UN Laws pushing civil gun confiscation in the USA true?
Guys, as we all know the United Nations want to disarm civilian population in the US for obvious reasons, but I've actually heard that they started a few days ago in New Orleans.
Any truth to that, for those of you actually living in America?
Edit: Found this on youtube, posted July 2012, now just a few days ago:
Last edited by Faronnia; 19-07-12 at 09:32 PM.
Not that I know of. I have over 30 guns in this house. lol
I hope so. The amount of gun crime in America compared to the rest of the civilised world, frankly it's amazing the US government haven't done anything about it sooner.
how can the UN tell the US we need to disarm our civilian population. I think out of all the countries in the world right now, we shouldn't be anywhere near the top of this list. Start in Africa, Middle East, Lower Asia. What obvious reasons are you talking about, when was the last time you saw 30 American civilians packed into a pick-up truck meant to carry 5, each waving a rifle in their hand and shooting at the sky for fun?
The U.N. cannot make a law that goes against something in our constitution, that is why it is called the U.N. and not the U.S. Congress.
I hope this is not serious. A large large large chunk of the numbers you see come from certain areas. Gang violence, drug related shit, etc cannot be attributed to the general population. Our population is nearly 5x more than other countries with a similar standard of living, and Ron here lives near the wonderfully industrious people of Mexico who lend a big helping hand in adding to those numbers (talking about once again the gang activity and drug smuggling, not being racist). Restrictions could use a bit of tightening but that is already being worked on.Originally Posted by Robert
Last edited by I Rule MU; 19-07-12 at 06:05 PM.
A lot of people would not agree with you, man. It is your right to be able to defend and protect yourself AND your family. Guns also is your only hope to fight off a tyrannical government which imposes its authority via the use of a police state. Sure, there are psychos who can use guns to cause mass murder and such, but that does not mean that you, as a free man, should have a government restrict you rights of self-defence.
About the Mexico stuff, check out this 'Fast&Furious' operation, where Hilary Clinton and the infamous Obama administration had a lot to take part in. Think of who produces, buys, ships and distributes guns for their own benefits. I think we all know who armed Al Qaeda a few decades ago, wouldn't surprise me if they were also responsible at home and in Mexico.
Anyways, I guess we will see in a matter of a few months if this gun confiscation is really happening or not. Here is something I found on youtube:
US is supposed to be a civilised country. Civilised people don't use guns, simple as that.
Don't get me started on the constitution. It was written around the time of your rebellion, when every tom dick and harry wanted to overthrow the government. Laws should change over time when things are no longer needed. Legalised guns aren't necessary for the US any more. You only need a gun now to defend against other people with guns. Make it illegal and both sides no longer can easily kill each other.
I'm not talking about numbers, I'm talking %s. Crime rates in America are just higher than any other country in the world. International Centre for Prison Studies
A crime which might be committed in another country, like theft, taking place in America can easily involve a gun. It simply escalates the situation. No wonder you imprison so many people if most crimes end up adding a gun to the mix.
The only people who should be allowed to own a gun are people who have legit reasons to own it. Exactly the same system as England uses frankly. If you have a farm, or live near dangerous wild animals, then by all means if you pass all the safety checks and are trained to use it, you can have one. If you live in the middle of a city, and the only reason you have it is to defend yourself? GTFO, pull it out when you are in trouble, you are far more likely to end up being shot.
I'm sure we've had this discussion before on RZ. It invariably boils down to US people being scared of other people with guns (which in itself is a retarded way to argue the point, no one should have one!) vs the rest of the world, which don't have stupid gun rules.
I must say that I agree with Robert.
Honestly, weapons should be restricted to the government and peace keeping forces etc.
I noticed that an argument I've seen a cpl of times is that u want to protect yourself against other people with guns, well it is true that even if you disarm your citizens the bad guys might still have guns, but still, the less guns you have in circulation the better.
We barely have any guns at all in Sweden, only police carry them (and sometimes they don't even do that). And u NEVER see any rifles unless you are hunting or something.
And when it comes to bad governments, well come on. What's the chance of you going all guerilla and overthrowing your government?
Slight to none, even IF you decided you wanted to, you'd be defeated within like 1 day by the massive army, unless you got them to join you in a coup, which means you'd still get guns.
However I do understand both sides, but I think that a population with guns is a bad idea, most countries work very well without that. And I don't see why the US wouldn't.
Info wars.....Info Wars........
At least that guy is out in the middle of nowhere. In a realistic situation, people who live in the country (like my parents) own shitloads of land and it takes ~10 minutes for authorities to even get out there in the case of an emergency. If someone decided to go and kill my parents, what are they going to do, call 911 and wait 20 minutes? Guy comes in with a gun and they're defenseless because guns are banned? Fuck that.
There are a lot of valid arguments on both sides of this situation. At this point if guns were banned in the US it would only create more violence.
Its pretty much clear why guns should be removed after the Denver shooting incident, yes it might not be possible to remove weapons from every single U.S citizen but it could prevent shootings like just happened.
I don't need/get a gun and I actively seek out criminals.
Americans play on the fact that they need guns to defend themselves - if that's the case limit it to one gun per household to be kept secure away from children.
30+ Guns and automatic weaponry is silly.
But they only need guns to defend themselves because guns are so readily available to criminals. If no one has a gun, what do you have to defend against? Plus if someone has already broken in and are holding them hostage, they won't have a gun on them anyway. And hell, if they do, do you really want them to get into a shooting match with criminals? The police are always telling everyone not to take the law into their hands.
Even if it created more violence, if it's not gun violence how is that a bad thing really? I'm sure everyone on the planet would rather getting beaten up rather than being shot and killed.
In Texas you're legally allowed to shoot to defend. Also, in states where hunting is popular, its not uncommon for a hunting household to have well over 20 to 30 guns. Most of them end up being purely collectors items really.
Good luck taking guns away from hunters. If you take away guns people will start using hunting bows for self defense. Taking guns solves no problems and these shootings will occur from smuggled guns. Criminal activity will be easier because they can just flash their gun and you're helpless.
Using the Colorado shooting as a defense against why guns are bad is ignorant. Criminals will have guns whether they are banned or not. Drugs are illegal and you all know how much drugs on the streets these days. What a stupid argument.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
You do have a strong point. No one will take the hassle to smuggle a gun just for self-defence but criminals do have a motive to smuggle guns into the country to use them in crimes and they will be more motivated since most of the population have no gun for self-defence so they can shoot anyone without being shot back at them.
This issue decision has alot of pros and cons and both of them have death in them.
Its better just to keep it the way it is at the moment and just keep whipping maniacs of the street.
@ Ron - The fact remains, if there were no guns legally available to the general public, you would not need a gun for protection. Your argument becomes invalid and void when you need something to protect you from itself wielded by someone else. If one wasn't made, the other wouldn't be either, one was not made out of necessity for the other.
There are rabid animals outside so I'm going to get my own rabid animal to protect me against them. Yea that's great in principal, but you forget that a rabid animal is a rabid animal, it will bite you regardless of who you are. Exact same scenario here, you don't get a gun to protect you from guns, and the number of accidental shootings alone should have been enough to ban them DECADES ago.
If you legitimately need a weapon because you live in a rural area, then by all means. For protection, for wildlife, for hunting, for putting down animals out back. Whatever. The same hunting/farming gun laws apply almost internationally. But that's not at all what we're talking about here. Not at all.
@ Ron - The fact remains, if there were no guns legally available to the general public, you would not need a gun for protection. Your argument becomes invalid and void when you need something to protect you from itself wielded by someone else. If one wasn't made, the other wouldn't be either, one was not made out of necessity for the other.
There are rabid animals outside so I'm going to get my own rabid animal to protect me against them. Yea that's great in principal, but you forget that a rabid animal is a rabid animal, it will bite you regardless of who you are. Exact same scenario here, you don't get a gun to protect you from guns, and the number of accidental shootings alone should have been enough to ban them DECADES ago.
If you legitimately need a weapon because you live in a rural area, then by all means. For protection, for wildlife, for hunting, for putting down animals out back. Whatever. The same hunting/farming gun laws apply almost internationally. But that's not at all what we're talking about here. Not at all.
Pretty much a futile attempt - the US has a massive population, and a LOT of guns.
But if anything - let them keep their guns, but completely restrict it to a limited about, like 1-2 ... and ABSOLUTELY NO AUTOMATICS, just pistols and hunting rifles and such. Wtf's a civilian need an automatic to defend himself for?
Last edited by Daedius; 23-07-12 at 05:43 AM.
Thats something I can agree with. My dad has two hand guns for self defense purposes, the rest are all hunting rifles / shotguns. Automatic guns, even semi-automatic, are completely unnecessary in the public's hands.
I've already said, guns for hunting is fine. Stop bringing it up, basically every country on Earth allows people to have guns for hunting. Same for collectors items, if they are properly disabled.
As for hunting bows? If we are talking about longbows, have you actually tried using one? They take 3years of training to use it properly, and were more accurate than guns for a long time. The difference was you could learn to use a gun in a day. If someone wants to spend 3 years learning to use a bow, frankly GL to them!
As for smuggled guns? Well, some do slip through but if simply having one in your possession is a 10 year jail sentence, I doubt most sensible criminals would risk it. Smuggled guns just isn't a big problem, 95% of gun crimes would no longer involve guns. That is a huge saving of lives.
Frankly if someone pulled a gun on you, you should be helpless. Pulling a gun on them is just going to get you shot. They already have it pointed at you. Just give them the money, and they will likely let you go. Then when the police catches them, they are going to go to jail for a long time for having that gun.
As for the Colorado shooting, frankly there is already enough reason to ban guns. The rest of the civilised world having banned them? The other countless shootings that have happened also are good reason. Most criminals won't have guns. Afaik the guy who did the shooting wasn't a real criminal, or at least most random shootings aren't. Where are these randoms going to get guns from?
As for drugs, fuck that argument frankly. Most drugs should be legal, lots of them are political illegal. Smoking quite easily gives you cancer, that should be the basic drawback for it to be legal. If the drug doesn't cause death, it should be legal. Guns cause death, they should be illegal. Simple!
If you have a gun and its registered you shouldn't care if it is for hunting or self-defence.
Yes, it most certainly does matter.
Take a high caliber hunting bullet and shoot a person with it, you can shoot their limbs clean off. Crossbows are used for hunting, but are illegal in most places for use against human beings because they are cruel and inhumane (removing the arrow).
Unless you are very stupid to shoot a person with that it does matter.
USA's obsession with guns is blatantly unhealthy. I'm not saying they should be outlawed in America, it's way too late for that. But it is unhealthy. In fact from an outside perspective it's downright fucking weird and kind of pathetic. There's plenty of other countries with lax gun laws that don't have this bizarre fetish for things that kill, or the insanely high firearm homicide rates for that matter. It's just America. Culturally you're like a kid who never grew up.
About damn time somebody got the idea right.
Still quite pathetic it had to come from outside to see that guns don't protect people.....
@troublemaker1111 Amen, quite a good way to word it up.
here's just a random possibility i can see up-coming, if our debt as americans continue.
>>Our government is, and going deeper into debt
>>As it goes deeper into debt, more chaos will ensue if other countries decide to do something about it
>>All countries stop supporting our government because of how corrupt it is, and then we want a new one
>>(If our guns are banned we can't overthrow the government even if we wanted)
Actually quite the opposite is happening in Colorado right now! Gun sales have skyrocketed sense the shooting, people want to be able to defend themselves. As for America having the highest crime rate, that would be Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, Belize, Guatemala, Jamaica, Etc. Just because America has more "announced" shootings then most countries, does not make it more dangerous then most countries.
For people that are saying the Constitution was written along time ago, by people who always want to overthrow the government, the fact is America has a higher dissatisfaction rate then it did during the civil war. That means that revolution could be possible! Not saying its going to happen, I am just saying people want their guns.
Reply With Quote
