Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
MaKaElectric

The United Nations Wants Your Guns America

278 posts in this topic

Myles, I've no experience with racoons, but if you are dispatching vermin at very close range then have you considered an air rifle? I would think that a .22 pellet would do the job up close with no risk of a ricochet from a bullet.I know a few pest control people who use them. Maybe a coons skull is too hard though idk.

That's a good suggestion. I'm not sure. I'll look into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are given away for free now in the States? I didn't know about that...

You can get other things for protection. You don't really need a gun. Things like pepper spray might actually be much more effective in a lot of scenarios.

@psychoticmike:

If you argue like that, private households should be able to obtain nukes. You don't get the point. We do ont want to stop people from killing each other (you are right, that's impossible), but we want to minimise gun related accidents, gun crime, and the possibility for a criminal to obtain a gun, and most important gun safety, and strict regulations for private gun ownership.

so if a foreign country just happens to invade mine, i should defend myself with a can of pepper spray? what if my own government trys to harm me or restrict my freedom or rights? pepper spray is the answer for that to? sorry, but no. theres nothing wrong with my arguement besides your misinterpretation of it. there is a world of difference between owning fire arms and owning nukes. Actually, i do get the point, but I don't think you get mine. You don't want to stop people from killing each other? well isn't That the problem, and not the way they do it? criminals already have guns and restricting private gun ownership is not gonna change that. its only gonna create victims out of people that can not protect themselves against anybody who does have guns or any kind of weapon. if you want to reduce gun crime you have to reduce the conditions that cause crime. did you even check out my link? did you watch any of that video? you should.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if a foreign country just happens to invade mine, i should defend myself with a can of pepper spray? what if my own government trys to harm me or restrict my freedom or rights? pepper spray is the answer for that to? sorry, but no. theres nothing wrong with my arguement besides your misinterpretation of it. there is a world of difference between owning fire arms and owning nukes. Actually, i do get the point, but I don't think you get mine. You don't want to stop people from killing each other? well isn't That the problem, and not the way they do it? criminals already have guns and restricting private gun ownership is not gonna change that. its only gonna create victims out of people that can not protect themselves against anybody who does have guns or any kind of weapon. if you want to reduce gun crime you have to reduce the conditions that cause crime. did you even check out my link? did you watch any of that video? you should.

Nice paranoia, bro. Goes well with your knowledge of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if a foreign country just happens to invade mine, i should defend myself with a can of pepper spray? what if my own government trys to harm me or restrict my freedom or rights? pepper spray is the answer for that to? sorry, but no. theres nothing wrong with my arguement besides your misinterpretation of it. there is a world of difference between owning fire arms and owning nukes. Actually, i do get the point, but I don't think you get mine. You don't want to stop people from killing each other? well isn't That the problem, and not the way they do it? criminals already have guns and restricting private gun ownership is not gonna change that. its only gonna create victims out of people that can not protect themselves against anybody who does have guns or any kind of weapon. if you want to reduce gun crime you have to reduce the conditions that cause crime. did you even check out my link? did you watch any of that video? you should.

Also, their army will have superior weapons, you have to rely on your own army who also has superior weapons.

Aus, Germany, England COMBINED gun deaths a year are 500 (from memory)

America ALONE is 9000.

It's not the criminals.

It's the avaliablilty of guns.

Hurr durr math.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aus, Germany, England COMBINED gun deaths a year are 500 (from memory)

America ALONE is 9000.

Actually, if you go back to post #197 I provided a source that shows that in 2010, there were 31,513 deaths by firearms in the USA.

Of those 31,513 deaths, 19,308 were suicides, 11,015 were homicides; and then another 600 were accidental fatalities. .[SOURCE]

It's not the criminals.

It's the avaliablilty of guns.

Its actually both, and the point has been well made that if there weren't guns, there would be some other "weapon of choice" - swords, rocks, big pointy sticks, what have you.

The point that has still not been properly addressed, however, is that the UN Treaty under discussion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAKING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF AMERICANS WHO OBTAINED THEM LEGALLY.

Cz

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Then again Im talking to a person who lives in a country where you can be put in a cage for talking about things your government doesnt find political correct.

Ouch. :D

I admit, it is difficult for me to understand the slave mentality these people have. I intellectually understand how it is the result of fifteen thousand hours of government school training and countless more of media programming and social conditioning, but on a gut level, it seems so vile as to be impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The point that has still not been properly addressed, however, is that the UN Treaty under discussion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAKING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF AMERICANS WHO OBTAINED THEM LEGALLY.

Don't you dare use logic or the truth when my second 'mendment rights are being taken away!

'MERICA!!! GUNS!!!

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch. :D

I admit, it is difficult for me to understand the slave mentality these people have. I intellectually understand how it is the result of fifteen thousand hours of government school training and countless more of media programming and social conditioning, but on a gut level, it seems so vile as to be impossible.

which people are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume it refers to people who blindly believe everything the government says. But it could be people who blindly believe everything they read on random internet blogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if a foreign country just happens to invade mine, i should defend myself with a can of pepper spray? what if my own government trys to harm me or restrict my freedom or rights? pepper spray is the answer for that to? sorry, but no. theres nothing wrong with my arguement besides your misinterpretation of it. there is a world of difference between owning fire arms and owning nukes. Actually, i do get the point, but I don't think you get mine. You don't want to stop people from killing each other? well isn't That the problem, and not the way they do it? criminals already have guns and restricting private gun ownership is not gonna change that. its only gonna create victims out of people that can not protect themselves against anybody who does have guns or any kind of weapon. if you want to reduce gun crime you have to reduce the conditions that cause crime. did you even check out my link? did you watch any of that video? you should.

So im reading your post when suddenly I realise why people who dont live in this country are so against the idea that the right to own arms is fundemental for a free nation. If they admit that, then they have to face the fact that they are helpless. What ever ball thier government wants to throw at them, they cant do a single thing about it. Even if what ever that situation is makes Hitler look like santa claus. Thats a scary thing to think about.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://nagr.org/UN_Draft_Treaty.pdf

Here is the arns trade treaty. It should scare all Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://nagr.org/UN_Draft_Treaty.pdf

Here is the arns trade treaty. It should scare all Americans.

Despite all the assumptions made by whomever marked up / highlighted / commented on that document, there is still nothing in that Treaty that is specifically designed to repeal the 2nd Amendment or prevent the lawful purchase of guns by Americans.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if you go back to post #197 I provided a source that shows that in 2010, there were 31,513 deaths by firearms in the USA.

Of those 31,513 deaths, 19,308 were suicides, 11,015 were homicides; and then another 600 were accidental fatalities. .[SOURCE]

Its actually both, and the point has been well made that if there weren't guns, there would be some other "weapon of choice" - swords, rocks, big pointy sticks, what have you.

The point that has still not been properly addressed, however, is that the UN Treaty under discussion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAKING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF AMERICANS WHO OBTAINED THEM LEGALLY.

Cz

Sorry, saw those numbers on tv before I posted them. I assumed they were homicides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, saw those numbers on tv before I posted them. I assumed they were homicides.

No worries, and your 9,000-ish number may very well have been correct at some point before 2010, and does serve to reinforce the point I made earlier that the numbers are trending higher for firearm-related deaths.

The numbers I'm using are, as far as I've been able to determine, the most up-to-date figures available. The 2011 numbers will probably be released at some point this year or next, 2012's numbers a year-ish after that, etc.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~~~ ...

... nothing in that Treaty that is specifically designed to repeal the 2nd Amendment or prevent the lawful purchase of guns by Americans.

Cz

Quite correct, Czero.

Please read the short article upon which the OP is based to see the "potential". The author's point (as I understand it) is that there are small initial steps, one at a time, gradually escalating to a point when legislation takes place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite all the assumptions made by whomever marked up / highlighted / commented on that document, there is still nothing in that Treaty that is specifically designed to repeal the 2nd Amendment or prevent the lawful purchase of guns by Americans.

Cz

I gotta agree with this. In the opening it affirms states get to do as they want within their own borders. The document itself is talking about trading with other states. Lots of talk about imports and exports. I may have missed it, but I didn't see domestic product.

I can see this treaty limiting the selection of imported weapons on the shelves of states that allow them. I guess that could mean a bigger PITA if you want to buy an imported weapon instead of a domestically made one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the newspaper reports that the UN vote failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

United Nations fails to agree landmark arms-trade treaty

By Michelle Nichols

UNITED NATIONS | Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:12am EDT

(Reuters) - Delegations from around the world failed on Friday to agree a landmark U.N. arms-trade treaty to regulate the more than $60 billion industry, opting for further talks and a possible U.N. General Assembly vote by the end of the year, diplomats said.

More than 170 countries have spent the past month in New York negotiating a treaty, which needed to be adopted by consensus, so any one country effectively could have vetoed a deal. Instead, no decision was taken on a draft treaty.

But this leaves the door open for further talks and a draft arms-trade treaty could be brought to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopted with a two-thirds majority vote. Diplomats said there could be a vote by the end of the year.

Read more here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had better tell this to all these guys in the Middle East who jump up and down in the street and fire bullets randomly,shoutin Allah Akbar,dangerous clowns,everyone..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta agree with this. In the opening it affirms states get to do as they want within their own borders. The document itself is talking about trading with other states. Lots of talk about imports and exports. I may have missed it, but I didn't see domestic product.

I can see this treaty limiting the selection of imported weapons on the shelves of states that allow them. I guess that could mean a bigger PITA if you want to buy an imported weapon instead of a domestically made one.

And what is a State? In this context, it's a country. The United States of America is plural for a reason. We have 50 seperate states. If the goal is to dictate imports and exports across State lines, how will this affect a man in Kansas that wants to sell a gun to a guy in Oklahoma?

And what if a person wanted to buy a gun that was made in the state of Idaho and he lived in Florida? Would he be denied, or would the red tape it would have to go through just to reach him even be worth it?

Once again I see this as a move to make "arms" sales a major hinderance, if not an impossibility, to further regulate guns. (BTW "regulate" in the Constituion means to make regular, not to restrict. The Federal government now days does not view it like that.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And what is a State? In this context, it's a country.

You are correct that in the context of the UN Treaty, "State" refers to a country, specifically a "Member State" is a country that is a member on the UN.

The United States of America is plural for a reason. We have 50 seperate states.

But in the "eyes" of the UN, the USA is just one country, one "state".

If the goal is to dictate imports and exports across State lines, how will this affect a man in Kansas that wants to sell a gun to a guy in Oklahoma?

And what if a person wanted to buy a gun that was made in the state of Idaho and he lived in Florida? Would he be denied, or would the red tape it would have to go through just to reach him even be worth it?

Once again I see this as a move to make "arms" sales a major hinderance, if not an impossibility, to further regulate guns. (BTW "regulate" in the Constituion means to make regular, not to restrict. The Federal government now days does not view it like that.)

However, this section above is incorrect.

The UN doesn't care what happens between Florida and Idaho, or Oklahoma and Nevada, or Kansas and Alaska.

The treaty specifically says that individual member state governments are responsible for their own security. in other words, the United States deals with how firearms are shipped within its own borders, but international shipments are (or would have been, had it passed the vote) governed by the terms of the treaty.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct that in the context of the UN Treaty, "State" refers to a country, specifically a "Member State" is a country that is a member on the UN.

And that is where my argument stems from.

But in the "eyes" of the UN, the USA is just one country, one "state".

However, this section above is incorrect.

The UN doesn't care what happens between Florida and Idaho, or Oklahoma and Nevada, or Kansas and Alaska.

The treaty specifically says that individual member state governments are responsible for their own security. in other words, the United States deals with how firearms are shipped within its own borders, but international shipments are (or would have been, had it passed the vote) governed by the terms of the treaty.

Cz

I'm not talking about how we are recognized, but what we are. When it comes down to the letter of the law, each of the fifty states would have to denounce their own soverienty for this not to affect them.

For the record, I'm not so worried about how the U.N "sees" us, I'm more worried about how our lawmakers at home will "interprit" this. There is no such thing as a law that is written any more for the common man to understand. It's all legalize andmeant to be confusing and interpreted as the situation demands. Look how many laws there are for just transporting cabbage across the State lines.

No, this is why it worries me, and I believe there is a legit reason for that worry.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people in the US do is no concern of mine; you decide what is right for your country.

I'm an Australian citizen, however, and in my country I don't want the majority of people to have access to firearms.

Just the minority of people that will obtain them illegally. Armed criminals and unarmed citizens... Great for the criminals. Australia seems to have their **** together on a lot if things, but there will be a time that will change.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

United Nations fails to agree landmark arms-trade treaty

By Michelle Nichols

UNITED NATIONS | Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:12am EDT

(Reuters) - Delegations from around the world failed on Friday to agree a landmark U.N. arms-trade treaty to regulate the more than $60 billion industry, opting for further talks and a possible U.N. General Assembly vote by the end of the year, diplomats said.

More than 170 countries have spent the past month in New York negotiating a treaty, which needed to be adopted by consensus, so any one country effectively could have vetoed a deal. Instead, no decision was taken on a draft treaty.

But this leaves the door open for further talks and a draft arms-trade treaty could be brought to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopted with a two-thirds majority vote. Diplomats said there could be a vote by the end of the year.

Read more here

Must be they didnt get a strong enough reaction to the recent shooting. Be on the watch for a much bigger false flag operation between now and the end of the year.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice paranoia, bro. Goes well with your knowledge of the world.

no, nice awareness. yes my knowledge of the world is pretty vast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.