Hillary Clinton signed a United Nations (UN) firearm treaty. The treaty would change Americans' right to bear arms if ratified by the Senate in 2012. Thus far, the proposed bill has strong support from the Obama Administration. In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate Ratification in 2012. It would ban citizens from having semi-automatic firearms....anything with a clip. Do you think the UN should be allowed to do this?
Sounds like a great idea to me. Too much mahem in this country from mental defectives running around in the woods with assault weapons, drug gangs shooting up inner city neighborhoods, insane people killing politicians and abortion doctors, etc. We are badly in need of more effective regulation (not banning) of the manufacture and sale handguns and prohibition of military type weapons in this country.
Let history teach its lesson. Advancements in firearms technology have led to advancements in human rights. When a single old lady can kill hundreds, old ladies get to vote. Those who can't fight back have no rights. It's as simple as that.
With a law like that, the only people with guns are going to be the bad guys!! Why is the United Nations getting involved in the rights of a sovereign nation as The United States of America??!! It is our rights not theirs!!
Big difference, which the left doesn't seem to grasp.
I would agree everyone doesn't need fully autos... but semis are not the same and to go below that standard of fire-arm would to be in effect dis-armed. How do you defend yourself against a Govt armed with fully auto weapons, with only a single shot weapon?
That's a nice parroting of the NRA talking points but it simply isn't true. In the case of the Gabby Giffords shooting, the shooter did not break any state or federal laws until he actually aimed at Giffords. Laws that have been defeated by NRA lobbyists, such as the 5 day waiting period, could have been very effective in stopping the slaughter.
The next talking point that NRA apologists bring up is that of lax enforcement. It's ironic that they take this position while fighting new rules that make enforcement more effective.
Please shovel up some more NRA B.S.. I'm just getting warmed up.
I say that would be the one that kicks off the new American Civil War, Conservatives against the Leant Left. Of course it would be a quick war and a fairly easy win for the Conservatives. Cause we know most of the Leant Left would run to canada as soon as the fighting started... so.
lol yes they would....good point! The amuzing part is, as a former ambasador mentioned in a hub I wrote....forget his name.....that it first appears to be a bill saying it is against trade of semi auto guns but the other parts are hidden like taking them away from americans but allowing them to keep shotguns so the constituion still stands to allow people to bear arms but liberals cant read fast enough to get to that part haha
That is because the Liberal leftist scholars and historians fling that BS about the 2nd amendment being for hunting, when we know for a fact it is speaking to self-defense and defense against a Govt esp. your own, and as such it allows citizens to, or should anyway, own the current field arms deployed in the standing military or militia.
That link is to an editorial where people make wild accusations based on no obvious evidence.
Every impartial report I have seen says the treaty is just what it says: a treaty limiting international gun trafficking in the hopes of limiting some of the genocide zones the world currently has, thanks to first world nations selling high tech weapons to dictators and warlords.
But psyche, I would not put it past this govt to try a jerk off move like that. Either party or both.
But the fact that anyone from our Govt would sign on to it, even as a symbolic gesture, should make everyone wonder what it is the Govt really wants for you. What their true intent is in having that legistlation already in place in the UN?
Seems a set up to future events to me.
Placing the pieces where you need them and all that.
NO!! With a law like that, the only people with guns are going to be the bad guys!! Why is the United Nations getting involved in the rights of a sovereign nation as The United States of America??!! It is our rights not theirs!! yOU WILL HAVE TO TAKE MY GUN OFF MY COLD DEAD BODY, IT IS MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND PROTECT MY HOME, FAMILY AND PROPERTY!!! READ THE CONSTITUTION!!
Why the heck does anyone want a semi-automatic weapon anyway? Unless you are in battle with the flesh eating zombies or something. Really..... Hubby has no use for semi in the deer woods. He even uses his trusty bow! I can see wanting an automatic pistol, but those freakin big ass guns? You can count me out! I'll take the pistol.
I carry a semi-auto 9mm. It gives me 11 shots instead of the 5 or 6 that a revolver would, and is much easier to conceal. I encounter violent, sometimes armed, people daily and I don't want to be the unarmed party if there's trouble. I passed a thorough background check and am trained and licensed. I was not required to, but I would certainly have been willing to wait a few days for an even more thorough background check. These are reasonable restrictions.
No, I live in a part of Arizona that is heavily infested with rabid teabaggers;)
Actually yes, I serve court papers on people - some of whom get a little testy about it and want to take their anger out on me. The gun is a last resort and I figure it gives me some small chance of surviving if everything else fails. Most people unfamiliar with these life and death situations assume that they can act calmly and rationally, and will be able to make split-second decisions about the need to fire. Police officers who get hundreds of hours of combat training miss their intended target 80% of the time in a firefight. What chance does a civilian with little or no training have in such a situation?
Those teabaggers can be vicious... consider a flame-thrower rather than a handgun... I've heard they attack in packs.
I can reasonably see your need to carry a gun. (I come from a family of policemen). And you are right, life or death is rough and most people have less training than you. I could go into a whole rant about how unlikely it is for someone pumped on adrenaline to hit a target with any amount of bulliets and the likelihood that a two gunmen in a firefight would likely hit everyone but who they were aiming at but I digress.
It essentially turns any gun crime into a federal offense unless every single piece of the gun and the gun as a whole was manufactured in the state that they shooter bought and used it. Assuming that no part of the gun, or the gun as a whole, has never crossed any state line at any point.
It is one of the most brilliant laws I have ever seen passed and hardly anyone noticed because it was part of an appropriations act :)It also outlaws ownership of a guns to a huge population of Americans and effectively prohibits unlocked guns in most metropolitan areas.
(you have to copy and paste link because of the parenthesis in link)
There's nothing wrong with sensible gun control, but in the end, what will it accomplish? The idiots that you don't want to have them will still get them through illegal means. Those that hunt, target shoot or engage in legal activities will be ones that follow the law and get punished.
Many people who don't know much about guns hear the automatic part of semi-automatic and think machine guns. Not even remotely true.
That's BS. If you can't take a deer out without emptying a clip into it, then you shouldn't be hunting. And the convenience of not having to reload during target practice is a little outweighed by the convenience of police having a free shot while a crazed gunman DOES have to reload.
How wouldn't he have access? I could go out on the street right now and buy a gun in 20 minutes. It may have been stolen, may have been used in a crime previously, and might decade decades old, but I could still get it and use it.
If they ban semi-autos, what happens to all of them out there now? Guns can last for centuries and remain in working condition.
Rarely can a gun last for "decades" in working order. Those that have are simple guns that have been exceptionally well kept and are STILL as likely to hit the person holding the gun than anyone in front of it.
I honestly believe that ideally every single gun in the world should be destroyed. I believe functionally that every easily concealed gun in the United States (with the exception of law enforcement and military) should be destroyed.
Barring that, I feel that anyone that purchases a gun should have a background check that includes a psychological exam and access to even "sealed records". In addition, the original purchaser of the gun should be charged with a felony if any gun they own is found in commission of a violent crime... regardless of who is using it.
Just to let you know where I am coming from. The "only outlaws would have guns" crap is a fail. If no guns existed... no one would have them.
Guns can and do last that long because they are simple, just as they are made now. Single shots, bolt or lever action, and even semi-autos are very simple. Nothing but steel, wood, and plastic.
I get what you're saying and I respect your opinion. I am not against background checks. In Wisconsin, they started that (I think) about 10 years ago and it has stopped some convicted felons from purchasing guns. Up until the last few years, it meant you had to wait a few days to take the gun home. Now, they are quicker, with only a few minutes taken for background checks. I said then and I say now that that's a minor inconvenience that I can live with if I choose to buy a gun
I also get what you're saying about outlaws not having guns if they didn't exist, but that's not possible anymore.
There are a lot of other issues. Start with suicides, especially by teenagers. They're nearly 100% successful when a handgun is involved, much less so by other means. The majority of attempted but failed suicides do not make a second attempt. With a gun, no second attempt is necessary. background checks and proper instruction on gun safety and storage are very effective at limiting these and other impulsive violent acts.
My point is, those who do drugs have no sense of personal responsibility at all. I thought that was pretty simple and straight forward. Crackheads should not be allowed to own guns. Are you seriously going to argue the point? Is their a big lobby for crackhead gun ownership that I am missing?
Therefore, gun control being about "personal responsibility" is moot in people who have given their intellect to a glass c***.
That goes for any other person that can be shown to not be able to think rationally or control their own actions.
Really? I know plenty of people who do drugs, but maintain control over their entire life. So, how exactly are these people not being responsible? I'm sure it was, but actually was slightly narrow-minded. No offense, just pointing it out. Because, you're using addiction to cover and distort. Addiction is a different story. I'm not going to argue that crackheads are dangerous, even without a gun, but dispel your distortion of this particular conversation. No.
Really? Because I thought that drugs produced an altered state of mind. That's kinda the point of drugs. When someone is high, then they have no personal responsibility because they are not in control of their actions... they aren't "thinking straight" So, do these friends of yours call the police before they get high to turn over their children, their cars, and their guns until they come down? In addition, those who are "maintaining control of their lives" wouldn't be getting arrested, getting fired, or losing relationships.
No, the addiction is the point. Drug use is the point. Crack in specific is not a "recreational drug". If you smoke crack regularly, you are a crackhead. Same could be said for anyone who throws back a fifth of liquor a day.
Nope it isn't. If you own a gun and suck on a pipe, you are putting everyone around you in danger... thus not showing personal responsibility. Even if you only smoked it once.
Maybe it is your distortions that need to be dispelled. Or your view of "personal responsibility"
Only in the weak minded and weak willed. Actually, the point of drugs is dependent on WHY the person wants to take them. What purpose do they serve the individual. You're describe a specific effect and nothing more. Untrue. It's doesn't happen in all cases. Bad assumption- I didn't say they were friends. I said I know plenty of people. And, you're adding more details, "children", "cars" and "guns", into a situation, which actually MIGHT NOT have those. Not everyone has those things. Again, nothing but distortion. Correct, none of that has happened to any of the people I am talking about.
Your problem is that you brought into a conversation which the topic is about GUNS and Citizens RIGHTS. You are distorting the conversation. Again, more distortion. Individual people can use drugs responsibly and to think it cannot be done is pure foolishness. True. But, off topic, as already said. Untrue. Anyone who throws back a fifth of liquor a day, isn't a crackhead. It also doesn't mean they are an alcoholic either, if they are able to maintain full control over their entire life.
Untrue. That's just your perception and opinion. Nice try.
Wow, everything you just said was B.S. It's the same B.S. I hear from addicts on a regular basis at least the ones that are still active. Those in recovery know different. You're views aren't enlightened, they are perpetuating drug abuse. If you think anything else then you are in denial.
The word is not "kill", it is "murder". Thou shalt not commit murder.
"...atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill."
However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause." The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution. The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing. The punishment for murder was the death sentence. However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses. The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary."
In my opinion, yes! Should gun ownership be banned? NO Do people have the right to defend themselves and have hunting guns? Yes Should the average American be able to purchase assault weapons? No in my opinion! I see no...
What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what...
Has anyone heard of or applied to write for Channillo [dot] com? It sounds like writers will release work in the form of a series and get paid based upon the number of subscribers their series gets. Do you think this...
This isn't meant to be a pro-gun or anti-gun thread. This is meant to be an educational thread... if anybody cares.There is a lot of misconception about guns(I blame the media and Congress), so I'll explain anything or...