Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

parados wrote:

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.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time reading and a little less time being a dillhole, you would have noticed this post

cjhsa wrote:

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.

oralloy wrote:

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.

oh? Point to the part of the treaty that makes it easier to track down who owns guns?

Laws concerning the ILLEGAL transfer of weapons hardly make it easier to track down weapons owned legally.

More idiocy from the gun nuts that can't seem to read simple english.

The United States Constitution provides for the ratification of treaties by the Senate. Article II, Section 2, the second paragraph, in outlining the powers of the President, reads, in part:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . .

Two thirds of the Senate means sixty-seven Senators (there are one hundred of those overpaid, underworked jokers) must vote to ratify a treaty. The National Rifle Association contributes heavily to election campaigns either directly or by providing lists of approved candiates to their membership. The notion that sixty-seven Senators would be willing to buck the NRA, and the perception that gun-owners are a powerful lobby in this country, is an abusurdity.

The suggestion of it, especially as has been expressed here, borders on hysteria.

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

Missing Guns Raise Eyebrows over U.S. Arms Dealings Abroad

Aaron Glantz, OneWorld US
Thu May 18, 11:41 PM ET

The U.S. government has lost track of over 200,000 machine guns that were supposed to be used by the Iraqi police, according to a prominent human rights watchdog calling for tougher international regulations on arms dealings.

The 99-ton cache of AK47s was to have been secretly flown to Iraq in 2004 from a U.S. base in Bosnia, but there is no proof that the four plane loads of arms ever arrived, said Amnesty International in a report released last week.

According to the report titled "Dead on Time," private arms brokers working for the Pentagon clandestinely shipped hundreds of thousands of weapons and tens of millions of rounds of ammunition from Bosnia to Iraq between July 2004 and June 2005. During those shipments, at least 200,000 Kalashnikovs went missing after passing through the hands of private contractors from a half dozen countries.

"The principal U.S. contracting firm had to use a broker in Croatia that was not known to the Croatian government," said Amnesty's arms control expert Bryan Wood. "They then used a freight forwarding agent in Bulgaria. They contracted a cargo company that had broken the UN embargo on Liberia and also flew an aircraft out that didn't have air operating authorization."

Reached by telephone, officials at the Pentagon would not comment for this story. [..]

According to the humanitarian group Oxfam International, there are currently no global standards for governments' regulation of arms exports and no international requirements for governments to link guns to their location--whether military stockpile, police depot, or civilian home.

This is an especially big problem, says Oxfam, because 12 billion bullets are produced every year--enough to kill everyone in the world twice. [..]

They and other human rights groups have pinned some of their hopes for tougher regulations on a United Nations Summit scheduled to begin June 26th in New York.

Oxfam lobbyist Greg Puley told OneWorld that the 2006 UN Small Arms Review conference will help usher in a new level of agreement "on basic principles--such as you don't sell weapons to people who will use them to commit human rights abuses or other atrocities."

Puley said the European Union--along with a host of African, Asian, and Latin American nations--have already endorsed this position. The Chinese government's position is unknown. The Bush Administration, he said, "hasn't blocked progress."

"It's certainly in their interest," Puley added, "to stop people from selling arms to people who plan to use them for terrorist acts."

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

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.

oh? Point to the part of the treaty that makes it easier to track down who owns guns?

Articles 7 and 8 (which replicate the decentralized gun registration system that was set up here in 1968).

parados wrote:

Laws concerning the ILLEGAL transfer of weapons hardly make it easier to track down weapons owned legally.

Yes they do.

parados wrote:

More idiocy from the gun nuts that can't seem to read simple english.

Don't be a bigot.

So you don't want to enforce US laws then? The treaty doesn't create anything not already in existence in US law.

Since the laws already exist in the US and have since 1968, your fear of losing your weapon has obviously been realized, right?. Your fears have proven correct, haven't they? When did you lose your guns? Or is 38 years not long enough to get over your paranoia?

So, when did you lose your guns? There is nothing in the treaty that is not already US law. Yet you haven't lost your guns under US law.

When the treaty to take your guns away comes along then you can complain about treaties wanting to take your guns away.

Until then you are acting paranoid and demanding we ignore US laws.

While they've not taken away my guns, they do violate my right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000.

Civilization is a failure

Lets just pick random targets and fire every bullet, Launch every missle, Throw every granade........EVERYTHING....lets just fire everthing off at once and see what happens? whatever is leftover is worthy and can start all over.

Man by nature can only end one way. Suicide.

Were already souless

Amigo wrote:

Civilization is a failure

Lets just pick random targets and fire every bullet, Launch every missle, Throw every granade........EVERYTHING....lets just fire everthing off at once and see what happens? whatever is leftover is worthy and can start all over.

Man by nature can only end one way. Suicide.

Were already souless

Speak for yourself-
I happen to believe I still have a soul.....

they do violate my right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000.

parados wrote:

So you don't want to enforce US laws then? The treaty doesn't create anything not already in existence in US law.

I've nothing against enforcing that particular law, or enforcing the treaty if it is passed. The goal though is to do everything possible to block the passage of the treaty, because as soon as they take that step, they'll begin pushing to take the next step, and then the next step....

parados wrote:

Since the laws already exist in the US and have since 1968, your fear of losing your weapon has obviously been realized, right?. Your fears have proven correct, haven't they? When did you lose your guns? Or is 38 years not long enough to get over your paranoia?

No one has taken away guns in my area. However, I've watched in horror as it's happened in other countries, and in other places in this country.

parados wrote:

So, when did you lose your guns? There is nothing in the treaty that is not already US law. Yet you haven't lost your guns under US law.

While they've not taken away my guns, they do violate my right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000.

parados wrote:

When the treaty to take your guns away comes along then you can complain about treaties wanting to take your guns away.

No. I think I'll try to fight them every step of the process.

parados wrote:

Until then you are acting paranoid and demanding we ignore US laws.

It is not paranoid, given that their goal really is to ban virtually all types of guns (and severely limit the number of civilians they allow to have the few remaining types of guns).

oralloy wrote:

they do violate my right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000.

Your right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000?

I dont think it said anything about armor-piercing ammo in the Constitution...

oralloy wrote:

they do violate my right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000.

Your right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000?

I dont think it said anything about armor-piercing ammo in the Constitution...

nimh wrote:

oralloy wrote:

they do violate my right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000.

Your right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000?

I dont think it said anything about armor-piercing ammo in the Constitution...

That would fall under the term "arms".

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

So you don't want to enforce US laws then? The treaty doesn't create anything not already in existence in US law.

I've nothing against enforcing that particular law, or enforcing the treaty if it is passed. The goal though is to do everything possible to block the passage of the treaty, because as soon as they take that step, they'll begin pushing to take the next step, and then the next step....

Just like they took the next step in 1968...

Paranoia oralloy. You are showing us nothing but paranoia.

oralloy wrote:

No one has taken away guns in my area. However, I've watched in horror as it's happened in other countries, and in other places in this country.

Oh? which place in this country took all the guns away? Which other country took all the guns away? Reality or paranoia oralloy? I don't see facts to back up your statement. I see paranoia.

oralloy wrote:

While they've not taken away my guns, they do violate my right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000.

A right? Where is that right written down?

That is one scarey thought. Paranoids able to buy automatic weapons and armor piercing ammo.

oralloy wrote:

No. I think I'll try to fight them every step of the process.

As you stated. That fight was in 1968. You are hardly fighting the process if you are taking it up now without trying to change US law.

oralloy wrote:

It is not paranoid, given that their goal really is to ban virtually all types of guns (and severely limit the number of civilians they allow to have the few remaining types of guns).

The goal? How about the paranoid fantasy, perhaps?

The reality is the treaty says NOTHING about banning every type of gun. It doesn't even come close to banning any type of gun.

You can't present one piece of evidence showing that is the goal.

The reality is we have had the SAME laws in the US since 1968 and all your guns have not been banned. The reality is that such laws did NOT lead to banning all guns. We have a pretty long history of that NOT happening.

oralloy wrote:

nimh wrote:

oralloy wrote:

they do violate my right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000.

Your right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000?

I dont think it said anything about armor-piercing ammo in the Constitution...

That would fall under the term "arms".

So, pursuing your reasoning, a grenade launcher is also protected personal arms?

oralloy wrote:

they do violate my right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000.

Your right to walk into Walmart and buy a full-auto M16 and a box of armor-piercing ammo for under $1000?

I dont think it said anything about armor-piercing ammo in the Constitution...