Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

There is a long history of gun banners starting with gun registration, contemptuously telling us that we had nothing to fear about confiscation, and then turning around and banning the guns as soon as the registration went through.

Really? A long history of gun banners? Name three.

New York City, California, Australia, and the UK (there's four) all took guns away from people after first passing a registration program.

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

The people behind the UN's nefarious programs are saying they want to take guns from civilians.

Really? I thought they were saying they want to keep guns from illegal arms dealers, from dictators arming their militias, from people forcing kids to become child soldiers, ....

They say that in addition to their goal of taking guns from civilians.

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

They hate your freedom? How so?

They wish to violate our Constitutional gun rights.

Really?

But the Constitution only says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, right?

How does a registration of guns violate the right keep and bear arms?

It doesn't.

So let me get this right....

If a country bans the ownership of SOME guns or requires registration of SOME guns then it has a gun ban? That seems to be your argument Oralloy. Am I correct?

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

There is a long history of gun banners starting with gun registration, contemptuously telling us that we had nothing to fear about confiscation, and then turning around and banning the guns as soon as the registration went through.

Really? A long history of gun banners? Name three.

New York City, California, Australia, and the UK (there's four) all took guns away from people after first passing a registration program.

Eh? In the UK, you can still get a licence for sporting or work-related reasons. You can get either a firearm certificate or a shotgun certificate. With the certificate, you can buy, own, or use a gun.

In Australia, you can get a licence if you want to hunt, do target shooting, or simply collect guns. You can get a Firearms Licence, and with the licence you can buy, own, or use a gun.

Doesn't the term "gun ban" imply that buying, owning or using a gun would be, you know, banned...?

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

he people behind the UN's nefarious programs are saying they want to take guns from civilians.

Really? I thought they were saying they want to keep guns from illegal arms dealers, from dictators arming their militias, from people forcing kids to become child soldiers, ....

They say that in addition to their goal of taking guns from civilians.

Aha. And do you agree with those additional goals? And if you think that those goals are something desirable, how do you propose to reach those goals?

old europe wrote:

Doesn't the term "gun ban" imply that buying, owning or using a gun would be, you know, banned...?

Civilian ownership of assault weapons is banned in both countries.

I'm ambivalent about the additional goals. If they did not try to register guns or place onerous restrictions on civilian use of guns, I'd not object to their pursuit of those goals.

I have no proposals on how to reach those goals. I just oppose their attempts to violate our rights.

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

Doesn't the term "gun ban" imply that buying, owning or using a gun would be, you know, banned...?

Civilian ownership of assault weapons is banned in both countries.

So? That hardly constitutes a "gun ban."

I mean, sure, in the United States the 2nd Amendment says that the right to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But wouldn't you draw the line somewhere? I mean, stinger rockets are arms. Tanks are arms, nukes are arms. Would you draw the line somewhere?

Okay. So let's sum this up: there's been a proposal, that, even if enacted, would not violate your Constitutional rights. On the other hand, it might do a lot to stop the proliferation of arms, of fuelling civil wars, of arming militias and dictatorships around the globe.

You agree with the goals, but oppose the proposed regulation, because another regulation, at some point in the future, that might follow this regulation, could, maybe, technically, violate your Constitutional rights. Perhaps.

You have no idea how to reach those goals otherwise.

Does that sum it up?

old europe wrote:

I mean, sure, in the United States the 2nd Amendment says that the right to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But wouldn't you draw the line somewhere? I mean, stinger rockets are arms. Tanks are arms, nukes are arms. Would you draw the line somewhere?

The line, wherever it is drawn, must not be drawn in a way that violates our Constitutional gun rights.

The proposals to ban "the types of guns that we have the right to have" would definitely violate our rights.

The centralized gun registration proposal would not violate our rights, but there is no "maybe" about the fact that the UN will follow it up by pushing for a gun ban, or the fact that this ban would violate our rights.

parados wrote:

So let me get this right....

If a country bans the ownership of SOME guns or requires registration of SOME guns then it has a gun ban? That seems to be your argument Oralloy. Am I correct?

Yes. If they ban ownership of some guns, that is a gun ban.

Of particular importance are those types of guns that American's have the right to have under the US Constitution. (Or, if those are already illegally banned, the guns that are most like them.)

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

I mean, sure, in the United States the 2nd Amendment says that the right to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But wouldn't you draw the line somewhere? I mean, stinger rockets are arms. Tanks are arms, nukes are arms. Would you draw the line somewhere?

The line, wherever it is drawn, must not be drawn in a way that violates our Constitutional gun rights.

Ah. You don't have Constitutional gun rights, you have Constitutional arms rights.

Are there any arms you would not want to see in the hands of private citizens? Any?

oralloy wrote:

The proposals to ban "the types of guns that we have the right to have" would definitely violate our rights.

What types of arms, exactly, do you have the right to have?

oralloy wrote:

The centralized gun registration proposal would not violate our rights, but there is no "maybe" about the fact that the UN will follow it up by pushing for a gun ban, or the fact that this ban would violate our rights.

Says you. You really don't know.

You just firmly believe in the scare scenarios of the gun lobby. Just like the majority of Americans believed in the scare scenarios of the Bush admin about Iraq.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

So let me get this right....

If a country bans the ownership of SOME guns or requires registration of SOME guns then it has a gun ban? That seems to be your argument Oralloy. Am I correct?

Yes. If they ban ownership of some guns, that is a gun ban.

Of particular importance are those types of guns that American's have the right to have under the US Constitution. (Or, if those are already illegally banned, the guns that are most like them.)

So then what is your concern since the US already has a gun ban?

old europe wrote:

Are there any arms you would not want to see in the hands of private citizens? Any?

Nuclear weapons and biological weapons.

The Swiss Militia is about the perfect example of what the Founding Fathers intended us to have. Anything a Swiss Militiaman is allowed to keep at home (as of this message) is probably something an American citizen also has the right to keep at home.

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

The centralized gun registration proposal would not violate our rights, but there is no "maybe" about the fact that the UN will follow it up by pushing for a gun ban, or the fact that this ban would violate our rights.

Says you. You really don't know.

No, I really know. They want our guns.

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

Are there any arms you would not want to see in the hands of private citizens? Any?

Nuclear weapons and biological weapons.

So chemical weapons are okay?

Banning neurotoxin bombs violates your Constitutional rights?

Just asking...

oralloy wrote:

The Swiss Militia is about the perfect example of what the Founding Fathers intended us to have. Anything a Swiss Militiaman is allowed to keep at home (as of this message) is probably something an American citizen also has the right to keep at home.

Oh well, I think America would very likely be engaged in far less military adventures if all the chicken hawks that are advocating the invasion of this or that country on every occasion were actually faced with the prospect of getting their precious behinds hauled over to the respective country and defending the United States gun in hand.

So. Yes. The Swiss system appears to have some advantages.

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

The centralized gun registration proposal would not violate our rights, but there is no "maybe" about the fact that the UN will follow it up by pushing for a gun ban, or the fact that this ban would violate our rights.

Says you. You really don't know.

No, I really know. They want our guns.

I'm sorry.

I'm not quite sure how more guns can be banned?

You claimed that registration ALWAYS leads to banning of the guns registered.

You then admitted that Britain and Australia still allow guns if those guns are registered.

It seems your initial claim was false or you think that registration is the same as banning or you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

old europe wrote:

Banning neurotoxin bombs violates your Constitutional rights?

Just asking...

No. There is no right to have chemical weapons.

The right covers automatic rifles.

Serving in overseas adventures isn't an authorized militia activity.

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

The centralized gun registration proposal would not violate our rights, but there is no "maybe" about the fact that the UN will follow it up by pushing for a gun ban, or the fact that this ban would violate our rights.

Says you. You really don't know.

No, I really know. They want our guns.

I'm sorry.

Don't worry. We aren't about to let the UN get away with it. Note the press release I posted. If the UN tries anything they may end up defunded.

There is a long history of gun banners starting with gun registration, contemptuously telling us that we had nothing to fear about confiscation, and then turning around and banning the guns as soon as the registration went through.

Quote:

Even the NRA doesn't agree with your rhetoric ORalloy..

The NRA is a sell-out organization,
intent on compromize at any cost.
The NRA likes things to go bad for gun ownership
because that makes its membership (and consequent revenues) soar like a skyrocket.
This then serves as the basis of the leader
demanding ever growing raise$ of the Board (in executive session).
The WORST thing that cud happen to NRA cash revenues
is for gun control to be annihilated. Its leader knows that.

Quote:

Australia.. Required licenses in 1973, registration in 1985, didn't ban semiautomatic weapons until 1994.

Britian - required license in 1920 - They didn't prohibit owning those guns until the 1990s.

Did that make it OK for the citizens in the 1990s ?
( Here, I do not refer to the CRIMINAL citizens,
for whom having their prey disarmed is a WONDERFUL fringe benefit;
my question is regarding the victims )

Quote:

Like I said, I can't find a single instance of banning of guns
immediately after the registration went through.

1 ) Is immediacy really the great concern ?
If someone were diagnosed with cancer, but not a fast growing one, is that OK ?
I don 't think its OK.

2 ) Did u consider Germany in 1938 ?
How many days after it did KRYSTALNICHT happen ?

I thought that Stephen Halbrook, Ph.D, J.D. put it well in his article
"Registration: The Nazi Paradigm":


"It was self evident that the Jews must be disarmed
before the extermination could begin.

Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult.
The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring
extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.

Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept
on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia
and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners.
Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.

Imagine that you are sitting in a movie house in Germany in May 1940.
The German Weekly Newsreel comes on to show you the attack on Holland,
Belgium, and France.
The minute Wehrmacht troops and tanks cross the Dutch border,
the film shows German soldiers nailing up a poster about 2½ by 3 feet in size.
It is entitled "Regulations on Arms Possession in the Occupied Zone"
("Verordnung über Waffenbesitz im besetzen Gebiet").
The camera scans the top of the double-columned poster,
written in German on the left and Flemish on the right, with an eagle and swatiska in the middle.
It commands that all firearms be surrendered to the German commander within 24 hours.
The full text is not in view, but similar posters threatened the death penalty for violation."
[ emfasis added ]

Quote:

There is a long history of registering guns and NOT banning them.
The US has such a history.
Many countries have that history.
Australia still has guns. Canada still has guns.
Britian still has guns. They also have registration. .

Let me get this straight, Parados:
R u saying that a citizen of England or Austrailia
can freely (and legally) get a gun to defend his home from criminal depredations,
as long as he REGISTERS it ?

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

Banning neurotoxin bombs violates your Constitutional rights?

Just asking...

No. There is no right to have chemical weapons.

The right covers automatic rifles.

It does? How so?

Were there any automatic rifles around in 1791?

Or are you merely interpreting the Constitution?

oralloy wrote:

Serving in overseas adventures isn't an authorized militia activity.

I see. So the Army would be sent out to do the dirty overseas work, and the militia would sit at home polishing their guns, just in case the government would decide to turn itself into a dictatorship?

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

The centralized gun registration proposal would not violate our rights, but there is no "maybe" about the fact that the UN will follow it up by pushing for a gun ban, or the fact that this ban would violate our rights.

Says you. You really don't know.

No, I really know. They want our guns.

I'm sorry.

Don't worry. We aren't about to let the UN get away with it. Note the press release I posted. If the UN tries anything they may end up defunded.

If the UN tries anything like invading and occupying the United States and then going around confiscating your guns?