UN ANTI-GUN TREATY IS DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL

@George,

I stopped bothering to talk to Oralboy a long time ago. He's swallowed this paranoid nonsense about the UN wanting to enslave America, hook, line and sinker. He cannot provide sources for any of his outrageous claims, and refuses to accept the validity of the sources other posters provide.

If he doesn't like what he hears he accuses you of lying, or just flatly contradicts everything you say, again without backing anything up.

Talking to him is pointless, he refuses to accept anything that challenges his prejudices.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

He cannot provide sources for any of his outrageous claims,

Liar.

izzythepush wrote:

and refuses to accept the validity of the sources other posters provide.

If you want your sources to be accepted, stop citing your fellow deranged kooks.

izzythepush wrote:

If he doesn't like what he hears he accuses you of lying, or just flatly contradicts everything you say,

You get called a liar because you always lie.

izzythepush wrote:

again without backing anything up.

Liar.

izzythepush wrote:

Talking to him is pointless, he refuses to accept anything that challenges his prejudices.

Your lies are never accepted because they are never the truth.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Then its backers over the years shouldn't have been trying to use it to ban civilian possession of most guns.

I am curious how backers of a treaty that doesn't exist are able to use that non existent treaty to do anything.

Can you explain your lack of reasoning on this one oralloy? Or maybe you are using your lack or reasoning to argue that something that doesn't exist is a threat to you. You really should arm yourself for all those things that might exist in your closet or under your bed.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The texts of the current proposals have been kept secret so far as I can tell.

OMG... you have no idea what is in it but you are absolutely terrified by it!!!!

Quick... go hug your gun!!!

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I am curious how backers of a treaty that doesn't exist are able to use that non existent treaty to do anything.

You know very well that the treaty was proposed and there was a very real attempt to make it exist.

parados wrote:

Can you explain your lack of reasoning on this one oralloy? Or maybe you are using your lack or reasoning to argue that something that doesn't exist is a threat to you.

No such lack of reasoning.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quick... go hug your gun!!!

Stop being childish.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

You know very well that the treaty was proposed and there was a very real attempt to make it exist.

I am curious how a PROPOSED treaty can be used to do anything.

You continue to prove you do NOT have an IQ of 600 in spite of your claim.

1 Reply

The constitution is superior to any provision of an international treaty--this is true of just about any country's laws, by the way. No treaty can be adopted by the United States except by a two thirds vote in the Senate--and any such treaty would still be inferior to the constitution or existing U.S. Law.

Ah, smell the hysteria.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
You know very well that the treaty was proposed and there was a very real attempt to make it exist.

I am curious how a PROPOSED treaty can be used to do anything.

Stop being silly. A proposed treaty can do something by being accepted and becoming an actual treaty.

parados wrote:

You continue to prove you do NOT have an IQ of 600 in spite of your claim.

Big words from someone who can't ever manage to come up with anything I'm wrong about.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Stop being silly. A proposed treaty can do something by being accepted and becoming an actual treaty.

Except you already stated emphatically that the US Senate would never ratify any such treaty.

It's not me being silly.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Big words from someone who can't ever manage to come up with anything I'm wrong about.

I haven't disputed your unsupported arguments with anything you have accepted as fact so that means your unsupported arguments are now facts?

I have disputed several things you have been wrong about. You haven't proved the text of any treaty or proposed treaty. We only have your paranoid fantasies.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Arms Treaty Draft

I believe Article 2, Section A1h is what you're looking for (and also what killed it).

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Thanks Irishk.
That's the draft treaty that they claimed doesn't exist. And it clearly doesn't ban any weapons in the US.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Thanks Irishk.
That's the draft treaty that they claimed doesn't exist.
And it clearly doesn't ban any weapons in the US.

How about Article 10 "Reporting & Record-Keeping" ??????

That woud be an infringement of sovereignty.
Does the US government have authority
to make u keep records of how ofen u read the Bible
or the Wall St. Journal ??? or registering possession thereof ?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I believe that issue (along with many others) was addressed in this letter from a majority of U.S. Senators.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

How about you read the damn thing before you make yourself look stupid David?
They keep records of what they EXPORT.

You do realize that the US currently REQUIRES export controls for weapons leaving the country. I assume someone that is in MENSA would be capable of understanding that you can't export guns without telling the government.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Let us know how your food life comes along after they ban knives in England, Poop...

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

You never miss an opportunity to prove you're a moron.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Arms Treaty Draft

I believe Article 2, Section A1h is what you're looking for (and also what killed it).

Thank u, K.

Small arms (e.g. AK-47 automatic rifles) are what have been used in revolution
against tyrrany in Lybia & Syria, for example.

The general smell and flavor of the treaty is intrusion
upon the sovereignty of the member States
and of their citizens. What is scary is movement toward a world government,
whose jurisdiction woud progressively increase, at the expense of Individual freedom.

For the sake of the children and grandchildren of America,
we shud NOT the Borg. Political momentum with political correctness
is progressively against personal freedom.

In the link below, Law Professor Duane successfully makes the point
that it is close to IMPOSSIBLE to exist without violating laws
of whose existence u r not aware, including the laws of alien jurisdictions
very vaguely imposed upon the American citizenry,
by reference (only) but which include criminal liability.
Take a look:
James Duane is a Professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia,
where he received the Faculty Excellence Award in the fall of 2002

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

We need COUNTER-momentum toward personal freedom,
repealing as many statutes as possible, restoring the status quo ante
as of around 1900.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

They keep records of what they EXPORT.

Article 10, Section 2: Such records may contain, inter alia, quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty, conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and transshipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum often years, or longer if required by other international obligations applicable to the State Party.

1 Reply

UN ANTI-GUN TREATY IS DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know