of weapons in the Army and you are an idiot. The 2nd amendment is to protect us citizens from the government. THAT is the reason for its existence. Get a clue.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24090746




Turns out our "Marine" is a woman. That answers a lot of questions, as far as I'm concerned.

The founding fathers were very apprehensive about women voting or holding high public office. For the exact same reason our "Marine" exhibits a nauseating lack of logic.

Women vote emotionally, rather than logically.

And like all fools, this emotional wreck believes that all the people who have (in unison) rebuked her are the "problem", and not herself.

It's a classic case of not being able to ever expect an idiot to ADMIT (or even recognize) that they are, indeed, an idiot. In fact, idiots always think of themselves as "brilliant", and everybody ELSE is wrong.

Our "Marine" is a textbook example.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28564512


Good post. Tickled me how she says everyone who disagrees are haters.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 06:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
Guy is a FUDD only worse as former military.

[link to www.urbandictionary.com]

FUDD

The slang term for gun owners of what could be called limited tastes. They are thought of as being casual gun owners and not true supporters of the Second Amendment. These are the guys that Diane Feinstein is talking about when she talks about acceptable gun ownership.

Two characteristics normally identify a FUDD.

#1: Very limited range of shooting interests. A FUDD could have just 1 gun, or more than 153 guns, but all those guns fall within a very limited range of interests. The interest that defines a FUDD is "sporting purposes". All their 12 ga wood and blued steel shotguns, bolt action rifles, 44 magnum revolvers, and 9mm pistols only have one purpose: sport. These guns are either for hunting, or they are for marksmanship and trap competitions. Nothing they have is supposed to take the role of a dedicated defense gun, or a daily carry gun.
 Quoting: s. d. butler


Is this from ELmer Fudd as in "I'm gonna shoot me a wabbit!"?
 Quoting: Bluebird


Yes,I think Elmer Fudd is the inspiration for the term FUDD.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 06:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13427643


to bad people don't watch this,especially the Brits.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 06:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
Obama changed the damn law where you can carry a firearm into the National Parks. Want to target practice in a National Park, no problem.

NOBODY is taking away your guns and certainly not Obama.

Your Damn taxes are lower now than under Bush too!

Fox News mislead its viewers about the election. You have to Trust But Verify with Fox News.
 Quoting: brent pops


Bush refused to open up our National Parks to guns. Obama did it in the first 6 months
 Quoting: brent pops


obama did this, not as a matter of principle, but for political reasons.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
11/27/2012 06:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
1. This is OP's interpretation of the speech.
2. Are govt. agencies gonna go door to door and confiscate these weapons?
3. If these weapons were bought legally, but are now deemed illegal, is the govt. going to reimburse citizens for the cost of the weapon if it is confiscated?
4. Does the govt. expect it's citizens to bring knives to a gunfight?
5. A ban on these weapons is just not going to work out well.


My final point: The second amendment was written during a time when guns were a pain in the ass to load and fire...so maybe our founding Father's would agree to a ban on semi's and fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I own weapons...I've shot every weapon the USMC has in it's arsenal...even got my name on a plaque on the M60 range in 29 palms. I don't believe that I'd need and M60 to protect my family however. Some of the weapons that are legal now are a bit overkill-so I'd agree to a ban on those.

I don't agree to a ban on handguns with clips, six shooters, or bolt action rifles.
 Quoting: AFGW 21140569


Sir you are a disgrace!!!!Shall not infringe,there is no other interpitation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1549678


Well be sure to tell that to a invading government/and or country, that they should be using muzzle loaders instead.
Because our 2 Amendment was written to that.
 Quoting: DooMCooN 1266067


No
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20517650
United States
11/27/2012 06:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
This lie was pinned before and it should be pinned again, permanently!
sodbust

User ID: 28302242
United States
11/27/2012 07:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
At the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted,,, the idea was that the people should be able to own weapons of equal value and fire power of what the govt army had at hand..

Just in cast the govt got a big head and out of control the people could use equal force and take the nation back.. I was the corner stone of our county's foundations and the 2nd for a darn good reason.. We the people just fell asleep for 150 years and the animal got too large.. Now its imposable to feed!

Truly by the way the 2nd is written,, we should be able to own anything our govt has in its armory's.

Just my point of view..

Sodbust
Dream big,, its ones only chance
Epic Beard Guy
Constitutional Crusader

User ID: 26240425
United States
11/27/2012 08:00 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
I just got a response from senator John Barrasso regarding an e-mail I sent him about the UN treaty. He sent me a copy of a letter he sent to King Barry and Hillary. It he and others senator have some problems with the UN treaty. These senators said they could not support this or any arms control treaty that would infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. This letter was signed by 51 senators! That would pretty much end any chance they had to get this NWO POS ratified.
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
Chrit

User ID: 27088294
United States
11/27/2012 08:13 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
I just got a response from senator John Barrasso regarding an e-mail I sent him about the UN treaty. He sent me a copy of a letter he sent to King Barry and Hillary. It he and others senator have some problems with the UN treaty. These senators said they could not support this or any arms control treaty that would infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. This letter was signed by 51 senators! That would pretty much end any chance they had to get this NWO POS ratified.
 Quoting: Epic Beard Guy


Then the UN will attempt to enforce the ban from outside the US by other means.
I'm only human, it's my biggest flaw.

We must all realize a sink a chair and a pillow are all luxuries of home and a soldiers helmet takes the place of all three.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1130914
United States
11/27/2012 08:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
FFS

11 pages of bullshit.

*sigh*
Burt Gummer

User ID: 7702124
United States
11/27/2012 09:02 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
I just got a response from senator John Barrasso regarding an e-mail I sent him about the UN treaty. He sent me a copy of a letter he sent to King Barry and Hillary. It he and others senator have some problems with the UN treaty. These senators said they could not support this or any arms control treaty that would infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. This letter was signed by 51 senators! That would pretty much end any chance they had to get this NWO POS ratified.
 Quoting: Epic Beard Guy


That's great news.
Any treaties require a minimum 2/3 of all votes to be ratified by the Senate.


Screw the UN.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1130914
United States
11/27/2012 09:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
Have any of you mental midgets ever been in the same room with a 'gun', let alone held one?

WTF is up with the mall ninja 'fudd' bullshit?

cruise
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1130914
United States
11/27/2012 09:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
ANY TREATY NEEDS TO BE RATIFIED BY 2/3s OF THE SENATE! NO EXCEPTIONS! IF YOU WERE RIGHT WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE THE UN GUN CONTROL TREATY. HILLARY SIGNED THE FIRST ONE, BUT COULDN'T GET ENOUGH DEMOCRAP SENATORS TO VOTE FOR RATIFICATION! MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ THE CONSTITUTION!
 Quoting: Epic Beard Guy


OMFG

Someone who can read at GLP...

Thanks for reviving my faith in this place...
Chrit

User ID: 27088294
United States
11/27/2012 09:37 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama
Snip; 1. Calls upon all States to implement, on a national basis, the relevant
recommendations contained in section VII of the report of the Group of
Governmental Experts,2 recommends that all States carefully consider how to
achieve such implementation in order to ensure that their national import and export
control systems are of the highest possible standard, and urges those States in a
position to do so to render assistance in this regard upon request;

2. Endorses the report of the Open-ended Working Group3 established by
the General Assembly in its resolution 63/240 to further consider those elements in
the report of the Group of Governmental Experts where consensus could be
developed for their inclusion in an eventual legally binding treaty on the import,
export and transfer of conventional arms, which provides a balance giving benefit to
all, with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and other existing
international obligations at the centre of such considerations;


Snip; Taking due note of the views expressed by Member States on the feasibility,
scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument
establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of
conventional arms, submitted to the Secretary-General at his request,1


63/240

this one is a cluster, not going to snip it ...---...


63/240. Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms

[link to www.un.org]
I'm only human, it's my biggest flaw.

We must all realize a sink a chair and a pillow are all luxuries of home and a soldiers helmet takes the place of all three.

News