Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

As you obviously are intent on continuing to indulge what i consider paranoid delusion, i see no point in wasting any more time in such a conversation.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote : "Well, as far as I'm concerned, there isn't much difference between Osama bin Ladn and people who want to ban weapons. "

i guess i better not cross the border into the united states because orallay will hunt me down and kill me - i'm assuming that's want he would want to do obl ; or is he planning to roll out the welcome mat for osb ?
i assume that obl also doesn't think much of gun control either , so he should find a fitting comrade in orallay .
(i think i'm having a nightmare and it'll all fade away in the morning)
hbg

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Yeah, the rough draft suggests we should consider something.

That's proof enough for me that they want to do it.

You seem to be intent on obfuscating the motives of these groups.

Why?

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

i guess i better not cross the border into the united states because orallay will hunt me down and kill me -

"Killing those who would destroy our freedom" is a job for government employees. I'm happy to leave it to them. It is what we pay the military to do, and it's what they spend their lives training for.

But I will ask you this: why do you oppose our freedom? (I am presuming here that you are opposed to our Constitutional rights, based on your comment that you believed I might hunt you down.)

0 Replies

orallay wrote :
"But I will ask you this: why do you oppose our freedom? (I am presuming here that you are opposed to our Constitutional rights, based on your comment that you believed I might hunt you down.) "

of course , i don't oppose your freedom , since i live in canada i have no right to oppose your freedom .

i do think far too many people are killed by firearms all over the world .
i'm sure there have been some instances where individuals have been able to defend themselves by use of a firearm , but i also believe that many people have been killed by unjustified use of a firearm .
i still think it's the job of the police to provide for public safety . if we think that police cannot provide sufficient safety , we better hire more more of them .
i'm not familiar enough with the united states constituion to make valid comments on the 'right to bear arms' , i'll leave that to those with proper knowledge of the constitution .
(as an aside : some comments have been made about the swiss being allowed 'to bear arms" . they are issued arms to defend their country , not to go banging around the neighbourhood .
to the best of my knowledge there are very few shooting deaths in switzerland . the swiss take their 'right to bear arms' seriously .)
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

orallay wrote :
of course , i don't oppose your freedom , since i live in canada i have no right to oppose your freedom .

Then you shouldn't feel that I am calling for your demise.

hamburger wrote:

i do think far too many people are killed by firearms all over the world .

Why does it matter that it was a firearm that was used to kill them?

They'd be just as dead if they were killed with knives instead.

hamburger wrote:

i still think it's the job of the police to provide for public safety . if we think that police cannot provide sufficient safety , we better hire more more of them .

If we were to hire enough police to make self-defense unnecessary, it would make for an oppressive police state (not to mention the devastating effect on the economy).

hamburger wrote:

(as an aside : some comments have been made about the swiss being allowed 'to bear arms" . they are issued arms to defend their country , not to go banging around the neighbourhood .
to the best of my knowledge there are very few shooting deaths in switzerland . the swiss take their 'right to bear arms' seriously .)
hbg

Actually, it isn't even a right in Switzerland. They just have a system in place that is identical to what the Constitution demands that we have in place in our country, which makes them a convenient model to point to.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
Yeah, the rough draft suggests we should consider something.

That's proof enough for me that they want to do it.

You seem to be intent on obfuscating the motives of these groups.

Why?

If someone considers but decides against doing it then obviously they are intent on doing it.

I find that one hard to swallow no matter how many times you repeat it.

The treaty says no such thing. The language you object to was in a rough draft but removed. The language in that rough draft can be read a couple of ways so it is confusing. I read it quite different from you. The US does not allow unrestricted ownership of military style weapons which is what the language in the paragraph you posted states. Nothing equates to the UN wants to ban guns unless you make up motives you can't support except by providing splinter group websites. There is nothing in the UN website except misreading of rough drafts that supports your contention.

0 Replies

Quote:

I have tons of basis for it. There is the fact that they are following the same path that gun banners always start out with, and there is the fact that they have made it clear that they plan to ban at least some classes of guns.

So that means that in every instance of restrictions on firearms it has led to the complete banning of guns? Or is your logic flawed?
There is plenty of evidence of places that have restrictions on some weapons and no ban on all weapons. The US being a prime example with over 70 years of gun restrictions but still no ban. England has no ban on all weapons. Nor does Australia. LA doesn't ban all guns.

Quote:

The fact that they cannot force their agenda on us does not make it paranoid to point out the fact that they do have such an agenda.

What makes it paranoid is to claim they have an agenda when you can't provide much evidence other than illogical arguments.

0 Replies

Quote:

I have tons of basis for it. There is the fact that they are following the same path that gun banners always start out with, and there is the fact that they have made it clear that they plan to ban at least some classes of guns.

So that means that in every instance of restrictions on firearms it has led to the complete banning of guns? Or is your logic flawed?
There is plenty of evidence of places that have restrictions on some weapons and no ban on all weapons. The US being a prime example with over 70 years of gun restrictions but still no ban. England has no ban on all weapons. Nor does Australia. LA doesn't ban all guns.

Quote:

The fact that they cannot force their agenda on us does not make it paranoid to point out the fact that they do have such an agenda.

What makes it paranoid is to claim they have an agenda when you can't provide much evidence other than illogical arguments.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

If someone considers but decides against doing it then obviously they are intent on doing it.

They didn't decide not to do it. They were prevented from doing it by John Bolton.

When John Bolton prevented them from doing it, these people who you claim "decided not to do it" put up a huge storm of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Then, these people who you claim "decided not to do it" did it in a regional accord where they did not have to include the US.

More recently, these people that you claim "decided not to do it" have renewed their push for a global accord that would do it.

parados wrote:

The language in that rough draft can be read a couple of ways so it is confusing. I read it quite different from you. The US does not allow unrestricted ownership of military style weapons which is what the language in the paragraph you posted states. Nothing equates to the UN wants to ban guns unless you make up motives you can't support except by providing splinter group websites.

Groups of the same diplomats who were responsible for this treaty are hardly a splinter group.

And these groups make it quite clear that they are calling for a ban on ownership, not calling for a ban on unrestricted ownership.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So that means that in every instance of restrictions on firearms it has led to the complete banning of guns? Or is your logic flawed?
There is plenty of evidence of places that have restrictions on some weapons and no ban on all weapons. The US being a prime example with over 70 years of gun restrictions but still no ban. England has no ban on all weapons. Nor does Australia. LA doesn't ban all guns.

I find your attempt to insert the word "all" here to be disingenuous.

If the government prevented Freedom of Speech on the internet, on TV, on radio, and at public gatherings, but allowed people to express themselves by using a stick to scrape words in the sand, would you be arguing that there was no violation of Freedom of Speech, using the logic that "not all speech was being restricted"???

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The fact that they cannot force their agenda on us does not make it paranoid to point out the fact that they do have such an agenda.

What makes it paranoid is to claim they have an agenda when you can't provide much evidence other than illogical arguments.

I have provided the document where they tried to put the global ban in their treaty.

I have provided the regional treaty that they then put into effect when they couldn't get their ban in the global treaty.

I have provided the results of their meeting where they made plans for another push for a global ban.

I have provided documentation from the NGO that is helping to craft these bans.

0 Replies

Orallroy, is that the business end of an ICBM in your avatar?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Oralloy, is that the business end of an ICBM in your avatar?

SLBM.

I think it's the old Poseidon MIRV that had those small 40-50 kiloton warheads.

I cropped it from a picture on this page:

http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/stockpile.cfm

0 Replies

Cool. I worked on those, and Tridents too.

0 Replies

Please show me the place where the only gun allowed is a stick and some sand.

"Ban guns" has meaning
To "ban guns" would mean there can be no guns. It does not mean there can be some guns since then guns would not be banned. To ban speech would mean there can be no speech. You can ban speech on the internet but that is NOT the same thing as "banning speech." It is resctricted to the modifier. Your argument seems to be that any restriction is a banning of guns.

Certainly we can both agree that the US already prevents ownership of some arms. I can't own a nuclear missile for example. (or a sawed off shotgun)

If we use your term 'ban guns' meaning ban a type of gun then there can be little question that Bolton is proposing to ban guns since he supports the prohibition on the illegal trafficking of guns. That prevents me from owning a weapon purchased illegally. I am banned from owning it.

By your support of the Miller case I am forced to reach the conclusion that you oralloy are for banning guns since you think sawed off shotguns should be banned.

Are you for banning guns or not? You can't use "ban guns" as only some guns and interchange it with "ban guns" meaning all guns. Don't whine when I get specific about "all guns" when you are purposefully not specific.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Please show me the place where the only gun allowed is a stick and some sand.

England, and Australia.

parados wrote:

To "ban guns" would mean there can be no guns.

If someone has a gun, and you tell him he can't have his gun anymore, that is a ban on his gun.

It doesn't matter if you tell him there are less effective guns that he can still have. You are still banning his gun.

parados wrote:

You can ban speech on the internet but that is NOT the same thing as "banning speech."

It is as far as I'm concerned.

parados wrote:

Certainly we can both agree that the US already prevents ownership of some arms. I can't own a nuclear missile for example. (or a sawed off shotgun)

Unless prevented by state or local law, you can own a sawed-off shotgun if you register it the same way you would a machinegun.

parados wrote:

If we use your term 'ban guns' meaning ban a type of gun then there can be little question that Bolton is proposing to ban guns since he supports the prohibition on the illegal trafficking of guns. That prevents me from owning a weapon purchased illegally. I am banned from owning it.

You would be able to own the same type of weapon if you purchased it legally however.

parados wrote:

By your support of the Miller case I am forced to reach the conclusion that you oralloy are for banning guns since you think sawed off shotguns should be banned.

No. First, the Miller ruling never concluded that short-barreled shotguns were inappropriate. They merely said it had not been established that they were appropriate, and sent it back to the lower courts.

Had proceedings continued, Miller's lawyers could have tried to make a case that such weapons were covered by the Second Amendment.

In addition, simply acknowledging that the Second Amendment doesn't cover a type of weapon doesn't mean that I want it banned.

For instance, the Second Amendment does not cover fully functional civil war cannons. But I would object quite strenuously to any attempt to restrict my ability to own one.

parados wrote:

Are you for banning guns or not? You can't use "ban guns" as only some guns and interchange it with "ban guns" meaning all guns. Don't whine when I get specific about "all guns" when you are purposefully not specific.

I am against banning any gun that works by expelling kinetic energy projectiles.

I am strongly against banning those guns that we have the right to have (automatic rifles with AP ammo).

I'm OK with banning grenade launchers.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am against banning any gun that works by expelling kinetic energy projectiles.

I'm not sure what you are for oralloy. You did say this earlier about the banning of sawed off shotguns.

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:
In 1939, an appeal was made to the Supreme court by a representative of the Justice Department after an idictment was quashed against two men for transporting a sawed-off shotgun. In The United States versus Miller, the Court held:

Quote:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

This case can be read at this Findlaw page.

A good ruling.

I wish they'd start enforcing it.

0 Replies

For anybody who may have missed it...

There are four basic reasons for something like the second ammendment.

Every one of the founding fathers is on record to the effect that private ownership of firearms, the 2'nd ammendment, is there as a final bulwark against the possibility of government going out of control. That is the most major reason for it.

At the time of the revolution and for years afterwards, there were private armies, private ownership of cannons and warships. . . The term "letters of marque, and reprisal" which you read in the constitution indicates the notion of the government issuing a sort of a hunting license to the owner of a private warship to take English or other foreign national ships on the high seas, i.e. to either capture or sink them. The idea of you or me owning a Vepr or FAL rifle with a 30-round magazine is not likely to have bothered any of those people.

The most major motivation for the present generation of gun-control laws, i.e. the problem with drug-dealers owning AKs, is a drug problem and not a gun problem. Fix the drug-problem, i.e. get rid of the insane war on drugs and pass a rational set of drug laws, and both problems will simply go away. A rational set of drug laws would:

* Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.

* Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.

* Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, or any other sort of Jeckyl/Hyde formula.

* Do the same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem, the gun problem, and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years.

But I digress. The 2'nd ammendment is there as a final bulwark against our own government going out of control. It is also there as a bulwark against any foreign invasion which our own military might not be able to stop.

Just prior to WW-II breaking out in the Pacific, a meeting took place in Tokyo in which a number of Japanese general officers asked Isoroku Yamamoto, the only one of their number to hve spent any time in the United States, what the problem was; why not simply invade the place and get it over with. Admiral Yamamoto replied that the problem was not the US military, that there were fifty million lunatics in this country who owned military style weaponry and practiced with it, and that there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". This apparently bothered him a great deal more than the 300,000 or so guys in uniform prior to the war.

A third obvious reason for private ownership of firearms is to protect yourself and your family from criminals and wild animals. Criminals in fact are not the sum total of problems in the world which firearms can help in dealing with. In particular, we read about tens of thousands of people being killed every year by poisonous snakes in India; it's hard to picture that happening if the people were armed.

Finally there's a fourth reason for the 2'nd ammendment, which is to provide the people with food during bad economic times. When you listen to people from New York and from Texas talk about the depression of the 30's, you hear two totally different stories. The people in New York will tell you about people starving and eating garbage, and running around naked. The Texans will tell you that while money was scarce, they always had 22 and 30 caliber ammunition, and that they always had something to eat, even if it was just some jackrabbit.

Eating is habit-forming; in any general societal breakdown which might be caused by a war, a major terrorist success, or whatever other cause, this last rationale for the 2'nd ammendment could very quickly become the most important.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
Please show me the place where the only gun allowed is a stick and some sand.

England, and Australia.

Really? You can own a gun in both England and Australia

Over 650,000 registered shotguns in England.

Australian laws seem to be similar to English laws. Guns are not banned. Registration is required but guns aren't restricted to only a stick and some sand.

0 Replies

Another problem with gun-grabbing which many are not aware of, is that after a government like that of Britain or Australia has grabbed all the guns, they start looking for other things to grab; that is because of the nature of beaurocracies and the manner in which they seek at all times to expand and aggrandize their own powers.

In England as I read it, the next effort is going to be the banning of all but the smallest and most harmless of knives and, again as I read it, medical organizations there are demanding this even now.

Axes would almost certainly have to go as well. In fact to my knowledge, neither Jack the Ripper nor Lizzy Borden ever owned a firearm.

Then again, there is the modern compound bow. Robin Hood would have given his ass, Maid Marian, Maid Marian's mamma, and anything else you might have asked for for one of these. They produce velocities which can go over twice anything longbows ever achieved and are significantly easier to shoot and more accurate. The UN will almost certainly want to ban these.

I mean, once a bunch of control freaks get going, they're hard to stop.

0 Replies

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know