monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@hightor,

Quote:

the chemistry is mysteriously wonderful.

These things are always mysterious, but common interests usually contribute.

https://www.chappatte.com/prod/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/L180310ge-small-950x651.jpg

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
This article looks about right to me. What seems to be the problem?

The UN was trying to implement a worldwide civilian gun ban with this treaty. Snopes falsely claimed that the UN was not trying to do this.

You can see some of the horrors that the UN was hoping to impose on us in Chapter 3 of this document:

http://vdocuments.site/how-to-guide-small-arms-and-light-weapons-legislation.html
http://www.academia.edu/4171180/_Regulating_arms_in_the_hands_of_civilians_

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The UN was trying to implement a worldwide civilian gun ban with this treaty.

That's not true.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

It is completely true. Look at Chapter 3 in the links in my previous post.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: oralloy (Post 6808985)
Quote:
The UN was trying to implement a worldwide civilian gun ban with this treaty.

That's not true.

Of course it is not. But he and others like him are convinced it is.

Quote:

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant...

The Paranoid Style in American Politics

There are very few essays on American politics and culture more important than this one by Richard Hofstadter.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The UN was trying to implement a worldwide civilian gun ban with this treaty.
That's not true.
Of course it is not.

The UN's own documents plotting it show otherwise.

blatham wrote:

But he and others like him are convinced it is.

We just prefer to adhere to facts and reality.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The UN's own documents plotting it show otherwise.

No they don't. The UN doesn't have that kind of power — unfortunately.

Quote:

We just prefer to adhere to facts and reality.

No, you're just kidding yourself:

Quote:

The final draft specifies “non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction” of signatories.’

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I glanced through chapter 3 and read about the horrors of suggesting limits on guns in the hands of criminals and domestic violence offenders, but I didn’t see anything about a gun ban.

Could you specify a bit more?

Regardless, arent all of these just merely suggestions?

2 Replies

@maporsche,

"total prohibition of civilian possession and use of all light weapons and automatic rifles, semi-automatic rifles, and machine guns;"

"restriction of the number of firearms that may be owned by individuals;"

"weapons for military use and of military capacity have no place in the hands of civilians. However in some nations weapons get classified according to their use, which creates loopholes."

"ban civilian possession of semi-automatic variants of fully automatic firearms because of their lethality and limited utility for civilian purposes"

"allow handguns only for professional security guards and for target shooters who can prove that they are regularly involved in pistol sports"

"A maximum limit can be placed on the amount of ammunition that can be purchased in a month, as well as a limit to the amount of ammunition that can be stored."

"limit the amount and type of ammunition that an individual may purchase or possess"

"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 maybe 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."

"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)."

"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"

"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."

The UN was suggesting them because the UN considered them to be good ideas. And the suggestions were coming from the very UN bodies that were crafting this treaty.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Regardless, arent all of these just merely suggestions?

Even if it was a UN-Treaty (it clearly is just a paper from an UN-agency group), even then: UN treaties are not directly legally enforceable, they do represent binding obligations in international law ... after countries have signed, and ratified or otherwise agreed to adhere to the treaty.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Most of those I have no problem with.

None of those are legally binding, regardless.

It’s just a report on what the U.N. seems is most effective at reducing gun violence.

This is all it takes to get you into a tizzy?

2 Replies

@maporsche,

That you have no problem with violating our civil liberties for fun is exactly why we need to keep voting for Trump so he can protect us from you.

Treaties are legally binding if the courts do not strike them down.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The UN's own documents plotting it show otherwise.
No they don't.

Yes they do.

"total prohibition of civilian possession and use of all light weapons and automatic rifles, semi-automatic rifles, and machine guns;"

"restriction of the number of firearms that may be owned by individuals;"

"weapons for military use and of military capacity have no place in the hands of civilians. However in some nations weapons get classified according to their use, which creates loopholes."

"ban civilian possession of semi-automatic variants of fully automatic firearms because of their lethality and limited utility for civilian purposes"

"allow handguns only for professional security guards and for target shooters who can prove that they are regularly involved in pistol sports"

"A maximum limit can be placed on the amount of ammunition that can be purchased in a month, as well as a limit to the amount of ammunition that can be stored."

"limit the amount and type of ammunition that an individual may purchase or possess"

"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 maybe 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."

"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)."

"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"

"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."

hightor wrote:

The UN doesn't have that kind of power -- unfortunately.

It is always chilling to see the left wish for foreign entities to violate the civil liberties of American citizens.

The UN's plot was to pressure us into adopting a treaty that would violate the Second Amendment, with the expectation that our courts would look the other way and allow the violation to stand.

hightor wrote:

No, you're just kidding yourself:

No. I really do adhere to facts and reality. That's why you can never point out anything that I am wrong about.

Quote:

The final draft specifies "non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of signatories.

It says that because we defeated the UN and prevented them from placing their gun ban provisions within the treaty. This does not change the reality of what the UN was trying to do.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Maybe you could point out where this is a treaty.

I didn’t see that either.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

UN treaties are not directly legally enforceable, they do represent binding obligations in international law ... after countries have signed, and ratified or otherwise agreed to adhere to the treaty.

The UN's plot was to pressure us into signing and ratifying such a treaty.

1 Reply

John Bolton's excellent speech telling the United Nations which orifice they could stick their global gun ban treaty in:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020821044136/www.grip.org/bdg/g1894.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20010726044319/www.un.int/usa/01_104.htm

0 Replies

Anti-UN paranoid fervor on the right goes back to its beginning and, indeed, even earlier. It ties in with the numerous other conspiracy theories such as the Jewish Bankers, Tri-Lateral Commision, etc etc. There are a lot of people, perhaps particularly in the southern states, who bathe in this stuff. My experience is that no amount of evidence of any sort will change their minds. They've got hold of a simple story for extremely complex issues and that suits their psychological needs.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The UN's plot was to pressure us into signing and ratifying such a treaty.

There was no such treaty - your own links prove that.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

There is no such treaty because we defeated the UN and prevented the treaty from being created.

The UN tried to create it. They failed.

Snopes lied to cover for the UN. They failed.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know