It's official, Obama is coming after your guns

[Black Jesus]

Abstract

The Obama Administration has openly announced their intent to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban[1] that was "law" for ten years, but this time Dianne Feinstein and the gun-grabbing liberals aren’t just restricting new weapons & ammo purchases, but seeking legislation to require arms be turned in and private sales be barred.[2]

Simultaneously, the Obama Administration is helping to revive the United Nations Small Arms Treaty[3], which will undermine the sovereignty of the 2nd Amendment by putting international control over the flow of weapons and civilian ownership, inevitably affecting gun rights inside the U.S. particularly in border zones.

This is not speculation, this is not hyperbole, this is not myth– but the admitted plan now underway.


Footnotes

[1] Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...t-weapons-ban/

[2]Turn Them Over: Feinstein Moves To Ban ALL Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Pistol Grips
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...grips_11072012

[3]After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A627J20121107

Originally Posted by Icepaxx

2012: the year the truth was the easiest troll

[Black Jesus]

if we didnt need guns, we also wouldnt need locks

[Black Jesus]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Swish]

You guys are lucky you're armed. In Britain guns are very hard to come by unless you're involved in an inner city gang, and even then they're some nasty replica conversion.

If that's 100% true, get em while you can - I would. Isn't it in the constitution that you can legally own a gun or something? Shouldn't be messing with the constitution...that wouldn't be very democratic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Swish]

Here's what happens if you try to defend yourself in Britain:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

Don't become like us...

[Reiker000]

Originally Posted by Black Jesus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

She obviously lives in Seattle.

No laws broken.

[Fyreant]

Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's what happens if you try to defend yourself in Britain:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

Don't become like us...

Well, theft is not punishable by death. And while I can agree with a person's right to defend themselves, shooting someone to death, in the back, as they're fleeing, is not self defense. Even worse if you kill a fleeing person with an illegally owned gun.

[Swish]

Originally Posted by Fyreant [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, theft is not punishable by death. And while I can agree with a person's right to defend themselves, shooting someone to death, in the back, as they're fleeing, is not self defense. Even worse if you kill a fleeing person with an illegally owned gun.

He'd been burgled numerous times before however, whether it was the same guy or not...and the police here were (and still are) useless.

I'd have shot him in the leg and phoned the police, but no matter what I think he had a lot of support from the public here. Perhaps people don't deserve guns, and don't deserve to defend their property... perhaps Obama is right to try and disarm the US...

[Cade]

I'm sorry that this is my first post on the P1999 forums, but I have to say something here.

In regards to the first claim about an assault weapons ban:

Do we really need these? A shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun should be more than enough for any sort of self/home defense situation. All the people I have met who own or would like to own anything larger probably shouldn't have been allowed to. Really, in what situation do you think that you will need an assault rifle or extended magazine?

As for the UN treaty:

What does this have to do with gun control within the US? All I've been able to find about it is conservatives arguing that it will interfere with the 2nd amendment, but none of them seem to be able to explain how. It applies to international trade only.

For the record I am a gun owner and oppose domestic gun control. However these claims that Obama is trying to take our guns really get under my skin. I'm not commenting on Feinstein, as she has nothing to do with Obama or this thread.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by United Nations Resolution regarding Arms Trade Treaty, 64th session, agenda item 96

[it is] the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.

As I said, the UN treaty only addresses international trade. It will not interfere with regulation within the US no matter how many times it is repeated with no source of information.

Since we're talking about assault weapons in terms of an assault weapons ban, perhaps we should define 'assault weapon' by the political definition instead of arguing about which dictionary to use. In political terms, as evidenced by the 10 year Federal Assault Weapons Ban on which another assault weapons ban would be based, used very specific language and clearly defines what would be considered an assault rifle. The old ban then goes on to list all of the 19 weapons which fit the description. Most of the recent pushes for an assault weapons ban focus on renewing the very same law, and therefore only those 19 weapons would be banned. Again, I don't support such a law, I'm only pointing out that it would have very little impact on the ability to own firearms.

[Lazortag]

Who cares, the 2nd amendment is dumb anyway.