4
   

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

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 02:25 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Nonsense. The fact that they encourage it shows that they desire it


I see. Just like your encouraging gun ownership means you desire massacres.


No. My encouraging widespread gun ownership means I desire widespread gun ownership.

Just as the UN's encouraging of civilian gun bans means they desire civilian gun bans.

It could not be said that I desire massacres unless I were encouraging massacres.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 10:35 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Just as the UN's encouraging of civilian gun bans means they desire civilian gun bans.

That's funny. Your quote specifically says prohibitin military weapons for civilians.

So. YES, just like your encouraging gun ownership means you desire massacres.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 11:19 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Just as the UN's encouraging of civilian gun bans means they desire civilian gun bans.


That's funny. Your quote specifically says prohibitin military weapons for civilians.


The UN has coughed up a number of quotes over the years, and I've provided all of them to you.

Here is one of the quotes that you've been provided many times:

Quote:
Licence applicants may be required to provide a good reason, justifying why they need to possess a firearm. Legislation may prescribe the circumstances under which possession of a firearm may be justified.

If ‘personal protection’ is permitted as a good reason, applicants should prove to the police that they are in genuine danger that could be avoided by being armed.



Here is another quote I've never provided before, but which comes from nearly the same part of the same document as the above quote:

Quote:
The carrying of firearms in public by civilians should be restricted and it is important that this is explicitly stated that a license does not itself authorise the public carriage of a small arm (an exception can be introduced for ‘on duty’ employees of private security companies, but in this case such employees should be required to possess a special carrying permit).





In any case, the UN considers pretty much any weapon that would be suitable for human verses human fighting (including any gun that might be possibly useful for self defense) to be a military weapon.

The fact that the UN might deign to let civilians own a double-barreled shotgun does not change the fact that the UN wishes to see civilians subjected to a draconian ban on most types of weapons.




parados wrote:
So. YES, just like your encouraging gun ownership means you desire massacres.


Nope. Encouraging widespread civilian ownership does not mean I desire massacres.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 01:57 pm
@oralloy,
Not one of those quotes references banning civilian guns

So.. once again.. using your leaps of logic, your encouraging gun ownership means you desire massacres.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 02:16 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

In any case, the UN considers pretty much any weapon that would be suitable for human verses human fighting (including any gun that might be possibly useful for self defense) to be a military weapon.

Can you provide a written source for that? other than the voices in your head?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 02:48 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Not one of those quotes references banning civilian guns


Preventing civilians from owning a gun unless the government feels that they "need" that particular gun, counts as a ban.



parados wrote:
So.. once again.. using your leaps of logic, your encouraging gun ownership means you desire massacres.


No leaps of logic on my part.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 02:52 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
In any case, the UN considers pretty much any weapon that would be suitable for human verses human fighting (including any gun that might be possibly useful for self defense) to be a military weapon.


Can you provide a written source for that?


You know very well that I can.



parados wrote:
other than the voices in your head?


I find your comments boorish, and not at all befitting someone who is asking me to go look up a cite.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 10:33 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

You know very well that I can.
You haven't so far. Every quote from you requires a tortured reading that has nothing to do with what is actually in the quote.

But then you keep arguing about what is in a treaty that you admit you haven't read.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 10:34 am
@oralloy,
Quote:


Preventing civilians from owning a gun unless the government feels that they "need" that particular gun, counts as a ban.

No, it doesn't. Unless you are willing to argue that the US currently bans guns which makes your entire argument moot.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 12:22 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
You know very well that I can.


You haven't so far. Every quote from you requires a tortured reading that has nothing to do with what is actually in the quote.


Nothing tortured about it. Having to get a government official to agree that you "need" any given gun before you are allowed to buy it, is functionally a gun ban.

It is unacceptable, and if there is any hint of that sort of nonsense in the treaty, the NRA will prevent the treaty from ever becoming law within the US.



parados wrote:
But then you keep arguing about what is in a treaty that you admit you haven't read.


It remains only a proposed treaty.

I have yet to make any argument as to its contents. I will only do so once I am satisfied that I am fully informed as to its contents.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 12:25 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Preventing civilians from owning a gun unless the government feels that they "need" that particular gun, counts as a ban.


No, it doesn't.


Yes it does.



parados wrote:
Unless you are willing to argue that the US currently bans guns which makes your entire argument moot.


If I want to go buy a revolver of a certain caliber, I can go do it.

I do not have to first convince a government official to agree that I "need" a revolver (and "need" it to be that caliber), as the UN wishes I were required to do.

The same applies if I want to buy a rifle of a certain caliber. There is no requirement that I first get a government official to agree that I "need" a rifle (and that I "need" it to be that caliber).
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 08:38 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Nothing tortured about it. Having to get a government official to agree that you "need" any given gun before you are allowed to buy it, is functionally a gun ban.

Any given gun? That is a tortured reading right there. Where did you post anything about "any given gun?"
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 08:41 pm
@oralloy,
It's that slippery slope you like so much oralloy. Suggesting states consider prohibitions on some weapons and require a need is not a gun ban. But if it is then you support massacres.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 10:12 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Any given gun? That is a tortured reading right there. Where did you post anything about "any given gun?"


I don't think I quoted that part before. There is so much UN crap to quote, I could never hope to get it all.

The most important thing is that the NRA is not going to put up with any of the UN's crap, and the NRA is more powerful than the UN.

Anyway, here is a fuller quote:

Quote:
Chapter 3: Regulating arms in the Hands of Civilians

Principle 2: Regulating the use of the firearm

A) Good reason for possession / genuine need

Licence applicants may be required to provide a good reason, justifying why they need to possess a firearm. Legislation may prescribe the circumstances under which possession of a firearm may be justified.

If ‘personal protection’ is permitted as a good reason, applicants should prove to the police that they are in genuine danger that could be avoided by being armed.

. . . .

It should not be sufficient to merely state a reason (for example professional hunting) for owning firearms, but for the interests of public safety, and whenever possible, a proof should be submitted along with the license request (so for example, proof of employment as a professional hunter).


------


Principle 3: Regulating the user of the firearm

E) Number of firearms allowed

Good reason should be required for every small arm possessed under a license (see principle 2 above). Someone may have a good reason to possess a single firearm, but the law should not assume that this same reason automatically justifies a second one, or a third. Each time good reasons should be proven, taking into account the firearms already possessed. In addition, there should be an upper limit for the number of firearms possessed. This limit should depend on the category of arms license. For example, professional hunting associations or private security companies will likely have higher limits than a private citizen.

http://www.poa-iss.org/mge/Documents/Topics/UNDP_SALW_Legislation.pdf
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 10:13 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
It's that slippery slope you like so much oralloy. Suggesting states consider prohibitions on some weapons and require a need is not a gun ban. But if it is then you support massacres.


What it is, is encouragement that they implement a gun ban.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 07:49 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
I don't think I quoted that part before. There is so much UN crap to quote, I could never hope to get it all.

Let me know when you find it. Until then we can both agree you are talking out of your a**.




Your "fuller quote" is out of context.
There are many qualifiers you leave out. The first paragraph of the chapter states
Quote:
Chapter 3: Regulating arms in the Hands of Civilians14
This chapter addresses regulating the use, possession and holding of small arms by civilians, and
examines the key elements to include and consider in the process of changing legislation.15
This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapters 1, 2 and 7 but also has direct links with
legislative provisions in:

You have left out Chapters 1, 2 and 7 and the direct links from your quotes making them entirely out of context.

Then there is this directly before what you did quote:
Quote:

. Many of the elements
listed below may also be contained in secondary legislation, (i.e. regulations, directives, etc.),
depending of the legal system of the country.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 07:50 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:



What it is, is encouragement that they implement a gun ban.

Only if you are arguing that any regulation is the same thing as a ban. Which would mean you are also arguing that any gun ownership is supporting massacres.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 08:14 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
I don't think I quoted that part before. There is so much UN crap to quote, I could never hope to get it all.


Let me know when you find it.


I had already known about it (thus my earlier post commenting about it).

There was no need for me to "find" something that I was already aware of. All I had to do was go to the document and cut-n-paste the relevant text.



parados wrote:
Until then we can both agree you are talking out of your a**.


Nope. I've provided direct quotes from multiple UN documents that all prove the UN's desire for civilian gun bans.



parados wrote:
Your "fuller quote" is out of context.


Very unlikely. But if you feel that there is some sort of missing context, feel free to point that missing context out.



parados wrote:
There are many qualifiers you leave out.


If there are any qualifiers that you believe would possibly impact the fact that the UN wants to ban civilian guns, feel free to list them.



parados wrote:
The first paragraph of the chapter states
Quote:
Chapter 3: Regulating arms in the Hands of Civilians14

This chapter addresses regulating the use, possession and holding of small arms by civilians, and examines the key elements to include and consider in the process of changing legislation.15

This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapters 1, 2 and 7 but also has direct links with legislative provisions in:


You have left out Chapters 1, 2 and 7 and the direct links from your quotes making them entirely out of context.


No. Not quoting those chapters does not in any way make my quotes out of context.

And further, anyone who wishes to review those chapters is free to do so as they please.



parados wrote:
Then there is this directly before what you did quote:

Quote:
Many of the elements listed below may also be contained in secondary legislation, (i.e. regulations, directives, etc.), depending of the legal system of the country.


You are correct that that line is within the document.

Do you contend that it has some sort of relevance? If so, what is that relevance?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 08:24 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
What it is, is encouragement that they implement a gun ban.


Only if you are arguing that any regulation is the same thing as a ban.


Wrong. The fact that some regulation is effectively a ban, does not mean that all regulation is effectively a ban.

Every proposed law must be judged on it's own merits.

The UN's proposal that everyone who wants to buy a gun, should be forced to get a government official to agree that they "need" that particular gun before they are allowed to buy it, is effectively a gun ban.

Other regulation, less draconian, may not count as a ban.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 11:26 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

Wrong. The fact that some regulation is effectively a ban, does not mean that all regulation is effectively a ban.

Every proposed law must be judged on it's own merits.

Unless you are the UN, it seems. Drunk

Quote:
The UN's proposal that everyone who wants to buy a gun, should be forced to get a government official to agree that they "need" that particular gun before they are allowed to buy it, is effectively a gun ban.

There is no such proposal. Geez.. Read what you try to quote from.
 

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 02:47:57