Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

oralloy wrote:

nimh wrote:

Allright. So basically both of you oppose the UN treaty not for anything it actually says, but for how it is somehow, in terms of intent and prime movers, a signal for other, actually bad stuff that might still be to come.

The slippery slope argument.

Of course, thats like saying that, say, those who suggest restricting late-term abortion are really proposing "only the first step" in "a dangerous trend" to ban all abortion altogether or, for that matter, take away our condoms. As for the intent of those movers, that might actually even be true, but wouldnt it make more sense to just assess each step on its own merits?

No it doesn't. When faced with people who want to annihilate our freedom, it is required that we fight to the bitter end with each and every step.

They are only trying to put in place stronger methods for tracking illegal weapons now, but as soon as they get those methods in place, then they'll start trying to classify more and more weapons as illegal.

If we can block measures like this to begin with, and make sure it remains nearly impossible to trace weapons, then we won't have to fight the later battles where the freedom haters try to outlaw our guns.

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

You are repeating an argument that has NO MERIT oralloy.

There is NOTHING in the treaty about making any weapon illegal. Go read the treaty before you make such an argument.

Thanks for posting that. It shows that the U.N. is fully for disarming the law abiding public. The attitude expressed in that article is exactly what I'm talking about. How could someone be that pathetic?

I'm still confused. The UN can't do a damned thing. It's a toothless tiger which for the most part provides comfortable high paid jobs for former politicians and their wealthy friends.

I'm still confused. The UN can't do a damned thing. It's a toothless tiger which for the most part provides comfortable high paid jobs for former politicians and their wealthy friends.

[
There is nothing about making weapons illegal for civilians in this treaty because that is not the point of this one. This one is just designed to make it easier to track down people's weapons.

Only after they get enough tools in place to track down all the guns will they start pushing treaties that make guns illegal for civilians.

Precisely my point.

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

I could go on and on how the liberals have **** 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.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

nimh wrote:

Allright. So basically both of you oppose the UN treaty not for anything it actually says, but for how it is somehow, in terms of intent and prime movers, a signal for other, actually bad stuff that might still be to come.

The slippery slope argument.

Of course, thats like saying that, say, those who suggest restricting late-term abortion are really proposing "only the first step" in "a dangerous trend" to ban all abortion altogether or, for that matter, take away our condoms. As for the intent of those movers, that might actually even be true, but wouldnt it make more sense to just assess each step on its own merits?

No it doesn't. When faced with people who want to annihilate our freedom, it is required that we fight to the bitter end with each and every step.

They are only trying to put in place stronger methods for tracking illegal weapons now, but as soon as they get those methods in place, then they'll start trying to classify more and more weapons as illegal.

If we can block measures like this to begin with, and make sure it remains nearly impossible to trace weapons, then we won't have to fight the later battles where the freedom haters try to outlaw our guns.

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

You are repeating an argument that has NO MERIT oralloy.

That is incorrect. They really do intend to ban most civilian guns.

parados wrote:

There is NOTHING in the treaty about making any weapon illegal. Go read the treaty before you make such an argument.

There is nothing about making weapons illegal for civilians in this treaty because that is not the point of this one. This one is just designed to make it easier to track down people's weapons.

Only after they get enough tools in place to track down all the guns will they start pushing treaties that make guns illegal for civilians.

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.

How about removing the verbs or the nouns? Maybe that would make the meaning more clear, too.

I know what an adjective is.

Did you even try removing it?

Did you ever consider the intentions of the group pushing this treaty, the one that Oralroy posted about?

cjhsa wrote:

I know what an adjective is.

Did you even try removing it?

Did you ever consider the intentions of the group pushing this treaty, the one that Oralroy posted about?

Did you ever consider the intentions of hte group opposing the treaty?

You didn't answer my questions about whether you actually support enforcement of gun laws or not. That says a LOT about your intentions right there.

Precisely my point.

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

I could go on and on how the liberals have **** 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.