9
   

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

Forums: Politics, Guns, Gun Control, Gun Nuts, United Nations
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 11:44 am
Yee-haw! Round up the books and the gasoline! We's gonna burn us summa them thar librul books!

...And we're supposed to be scared of the UN?!
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 24 May, 2006 11:46 am
D'artagnan wrote:
It's cold in here--let's throw Al Franken on the fire...


It would take three days to put that grease fire out.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 11:46 am
We could burn the UN ! ! !


But, i forget myself . . . we need to await orders from the Obergruppenfuhrer . . .
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 11:47 am
cjhsa wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
It's cold in here--let's throw Al Franken on the fire...


It would take three days to put that grease fire out.


We could throw Rush on the fire, sing Kumbaya and all get high together.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 12:35 pm
blacksmithn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
It's cold in here--let's throw Al Franken on the fire...


It would take three days to put that grease fire out.


We could throw Rush on the fire, sing Kumbaya and all get high together.

That's just so wrong bs, Rush is a patriot!
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 01:09 pm
That's true, he's certainly done his fair share to shore up the American pharmaceutical industry!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 01:34 pm
cjhsa wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
It's cold in here--let's throw Al Franken on the fire...


It would take three days to put that grease fire out.


Just imagine if it were Michael Moore ....
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 01:47 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
It's cold in here--let's throw Al Franken on the fire...


It would take three days to put that grease fire out.


Just imagine if it were Michael Moore ....
Or Rush Limbaugh, Then we'd all be loaded too!
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 04:31 pm
parados said...

Quote:
The cry of the brainwashed -"The treaty says no such thing so it MUST be the true purpose."


We have had this argument before,and you have taken that exact position.

Let me refresh your memory.
You and others have said that since the constitution does not mention abortion,then it is constitutional under several clauses,namely the "right" to privacy.
You have also said that there is an "implied" right to privacy in the constitution,even though it does not mention that specifically.

So,now you are saying that if it isnt in the treaty,then it doesnt exist.

Whats the difference?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Wed 24 May, 2006 05:35 pm
mysteryman wrote:
parados said...

Quote:
The cry of the brainwashed -"The treaty says no such thing so it MUST be the true purpose."


We have had this argument before,and you have taken that exact position.

Let me refresh your memory.
You and others have said that since the constitution does not mention abortion,then it is constitutional under several clauses,namely the "right" to privacy.
You have also said that there is an "implied" right to privacy in the constitution,even though it does not mention that specifically.

So,now you are saying that if it isnt in the treaty,then it doesnt exist.

Whats the difference?

One little problem with your argument there mm.

The constitution says in the 9th amendment..

Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words rights exist that are not mentioned in the constitution and the government doesn't get to infringe on those rights just because they aren't mentioned.

Show me where the treaty reserves the ability to do more than the treaty states.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 24 May, 2006 08:12 pm
The treaty serves no purpose in civilized countries. Why in the hell should the U.S. sign it? Do you non Americans think we are uncivilized because we like to hunt and protect our lives and property?

You might want to spend some time in Wyoming communicating with nature.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 08:15 pm
Hey CJ, you wanna go for a cruise with me in my new car?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 24 May, 2006 08:20 pm
What ya' get? Smile
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 08:31 pm
2001 Toyota Camry LE :-)

Brrrrmmmm........ Brrrrrrmmmm.......
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 24 May, 2006 08:38 pm
Cool. I found your other thread.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 08:39 pm
I noticed Cool
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Wed 24 May, 2006 08:50 pm
cjhsa wrote:
The treaty serves no purpose in civilized countries. Why in the hell should the U.S. sign it? Do you non Americans think we are uncivilized because we like to hunt and protect our lives and property?

You might want to spend some time in Wyoming communicating with nature.

Why on earth would the US have export laws when it comes to weapons since they serve no purpose according to you?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 24 May, 2006 09:08 pm
Precisely my point.

Enforce the laws on the books. We don't need more.

I could go on and on how the liberals have fucked everything up with more and more rules to solve complicated problems that would never have been so complicated if they'd accepted the obvious and simple solution in the first place. Don't get me started.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 24 May, 2006 09:24 pm
I promised another opinion on this subject and here it is.

"allthings UN is demonic. a gang of gangs if you will. that the USA has anything to do with the UN xcept to forcefully dismantle it is the hieght of stupidity & antiAmericanism at its most emrassing. Kofi is a punk & the UN are gangbangers. we shall simply do to ANY force that attempts to disarm Americans as we did to the British- kill them"

Sound a little over the top? Guess who wrote that? Very Happy

Gotta love him.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Thu 25 May, 2006 01:21 am
JustanObserver wrote:
oralloy wrote:
You don't seriously think that your childish insults have actually debunked anything????


I'm not going to go back through the thread to see what info I contributed, but certainly cj's main argument about the proposal was completely destroyed. If you don't see that by now, you're incapable of comprehending it.


All cj did was ask about which guns were illicit. He asked this (I assume) because he knows full well that you guys intend to make most people's guns illicit once you get enough tools in place to track down illicit guns.

All you did was make juvenile insults.

All you destroyed is the notion that you might care about our Constitutional rights.
0 Replies
 
 

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
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
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
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fight the U.N. Gun Ban
  3. » Page 14
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.4 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:17:30
▲ ▼