Thread: U.N.'s global gun ban treaty

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...ch-2014-a.html

Obama's UN speech reveals why Arms Trade Treaty is so dangerous
By Ted R. Bromund · Published September 26, 2014

Addressing the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, President Obama said that all nations “must meet our responsibility to observe and enforce international norms.” What he meant by that wasn’t exactly clear, starting with what those norms are, and who gets to define them. But that kind of thinking on the president’s part is precisely why the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is so bad for the United States.

The ATT is a convention that attempts to stop rogue regimes from selling guns and keep mercenaries, terrorists and other bad guys from buying them. It has long been controversial in the U.S. because of concerns that it will undermine Second Amendment rights and hurt the ability of the U.S. to arm allies like Israel. At its core, the ATT calls on nations to enforce easily-manipulated and constantly-evolving “standards” to decide what nations are fit to import arms. In other words, “international norms.”

The problem is that the ATT is a conveyor belt to a destination that we cannot control. That’s because it would bind us—once we formally ratified it-- to submit to norms defined by the so-called international community.

The ATT does not bind us until we agree to it, and there is a formal process for doing that. It means submitting the treaty to the Senate, receiving the Senate’s advice and consent—which requires a two-thirds majority-- and passing the necessary implementing legislation through both the House and the Senate.

But President Obama apparently feels that the U.S. “must” observe the treaty’s norms even if that process hasn’t taken place. He’s implying that he has the right – even the obligation – to enforce the treaty’s intent, even if the Senate has never accepted the document that embodies them. That is, even though no American legislature has had a chance to have a say in what those “norms” are.

This is not new in an administration that believes it can achieve its goals by making up regulations rather than passing laws that involve other branches of government.

The Senate, for example, has never voted in favor of any climate change treaty. Yet the Obama administration is driving the nation down the road of complying with the basic elements of the Kyoto Protocol, which the Senate rejected even before it was negotiated by a vote of 95-0.

The Senate has never voted to ban the U.S. use of land mines, and it has never given its advice and consent to the Ottawa Convention, a treaty that would outlaw all land mines. And there are a lot of good reasons for that: as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey put it six months ago, land mines are “an important tool in the arsenal of the armed forces of the United States,” especially when helping smaller nations resist the assault of bigger ones (think Ukraine).

But on September 23, the administration abandoned the U.S. use of anti-personnel land mines anywhere in the world outside Korea. It did this to please the progressive activist groups that were behind the Ottawa Convention, and which, as the Convention was being negotiated, viewed the U.S. as an adversary that had to be defeated.

On Tuesday, the administration posted its surrender note, solely because it wanted to comply with the Ottawa Convention’s norms. It is going to use its rule-making power to give the activist groups almost everything they want, with promises of more later on.

The ATT needed 50 countries to ratify it to come into force. It reached that mark on September 25, ‎the first anniversary of Secretary of State John Kerry’s signature of the pact. In 90 days – on Christmas Eve, ironically – it will be binding on the nations that have ratified it, and on no one else.

Fortunately, as an excellent letter sent to the White House by Senators Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., demonstrates, the Senate is in no mood to ratify this benighted treaty.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LETTER http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/i...e-30e45e22ad78

But the activists will keep on pushing, and they have an ally in President Obama, his infamous rule-making pen and, now, his assertion that international norms are binding on the United States.

That’s bad for our foreign policy, and bad for our rights – including, most fundamentally, our right to govern ourselves. For if international norms truly do bind the U.S., the voice of the American people, and the will of Congress, must give way before either one has had its say.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...-so-dangerous/

Americans Just Dodged a Bullet on the United Nation’s Worldwide Gun Control Bill

There was an historic vote on gun control this week, and a lot of Americans missed it. The vote wasn’t on a federal or state, or even a local law. It was a vote on whether the United States would enter into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, and the outcome was close. Ultimately the United States Senate voted 53-46 in favor of a bill of opposition to the treaty.

U.N. Resolution 2117 includes 21 points related to the control of firearms, but the item of most importance to Americans who hold sacred the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution is point number 11. It “Calls for member states to support weapons collection and disarmament of all UN countries.”

As the Maine Republic Email Alert wrote, “This is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around…reloading.”

The United Nations Small Arms Treaty had been pushed by the Obama administration, and it would have placed a worldwide ban on the import and export of small firearms. Every private gun owner in the country would have been affected. Even more extreme, language in the treaty mandated an international gun registry on all private guns and ammunition.

The Senate bill’s Statement of Purpose reads: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from Entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”

Americans need to take note of the 46 senators, all Democrats, who voted against the bill, and in favor of the U.N. treaty. They were voting to give the gun rights of Americans over to a foreign power. Here’s the list:

Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not a single Republican voted against the bill.

http://therighttobear.com/americans-...-control-bill/

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.
“This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong,” he said. “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”

http://www.teaparty.org/secretary-st...threaten-block

And you thought it would never happen.

Thanks to Congress the UN Plot to Confiscate American Guns Took a Giant Step Forward
25 August, 2015 by Dave Hodges

Trapped within the fanfare Chinese Black Monday and the American stock market plunging almost 600 points yesterday, suspicious explosions in China and on an American military base, there has been a very important, but quiet development ,which is escaping the attention of both the American people and the Independent Media.

The Corker Bill Spells the End of the Second Amendment

We are safe from the ravages of the UN Small Arms Treaty, aren’t we? In fact, many Senators have openly stated that they refuse to ratify this controversial treaty. Well, that is not exactly true. There is a new process established by the new Corker bill may very well have changed the way treaties are passed from here on out.

Under our Constitution, a full two thirds vote from senators for ratification to approve any kind of a treaty. This provision of the Constitution is very clear on this point and it is designed to prevent a treasonous subversion of the Constitution. However when one is living under a criminal enterprise, such as the one presented by the present criminal enterprise in power, who worries about following the rules? As a case in point, under the Corker bill, in order to have stopped the Iran nuclear deal, a two thirds vote to stop it from being implemented by the White House. This is not what the Constitution says and this out and out treason against the people of the United States as the Corker bill is a back door to taking our guns while nullifying the second Amendment.

Under the Corker bill, the following paragraphs describe what we are in for.

The Plot to Disarm America Is Commencing

The evidence is mounting that Obama and his colleagues at the United Nations are preparing for complete gun confiscation of civilian owned American guns. There is a new document, previously held secret, which has surfaced and clearly signals the intention of the United Nations to engage in gun confiscation in the relatively near future. The document is damning, however, the existence of the document is not even needed to prove the point that there is a major confrontation brewing between the American people and an international peace-keeping UN force, and it’s coming right around the corner.

Another Nail In America’s Coffin

The following is a smoking gun document that presents seven sequential steps designed to culminate in the total disarmament of the American nation. For those of you that know your history, you will note that there were 17 genocides in the 20th Century and in each case, these genocides were preceded by gun confiscation by the host government. According to the Democide Project located at the University of Hawaii, governments killed far more people, an estimated 26o million victims, than even war. History shows that if we ever allow government, the UN, or the U.S., to ever be able to seize our guns, we are signing our death warrant!

The following document is a declaration of war against the United States people. For those who find the document to be on the blurry side, scroll down to the Appendix to view a clearer copy.




http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/20...-step-forward/

Obama Officials Heading to Mexico to Discuss International Gun Control Via UN Treaty

August 24 officials from the Obama administration will be attending the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in Mexico City.

The ATT was signed by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 25, 2013 but never ratified by the US Senate. Nevertheless, Gun Owners of America reports that Obama officials will be in Mexico City for the conference.

Breitbart News previously reported that the ATT is an international gun control treaty designed to be implemented apart from, or in spite of, the general framework of governance for countries that are signatories to it.

Thus, while it will not do away with the Second Amendment on paper, it will subjugate the Second Amendment to the ATT’s gun controls if Obama administration officials return and implement the plans they will discuss in Mexico City.

ATT was pushed under the guise of stopping “small arms [and] light weapons” from crossing borders. And when it was being discussed in 2013, Breitbart News warned that firearm registration must proceed from the ATT if it is to be enforceable. After all, how can agents tasked with enforcing this treaty ascertain the origin of smuggled weapons without a comprehensive registration on file?



Moreover, the NRA pointed out that the treaty all but calls for a registry from the start inasmuch as it requires “importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including ‘end use or end user documentation’ for a ‘minimum of ten years.’” This information on “end users” is not only a de-facto international gun registry but one that could be “made available to foreign governments.”

Because of all these troubling aspects of ATT, Gun Owners of America (GOA) warns that the Mexico City conference is part of a plan “to bring back the framework for a global gun control regime.” GOA encourages every gun owner to call his or her US Senator and ask that they stand strong against any international gun control recommendations or regulations that the Obama administration pushes after the August 24 ATT conference





We must be diligent, especially because Democrat Senators have already shown their willingness to subjugate the Second Amendment to the ATT. Forty-four Democrat Senators voted for the ATT in April 2013.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...via-un-treaty/

Obama Just Committed Treason with UN Arms Treaty

As I told you earlier this week, Obama administration officials have been meeting in Mexico to finalize the implementation of the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

Congress refused to ratify this global gun control treaty but Obama had John Kerry sign it anyway. Now, his minions are on their way back from Mexico with good news for the Gungrabber-in-Chief.

Thanks to Obama’s negotiators, the UN Arms Trade Treaty will now be veto-proof. When the rest of the world decides on implementing global gun control, the US will be powerless to stop it.

If the majority of countries vote to halt American arms exports, crippling American industry, we would be powerless to stop it.

Not only that, but the UN Arms Treaty mandates that the United States create a registry of all American gun owners just in case those guns ever need to be confiscated. If you buy a gun, the UN would have a record of it.

We killed the Left’s attempt to implement universal background checks on gun purchases because it would have created a universal gun registry. Now, 2 years later, Barack Obama is on the precipice of realizing his goal: registering all of Americans’ firearms.

Congress refused to sign this gun control treaty so Obama signed it anyway. Then, he sent his minions to Mexico City to attend a conference exclusively limited to countries that ratified the treaty.

Now, the Obama administration officials have voted to give up US sovereignty and cave to the international gun control agenda.

The President thinks he can get away with this. There is a reason that this is the first you’ve heard of this. The administration is trying to do this under the cover of darkness and the mainstream media is more than happy to keep the lid on this treason.

But now that you know, you have an obligation to act. You can’t unlearn what I just told you. You can’t just forget about the fact that Obama administration officials are negotiating to surrender US sovereignty.

http://conservative-daily.com/2015/0...n-arms-treaty/

August 26, 2015 7:59 pm

(Fox News) – Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.

As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.

“This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong,” he said. “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”

U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate.

He claimed the treaty raises “fundamental issues” concerning “individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”


The National Rifle Association blasted the plan, claiming it would impose an “invasive registration scheme” by requiring importing countries to give exporting countries information on “end users.”

“The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “These are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American. The NRA will continue to fight this assault on our fundamental freedom.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, also sent a letter to Kerry declaring the treaty “dead in the water,” since a majority of senators has gone on record against the agreement.

“The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats,” he wrote.

Kerry, who is in New York attending the U.N. General Assembly session, announced earlier this year that the administration planned to sign the treaty.

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.

Over the summer, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to President Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.

The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.

What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don’t, and how stringently it is implemented.

The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, has said it expects many of the world’s top arms exporters — including Britain, Germany and France — to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year.

The coalition notes that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that “history will be made” when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed “to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death.”

Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature — and ratification — will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders.

The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.

It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...n-to-block-it/

http://www.teaparty.org/secretary-st...-block-115648/

Obama To Outline Executive Order Gun Control During Primetime Address

Posted on December 6, 2015


The speech is said to have initiated a considerable degree of back and forth activity inside the White House as a handful of advisers and consultants attempt to meet the anti-gun platform of Mr. Obama and Ms. Jarrett within the context of tonight’s national address.

A trusted D.C. Whispers source described the situation with the following:

“The San Bernardino tragedy will be used by the president to declare enough is enough regarding guns. While he will try and convince us he’s still on track in the conflict against ISIS/ISIL, what is really motivating him for tonight’s speech is his determination to do what he did on immigration, which was to bypass Congress and the Constitution and apply that same practice to gun ownership in America. He’s going all in on the gun issue tonight.”

As much as so many are tired of hearing Barack Obama speak, it appears tonight’s primetime address is a moment we would all do well to listen in on. If he truly feels himself to have the authority to directly do battle with the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution via Executive Authority, it will very likely initiate a public outcry and resulting legal battle not seen in quite some time.

Here’s hoping someone in the White House steers this president away from such a precipice and interjects some common sense into what is a terribly important time for the safety and security of the United States.

He would do well to understand that guns weren’t to blame for San Bernardino anymore than planes were to blame for September 11th, 2001.

Muslim terrorists were.

http://dcwhispers.com/breaking-obama...etime-address/

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Obama To Outline Executive Order Gun Control During Primetime Address

Posted on December 6, 2015


The speech is said to have initiated a considerable degree of back and forth activity inside the White House as a handful of advisers and consultants attempt to meet the anti-gun platform of Mr. Obama and Ms. Jarrett within the context of tonight’s national address.

A trusted D.C. Whispers source described the situation with the following:

“The San Bernardino tragedy will be used by the president to declare enough is enough regarding guns. While he will try and convince us he’s still on track in the conflict against ISIS/ISIL, what is really motivating him for tonight’s speech is his determination to do what he did on immigration, which was to bypass Congress and the Constitution and apply that same practice to gun ownership in America. He’s going all in on the gun issue tonight.”

As much as so many are tired of hearing Barack Obama speak, it appears tonight’s primetime address is a moment we would all do well to listen in on. If he truly feels himself to have the authority to directly do battle with the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution via Executive Authority, it will very likely initiate a public outcry and resulting legal battle not seen in quite some time.

Here’s hoping someone in the White House steers this president away from such a precipice and interjects some common sense into what is a terribly important time for the safety and security of the United States.

He would do well to understand that guns weren’t to blame for San Bernardino anymore than planes were to blame for September 11th, 2001.

Muslim terrorists were.

http://dcwhispers.com/breaking-obama...etime-address/

Washington (AFP) - President Barack Obama will make a rare primetime address Sunday laying out how he plans to keep Americans safe and defeat the Islamic State group, days after 14 people were shot dead in California.

Obama's top law enforcement officer, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, said the president planned to give reassurance to a US public that has become jittery about more possible terror attacks on the home front. "The president understands the country is very concerned about this issue, and I think what you'll hear from him is a discussion about what the government is doing to ensure our highest priority," Lynch told NBC television's "Meet the Press" program.

"You may hear him call on Congress to review measures and take action as well," Lynch said on Sunday. "But I think what you'll hear the president say is to call on the American people to not give into fear."

The Oval Office address is scheduled for 8 pm Sunday (0100 GMT Monday).

Obama declared Saturday that the United States "will not be terrorized," as IS praised the married couple behind the mass shooting in San Bernardino as "soldiers" of its self-proclaimed caliphate.

- An exhortation to 'uphold our values' -

"We are Americans. We will uphold our values -- a free and open society," the president said in his weekly address.

Investigators are combing over evidence and looking into the background of Syed Farook, 28, and his 29-year-old Pakistani wife Tashfeen Malik, who opened fire Wednesday at a social services center.

The FBI said federal agents raided a property in Riverside, California, but declined to provide details.

The FBI is investigating the shooting as a possible act of terrorism.

NBC News reported that the FBI had searched the home of Enrique Marquez, a friend of Farook's who originally bought the assault rifles used in the shooting but who is not considered a suspect.

If the shooting is proven to be terror-related, it would be the deadliest such assault on American soil since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Obama last gave an Oval Office address in August 2010 to mark the end of US combat operations in Iraq.

In addition to an update on the probe, Obama will "discuss the broader threat of terrorism, including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how we will defeat it," the White House said.

Top security officials have indicated that the two deceased suspects had been radicalized.

But the White House and the FBI say there are no signs they were part of a larger group or terrorist cell.

In an English radio broadcast, IS praised the two as "soldiers of the caliphate" and martyrs, but did not specifically say they were members of the group.

The heavily-armed pair, who also wounded 21 in their attack, died in a shootout with police after a manhunt.

The rampage was the worst in the United States in three years and revived impassioned debate on gun control in a country where such mass killings have become routine.

The New York Times on Saturday published a front-page editorial -- the first since 1920 -- calling for an end to "the gun epidemic in America."

In contrast, the president of Liberty University, a conservative Christian school, urged students to get permits to carry concealed weapons on campus. "I've always thought if more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in," Jerry Falwell Jr. said at the school's convocation to loud cheers.

- Quiet couple -

Authorities say Malik and Farook, who was US-born, carefully planned their attack.

David Bowdich, the assistant FBI director in charge of the Los Angeles office, said investigators were examining a Facebook posting in which Malik is believed to have pledged allegiance to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, made around the time of the attack.

The family's attorneys said that while the two were devout Muslims, there was no hint they had become radicalized.Relatives have been at a loss to explain what triggered the killing spree, describing them as a quiet couple who kept to themselves. They had a six-month-old daughter, whom they left with Farook's mother before the shooting.

- 'New approach needed' -

Officials in Washington has long warned of the threat of homegrown, self-radicalized extremists. "We have moved to an entirely new phase in the global terrorist threat and in our homeland security efforts," Homeland Security Secretary J Johnson told the Times. Terrorists have "in effect outsourced attempts to attack our homeland. We've seen this not just here but in other places," he added. "This requires a whole new approach, in my view."

Donald Trump, the 2016 Republican presidential frontrunner, gave little doubt as to how he would deal with any terror threat from within. "I would handle it so tough, you don't want to hear," CNN quoted him as saying.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-primetim...011702678.html

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/why-h...ombined_122015

We live in a world of short-term memories and long-term memory deficiencies. If the 24-hour news cycle was any indication, Americans appear to be bouncing from one catastrophic mass shooting to the next, with hardly any breathing room. Like this is just a regular occurrence America has learned to endure because… guns. It’s the prevalence of firearms in the hands of the people, the anti-gunners say. Calls to limit, rewrite, redefine, or outright dispose of the 2nd Amendment are rampant.

But no one is looking at the data. If they did, they would realize something is really, really, really wrong here.

No, there haven’t always been so many mass shootings. It hasn’t always been this way. Mass shootings have skyrocketed in this country just in the last seven years under President Obama.

The following was compiled using the database over at Mother Jones on mass shootings in the U.S. from 1982—2015, up to and including the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon on October 1st, 2015. It also includes the Wikipedia lists for mass shootings in the United States by year and postal killings in the U.S.

The following analysis considers the FBI’s definition of a mass murder, which is defined as “a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders”.

When all incidents where four or more people were shot in a single event are broken out by president going back to Reagan (considering the database only stretches back to 1982), there just so happens to have been a startling increase in mass shootings since Obama, the most pro-gun control president America has had in modern history, took office.


Mass Shootings under the Last Five Presidents

Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989 (8 years) 11 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

George H. W. Bush: 1989-1993 (4 years) 12 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3

Bill Clinton: 1993-2001 (8 years) 23 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4

George W. Bush: 2001-2009 (8 years) 20 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2015 (in 7th year) 162 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

(You can download the full list of names, dates, locations, and numbers of deaths per mass shooting by president prepared for this article here.)

Look at the difference between all other presidents and Barack Obama.

What that looks like on a chart:



Notice anything here? We’re talking about a more than six-fold increase from the number of mass shootings in the eight years Bush Jr. was president compared to the last seven years under Obama, and his 2nd term isn’t even up yet!

Not only that, but the number of mass shootings where the shooter killed eight or more people has also increased rather significantly:



What is going on here?

Obviously this isn’t so easily simplified as more guns in the hands of more crazy people, the way the media likes to spin it. We have more gun laws now than ever before. Less types of guns are legally available to the average citizen than ever before. We also have more “gun-free zones,” zones where, just by the way, most of these shootings happen (because mass shooters do not follow laws or care about zones, obviously). So that’s not it.

We have debated whether or not antidepressant medications are playing a role in these events. Even a cursory glance at the SSRI stories school shootings database would suggest there is some substantial evidence behind this theory. We know that many of these mass shooters were either on psychotropic medications at the time of the shooting, or withdrawing from them.

However, Prozac was approved for use in the United States back in 1987. Antidepressant medications have been around and in widespread use in America for decades now. That factor alone cannot entirely explain all these mass shootings recently.

Not to mention that five out of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in American history have happened not just since Barack Obama became president, but just under his first term as president alone. That’s nearly half.

Something else is going on here.

So… what is it?

After the controversial Sandy Hook shooting, Obama passed 23 gun control executive orders. He continually says wants to do more and he’s frustrated with how limited his powers as mere president are. He continually mentions wishing America’s gun control mirrored that of the UK and Australia, two countries that passed strict, sweeping gun bans following what many have called single mass shooting false flag events which happened just weeks apart in March and April 1996.

Speaking of Australia’s gun control laws after the suspicious Charleston shooting, Obama said:

“It was just so shocking the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws’, and they did. And it hasn’t happened since,” Obama said, discussing the shooting deaths of nine people at a historic black church in Charleston last week.

The suspicious April 1999 mass shooting at Columbine High School didn’t accomplish nearly the same gun control implementation here in America, although it did happen under another highly pro-gun control president, Bill Clinton. Perhaps one false flag just isn’t enough in a country that has been built upon a Constitution with a Bill of Rights and a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps it can only be killed death-by-a-thousand-cuts style.

Now Obama says gun control will be his #1 top issue of focus for the last year of his final term as president.

He says his biggest frustration has been his inability to pass more gun control legislation.

He condemns these “routine” events and calls for more gun control each time another one happens. After the recent Planned Parenthood shooting, he said, “we can’t let this become the new normal… enough is enough.”

But when did it become the new normal? While the 2nd Amendment continues to be attacked each and every time another mass shooting occurs, just realize something: these events were never this “routine” until Obama became president.