4
   

Ban guns now! It will stop massacre's right?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 06:13 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
What UN treaty do you refer at? You say, you're not fully informed - but how did you here about this treaty when nothing about it has been published?


While it is true that the UN seems to be keeping their proposal a closely-guarded secret this time, given the fact that civilian gun bans in one form or another have been at the heart of their previous attempts, there is much reason to be suspicious of their current attempt.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 06:17 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:


Snopes is wrong. The UN's previous attempts at this treaty have always tried to incorporate a civilian gun ban in one form or another.

The fact that the UN will not let anyone read their current proposal should not be regarded as evidence that this one does not try to do the same.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 06:20 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
There is no UN proposal to ban guns. Never has been one.


Funny how they've been talking for years about banning civilian guns and how they keep trying to push a civilian gun ban into their treaty....
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 06:26 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
George wrote:
NOBODY is really that dumb.


I guess oralloy came along to prove you wrong.


I'd like to take the opportunity to point out to you that your IQ is about a quarter of mine.

That's pretty good, mind you. But you still have no business yapping about the IQs of your intellectual betters.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 06:33 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

You will find the link no longer works, because the UN is now hiding their documents relating to the treaty effort, apparently so people can ignore all the times it was cited in the past, and use the absence of a live cite to pretend that the UN never talked of such a thing.

"hiding" - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/
http://www.poa-iss.org/RevCon2/
http://undocs.org/S/2011/255
http://www.poa-iss.org/InternationalTracing/InternationalTracing.aspx
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ATTPrepCom/Documents/PrepCom4%20Documents/PrepCom%20Report_E_20120307.pdf


Quote:

He may or may not be able to, but I certainly can.

Actually, you didn't. You took something out of context in a guide that states this.....
Quote:
This How to Guide is designed for national law makers tasked with supporting or leading the review
of SALW legislation,

This isn't a treaty at all oralloy. It is merely a guide that countries can use to help create their internal laws. You are so full of **** your eyes are oozing brown.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 06:34 am
@oralloy,
Really? And where is this treaty. Please give us the text to prove snopes wrong.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 06:50 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
"hiding" - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


You are wrong. It means exactly what I think it means.

The UN has clearly been trying to keep the text of their current proposals from scrutiny. And they've clearly been taking down all their past calls for gun bans so that disingenuous posters can pretend that no one at the UN never ever said anything like it.





Some of those links are not to the current effort, but rather are measures salvaged from previous attempts after the NRA successfully blocked their main gun ban plot.

Some of those links are just to general front pages that then lead nowhere useful.

One of them leads to an "not authorized to view this" type of message.

That last link might be useful. It worked, and it dealt with the current round.

Will review it in a moment. But I doubt it has the text of their proposals.



parados wrote:
Actually, you didn't. You took something out of context in a guide that states this.....
Quote:
This How to Guide is designed for national law makers tasked with supporting or leading the review
of SALW legislation,


Nope. Nothing was out of context.




parados wrote:
This isn't a treaty at all oralloy.


Irrelevant. It comes from the same people responsible for the proposed treaty, and it clearly demonstrates their gun banning intentions.

That is more than enough for the purposes of the cite.



parados wrote:
You are so full of **** your eyes are oozing brown.


Liar.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 07:05 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
One of them leads to an "not authorized to view this" type of message.
I guess they must prevent delusional people from seeing it then. All the links work for me just fine.

If some of the links are to the "gun ban plot" then surely you can point to the text in those documents.

A guide to countries for gun legislation is NOT a gun ban. Nor can it be applied to the US under any law. Claiming parts of the guide are an attempt to ban guns in the US is very much taking the words out of context. It is claiming they can apply to the US when clearly they do not.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 07:11 am
@oralloy,
Let's recap here oralloy.
You have been on a rant for several days about how the UN is attempting to take you guns away.

But...
You admit that the US is not part to any treaty that would do that. Ergo, you are irrational because there is no current threat.

You have claimed the US Senate will never ratify any such treaty. Without the ratification the US will not be party to the treaty so if such a treaty existed it would not apply to the US. Ergo, you are irrational because you claim there is no possibility of the threat.

You claim there is no text of this supposed treaty. Yet you claim the treaty will ban guns when you have not read any such treaty. Ergo, you are irrational because you are afraid of something that you admit doesn't exist.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 07:17 am
So did the boys in the blue helmets show up at your house yet, Oralloy? God, you hysterical types crack me up.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 07:19 am
@Setanta,
The men in blue helmets haven't been, but he's certainly due a visit from the men in white coats.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 08:15 am
Perhaps, it would be easier to force the world to speak Esperanto. Naturally, there would be secret meetings of speakers of other languages. Get it? When anything is banned, there is an underground to have it.

It might be easier also to ban sociopathology, by testing children at an early age, and every year thereafter for mental health scores. At least those who fail the tests would be making jobs for many unemployed adults, not to mention those adults involved in the testing and scoring.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 08:36 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Really? And where is this treaty. Please give us the text to prove snopes wrong.


You mean proposed treaty. As you well know, the proposed measures have not yet made it into law.

In any case, were you hoping I'd somehow forgotten all the links that I've provided you over and over in the past?

Such hope is in vain. See. I remember just fine.

(And look out for the text I just highlighted in red if you are still eager to read part of an actual proposed treaty.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A snippet from a 1999 UN report:

Quote:
"States should work towards the introduction of appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine guns)."

http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/presskit/sheet21.htm



The rough draft from what would later become the UN's first small arms treaty:

Quote:
"20. To seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes."

http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf



A fine young diplomat by the name of John Bolton gave the following speech at the convention:

http://www.un.int/usa/01_104.htm

The speech can be loosely translated as "You boys go take out those parts about civilian ownership or you'll find Uncle Sam's boot in your @ss."

(The parts about civilian gun ownership were taken out, and the diplomats of the world engaged in copious whining about how domestic US politics was preventing their global anti-freedom agenda.)



After Bolton torpedoed the UN's attempt to create a treaty that would ban civilian ownership of military weapons, some of the diplomats got together and created a regional treaty, the Nairobi Protocol.

One part of the Nairobi Protocol is:

Quote:
(b) State Parties undertake to :
(iii) prohibit the civilian possession of semi-automatic and automatic rifles....

http://www.smallarmsnet.org/docs/saaf12.pdf
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 08:39 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
delusional people


You sure have a big mouth. You can never back anything up with any facts though.

Your long track record of never being able to show me wrong on a single fact, continues unbroken.



parados wrote:
If some of the links are to the "gun ban plot" then surely you can point to the text in those documents.


Rest assured that I'll quote relevant text in my cites.



parados wrote:
A guide to countries for gun legislation is NOT a gun ban.


When it is a guide for legislation banning guns, it is certainly a call for a gun ban.



parados wrote:
Claiming parts of the guide are an attempt to ban guns in the US is very much taking the words out of context.


That's OK. All I claim is that it shows that the people responsible for the document have civilian gun bans on their mind.

That is more than enough to derail your silly illusion that they do not have such measures on their mind.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 08:41 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Let's recap here oralloy.
You have been on a rant for several days about how the UN is attempting to take you guns away.


Not quite. I've merely pointed out that that is what they wish to achieve with their supposed treaty.

The ranting has all been on the part of people who wish to concoct a smokescreen to try to hide the truths I pointed out.



parados wrote:
But...
You admit that the US is not part to any treaty that would do that. Ergo, you are irrational because there is no current threat.


No. My pointing out the truth about the intent of the UN is hardly irrational.



parados wrote:
You have claimed the US Senate will never ratify any such treaty.


True. You've got something right!



parados wrote:
Without the ratification the US will not be party to the treaty so if such a treaty existed it would not apply to the US.


And another! Are these the first two things you've gotten right this year?



parados wrote:
Ergo, you are irrational because you claim there is no possibility of the threat.


No. Merely telling the truth about what the UN intends is not irrational.



parados wrote:
You claim there is no text of this supposed treaty. Yet you claim the treaty will ban guns when you have not read any such treaty. Ergo, you are irrational because you are afraid of something that you admit doesn't exist.


No. Not irrational to have a reasonable suspicion.

I think your last link (the one I was able to download) might have a proposed text of the treaty. But I'm too tired to absorb it now. It'll be top of the agenda when I wake up.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 09:21 am
@oralloy,
Do you need the word "consider" explained to you?
The US isn't required to ban any guns under your quotes.


I wonder why you feel the US has to be worried about the Nairobi protocol
Quote:
THE NAIROBI PROTOCOL FOR THE PREVENTION, CONTROL AND
REDUCTION OF SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS IN THE GREAT LAKES
REGION AND THE HORN OF AFRICA

Did the US suddenly get transported to Africa in your world?
parados
 
  4  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2012 09:23 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Not quite. I've merely pointed out that that is what they wish to achieve with their supposed treaty.

You haven't pointed out anything they wish to achieve. You have only shown us your paranoid delusions about what you think they might be plotting. There is a difference. One would require facts. The other merely requires your psychotic paranoia and a demand that we accept your psychotic ramblings as factual.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2012 01:04 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
So did the boys in the blue helmets show up at your house yet, Oralloy? God, you hysterical types crack me up.


Nothing hysterical about me merely pointing out the truth about the UN's intent, and backing it up with a ton of links to the UN's own words and deeds.

Seems to be a bit of hysteria on the part of those who didn't want me to come along and post the truth. But no hysteria on my part.



The UN is no threat to me because the NRA is more powerful than the UN is.

The NRA has already informed the UN that the US will never become a party to this treaty.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2012 01:05 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Do you need the word "consider" explained to you?


No.



parados wrote:
The US isn't required to ban any guns under your quotes.


Irrelevant. The quotes still establish a pervasive intent to ban civilian guns on the part of the people who push this treaty.



parados wrote:
I wonder why you feel the US has to be worried about the Nairobi protocol


I wonder why you claim I feel that way, since my post said nothing about the US worrying about the Nairobi Protocol.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2012 01:09 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
You haven't pointed out anything they wish to achieve.


Nonsense. Their repeated quotes calling for restrictions on civilian guns, indicate that they wish to achieve restrictions on civilian guns.



parados wrote:
You have only shown us your paranoid delusions about what you think they might be plotting.


Nope. I've quoted their own words repeatedly calling for civilian gun restrictions.



parados wrote:
One would require facts.


It is a fact that I've once again posted a large volume of quotes, from the people pushing this treaty, calling for civilian gun restrictions.

I haven't yet repeated the views of the main NGO backers of the treaty this time around. Perhaps I should go get those, just for the sake of completeness?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 06:28:04