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

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.

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.

their intent does based on some outside claim.

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

parados wrote:

their intent does based on some outside claim.

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

Have the guys in the blue helmets shown up at anyone's house yet?

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.

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.

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

parados wrote:

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

Yes. And rightly so.

Oralloy wrote:

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

No. You produced no such links.

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.

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

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.

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....

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

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.

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.

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.

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)."