I've gone over this so many times, I don't know what else I can post anymore.
Ditto.
That's like saying if you drive carefully there is zero chance of getting in an accident. It simply isn't true. Everyone who has ever shot himself by accident has said the same thing--"Won't ever happen to me." Famous last words, we call it.
thats not similar at all. you can be a responsible driver and get hit by another driver.
This is the essence of my argument. If people bought guns with the understanding that these things don't make them safer and may kill them or someone close to them but are willing to take the chance, the accidents would be reduced because fewer people would buy them. By making it sound like a gun is the answer to our fears, the NRA only guarantees more needless gun deaths will raking in record profits for the arms industry.
I never said anything of the sort. I have no problem with hunters owning guns or even people who like to go out and target shoot. I have a problem with people who believe packing heat will protect them. It doesn't and it puts people around them at risk. It may make them "feel more secure and confident" as you write but feeling and being are, of course, completely different things.
this makes no sense to me. this part of your argument just confuses me. so you go on spiels about how unsafe guns are.... and then support people who want to own them? but only ppl who want to own them to hunt or shoot at the range?? how does that make sense
More NRA nonsense.
You are referring to the signing of an Arms Trade Treaty where the illegal international sale of conventional arms was being targeted by the UN. That treaty was finalized last March and approved 154 to 3. The US is officially for it. Only Iran, Syria and North Korea are against it. The treaty is not in force at this time and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. It deals ONLY with the ILLEGAL trade of arms INTERNATIONALLY.
The Obama administration made clear that US approval of the treaty was contingent upon the the UN's recognition that the treaty has no impact upon the 2nd amendment or upon any US gun laws. The UN agreed. In fact, the treaty stipulates "the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms" within its territory.
Moreover, there is no legal precedent for such a treaty bypassing or usurping the normal legislative process of Congress. So in order to the US to sign the treaty, a 2/3 majority in Congress is required first. If Congress refuses, the US cannot sign the treaty (which requires 50 such signatures and currently has, to the best of my knowledge, none).
There is no legal precedent that would allow any administration to ban all firearms in the US through the signing of an international treaty and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this very point (Reid v. Covert, 1957). Nor can the signing of an international treaty suspend or usurp a constitutionally guaranteed right. Feel free to ignore the following the link:
snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty