blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:34 am
Yeah, I bet there's nothing like the feeling of emptying a clip from an assault rifle into a herd of deer. And then rushing in to bayonet the wounded. Hoo-Ra!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:35 am
blacksmithn wrote:
So, this is another case-- as with the purported UN gun confiscation you were all in a tizzy about-- where potential has become reality for you?


The reality is that the UN wants to outlaw the civilian possession of military weapons in America. The fact that Bush and Bolton defended us from their attempts doesn't mean they didn't try.

The reality is that the freedom haters do specifically mislead the public about just what an assault weapon is, and try to use that confusion to generate support for banning more and more types of guns.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:47 am
Interesting use of the term "reality."
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:54 am
oralloy wrote:
The reality is that the UN wants to outlaw the civilian possession of military weapons in America.


A snippet from a 1999 UN report:

    "States should work towards the introduction of appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. [b]In particular, they should consider the prohibition of[/b] unrestricted trade and [b]private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine guns).[/b]" [URL=http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/presskit/sheet21.htm]http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/presskit/sheet21.htm[/URL]



The rough draft from what would later become the UN's first small arms treaty:

    "20. [b]To seriously consider the prohibition of[/b] unrestricted trade and [b]private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes.[/b]" [URL=http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf]http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf[/URL]



oralloy wrote:
The fact that Bush and Bolton defended us from their attempts doesn't mean they didn't try.


Bolton's 2001 speech telling them in no uncertain terms to get that anti-freedom language out of their proposed treaty:

http://www.un.int/usa/01_104.htm
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:56 am
dyslexia wrote:
Interesting use of the term "reality."


Seems like a pretty straightforward use of the term to me.

All I did was state the facts.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 09:11 am
oralloy wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Interesting use of the term "reality."


Seems like a pretty straightforward use of the term to me.

All I did was state the facts.

Yes, of course.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 09:20 am
oralloy wrote:
A snippet from a 1999 UN report:

    "States should work towards the introduction of appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. [b]In particular, they should consider the prohibition of[/b] unrestricted trade and [b]private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine guns).[/b]" [URL=http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/presskit/sheet21.htm]http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/presskit/sheet21.htm[/URL]



The rough draft from what would later become the UN's first small arms treaty:

    "20. [b]To seriously consider the prohibition of[/b] unrestricted trade and [b]private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes.[/b]" [URL=http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf]http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf[/URL]




http://www.a-human-right.com/molonlave_s.jpg
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 09:38 am
cjhsa wrote:
It doesn't matter. To the unknowledgeable semi-auto and auto and assault are all the same thing. It the intent of Pelosi and others like her to take these issues to the polls where unknowledgeable voters, the same ones who voted for them, get to make the decision. They are doing the same thing here in Michigan with the dove hunt issue. Of couse the bleeding hearts are going to win - that's what they're counting on.


It does matter. You aren't knowledgable if you don't know what is banned under the 1994 law. I am willing to bet your 6 shot Browning shotgun wasn't banned under the law. So it wouldn't be banned if the law was revived.

Give us the model number of the shotgun if you are so sure it was banned.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 09:42 am
That's interesting Orally

Quote:
In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine guns)."


In your opinion does the US presently have any prohibitions on the unrestricted trade and private ownership of automatic guns?

Can I buy an automatic weapon today in the US without any restrictions? Could I buy such a weapon 10 years ago without restrictions? How about 20 years ago?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 09:50 am
parados wrote:
It does matter. You aren't knowledgable if you don't know what is banned under the 1994 law. I am willing to bet your 6 shot Browning shotgun wasn't banned under the law. So it wouldn't be banned if the law was revived.


That presumes that the law would be revived as it was.

Back in 2004, there were guns that were not covered by the 1994 law, which they said were "assault weapons that had slipped through a loophole", and they were trying to broaden the law to cover them.

And even if his shotgun would not have been covered by that particular expansion of the law, his gun very well might fall within the "loophole" the next time they tried to expand the law to cover more guns.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 10:03 am
parados wrote:
That's interesting Orally

Quote:
In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine guns)."


In your opinion does the US presently have any prohibitions on the unrestricted trade and private ownership of automatic guns?

Can I buy an automatic weapon today in the US without any restrictions? Could I buy such a weapon 10 years ago without restrictions? How about 20 years ago?


Only restricted trade of full-auto weapons is allowed. However, private ownership of full-auto weapons is not prohibited.

There are some unconstitutional laws that make it difficult for most people exercise their right to own full-auto weapons however.


With semi-auto weapons, trade is much less restricted.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 10:03 am
I was reading through this and couldn't understand why cj is so obsessed with guns and then I realized that I, being obsessed with sex, am just like cj except of course for the fact that when I shoot either nothing happens or life is created. and when cj shoots either nothing happens or life is taken.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 10:11 am
It could be worse. What if the bear "gun" killed too? One can only imagine the carnage!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 10:15 am
Is private ownership of fully automatic weapons in the US restricted or not Oralloy?

The present US law has a prohibition of unrestricted private ownership of fully automatic weapons. The US law is exactly what the UN statement says.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 10:19 am
blacksmithn wrote:
It could be worse. What if the bear "gun" killed too? One can only imagine the carnage!

Many would be sent to the Lord screaming "Jesus I'm coming"......
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 10:20 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I was reading through this and couldn't understand why cj is so obsessed with guns and then I realized that I, being obsessed with sex, am just like cj except of course for the fact that when I shoot either nothing happens or life is created. and when cj shoots either nothing happens or life is taken.

Lots of comparisons..

You don't have to worry about anyone shooting back.

Cj is concerned with shooting first and as fast as he can.

When you get drunk, it is less likely that your gun will go off accidently.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 10:23 am
parados wrote:
Is private ownership of fully automatic weapons in the US restricted or not Oralloy?


Yes, and unconstitutionally so. Didn't I just say that?



parados wrote:
The US law is exactly what the UN statement says.


That is incorrect. The draft UN treaty was calling on states to prohibit civilian ownership of full-auto and semi-auto weapons.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 10:28 am
One of the questions nobody is really asking is why you'd want somebody like Kofi Annan making decisions about things like gun laws for us (if you think making decisions about things involving sex would be very far down on Kofi's list you're deluded)...

BTW, I get confused looking at those UN pictures. Anybody know which one of these guys is Annan?

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photos/amosnandy.jpg
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 10:31 am
oralloy wrote:
That is incorrect. The draft UN treaty was calling on states to prohibit civilian ownership of full-auto and semi-auto weapons.


Well, it calls for the prohibition of semi-autos if they were "designed for military purposes" -- in other words, a backdoor attempt at an assault weapon ban.

I suppose it wouldn't call for the prohibition of semi-auto hunting weapons.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 10:32 am
oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
Is private ownership of fully automatic weapons in the US restricted or not Oralloy?


Yes, and unconstitutionally so. Didn't I just say that?



parados wrote:
The US law is exactly what the UN statement says.


That is incorrect. The draft UN treaty was calling on states to prohibit civilian ownership of full-auto and semi-auto weapons.


No, it doesn't.. It prohibits the unrestricted private ownership. Adjectives have meanings and can't be discarded out of hand because they don't mean what you want it to mean.
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
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2024 at 08:58:37