4
   

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

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 10:21 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
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.


Notice how none of those statements say anything about the contents of the current treaty proposal?



parados wrote:
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.


I can comment on what they want to achieve, because their long history of wanting civilian gun bans makes it quite obvious that they want that.

I say nothing about what is in the treaty because I've not yet analyzed it.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 10:22 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
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?


It doesn't have to force action. No talk about banning civilian guns is going to be tolerated in any treaty language period.

If there is even a hint of talk about civilian guns, talk of any sort, the treaty will never pass in the US.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2012 11:08 am
@oralloy,
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.
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2012 02:25 pm
@oralloy,
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???
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 12:57 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Oh, so you are talking about what they didn't do.


I have no idea as yet what they are putting in their current proposal. I've downloaded it, but have not yet gone over it.



parados wrote:
You are only talking about your paranoid fantasy


No paranoia or fantasy. The UN really does have a strong desire for a ban on civilian guns.



parados wrote:
without any facts of them actually doing anything.


The facts will come after I've had time to look over the proposed treaty.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 01:04 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
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.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 07:13 am
@oralloy,
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?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 07:15 am
@oralloy,
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 10:09 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
So you are too lazy to look at the treaty that you claim is going to take your guns away.


I'll get to it. Don't worry.



parados wrote:
A lazy paranoid.


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



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


Reality is not "fractured", whatever that means.

And everything I say is fully in agreement with all facts.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 10:10 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
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.


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.



parados wrote:
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.


It does however mean that I mistrust them when they propose a treaty on guns.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 10:57 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

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

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.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 10:58 am
@oralloy,
Quote:


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.

No doubt to those that are willing to ignore the meaning of words. You really should consider getting mental help oralloy. But that would mean I am forcing you to do so.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 11:32 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
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.


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

And linking to actual facts on UN websites is hardly "paranoia".
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 11:35 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
No doubt to those that are willing to ignore the meaning of words.


Nope. There is no ignored meaning in any of the words. The UN has made it very clear that they desire civilian gun bans.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 03:10 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

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"
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2012 08:56 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
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.


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



parados wrote:
Paranoia is what makes you think "consider" means "forcibly ban"


No such paranoia. And I've never said that "consider" means "forcibly ban".

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????
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2012 03:32 am
@parados,
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?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2012 04:18 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
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?


You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own stupidity.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2012 10:49 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Nonsense. The fact that they encourage it shows that they desire it

I see. Just like your encouraging gun ownership means you desire massacres.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2012 10:50 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
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????

No. it means the ONLY evidence you have come up with uses the word "consider."

And it has nothing to do with the current treaty.
0 Replies
 
 

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 08:55:43