I just recorded the treaty being read aloud and then played it backwards. It clearly says "Wayne LaPierre is a sissy-boy!" Maybe there's something to this conspiracy idea...
I can only imagine what it will say if I leave out the word illicit.
"illicit" is not a wiggle word, it's the whole bleedin point of the treaty.
Just like "premeditated", say, is not a wiggle word in the law on murder.
Just to state the obvious...
nimh wrote:"illicit" is not a wiggle word, it's the whole bleedin point of the treaty.
Just like "premeditated", say, is not a wiggle word in the law on murder.
Just to state the obvious...
If the US follows and ratifies this treaty what is to keep some president down the road from changing current gun laws and making all the fire arms I own now illegal? You can't say it is going to happen because Clinton tried with the gun law that expired just about a year ago. Under the UN treaty it would make it illegal to own guns. There where would our 2nd Amendment rights go.
Some of you are so scared of the 1st Amendment going away but could careless about the 2nd. They go hand in hand. The order of importance of the Amendments shows this. With one out goes the other.
Using that logic, what's to keep any future President from changing any law he damn well pleases? Hmm. Well, first of all Civics 101, Presidents may propose, but Congress disposes. Second, assuming arguendo that such an unconstitutional law as you posit was put into effect, the courts would then provide an arena to determine it's validity.
If you simply want to chuck all that out the window and shriek that it could happen, without any regard to fact, then your into the realm of science fiction so why not just posit that Republican rule extends forever, leading us all into Utopia?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. In spite of all the nominal powers, vested in Congress by the constitution, were the system once adopted in its fullest latitude, still the actual exercise of them would be frequently interrupted by popular jealousy. I am bold to say, that ten just and constitutional measures would be resisted, where one unjust or oppressive law would be enforced. The powers vested in Congress are little more than nominal; nay real power cannot be vested in them, nor in any body, but in the people. The source of power is in the people of this country, and cannot for ages, and probably never will, be removed."
blacksmithn wrote:cjhsa wrote:Obviously you don't understand the meaning of or the reasons to use a wiggle word.
Take out the wiggle word. What do you hear?
The sound of the wind echoing through your empty head...
That was friggin hilarious!
"Wriggle word"?
Man, your really desperate to save your argument here,
cjhsa.
Yes, but if you'll just tilt the treaty sideways and read it with one eye closed, THEN the magnitude of the conspiracy all becomes clear!
I wish I didn't have to scroll through so much chaff to follow a discussion.
McGentrix wrote:I wish I didn't have to scroll through so much chaff to follow a discussion.
There
is no more discussion. cj's assertions have been thoroughly debunked. Now we're just watching him twist in the wind in a desperate attempt to save his argument ("wriggle word," "read it
but take out the word that is the
main point of the entire proposal," etc).
There's something funny/sad about watching someone who simply refuses to acknowledge that they're mistaken, particularly when they've been proven so wrong so clearly. But he keeps coming back for more... Why? I have no idea.
Maybe he's been too much influenced by the Da Vinci Code and sees hidden meanings where none exist...
I have read the treaty,and I have a question.
The treaty covers "illicit" weapons,but by whose definition?
A fully automatic weapon is considered an "illicit" weapon here,but considered the norm and reasonable for protection in Israel.
A sawed off shotgun is an illicit weapon here in the US,but they are considered ok and normal in parts of South America.
So,whose definition of "illicit" will be applied worldwide?
mysteryman wrote:I have read the treaty,and I have a question.
The treaty covers "illicit" weapons,but by whose definition?
A fully automatic weapon is considered an "illicit" weapon here,but considered the norm and reasonable for protection in Israel.
A sawed off shotgun is an illicit weapon here in the US,but they are considered ok and normal in parts of South America.
So,whose definition of "illicit" will be applied worldwide?
If you don't understand what is covered, try reading the treaty again or maybe having an adult explain it to you.
Quote:(d) "Illicit manufacturing" shall mean the manufacturing or assembly of firearms, their parts and components or ammunition:
(i) From parts and components illicitly trafficked;
(ii) Without a licence or authorization from a competent authority of the
State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or
(iii) Without marking the firearms at the time of manufacture, in accordance with article 8 of this Protocol; Licensing or authorization of the manufacture of parts and components shall be in accordance with domestic law;
(e) "Illicit trafficking" shall mean the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or transfer of firearms, their parts and components and ammunition from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it in accordance with the terms of this Protocol or if the firearms are not marked in accordance with article 8 of this Protocol;
The treaty never ONCE mentions an "illicit weapon" or an "illicit firearm".
It only talks about illicit trafficking and illicit manufacuring and DEFINES the terms.
Anyone that brings up a specific weapon obviously didn't understand what they read or they are lying about reading it.
Every use of "illicit" in the treaty is followed by "manufacturing" or "trafficking." except for one instance of "illicit activities" that refers back to "trafficking" and "manufacturing" in the previous paragraph.
The problem is the brain dead libs infesting A2K like friggin trolls. They wear blue tin foil hats.
What are you guys, like 17 years old?
You've been sold a line by your professors.
The U.N. isn't your ally if you are a U.S. citizen. This much is obvious to anyone with half a brain.
Baldimo wrote:If the US follows and ratifies this treaty what is to keep some president down the road from changing current gun laws and making all the fire arms I own now illegal?
Whats to keep some president from doing that if the US
doesnt ratify the treaty? In as far as thats a risk, its a risk either way, UN treaty got nothing to do with it.
Baldimo wrote:Under the UN treaty it would make it illegal to own guns.
Not true. It would make it illegal to
sell or make guns when selling or making them (in that way) is illegal -
according to the laws of the countries involved themselves.
It busts me up that so many here don't understand "wiggle words".
Obviously you've never done any contract based work.
Your youth is showing.
cjhsa wrote:The U.N. isn't your ally if you are a U.S. citizen. This much is obvious to anyone with half a brain.
So basically, you're not opposing this treaty because it actually says any of the sort that you said it does - but because, well, that darned UN is bad, period, so - yeah, whatever the treaty actually
says, its bad news and it should be stopped! ?
Got that right?
No, it threatens gun ownership in any country that signs it. Period.
cjhsa wrote:It busts me up that so many here don't understand "wiggle words".
Obviously you've never done any contract based work.
Your youth is showing.
Obviously YOU have never done contract work. "illicit" is DEFINED as used in the treaty. I posted it above. Please point to the wiggle room.
