Debunked Conspiracies Update - The Government Is Not Confiscating Guns

I can't recall exactly when this was last discussed here at Metabunk and I admit I have not searcheed for it(Don''t really have the time b/c I work full time ) but I'm certain at some point in the last year or 2 the debunking community confidently set the record straight and sai there is no attempt by government to confiscate anyones guns, at least not at some mass level. Granted they are always going after someones guns for something such as the ATf does but theres no large scale effort to confiscate guns, Right?

While it might not be verification that the government is trying to confiscate guns it does say a lot when the secretary of state John Kerry signs the international gun treaty despite statements from more then one senator that he should not attempt to sign the treaty without approval from congress. Well he signed the treaty and if you don't believe it then you can see coverage of it below at Foox news.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

Now I know the first thing that will be put forth is that this treaty is not a gun ban or confiscation but merely more gun regulation solely to stop the bad guys. The problem there is that seldom does the government do what it says it will do. The income tax was sold orginally as being for the rich and we see whats happen to that. This international gun treaty will result in gun confiscation if Congress does not step in.


In addition to Kerrys traitor I mean treaty signing, we also have Maryland trying to confiscate peopls guns. You can see more at the below.

Lastly, there is the medias effort to assist the government with pushing gun control. Wheres the proof of this? Just look at what has been in the headlines of the mainstream news media outlets recently, since the naval shooting. First the media reports an AR15 was used whcih was wrong. Yes someone early on reported seeing an AR15 but the media should know better then to take the word of a single witness an run with it. Its clear there was an effort to drive the idea that an AR15 assault weapon was used.

Seperate from the AR15 we can see that the media in general is pushing the idea that gun violence is near the top if not the top issue in this country. If you watched just the major networks you'd get the impression that people were dying from gun violence is large quantities everywhere and every day and thats not whats hapening. FBI stats for the last few years have shown that as legal gun ownership gies up crime typically goes down. Chicago and DC are gun free havens and yet they are far from safe. Yet if you look at areas were private gun oownership is high the crime rate is lower then in the gun free havens and thats at a per capita level.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Is a shooting at a naval base not big news that the media would cover? Then it's the nature of media these days to speculate left and right when the details are lacking. Poor journalism, but just what they do, not an agenda to steer your mind.

Sorry I haven't looked into the Kerry treaty, just wanted to make that point.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I can't recall exactly when this was last discussed here at Metabunk and I admit I have not searcheed for it(Don''t really have the time b/c I work full time ) but I'm certain at some point in the last year or 2 the debunking community confidently set the record straight and sai there is no attempt by government to confiscate anyones guns, at least not at some mass level. Granted they are always going after someones guns for something such as the ATf does but theres no large scale effort to confiscate guns, Right?

While it might not be verification that the government is trying to confiscate guns it does say a lot when the secretary of state John Kerry signs the international gun treaty despite statements from more then one senator that he should not attempt to sign the treaty without approval from congress. Well he signed the treaty and if you don't believe it then you can see coverage of it below at Foox news.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

Now I know the first thing that will be put forth is that this treaty is not a gun ban or confiscation but merely more gun regulation solely to stop the bad guys. The problem there is that seldom does the government do what it says it will do. The income tax was sold orginally as being for the rich and we see whats happen to that. This international gun treaty will result in gun confiscation if Congress does not step in.


In addition to Kerrys traitor I mean treaty signing, we also have Maryland trying to confiscate peopls guns. You can see more at the below.

Lastly, there is the medias effort to assist the government with pushing gun control. Wheres the proof of this? Just look at what has been in the headlines of the mainstream news media outlets recently, since the naval shooting. First the media reports an AR15 was used whcih was wrong. Yes someone early on reported seeing an AR15 but the media should know better then to take the word of a single witness an run with it. Its clear there was an effort to drive the idea that an AR15 assault weapon was used.

Seperate from the AR15 we can see that the media in general is pushing the idea that gun violence is near the top if not the top issue in this country. If you watched just the major networks you'd get the impression that people were dying from gun violence is large quantities everywhere and every day and thats not whats hapening. FBI stats for the last few years have shown that as legal gun ownership gies up crime typically goes down. Chicago and DC are gun free havens and yet they are far from safe. Yet if you look at areas were private gun oownership is high the crime rate is lower then in the gun free havens and thats at a per capita level.

What part of the UN Treaty leads to gun confiscation in the US?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Dunno about Maryland but the UN arms treaty is about the international trade in arms and has no effect at all on domestic ownership anywhere. CT's everywhere are certainly trying to beat it up as an attempt to disarm the public, but that is just nonsense and disinfo.
 

"They"

New Member
Lastly, there is the medias effort to assist the government with pushing gun control. Wheres the proof of this? Just look at what has been in the headlines of the mainstream news media outlets recently, since the naval shooting. First the media reports an AR15 was used whcih was wrong. Yes someone early on reported seeing an AR15 but the media should know better then to take the word of a single witness an run with it. Its clear there was an effort to drive the idea that an AR15 assault weapon was used.

The above only works if "The Government" is controlling every media outlet AND controlling the single whitness.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
What part of the UN Treaty leads to gun confiscation in the US?
I'm getting de ja vu regarding JFK and the grand plan for peace... Think we may've been here before. It is complicated though I suspect you would say it unequivocably is not ( insofar as constitutional rights are concerned). I think the spirit of the letter of the ruling would lead to plenty of confiscations, assuredly, and greater difficulty in acquiring small arms in the first place. It will not be ratified in the US at this time, no (?), presumably in large part for this very reason.
Dunno about Maryland but the UN arms treaty is about the international trade in arms and has no effect at all on domestic ownership anywhere. CT's everywhere are certainly trying to beat it up as an attempt to disarm the public, but that is just nonsense and disinfo.
I assume the US is a net exporter of small arms but it imports, roughly a third, I think, so that's an effect on ownership right there if not quite in the sense you meant. US manufacturers will have to consider the impact it will have on gun sales to people on the ground in Iraq, or elsewhere, and Scandinavia will consider how it will impact gun sales to citizens on the ground in the United States. Ratify and apply the spirit of the ruling - properly - and the days of buying a Swedish pistol off uncle Jim Bob at the hardware store with 'no questions asked' are over. I'm being obtuse but the point of the UN ruling is to crack down on, and ultimately to eradicate, any illegitimate proliferation, trade and use of arms (including small arms in this case) within all the jurisdictions that ratify it. It is also just the very first Security Council sanctioned step on firearms, and probably not the last. This legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of firearms use in the ruling is, almost entirely, defined within humanitarian terms. It is a domestic concern as all citizens are 'in the market' to which the ruling applies, and also, not overlooking the humanitarian crisis in the United States over gun killings in peacetime, multiple in magnitude to that experienced by all other cultures, I would not dismiss this fundamentally humanitarian ruling as as merely an export matter.

I can't comment on this mythical lumpen mass to which you've attributed the conspiracy theorist generic here. Nearly everyone here at this forum seems to be predisposed to doing this but all I see are diverse people airing diverse concerns in all these matters and as I am a foreigner I am not qualified in speaking about any gun debate there except to say, yes, concerned people in various stakeholder organisations across the planet are indeed conspiring, more accurately, working cooperatively and pro-actively, to reduce the number of small arms in the world that are in the hands of those with no legitimate need for them (because guns kill people and people have a fundamental humanitarian right to life (or to not be killed by other's firearms) so whilst America is concerning itself with it's constitution the UN is concerning itself with serious gun control as a means to uphold and strengthen the Right to Life as it's core precept in a civilised world.

Undoubtedly this is totally at odds with the second amendment of the United States constitution and eventually something's going to have to give (clue: it isn't the UN). So the dissenting voices in the states are ultimately correct, in my opinion i.e far more guns and gun rights will go than people realise right now, whatever of the evidenced based slants people like to spin in one direction or another.

As said, it is not going to be ratified in the US yet, or at all, for now, as far as I know, is it (?) and I assume this is because of this constitutional incompatibility being a political and logistical nightmare, unless, of course, a fudge can be contrived, rendering the implementation of the spirit of the ruling meaningless and impotent. This may happen, come to think of it.

Insofar as the great gun grab is concerned I would agree and say "Yeah... right, whatever". It's a caricature of Obama as some sort of communitarian nut job. He probably is - communitarian - but I would also say - to anyone - please don't dismiss out of hand the views of those that point to the obvious discrepancies as they are on to a very valid point, the United States constitution is incompatible with the general emphasis of the higher authority rules in this instance.

At that point I would look away from the largely rural, white communities that hold guns and the second amendment in esteem and seem to be occupying the ground of protest, and look to the relatively quiet non-white communities in Detroit, Newark and elsewhere (who suffer the violence of guns relatively more markedly and would welcome much tougher gun regulation, I suspect) for actual movement on this fundamental incompatibility issue. In response to @Landru's question I tentatively imagine a dirth of law suits in the offing, where victims of gun violence sue the state or federal government for some aspect of non-compliance with the UN resolution and this causing step changes in policy. I need to look at the resolution in greater detail. George Bush steered clear of this entire issue and if the US does ratify the UN ruling this may bring about all sorts of complications.

*Apologies to anyone reading that mess. My points don't quite flow in the right order. On a packed train. Hope that's getting fixed now.
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The UN treaty, which is what is being discussed here, does not effect any country's internal arms market. It only effects the EXPORT of small arms. Folks in the US will still be able to buy all the guns they want to.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
The UN treaty, which is what is being discussed here, does not effect any country's internal arms market. It only effects the EXPORT of small arms. Folks in the US will still be able to buy all the guns they want to.

Well, yes, I realise you can still buy guns just like you could last month, I meant I assume there are tougher controls on guns, certainly some types of weapons, but I based my previous response (only the bit concerning uncle Jim Bob) on that, reading a link above, and one other rather cynical editorial piece without having actually ploughed through the resolution itself, sorry about that. I now think, in terms of contact with uncle Jim Bob, the resolution may in many cases have more affect on what one does with a gun at the end of it's useful life, rather than much at the point of sale. And yes, I know the issue being discussed here is whether there are any genuine implications for American gun owners to John Kerry signing the country up to Resolution 2117 (2013) and that I too was conflating this particular 'signature' with wider concerns about domestic gun violence, DC gun control laws and the perceived threat, from some quarters, of a complicit leftist-leaning national government being subordinated to the whim of the UN to affect a gun grab. I was attempting to be neutral, to find some middle ground there. There are half truths to both sides of the argument.

Regarding exports you are mostly right there too but it is a little broader than that. The resolution recognises the role of organised criminal activity within the supply chain of arms to zones of violence and conflict, and the complex causal relationships between crime, small arms and light weapons supply, violence, conflict and human rights abuses. And of course export (and related) controls of many sorts all the way along supply chains (and outlined in the resolution) are essential in stopping guns getting into the wrong hands, a complex homeland as well as foreign security matter.

I just read the resolution in it 's entirety, and it takes into account many things and then issues 21 directives, all within one sentence. I'm reminded of what an art there is to a preamble. In order to fully understand the implications of the resolution I would have to read the half dozen previous statements and resolutions over 15 years that the preamble takes into account, as well as the Secretary General's report entitled "Small Arms", from the 22nd of August, which was also considered, however, I'm not doing to do that now as I'm too exhausted :)

So anyway, it's not just concerning exports, the repeated focus throughout the resolution is a little more encompassing and analytical, as you probably already know, forgive me, concerning "the illicit transfer, destabilising accumulation and misuse of firearms".

What's misuse? That could be broadly interpreted. Luckily, Americans fearing an eminent gun grab can be reassured of what misuse doesn't constitute, by the second paragraph of the preamble in:

"Emphasising the right of individual and collective self defence in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and legitimate security demands", and further, in:

"Recognising that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations"

(I think "Persons within, as well as, States..." would have been a little more assuring for US gun owners. Could we pencil that in?)

The security council then cuts to the chase and states it is:

"Gravely concerned that the illicit transfer, destabilising accumulation and misuse of firearms is... a cause of significant loss of life... and contributes to instability and insecurity..."

Of course, though the assumed emphasis is on sectarian conflict, particularly in Africa, the resolution can refer to anywhere you find "illicit transfer, accumulation and misuse of firearms" and the human rights violations suffered therein as a result of it. Could be Somalia, Yemen, Northern Ireland... New Jersey, Philadelphia :)

More seriously, there are quite a few homeland oriented directives written into the resolution, measures to "avoid diversion of state owned, or controlled, weapons" and the "enhancement of small arms and stockpile security accountability and management", and others, which may be scrutinised as a possible means to reinforce tighter controls at home, by critics, but it all sounds perfectly above board to me. But don't trust me, I have antipathy toward weapons of any kind, a bit like the resolution.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Well, yes, I realise you can still buy guns just like you could last month, I meant I assume there are tougher controls on guns,

the treaty affects international trade - if the trade is legal then there is no effect on it. you will still be able to buy cheap Swedish guns that are legally imported. The aim is that you will find it harder to buy cheap Swedish guns that are not legally imported, and you will find it harder to export guns to illegal recipients.

How you think this is going to have any impact on the US domestic arms market escapes me - and having read your posts above it would be appreciated if any explanation of your thinking could be short and to the point.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I'm getting de ja vu regarding JFK and the grand plan for peace... Think we may've been here before. It is complicated though I suspect you would say it unequivocably is not ( insofar as constitutional rights are concerned). I think the spirit of the letter of the ruling would lead to plenty of confiscations, assuredly, and greater difficulty in acquiring small arms in the first place. It will not be ratified in the US at this time, no (?), presumably in large part for this very reason.

So there isn't anything in the treaty that calls for US gun confiscation? Did you read the treaty?
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
So there isn't anything in the treaty that calls for US gun confiscation? Did you read the treaty?
I most certainly did sir, every word, and some of it twice, and can assert with utmost certainty there isn't anything in that treaty that calls for US gun confiscation.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
What I did there @Landru was totally misunderstand the particular point and remit of this particular resolution, my misunderstanding being based on ignorance and a few sensationalist, reactionary lines within an editorial. I have an unrelated age old assumption that the UN wants every government to move to a gun-less world so as to fulfil it's obligation to maintain world peace and still think this is the case but having read the UN resolution I apologise and feel it is in no palpable sense related to the internal arguments in the US over gun control.

Having read the resolution the only way it could conceivably be related to gun control in the US is merely the same as it could relate to gun control in any other country, as I outlined above, and that is if a sectarian faction in the US was involved in the "illicit transfer, destabilising accumulation and misuse of firearms" during an actual conflict on home soil, but I doubt the Gambino's (or anyone else's) dealings and disagreements on the east coast or anywhere else quite equate to that.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
What I did there @Landru was totally misunderstand the particular point and remit of this particular resolution, my misunderstanding being based on ignorance and a few sensationalist, reactionary lines within an editorial. I have an unrelated age old assumption that the UN wants every government to move to a gun-less world so as to fulfil it's obligation to maintain world peace and still think this is the case but having read the UN resolution I apologise and feel it is in no palpable sense related to the internal arguments in the US over gun control.

Having read the resolution the only way it could conceivably be related to gun control in the US is merely the same as it could relate to gun control in any other country, as I outlined above, and that is if a sectarian faction in the US was involved in the "illicit transfer, destabilising accumulation and misuse of firearms" during an actual conflict on home soil, but I doubt the Gambino's (or anyone else's) dealings and disagreements on the east coast or anywhere else quite equate to that.

It could very conceivably relate to every government on the planet, but that's just life.

With respect, your first response was completely understandable. Your second one was not.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
the treaty affects international trade - if the trade is legal then there is no effect on it. you will still be able to buy cheap Swedish guns that are legally imported. The aim is that you will find it harder to buy cheap Swedish guns that are not legally imported, and you will find it harder to export guns to illegal recipients.

How you think this is going to have any impact on the US domestic arms market escapes me - and having read your posts above it would be appreciated if any explanation of your thinking could be short and to the point.
I can be very brief. Simple misunderstanding of the purpose of the treaty, having been led astray by a press report inference the treaty pertained to a general aim of multilateral disarmament or leveraging support for firearms control in US. I also confused the April 2nd Arms Trade Treaty with the particulars of the 26th September resolution. Sweden was random "for instance" based on import figures from Policymic.com, who also hold ATT won't be ratified but would negatively impact US fire arms industry, quoted below:
www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/35495/un-arms-control-treaty-will-it-be-ratified-by-the-senate

PS In an extremely remote area currently, no TV, computer, radio or papers. Just a broken phone. Hard to keep pace. Sorry for misunderstandings.
 
Last edited:

Boodles

Banned
Banned
The first answered the question directly. The second did not.
I see. Well I suppose the first answer was affirmative and the second wasn't a response to the already just answered question, more a brief attempt to explain why I had hold of at least a couple of sticks at the wrong end. That was all :)
 

MikeC

Closed Account
PS In an extremely remote area currently, no TV, computer, radio or papers. Just a broken phone. Hard to keep pace. Sorry for misunderstandings.

Fair enough. and yes I figured Sweden was random :)

As for effect on domestic manufacture - insofar as there may be demand for weapons that will no longer be imported that would create additional market for domestic manufacture. And insofar as domestic manufacture supplies "illegal" international trade that may be constricted that will lessen demand.

I don't know what the balance is - whether overall there will be an increase or decrease in domestic manufacture......but basing an industry decision on an illegal market doesn't seem like good politics or trade to me!!
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Fair enough. and yes I figured Sweden was random :)
That Swedish thing, well I also picked Sweden for their incomparably discreet, understated role in... everything. Ask a random poll what Sweden do, you'll get cold weather, monarchy, fish, Abba, blondes, 70s porn and possibly protestantism and independence as top answers, when as well as all those they lead the world in engineering, aeronautics, manufacture of weapons technology of all kinds. They don't need most of it, they sell it, they've been in the defence technology business for over a thousand years so they're very good at it, they just don't shout about it (it's too cold to shout) ;)

Just some gun history excerpts, for fun:
As for effect on domestic manufacture - insofar as there may be demand for weapons that will no longer be imported that would create additional market for domestic manufacture.
Yes, that seems sensible and correct.
And insofar as domestic manufacture supplies "illegal" international trade that may be constricted that will lessen demand.

I don't know what the balance is - whether overall there will be an increase or decrease in domestic manufacture......but basing an industry decision on an illegal market doesn't seem like good politics or trade to me!!
I'll get back to you on that in a minute.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Cairenn Debunked: Gulf of Mexico oil spill conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 22
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 35
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 5
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top