4
   

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

 
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2012 07:45 am
@oralloy,
Let's ignore the actual words of the treaty and instead rely on oralloy's claims about their intent.

I wonder how that works in the real world for you oralloy. I'm sure some of the people at the Aurora movie theater intended to stop Holmes. That means he was stopped, right? Or should we look at reality of the situation?

But reality seems to be something you have a tenuous grasp of.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2012 09:05 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Let's ignore the actual words of the treaty and instead rely on oralloy's claims about their intent.


I remind you that for most of the time I was talking about intent, we did not have the words of the proposed treaty.

In addition, all discussion of intent since we've gotten the proposed treaty, has involved your strident denials in the face of my providing links that prove I am right.

I imagine we'll keep discussing the UN's intent for as long as you want to deny the reality of the links.


As for the proposed treaty, I have not yet formed an opinion of it. However, I will get to that point soon enough.



parados wrote:
I wonder how that works in the real world for you oralloy. I'm sure some of the people at the Aurora movie theater intended to stop Holmes. That means he was stopped, right?


No. It only means they intended it.



parados wrote:
Or should we look at reality of the situation?


The reality of the situation is, the UN bodies behind this treaty proposal have a long history of calling for heavy restrictions on civilian gun ownership.



parados wrote:
But reality seems to be something you have a tenuous grasp of.


Says the person who can't cite a single instance of me ever getting a fact wrong.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 07:14 am
@oralloy,
We do have the words of the treaty and you don't get to make up meaning that isn't in the treaty.

Intent is merely your interpretation of what you think they wanted to do. The rest of us will rely on the actual words to determine meaning. Something you seem incapable of doing.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 07:18 am
Have the guys in the blue helmets shown up at anyone's house yet?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 07:22 am
@Setanta,
Obviously, that is there intent based on them picking the color blue. They are coming based on their intent. We will just ignore their actions because they don't matter as much as their intent does based on some outside claim.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 07:30 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
We do have the words of the treaty


We do now. We didn't when I was expressing concern about their intentions.



parados wrote:
and you don't get to make up meaning that isn't in the treaty.


Don't worry. I will never do such a thing.



parados wrote:
Intent is merely your interpretation of what you think they wanted to do.


I provided a number of links, quoting them directly, that proves their intent is exactly what I said it was.



parados wrote:
The rest of us will rely on the actual words to determine meaning. Something you seem incapable of doing.


Actually, when it comes to analyzing treaties and law, my capability exceeds yours (and by a very large margin).

That's why you've never once found a single fact that I've ever been wrong about.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 07:33 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
their intent does based on some outside claim.


Links to UN websites showing UN documents, are not an outside claim.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 07:38 am
@oralloy,
Quote:


I provided a number of links, quoting them directly, that proves their intent is exactly what I said it was.

Your links don't prove **** since they have nothing to do with what is actually IN the treaty. How hard is this to figure out oralloy?
You claimed they had intent when you didn't know the actual words of the treaty. Then when the actual words of the treaty PROVE they didn't do what you claimed they would you now claim they intended to do something they didn't do. Your argument makes no sense. It is nothing but paranoid rambling. The facts of what is in the treaty shows your arguments about their intent are incorrect.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 07:39 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
their intent does based on some outside claim.


Links to UN websites showing UN documents, are not an outside claim.
Really? What UN documents showed their intent was to ban guns in the US? I haven't seen any such documents. You certainly haven't provided links to any such documents. You have however shown you don't know the difference between buying guns in the US and international gun trade.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 07:52 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Have the guys in the blue helmets shown up at anyone's house yet?


The NRA is more powerful than the UN, and has informed the UN that their treaty will not be allowed to become law in the US.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 07:59 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Your links don't prove **** since they have nothing to do with what is actually IN the treaty.


Wrong. My links prove what the UN would like to achieve.



parados wrote:
How hard is this to figure out oralloy.


The likelihood of me reaching a conclusion that is contrary to reality is quite slim.



parados wrote:
You claimed they had intent when you didn't know the actual words of the treaty.


Yes. And rightly so.



parados wrote:
Then when the actual words of the treaty PROVE they didn't do what you claimed they would


Hold on there. I've never made any claims about what they were going to do in this treaty.

All I've done is express concern because of the established fact that they wish to ban most or all civilian guns.



parados wrote:
you now claim they intended to do something they didn't do.


Your suggestion that this is a newly-expressed viewpoint is inaccurate.

I have clearly claimed all along that they wish to ban most civilian guns (or even all of them).



parados wrote:
Your argument makes no sense.


Wrong. It makes perfect sense to be suspicious when people who want to violate your rights start pushing a new set of rules or laws.



parados wrote:
It is nothing but paranoid rambling.


Nope. I've provided direct links to the UN showing that my statements about their intent are accurate.



parados wrote:
The facts of what is in the treaty shows your arguments about their intent are incorrect.


Nonsense. Even if the treaty is harmless (which remains to be determined, I've yet to go over it), that would not change the reality of what the UN would like to achieve.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 08:02 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
their intent does based on some outside claim.


Links to UN websites showing UN documents, are not an outside claim.


Really?


Yes.



parados wrote:
What UN documents showed their intent was to ban guns in the US? I haven't seen any such documents. You certainly haven't provided links to any such documents.


Your slipping in the parameter "in the US" is clearly meant to suggest that their general desire for gun bans everywhere does not include the US.

Sorry, but the US is a subset of everywhere.



parados wrote:
You have however shown you don't know the difference between buying guns in the US and international gun trade.


Nope. I have never shown that. Nor is it true.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 11:16 am
@oralloy,
Quote:


Wrong. My links prove what the UN would like to achieve.

No. You produced no such links.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 11:18 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:





parados wrote:
You claimed they had intent when you didn't know the actual words of the treaty.


Yes. And rightly so.




You are right because the actual words of the treaty did NOT do what you said it did?
Do you live in opposite world?
The treaty in no way shape or form will take guns from US citizens. No reasonable reading of it comes close to that. And yet you claim you are right? Please provide the treaty language that confirms your fears.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 11:37 am
@oralloy,
I think you should consider getting yourself checked out by a competent psychiatrist.


Do you think the above statement will force you to go see a psychiatrist? Why not?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:47 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Wrong. My links prove what the UN would like to achieve.


No. You produced no such links.


Yes I have. I've produced them for you about five times now over the years, including once just a week or two ago.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:57 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
You claimed they had intent when you didn't know the actual words of the treaty.


Yes. And rightly so.


You are right because the actual words of the treaty did NOT do what you said it did?


Would you consider getting the following words tattooed onto the inside of your eyelids:

"Oralloy has not yet made any statement as to what the proposed treaty would or would not do."



parados wrote:
Do you live in opposite world?


There is only one reality. I live in that one.



parados wrote:
The treaty in no way shape or form will take guns from US citizens. No reasonable reading of it comes close to that.


We'll see. I have yet to analyze it.



parados wrote:
And yet you claim you are right?


Yes. And I am.

Note that "my claim to being right" does not extend to imaginary statements that I've never said. It only pertains to actual statements that I've made.



parados wrote:
Please provide the treaty language that confirms your fears.


Should I find such language when I analyze the proposed treaty, I will post about it, I promise.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 01:01 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
I think you should consider getting yourself checked out by a competent psychiatrist.

Do you think the above statement will force you to go see a psychiatrist? Why not?


No it wouldn't. Because there is nothing to force compliance.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 07:54 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
"Oralloy has not yet made any statement as to what the proposed treaty would or would not do."

Oh... the other oralloy must have posted this.
Quote:
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.


and this


Quote:
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....


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


oralloy wrote:

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.

I'm a little confused how you can claim they wish to ban guns in the treaty at the same time you say nothing about what is in the treaty.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 07:58 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
I think you should consider getting yourself checked out by a competent psychiatrist.

Do you think the above statement will force you to go see a psychiatrist? Why not?


No it wouldn't. Because there is nothing to force compliance.

And yet you argued that the same language is going to ban guns?
Quote:

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.
And yet the ONLY language you could come up with says this as evidence they were banning guns
Quote:
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)."
The bun prohibition is only a recommendation just as you seeing a psychiatrist was only a recommendation. And yet somehow one has the ability to force action?
 

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 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 08:08:58