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

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.

The gun 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?

If there is even a hint of talk about civilian guns, talk of any sort, the treaty will never pass in the US.

Oh, so you are talking about what they didn't do.

You are only talking about your paranoid fantasy

without any facts of them actually doing anything.

oralloy wrote:

If there is even a hint of talk about civilian guns, talk of any sort, the treaty will never pass in the US.

Exactly. So wtf is all the excitement about???

Beats me. All I did was say I didn't trust the proposal based on the UN's past history of wanting civilian gun bans.

So you are too lazy to look at the treaty that you claim is going to take your guns away.

A lazy paranoid.

Or just afraid the facts won't support your fractured reality?

oralloy wrote:

Beats me. All I did was say I didn't trust the proposal based on the UN's past history of wanting civilian gun bans.

Based on a suggestion? Really? That is all you have so far.

I think you really should consider seeing a mental health professional. And maybe you should look up the word consider again. It doesn't mean they are coming to get your guns.

Hardly paranoid. I've proven that the UN desires bans on civilian guns.

That is more than enough. And the suggestion was repeated throughout the years, often in language that left no doubt as to their desire to inflict the horrors of disarmament upon all civilians.

You haven't proven anything other than you want to change the meaning of the word "consider" and then claim that shows your paranoia is real.

No doubt to those that are willing to ignore the meaning of words.

Wrong. I've proven that the UN desires civilian gun bans.

oralloy wrote:

Wrong. I've proven that the UN desires civilian gun bans.

You have proven no such thing. You have only proven they have suggested that states CONSIDER not allowing certain weapons in the hands of civilians.

That is a far cry from the UN desiring to ban civilian guns.

Paranoia is what makes you think "consider" means "forcibly ban"

I get get over Oralboy's monumental stupidity. The UN can't agree on anything, look at Syria.

Do you think he's abusing propane or something similar?

Nonsense. The fact that they encourage it shows that they desire it

I'm curious, does the fact that you are making such a big fuss over the word "consider" mean that this new treaty proposal urges signatory nations to consider adopting a civilian gun ban????