The UN gun ban that would strip Americans of their rights to own guns

[Nanan]

Banning guns is worthless, the very strong majority of guns used to kill are purchased via black market or stolen. Removing the avalability of guns from the general population does not reduce the volume of firearm violence. Unless you really think that those drug dealers and gangbangers have registered weapons.

Want to save lives, make SUVs illegal, make talking on cellphones while driving illegal, require both writen and driving tests to be retaken every 10 years till 60, then every other year till death. Once you have cut down on the majority of the stupidity driven deaths look into things like the poor dying because they cannot afford to go to a doctor before they are on their deathbeds from cureable illnesses. Put more funding into aids and cancer research cause guss what, more people die from aids in the US then gunfire, same goes for cancer.

They will get my .40 one bullet at a time, guess what I am a military trained marksmen.

 

[ecarrillo]

A hell it is my right to own a gun if i want to and if that is taken away they are violating my rights as an American and that is also why when issues like this come up in the Supreme Court it is usually tossed out because they dont want anything to do with this specific issue my .02

 

[Jeremoose]

They will get my .40 one bullet at a time, guess what I am a military trained marksmen.

And congratulations with that because people like you are in fact the problem AND the reason for bills like this trying to be passed.

Keep in mind people that I'm not FOR the removal of our right to bear arms, I'm just against narrow-mindedness on the issue. Saying you will fight (with these weapons they're trying to ban) against them for your right to bear weapons is proving their case, not yours. The key to fighting this kind of thing is formulating an educated opinion and not spouting off useless analogies about how cars are worse than guns etc etc...

And you're willing to gamble your life and your family's life on the chance that you won't be attacked. Big chance to take nowadays.

This comment really made me think though

 

[keymaster]

This comment really made me think though

That was the point. And I somewhat agree with the guy above you. If the government thinks at some point that they'll be able to round up all our guns, they will be met force, guaranteed.

 

[cwbroncos]

Yes something that is useful is instantaneously less problematic. Why? Because it has an actual REASON for being around. Okay sure, guns would be useful for defending your home from an invasion, but this isn't an everyday thing like driving to work. Most people are SURE to need a vehicle in their life when only a small percentage will NEED a weapon.

The usefulness of either is not debatable.

Don't get me wrong I'm not for banning cars or driving. But there are many alternatives to driving. You can ride your bike to work, take public transportaion, take a cab or hell even car pool to work. Yeah there are instances where people are so spread out that they'll need a vehicle but that is small majority. Vehicles are not vital but neither are guns. It would be easier ban guns but your pretty much guaranteed that gun deaths would not go down. Hell there's a chance that they might go up. But you could control and regulate transportation and deaths would go down much. As soon as people adapted life would go as normal. But I think owning a car is just as much a right as owning a gun.

And how is comparing the fatality of two dangerous things in the wrong hands a "useless analogy". Both are only as dangerous as the people opperating them.

 

[nfinkbe]

I personally dont think that they will ever ban guns. I mean look at what happened when they banned alcohol. All prohibition did was put it in the hands of the criminals so that they could profit from it. The government realized that and made the change accordingly. I personally only own a shotgun and rifle for hunting, but i do keep my shotgun in and easily accessible place in case anyone were to break in. And that is my right. If they did end up banning them it would just create a huge black market for people who use them for the wrong reasons anyways.

 

[mysticfire6602]

even if our guns arent taken away, our laws screw us anyway. lets say a burgler is in your house and you get your gun in self defense, you see him and shoot. you are still going to jail, having the government reposes your shit, and possibly having the burglers family sue you for damages. its much more fun to shoot people with a tazer gun

 

[DGajre777]

"The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I don't get it, probably because I'm not a US Citizen yet, BUT I thought it was the constitutional right of a US citizen to bear arms. What is the UN going to do, make the US have a new amendment for the 2nd amendment?

EDIT: Never mind, I found some information, it is below.

This summer, at U.N. headquarters in New York City—right here on American soil—these nations along with more than 500 gun-ban groups worldwide will hold an international conference to draft a global "Treaty on Small Arms."

And if this treaty were ratified in the United States, it would be binding on you and other citizens with the full force of American law—outlawing your guns, extinguishing your hunting, prohibiting your shootings sports, ending your right to self-defense, and destroying our Second Amendment rights forever.

Aiding and abetting the global gun ban treaty movement are six supposedly "free" countries: The U.K., Sweden, The Netherlands, France, Norway, and Belgium.

 

[joshohatesuall]

you honestly think the UN is going to BAN guns from the US?

ha.

 

[leet]

Hehe.

Look how influential they are with the rest of the world.

Darfur, Iran, North Korea, China.. need I go on?

/sarcasm

 

[IslanderTsi]

And you're willing to gamble your life and your family's life on the chance that you won't be attacked. Big chance to take nowadays.

Are you willing to gamble that someone in your family is much more likely to get shot or killed when their is a firearm in the house?

It is a fact that having a gun in your house substantially increases the odds of a member of that household being invoved in a gun related accident. It alco increases the odds that someone will be killed in the event of someone breaking into your house etc.

Gun control should be much much much more strict than it is both in Canada and in The states. If people want a gun so bad then they should not have a problem taking a few mandatory courses, in depth bacground checks etc etc.

 

[thekellbeast]

Are you willing to gamble that someone in your family is much more likely to get shot or killed when their is a firearm in the house?

It is a fact that having a gun in your house substantially increases the odds of a member of that household being invoved in a gun related accident.

And having a car substantially increases the odds of being killed in car crash. Having a pool substantially increases the odds of drowning. Blablablabla. If you have a gun in the house, educate your family member about its functions and dangers. Don't leave it lying loaded on the table where a child can reach it. Keep it unloaded and/or locked.

It alco increases the odds that someone will be killed in the event of someone breaking into your house etc.

I should f-ing hope so. I'd rather kill them than they kill me.

Gun control should be much much much more strict than it is both in Canada and in The states. If people want a gun so bad then they should not have a problem taking a few mandatory courses, in depth bacground checks etc etc.

####. THAT. BULLSHIT.

Contrary to the impression created by sensationalist media, fatal firearms accidents involving children are far from common. In the United States, about half of all homes contain guns; the total gun supply is about 240 million, and there are tens of millions of children in the country. Yet according to the National Safety Council, in 1995 there were about 30 fatal gun deaths of kids aged 0 to 4 and fewer than 40 of kids aged 5 to 9. This shows that, even without legislation from Washington, the overwhelming majority of families with firearms already knows how to act responsibly.

Any parent knows that a single child's death is unspeakably tragic. Yet the number of toddlers who die from gun accidents is smaller than the number who die from drowning in buckets. And it's much lower than the 500 who die in swimming pools.

More generally, the total number of fatal accidents involving kids aged 0 to 14 in 1995 was 6,500, and fatal firearms accidents accounted for just 3 percent of the total. Yet the president is not scoring political points inveighing against bucket manufacturers, or demanding federal laws against unfenced pools on private property. Politics, not saving children's lives, is the foundation of the current anti-gun campaign.

 

[Eclipsed]

I've never owned a gun just because I haven't really had an interest in owning one. I do have friends that own a few hand guns and also some rifles for hunting. I think it is ridiculous to take away the right to own a gun and I will fight against this as much as I can.

 

[SaxGopher]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/130646.shtml

^^ Googled "UN Gun Ban" that's the first thing that came up. Note the date: Friday, April 27, 2001. Ya think this would have happened by now...

Bottom line is: This won't happen. We Americans love our guns too much, period. It's too big a part of our culture. Also, think of the amount of manpower and resources it would take for this massive "firearm recall" to take place and actually be effective.

Move along people, get back to worrying about Y3K or something else that won't happen.

 

[reeper]

even if our guns arent taken away, our laws screw us anyway. lets say a burgler is in your house and you get your gun in self defense, you see him and shoot. you are still going to jail, having the government reposes your shit, and possibly having the burglers family sue you for damages. its much more fun to shoot people with a tazer gun

Im going to disagree, A guy here in my town was asleep someone banged on his door at 3 a.m. He got out of bed and grabed his .22 pistol. He anwsered the door, while having the gun behind him so they guy wouldnt see it. When he opend the door the guy pushed him. The guy fell down and when he hit the floor his gun went off. The intruder was shot in the head, killed instantly. Jeff "the homeowner" never went to jail or anything.

 

[keymaster]

There have been several cases in the past few years where someone attempting to break into someone else's house have sued from being injured during the break-in and WON.

 

[joshohatesuall]

There have been several cases in the past few years where someone attempting to break into someone else's house have sued from being injured during the break-in and WON.

and theres also cases where people set the cruise control on their winnebago and go take a nap in the back and wreck it, sue and WIN.

there's always an exception to the rule.

I, for one, will fill any intruder full of lead given the opportunity.

 

[Jeremoose]

####. THAT. BULLSHIT.

Your logic and reasoning ability is more astounding than I could've possibly imagined; so eloquent.

In any case, why are you all so ready to "pump an intruder full of lead"? Keep in mind they're human beings as well.. Your talking about murdering burglars, burglars who may intend no harm on you or your family. Yes, protect your homes. BUT protection starts with a security system and a dog maybe; not with purchasing the largest weapon you can so you can blow another person to bits.

Hehe, I can hardly believe what some of you have to say, unbelievable...

 

[canucatchdis]

I just wanted to say that for everyone who is on here typing that they think guns should be banned and blah blah blah... and that they are typing their thoughts with out fear because they live in a free country... Just remember how this country became free. Not by peaceful talks and negotiations, but by the blood of people before us fighting with guns. Thats right, they used guns to get you the freedom to say whatever the hell you want.

 

[leet]

Your logic and reasoning ability is more astounding than I could've possibly imagined; so eloquent.

In any case, why are you all so ready to "pump an intruder full of lead"? Keep in mind they're human beings as well.. Your talking about murdering burglars, burglars who may intend no harm on you or your family. Yes, protect your homes. BUT protection starts with a security system and a dog maybe; not with purchasing the largest weapon you can so you can blow another person to bits.

Hehe, I can hardly believe what some of you have to say, unbelievable...

Intend me no harm? Then why are they in my home without my knowledge or permission? What are you going to do when you discover this person in your home, ask him 'Are you going to harm my family or just steal my belongings?' That's laughable. Extremely laughable. Not to mention extremely impractical.

Sorry, an intruder in the home is a threat to anyone on the face of this planet with a shred of common sense.

An alarm system and a dog are not going to stop an intruder from harming you or your family.

To be quite blunt, your logic does not apply to the real world. 'Human Beings' don't go out and try to steal other people's belongings. 'Human Beings' do not go on someone elses property without their knowledge and consent.

Before you go off on others perhaps you should read your own post I sincerely hope the only person you have to defend is yourself, because God help your family, if you have one, when it comes time to protect them.

Unbelievable.

 

[Tsi_User]

wholy crap moderators have seen this thread and havne't closed it yet

Sure, the UN might push us to ban guns but there is no possibly way they would be able to do this. If you guys looked into previous accounts and disagreements the United States has had with the UN you would realize that we tend to hop on when the UN benefits us and hop off when they aren't. Remember the whole Kyoto treaty situation? Almost all the countries in the UN agreed to the treaty and Bush said there is no such thing as global warming.

And the article that was linked to in the beginning of this page is a piece of crap IMO. If they wanted to properly address the situation they would of taken the time to write an article that wasn't biased with all kinds of rediculous assumptions and biased opinions.

 

[leet]

I don't lock threads when I have common sense to dispense.

 

[joshohatesuall]

Intend me no harm? Then why are they in my home without my knowledge or permission? What are you going to do when you discover this person in your home, ask him 'Are you going to harm my family or just steal my belongings?' That's laughable. Extremely laughable. Not to mention extremely impractical.

Sorry, an intruder in the home is a threat to anyone on the face of this planet with a shred of common sense.

An alarm system and a dog are not going to stop an intruder from harming you or your family.

To be quite blunt, your logic does not apply to the real world. 'Human Beings' don't go out and try to steal other people's belongings. 'Human Beings' do not go on someone elses property without their knowledge and consent.

Before you go off on others perhaps you should read your own post I sincerely hope the only person you have to defend is yourself, because God help your family, if you have one, when it comes time to protect them.

Unbelievable.

just gonna quote this for emphasis.

 

[No_Skillz]

I don't lock threads when I have common sense to dispense.

I think as a mod you should indiscriminately enact your powers on any thread thats against the rules, no matter if you have some input to the topic on hand.

 

[leet]

Well, see, if I lock it now, I'll just be accused of not letting this guy get in his two-bit rebuttal.

You wouldn't believe some of the PM's I get