4
   

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

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 07:24 pm
@oralloy,
Your argument IS a logical fallacy. It begs the question.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 08:04 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Your argument IS a logical fallacy. It begs the question.


No, that is only the case when you pretend that I said things which I didn't actually say.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 08:08 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Sure, the UN wants to ban guns simply because they want to.


Well, who knows what their motives are.



parados wrote:
We don't need no stinking evidence.


I've provided mountains of evidence, and it comes from official UN documents on official UN websites. Mounting an ostrich defense won't make any of that evidence go away.



parados wrote:
oralloy says it's so. Ignore all the words of the UN. We have to listen to oralloy's argument and ignore anything else.



No. Listen to the words of the UN:

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.

http://www.poa-iss.org/mge/Documents/Topics/UNDP_SALW_Legislation.pdf
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 06:04 am
@oralloy,
You have provided mountains of conjecture about the meaning that isn't in the documents.

You argue that limiting the number of guns a person can own is the same thing as banning guns. That is a ridiculous argument.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 06:11 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

No. Listen to the words of the UN:

Nowhere does the UN state that guns should be banned.
Licensing guns does NOT ban them.

You can argue that it does but it only points out your logical fallacy.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 06:43 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No. Listen to the words of the UN:


Nowhere does the UN state that guns should be banned.


The UN advocates measures that are effectively a civilian gun ban.



parados wrote:
Licensing guns does NOT ban them.


Not necessarily. It all depends on the nature of the licensing.



parados wrote:
You can argue that it does but it only points out your logical fallacy.


People who are trying to whitewash the UN's civilian gun ban advocacy may find the truth inconvenient, but that does not make reality a logical fallacy.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 06:44 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
You have provided mountains of conjecture about the meaning that isn't in the documents.


No, I have provided direct quotes from the documents themselves.



parados wrote:
You argue that limiting the number of guns a person can own is the same thing as banning guns.


This is the second time you've made that nonsensical allegation.

I have never made any such argument.

But since you brought it up, again, I will point out, again, that while the thing about limits on number of guns is not nearly as bad as the ban itself, that also is unacceptable.



parados wrote:
That is a ridiculous argument.


The arguments that you pretend that I make often are.

Luckily the arguments that I actually make are rock solid.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 09:09 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

No, I have provided direct quotes from the documents themselves.

You have provided direct quotes that show licensing and number of weapons. Neither of which points to banning of civilian weapons.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 11:26 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No, I have provided direct quotes from the documents themselves.


You have provided direct quotes that show licensing and number of weapons. Neither of which points to banning of civilian weapons.


The licensing scheme involved is effectively a civilian gun ban.

The thing about disguising a ban as "licensing" or "registration" is an old trick. It might fool people in other countries, but it won't fool the NRA.

If the UN's latest treaty proposal has such language in it, you can count on the NRA to block the treaty.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 11:46 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The licensing scheme involved is effectively a civilian gun ban.

No, it's not and you can't show that it is.

Quote:
The thing about disguising a ban as "licensing" or "registration" is an old trick. It might fool people in other countries, but it won't fool the NRA.
No evidence. Just paranoia. You can't fool the people that believe what they want to. Damn the facts.
Cars must be banned because they are licensed.
Drivers must be banned because they are licensed.
Dogs must be banned because they are licensed

Your argument ends up failing big time oralloy.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 04:25 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The licensing scheme involved is effectively a civilian gun ban.


No, it's not and you can't show that it is.


Yes it is.

And sure I can. All I need to do is link to the UN's own words detailing their gun ban scheme. (Note: Done. Repeated my UN cite below.)



parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The thing about disguising a ban as "licensing" or "registration" is an old trick. It might fool people in other countries, but it won't fool the NRA.


No evidence. Just paranoia.


Wrong. Tons of evidence.

Here's the UN's gun ban plot yet again:

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.

http://www.poa-iss.org/mge/Documents/Topics/UNDP_SALW_Legislation.pdf





parados wrote:
You can't fool the people that believe what they want to. Damn the facts.


The UN's documents are a fact.



parados wrote:
Cars must be banned because they are licensed.
Drivers must be banned because they are licensed.
Dogs must be banned because they are licensed


Depends on the nature of the licensing.



parados wrote:
Your argument ends up failing big time oralloy.


No it doesn't.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 06:43 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

Yes it is.

And sure I can. All I need to do is link to the UN's own words detailing their gun ban scheme. (Note: Done. Repeated my UN cite below.)

You keep posting from the UN where they allow people to have guns. Having guns is NOT a ban. Not in the real world.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 07:39 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
You keep posting from the UN where they allow people to have guns. Having guns is NOT a ban. Not in the real world.


Wrong. The UN's proposals would prevent almost all civilians from having any guns.

And that's a ban.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 06:25 am
@oralloy,
Did Australia ban guns?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 06:28 am
@oralloy,
Let's look at what you left out of your quote

Quote:
D) Waiting periods
A waiting or ‘cooling off period’ is a useful measure to establish a distance of time between
application submission, review of the request and the granting of a license. ‘Cooling off’ periods
may also be established between the date of purchase and the date of delivery of a firearm. For
example, a 28-day minimum ‘cooling off’ period between the sale of a specific firearm and the
delivery of this arm to the license holder could prevent ‘impulse purchases’ by license holders.
Why would there need to be a waiting period if guns are banned?


Quote:
C) License and competency certificate renewal
Frequently overlooked is the necessity to ensure periodic renewal of licenses and competency
certificates to keep track of any changes in individual circumstances such as location or ongoing
suitability to possess a small arm. In the case of death of a license holder, conditions should be
stipulated that the arm(s) be surrendered to the state within a designated time-period, and if so
desired, that the beneficiaries of the deceased estate apply for a new license to possess the firearm
and re-register it.
Why would license need to be renewed if guns were banned?

Quote:
A) Licensing criteria
Legislation may establish the criteria against which to assess the suitability and competence
of applicants for licences to possess SALW.
Why would there be criteria at all if guns were banned?
Does the NRA want to ban guns? They have some of the same criteria as the UN document.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 01:09 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Did Australia ban guns?


To a large extent, yes.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 01:11 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Let's look at what you left out of your quote
Quote:
D) Waiting periods
A waiting or ‘cooling off period’ is a useful measure to establish a distance of time between application submission, review of the request and the granting of a license. ‘Cooling off’ periods may also be established between the date of purchase and the date of delivery of a firearm. For example, a 28-day minimum ‘cooling off’ period between the sale of a specific firearm and the delivery of this arm to the license holder could prevent ‘impulse purchases’ by license holders.


Yes. That is another blatantly unacceptable measure. It would be unconstitutional to force an American to needlessly wait for no reason when they wish to exercise their rights.

There is so much unacceptable crap in the UN's document that it is impossible to cite every single atrocity they advocate.



parados wrote:
Why would there need to be a waiting period if guns are banned?


It is for the "special few" who get permission to have a limited number of guns while the general populace is completely disarmed.



parados wrote:
Quote:
C) License and competency certificate renewal
Frequently overlooked is the necessity to ensure periodic renewal of licenses and competency certificates to keep track of any changes in individual circumstances such as location or ongoing suitability to possess a small arm. In the case of death of a license holder, conditions should be stipulated that the arm(s) be surrendered to the state within a designated time-period, and if so desired, that the beneficiaries of the deceased estate apply for a new license to possess the firearm and re-register it.


Why would license need to be renewed if guns were banned?


It is for the "special few" who get permission to have a limited number of guns while the general populace is completely disarmed.



parados wrote:
Quote:
A) Licensing criteria
Legislation may establish the criteria against which to assess the suitability and competence of applicants for licences to possess SALW.


Why would there be criteria at all if guns were banned?


It is for the "special few" who get permission to have a limited number of guns while the general populace is completely disarmed.



parados wrote:
Does the NRA want to ban guns? They have some of the same criteria as the UN document.


No. The NRA does not feel that gun ownership should be limited to a handful of upperclassmen. They want everyone to be able to freely exercise their rights.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 04:18 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
Did Australia ban guns?


To a large extent, yes.

That must be like being a little pregnant or a little dead.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 04:19 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

Yes. That is another blatantly unacceptable measure. It would be unconstitutional to force an American to needlessly wait for no reason when they wish to exercise their rights.

ROFLMAO.. So the current waiting period is unconstitutional? Do you have a court ruling showing that? Or is the the oralloy school constitutional BS?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 04:56 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
ROFLMAO.. So the current waiting period is unconstitutional?


What current waiting period?

In any case, yes. Needlessly hassling people in the exercise of their Constitutional rights, violates the Constitution.



parados wrote:
Do you have a court ruling showing that?


Not off hand. But the principles are pretty straightforward. It is certainly nothing that would warrant digging up a cite.

First, it is off limits for the government to hassle people for no reason when they exercise their rights.

And second, even rational basis review requires the government to have a legitimate reason for any law it passes. Stricter standards of review are even harsher. And the government clearly has no legitimate reason for making people wait needlessly whenever they try to exercise their rights.

(That's also why assault weapons bans are unconstitutional -- no legitimate reason for the government to ban harmless cosmetic features.)



parados wrote:
Or is the the oralloy school constitutional BS?


Pretty big words for someone who can't show a single error I've ever made on Constitutional matters.
 

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 0.09 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 07:42:08