324 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

Czero 101, on 24 July 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

No, BR... Since you intentionally obviously missed the point (quelle suprise... ), let me explain...

My point is that the UN Treaty under discussion has NOTHING TO DO WITH DISARMING US CITIZENS despite the fact that the "pro gun" side is making it out to be potentially just that.

There's nothing in the UN Treaty that is specific to JUST the United States, yet a good portion of our gun totin' American brethren have somehow managed to interpret a treaty that deals with creating ways of securing and safeguarding international arms deals / shipments and providing for modern ways and means of keeping better track of legally owned weapons in the hopes of limiting or maybe even eventually eliminating the illegal trade in weapons of all types to mean that the "UN is a-comin' to git our guns"....

THAT is where the real fear mongering is.





Cz

Excuse you, the layout of both of these threads has done that, just going by their titles and OP alone. And one of the posters is a Moderator from Australia who seems to not mind fanning the flames of extremist paranoia. Which just makes things worse for the rest of us. Most of us Americans don't have a problem with regulating firearms. After all, who really needs a semi-automatic or full automatic to go deer hunting? I've never yet seen a deer or bear come out of the woods with an AK-47, to hunt humans.    So save your "a good portion of our gun totin' American brethren" junk, since the NRA and extremists don't speak for all of us.

cormac

[Obviousman]

A number of people talk about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

But does it really say you can have high powered rifles, AP rounds, semi-autos? Does it say you can really have firearms at all?

It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It has been argued that this meant the military. The US has a well regulated military; why should I, Joe Bloggs, be allowed to own a semi-automatic rifile or a machine gun? Why should I not be allowed to have a short-range tactical missile?

[Babe Ruth]

I know that Australian English is a bit different than Regular English.  I've learned that watching Foster ads, and positively LOVE everything from Down Under, especially the Sheilas

But really, is it that different?  Military and Militia are not really synonyms, neither in denotation or connotation.

[rashore]

I'm kind of curious.. Why is it only U.S. folk are squawking about this? I know the U.S. isn't the only country to allow guns, why don't other countries that allow guns seem concerned about this? I don't see folks from Finland or Switzerland worrying about the UN trying to take away their guns. Or if they are, I haven't heard anything about it, searches are flooded with U.S. only.
So could that possibly mean the UN isn't intent on messing with states rights for dealing with citizens within their own borders? And by states I mean it they way the UN means it as in countries, not as in the U.S. states. Or maybe that's part of the problem, some people don't realize when the UN says states they mean countries, but some people assume it means states as in U.S. states?

Personally, I'm not too concerned with the arms talks. I'm left with the impression it's more about trade rather than trying to have a say on what goes on within states borders. I don't think all of this will affect my ability to go to the gun shop and pick up a firearm if I choose to do so. I'm pretty sure it would affect the amount of variety of weapons, but that isn't the same thing as being denied arms entirely.

[Corp]

I think the deep seeded fear of losing guns is more of an American issue. As you said there's plenty of countries with tons of guns in them and yet the theory seems to be that this UN treaty would only affect Americans. One of my best friends is a gun nut and he doesn't seem to care about what the UN is doing.

[keithisco]

I really think that everyone needs to read the entire article, it's not very long and doesn't use Big words

"On July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to prevent the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment.
The ATT will set up a global body which will require all nations to regulate firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries. Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. A gun ban is not far away.
The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification."

Talk about being paranoid

It's almost as hilarious as a Constitution that says "all men are created equal" signed by Slave owners and mysoginists (obviously only some men are created equal, and women not at all)

Edited by keithisco, 25 July 2012 - 04:48 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

Heres my point ! "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
Now If they took away the arms just how in the Hell would anyone be at danger of owning a Firearm?
Must be the simantics ? or sumptin !
Anywho we do need as a logical country ,to start the removal of automatic and giant round mags for public consumption !
Afterall The Colorado guy would of really killed about a hundred people if his weapon didnt jam !

[W Tell]

DONTEATUS, on 25 July 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Anywho we do need as a logical country ,to start the removal of automatic and giant round mags for public consumption !
Afterall The Colorado guy would of really killed about a hundred people if his weapon didnt jam !

I don't know if you've seen this before. This is Suzzanna Hupp. I feel she brings the "real" debate to the table.

[vid][/vid]

[odiesbsc]

http://nagr.org/UN_Draft_Treaty.pdf

Here is the arms trade treaty. Disguised in it is the registration of all weapons. That means that when they want to collect the weapons, they'll be easy to find. Americans should be very afraid of this.

[Czero 101]

odiesbsc, on 26 July 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

http://nagr.org/UN_Draft_Treaty.pdf

Here is the arms trade treaty. Disguised in it is the registration of all weapons. That means that when they want to collect the weapons, they'll be easy to find. Americans should be very afraid of this.

As mentioned in the other, almost identical, but apparently different enough thread about this same topic,

Despite all the assumptions made by whomever marked up / highlighted / commented on that document, there is still nothing in that Treaty that is specifically designed to repeal the 2nd Amendment or prevent the lawful purchase of guns by Americans.


As to the "registry" did you notice where it says that "Such records MAY CONTAIN..." not "SHALL contain", not "MUST contain"... "MAY contain" which means that the amount of information kept is OPTIONAL and up to the individual countries to determine.

Perhaps bug "Registration!!" fear-mongering notation distracted you from reading what is actually there...?






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 26 July 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Isn't the vote scheduled for today?

[lliqerty]

W Tell, on 25 July 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

I don't know if you've seen this before. This is Suzzanna Hupp. I feel she brings the "real" debate to the table.

[vid][/vid]

Very moving testimony. I believe, “should guns be legal or illegal?” is the wrong question.

A better question would be “what is the best means of self-defense?” A gun would probably not be the answer, in part, because of the danger to yourself and your loved ones, that you 6 year old nephew may find it and decide to “play” with it. Or, you shoot your cousin in a case of mistaken identity. But also, it gives you a significant disadvantage when trying to defend against somebody who may well carry a sub-machine gun. Plus, even an experienced target shooter does not know how he will react, if he will have the nerve to kill somebody, when never having faced that situation before.

Tear gas or pepper spray could be thrown while still in hiding, without stepping outside one’s protective shield. There is a wide variety of self-defense tools available. If awareness about them was raised, people would be able to own a variety of them and carry the one with them that is most suited for the event they plan to attend. Without risking that anybody would be killed by it.

I once carried a pocket knife with me and was attacked by a crazed man, who knew karate but was unarmed and then used my knife on me. I am glad I did not have a gun.

With regards to preventing tyranny, we need weapons to protect ourselves but they should be in the hands of a “militia”, namely the National Guard – under the control of the State Governments. That would make it possible to defeat an overstepping federal police force, not person with a hand gun. If an individual carries a gun legally and is falsely arrested by police, he does not have the right to use his gun and would probably die if he attempts to do so. Guns certainly do not protect from drones or other weapons a tyranny has in its arsenal.

Edited by lliqerty, 13 August 2012 - 03:12 PM.

[Corp]

Babe Ruth, on 27 July 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Isn't the vote scheduled for today?

Not sure about the vote but the conference has happened. Doesn't seem there was a vote at all, just a conference...which also happened in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2011. All the documents I skimed talk about illegal arms trade and doesn't single the US out at all. There's a lot of stuff I didn't look at but seems the claim of this undermining American gun right was nothing more than a scare tactic. Which isn't suprising at all.

http://www.poa-iss.org/RevCon2/

[Obviousman]

And once again the US refusal to enact gun control has resulted in the massacre of people. When will they learn?

[Babe Ruth]

Obviousman, on 14 December 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

And once again the US refusal to enact gun control has resulted in the massacre of people. When will they learn?

Poor reasoning sir.  Actually, the US does have gun control laws.  Quite a few of them actually.

But wise men, or even intelligent men, understand that just as a 100 year old drug prohibition HAS NOT succeeded in "getting rid of" drugs, and has caused a litany of social pathologies and unintended consequences, so too would government efforts to "get rid of" guns through legislation.

And that is ignoring for the moment the existence of the Second Amendment.