The UN and Obomba VS gun owners

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin T, Jun 3, 2010.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,876
    Location:
    New Mexico
    The UN and Obama Versus Gun Owners

    by John Lott

    Gun owners might not feel besieged right now, but they should be very concerned. Last week the Obama administration announced its support for the UN Small Arms Treaty. This treaty poses real risks for freedom and safety in the United States as well as the rest of the world.

    [​IMG]

    According to the U.N., guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year. Their proposed solution is a simple one. Keep rebels from getting guns by requiring that countries “prevent, combat and eradicate” what those countries define as “the illicit trade in small arms.”

    The UN’s solution isn’t too surprising when one looks at the long list of notorious totalitarian regimes, such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone, which support these “reforms.” But not all insurgencies are “bad.” To ban providing guns to rebels in totalitarian countries is like arguing that there is never anything such as a just war.

    In hindsight, during World War II, should the French or Norwegian resistance movements simply have given up? Surely this would have minimized causalities. But that is hardly a one-time event. What about Afghanis in their fight against the Soviet Union or Nicaraguan rebels fighting communist dictators during the 1980s? Was it wrong to help out? What about totalitarian governments that massacre their citizens? Don’t they have a right to protect themselves?

    Many countries already ban private gun ownership. Rwanda and Sierra Leone are two notable examples. Yet, with more than a million people hacked to death over the last decade-and-a-half, were their citizens better off without guns?

    Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that 262 million people were murdered by their own government during the last century -– that is 2.6 million per year. This includes genocide, the murder of people for political reasons, and mass murder. Even if all 300,000 deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small arms trade, an obviously false claim, people have much more to worry about from their governments. Adding the U.N.’s estimated deaths from gun suicides, homicides, and accidents still provides a number that is only a ninth as large.

    Second, the treaty is a backdoor way to get more gun control laws adopted in the US. “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” Former UN Ambassador John Bolton warns. “The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”

    In addition, to keep track of guns, licensing and registration will be pushed, despite their complete failure to trace crime guns in the places in the US that have tried it or Canada. One also just needs to look no further than how Mexican President Felipe Calderon has blamed his country’s crime problems on the sun setting of the US “assault weapons” ban. Somehow semi-automatic guns, essentially deer hunting rifles that have a cosmetic outside that look like AK-47s or other similar weapons, are being painted as military weapons. The same claims now being made for Mexico will be made even more forcefully under the UN treaty.

    Third, gun bans also produce another problem: increased murder rates. UN gun control advocates don’t want to acknowledge that everyplace in the world that we have crime data for has seen that gun bans result in higher murder rates. Americans have seen the increase in murder rates in DC and Chicago after their bans, and the sudden 25 percent drop in DC’s murder rates last year after their ban was removed. But as recent research shows, gun bans have consistently lead to higher murder rates around the world. Even island nations, who can’t blame some neighbors for their supply of guns, have seen increases in violent crime rates.

    The Small Arms Treaty is just a back door way for the Obama administration trying to force through gun control regulations. With the huge standing ovation that House and Senate Democrats recently gave Mexican President Calderon for his advocacy of a new so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” Americans who care about self-defense have been put on notice. The threats to gun ownership are as real as ever.
  2. CMfromIL

    CMfromIL New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    IL
    Wheew. Glad you posted this. I very nearly had forgotten about it. Except then I thought I had read it somewhere.

    http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=73474&highlight=united nations

    http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=76220&highlight=united nations

    http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=76604&highlight=united nations

    http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=75619&highlight=united nations

    http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=71168&highlight=united nations

    I could have posted more...but really? It's a dead issue. It'll never pass congress, and more importantly it will never go anywhere before it would even be close to being ratified by the international community.
  3. Rocketman1

    Rocketman1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,249
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    I agree 100%, nothing more needs to be said.
    I'm done arguing about this blown out of proportion issue.
  4. jack404

    jack404 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,600
    Location:
    Australia
    yeah we thought the same here.. "they'll never ban guns , this is Australia, how will folks get on in the outback? narr it'll never happen "..

    UN folks got to work , they dont care about folks in the outback only there agenda's

    Obozo is ex UN

    he wrote the rules that allowed the massacres in Rwanda to get as big as they did

    keep saying "narr it cant happen here"

    i'll wager you all keep saying that and doing nothing and one day you'll wake to a gun buy back ...

    i wont say i told you so neither , i'll be back in the bush waiting for the next round here by then ..

    good luck all
  5. jim summers

    jim summers Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,174
    Location:
    I reside in southern Indiana, you can almost step
    Let me preface what i am about to say with,i believe in the 2nd amendment and i also believe the general populace should be allowed to carry and keep guns if they wish.

    But i fear there is coming a time and that time may not be to far away when you and i will not be allowed to own a gun of any type when that time comes those in control of the government will not care what the 2nd amendment has to say about weapons nor will they care about my rights or yours to any part of the Constitution, it will be total domination. I know that sounds very negative but it is what it is.
  6. Gun Geezer

    Gun Geezer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,982
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Everyone who ought to know, thinks there are more than double the actual number of guns in private hands in the US than reported by legal registrations. I doubt the government has the money to spend to buy back this many guns. Plus, I doubt seriously, more than half would comply. And I doubt the government would or could incarcerate 100 million citizens, not to mention the loss of tax revenue from 100 million taxpayers and the expense to jail them. The numbers would indicate the need for something akin to a mass extinction of gun owners...and then there's those who own guns illegally. I think, in this country, the goverment would be biting off more than it could chew to ban guns.
  7. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,133
    doesn't this have to do with illegal transfers of guns? like more or less isn't it supposed to mean we're agreeing not to supply arms to "conflict" countries like in africa or places like that? idk i mean i heard former pres clinton signed this thing too and nothing ever happened until he signed the assault weapons ban of 1994.

    and from a strictly legal standpoint, this law cannot override our constitution.

    not even worth listening to anyway. i'm not giving up my guns. i'd rather go down fighting for my rights than living under tyranny.

    i'd like to see them try to take away every single gun in this country. i don't think they could do it. if there's one thing the american people have, it's raw determination.
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2010
  8. springerbuster

    springerbuster New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    160
    Location:
    Southwest Washington
    Who says they would pay you for them? I do agree though that they would be biting off more than they could chew.
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2010
  9. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,703
    Location:
    NE Ar. W. of Black River
    The Govt. would probably say to turn them in with an amnesty period then Draconian penalties. Maybe with a buy back, nickles on the dollar. Next some high visibility raids and hasty trials with severe penalties. More PC than protecting the border. I can see Holder salivating over that. Then raids on targeted areas with body counts. You can only guess what the press coverage would be if any. Depends on whether it would serve our misleaders purposes. Camps? Why? Totalitarian regimes have historically not worried about casualties and in fact are prepared to accept 20% casualties. Historically 10% is all that is required. But then again this is the U.S. What percent of semiautos were turned in in Calif some years ago during the gun ban mania? I think it was less than 20%. Probably be that way nationally. They will probably have to act before the next Congress is seated. What do you think Jack?

    Constitutionality? This administration and the 111th Congress have shown not only a disregard for the Constitution but an active hostility to it.

    Don't think it will happen but you never know. If they fail this time, it might be their last chance for another 2 or 3 generations before they get another chance. So I guess the country is in for the death of a thousand cuts.
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
  10. Pustic

    Pustic Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    196
    Location:
    Western Kentucky
    Bozo Obama and his regime can ban all the guns they want. I will never surrender my guns to no one. If they come to take them, then I will give them to them, but they will get the bullets first. Those idiots don't know I have guns, I have never been foolish enough to register them and I never will.
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
  11. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,703
    Location:
    NE Ar. W. of Black River

    Too bad we didn't supply arms to the victims of the Rwandan massacre. Might have saved Hundreds of thousands of lives but the UN arms treaty would prevent such assistance even in the unlikely event that the State dept. permitted it to happen.

    You are right, Clinton has signed it. All that is required is for the Senate to ratify it. It is hanging over us like the sword of Damocles from Congress to Congress.

    As for the Constitution, this Congress has no regard for it. Then there is the issue of the new member of the US Supreme court and the new nominee. Our libertys hangs on by a 5-4 ruling. We are on pretty shaky ground. I very seriously dread the thought of a Civil War and I think there are people in our Govt. not just this Administration and Congress who would welcome just such an opportunity.
  12. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,703
    Location:
    NE Ar. W. of Black River
    You might want to seriously barricade your doors at night. ATFE likes to make 02:00 raids.
  13. zkovach

    zkovach Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,011
    Location:
    Michigan
    I cant say this enough times... Politicians will never ban guns. They will make them impossible to buy, carry, use etc. etc. etc.
  14. graehaven

    graehaven Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,955
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    LOL, they do NOW. :eek::D

    The CAN track you online through your ISP.

    They know, believe me, they know.
  15. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    Not only that, but if you've ever gone through an NICS check, they know what you have. Unless you believe that the FBI actually obeys the law and destroys all traces of that information like they're required to do. I don't.

    Besides, I'd bet everything I own that Freddie the Fed has someone on this forum that reports back to the gov't to keep tabs on us dangerous, racist, evil, hatemongering, ignorant, unenlightened, seditious, right-wing extremists that continue to bitterly cling to our guns and religion and can't just accept the wisdom and glory of The Great Hussein, King-Emperor Barack I, His Great Awesomeness and All-Knowing Teleprompter.:rolleyes:
  16. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,462
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    What bcj, grae & 45-70 said!!

    [​IMG]

    I don't think this thing has a snowball's chance in hell of being passed by 67 members of the Senate, but I like to keep my eyes on these dangerous bastids anyway. I think sky high taxes are more likely to be the course of action, unless of course mar.tial l.aw is called and then all bets are off.
  17. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,257
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    The UN has been useless since it's inception. If they tried to impose their will upon the US, even if Obama goes along, they'd have to get 2/3 of Congress to sign on to pass such a ban. Won't happen. This is still a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." We'll kick out these "representatives" that support such a move. TJ
  18. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,462
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Fixed that fer ya TJ! :D :D
  19. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,257
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    Thanks 45. We might just have a chance to finally get rid of Babs "Don't Call Me Ma'am" Boxer. Let's all keep our fingers crossed. TJ
  20. graehaven

    graehaven Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,955
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Kicking them out AFTER they ratify the treaty would be useless.

    Whether it happens that way or not, be assured, they are coming after gun owners at some point.

    It may be through just massive regulations that make it virtually impossible to own / carry / use a firearm.

    Or it could be through the regulation of ammo, and ammo reloading components.

    Or it could just be through martial law....that one is already on the books and ready to go.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Obomba birth certificate NEW news. Jan 19, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Obomba's court date Sep 24, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Obomba on abortion Sep 13, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Obomba INDICTED Mar 31, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Gun owners exercise right to bear arms at Jax Pier May 20, 2014

Share This Page