jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (110 posts)

Notice anything about these names?

  1. Barefootfae profile image61
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7818858_f248.jpg
    They all have the initial for Donkey next to them.
    Always makes me think of Pinocchio and what happened to the boys in that movie that hung out with the wrong crowd.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Seriously the conspiracy nuts are still up on this one? The treaty in no way affects gun rights in the US, it is simply an attempt to prevent those guns being used for crimes overseas.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We agree!

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lord Monckton once told a similar lie about the Copenhagen treaty in '09.

      Like the Copenhagen Treaty, the idea that this small arms treaty would affect US law or the 2nd Amendment in any way is preposterous.

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    The Arms Treaty would not threaten our gun rights in any way, and I'm a huge gun-right supporter.

    1. 82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      JaxsonRaine,

      I hope you are right, but I'm reading an article in "American Rifleman" right now.  The article was written by Wayne LaPierre, and it clearly does not agree with your statement.  In fact, LaPierre quoted Ambassador Bolton in an NRA interview, "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international trade between nations, but there's no doubt. . .that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."

      "The First Step in Trampling our Rights"

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I read the treaty. The treaty recognizes the laws of the countries, so the only way the treaty would impact private ownership would be if the US made private ownership illegal. It does nothing.

      2. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why would you ever take anything LaPierre says seriously? He and his organization are a joke, and anyone who claims they have a need to own more than 3 guns...it's overkill. You seriously don't need more than that.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Edit your post, you just insulted members of this forum.

        2. 82
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You're right.  I do not need that many.  I choose to have that many.

        3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          He and his organization are a joke,
          While I agree that the NRA has pretty much become a mockery of what it was founded to be, it's a mistake to dismiss it as a joke. The NRA is politically powerful and has unrestricted access to most lawmakers. And those lawmakers listen to them, for good or ill.

        4. 0
          Dan Bristolposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't need more than three guns? Gee, I'm glad you're out there to decide these things FOR me. Say.....howsabout you come and take my guns? I dare ya!

      3. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Propaganda much?

        1. 82
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Your statement is just as bad.  Dismissing LaPierre's statement just because he is LaPierre is like dismissing a post because of a misspelling or dismissing something important Rand Paul said just because he's Rand Paul.  You have to listen to the message and determine if it is true.  Josak and I disagree on pretty much everything, but I have agreed with some of his statements; I've even agreed with some things the POTUS has said. I do not discount what is said based solely on the source.  I look at the meaning, something you need to do before drinking the anti-LaPierre propaganda. 

          This one is true.  If you think it's propaganda, prove your point instead of making short, meaningless statements.  I'm stunned.

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I dunno, it seems even worse on your part to not even consider your source before declaring that the sky is falling.

            1. 82
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I dunno either.  I did consider the source.  Are you going to prove your point?  Prove that it's a false statement and that it's propaganda.  Can you do that?  It's easy to say something is false because of the source.  Prove your point.  I'm guessing that LaPierre knows more about the topic than you do.

              Kool-aid much?

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You don't see why I'm skeptical of the guy who runs the NRA saying that something may infringe on the rights of people to carry arms even when it doesn't? Hmmmm.....why would he possibly say something like that? Could it be that he has some agenda or perhaps an interest to promote?

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But...just to end this real quick.

                  From the treaty itself..

                  ...the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

                  1. 82
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You don't get it.  I don't want some foreign entity putting my name on a list.  Don't you see how wrong that is?  I am not saying that this is about gun control.  I'm saying that this might just be about making gun-ownership lists.  I am adamantly opposed to that, because it is the first step in a confiscation process.

                2. 82
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course he's biased.  Does that mean he's wrong?  You assume that he's wrong, because he's biased?  That means everybody is wrong.  We're all biased when it comes to certain topics.  Are we all wrong?  Statements need to be evaluated based on their merit.  When you discount somebody's statements because they may be biased, you yourself are biased.

                  Can you prove he's wrong?

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    How many times do people need to quote from the treaty to prove that he's wrong?

                    "Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control conventional
                    arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems,

                    Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional
                    arms... where such ownership and use are permitted and protected by law."

                    The treaty says the each State has the sovereignty to regulate intra-state guns. This only applies to international imports and exports.

                    It also recognizes private ownership and use of guns.

                  2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The fact that Wayne's biased helps him along the path to being wrong, but bias by itself isn't enough to conclude that he's wrong.

                    The fact that he's making up stuff about the treaty that isn't in the treaty is what's making him wrong in this case.

                    Some people will believe darn near anything, especially if they really want it to be true or if they're afraid it might be true.

    2. The Frog Prince profile image79
      The Frog Princeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Would you care to prove your statement?

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Search for it, I've posted before, it's no big deal. Read the text, where it recognizes the laws of each country in regards to private use and ownership. By definition, the treaty cannot override a country's laws, nor does it attempt to.

        1. The Frog Prince profile image79
          The Frog Princeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Any infringement on this nation's sovereignty is a BIG DEAL.  It becomes like eating an elephant.  Research that one...

          The Frog Prince

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What infringement?

            1. The Frog Prince profile image79
              The Frog Princeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Research it.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I have, I didn't see any infringement.

                I saw a treaty that, rather than infringing on sovereignty, recognizes and yields to it.

                Have you read the treaty?

                1. The Frog Prince profile image79
                  The Frog Princeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes.  Have you?  Now I suppose in your mind Agenda 21 isn't infringement either?  Have you read the US Constitution?  I doubt it seriously by your statements.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah it's hilarious, on one hand the sane pro gun conservative, on the other... well Frog Prince tongue

                    "reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any state or nation to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place within it's own territory pursuant to it's own legal or constitutional systems"

                    Which you would know if you had actually read it.

                    Basically the treaty itself stats it CANNOT have any effect on gun ownership, regulation or trade inside the US, but no amount of facts or reason will stop the loons from inventing conspiracy theories.

                  2. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, its not.....unless your enjoy reading propaganda.

    3. 0
      Dan Bristolposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Now I expect you to tell make what make and model of guns you own.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Prepare to be disappointed.

        The guns that I do or do not have have nothing to do with what the treaty actually says.

  3. 82
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    "The treaty would require member states to monitor cross-border trade of those weapons and establish what amounts to a universally accepted system of background checks on the recipients."

    "The N.R.A. also contends that the requirements of record-keeping open the door to a national registry of guns in the United States, which the group opposes."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/world … .html?_r=0

    I am opposed to this treaty.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Have you read it?

  4. Marsden4 profile image90
    Marsden4posted 3 years ago

    Are you aware of what the Arms Trade Treaty is for?
    Are you familiar with how international law works in relation to the United States constitution?

  5. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago

    Knowing the views and opinions of some of those involved in this thread, I have to say this is probably the most surreal experience I could have had this morning.

    I'm wondering if I just need more coffee or if I suffered a stroke during the night.

    I agree with both JaxsonRaine and Josak.  Which is a sentence I don't believe I've ever typed before.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      tongue

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      lol

      You have to ignore simple fact, plain words, to think that the Treaty is a threat to 2A rights. Even I'm not willing to go that far smile

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Jaxson, my admiration to you for daring to stand in opposition to right wing thinking that could care less about the facts .that has been explained by both you and Josak.  They would rather recite from the playbook.  Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble are busy taking issue with something they never took the time to read, brilliant!... I will do better to give you the benefit of the doubt in future forums as someone who can actually put the truth before the playbook?

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, despite what some think I do try to be objective. I don't even know a single 'official' party platform, because I'm either for something cause I think it's right, or against it because I think it's wrong.

          Not for it because 'conservatives are currently for it'.

          I appreciate it.

        2. 82
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have been reading it, and I still disagree.  I don't need an international playbook.  I don't need to be put on a list, because I purchased a foreign-made gun. 

          Who is going to keep this list?
          Why do they need a list?

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You're not going to be on a list. The treaty only applies to international imports and exports. If you become a licensed gun importer, then your company would be on the list, true. But nobody you sell to. They just want to stop the people who are selling guns to terrorist organizations and drug cartels.

            Besides, there are already records about imports and exports, it's not that big of a deal.

            Why don't you, or anyone else who thinks this is such a bad thing, just QUOTE FROM THE TREATY?

            I've never seen a SINGLE person who doesn't like the treaty actually quote the part they don't like. All they do is link to what someone else is saying about the treaty.

            1. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You need the magical NRA decoder ring to see the invisible text that is hidden in the treaty. It's behind the photo of Obama riding his unicorn across the rainbow, so liberals can't see it even if they had a ring.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Dang, all I have is the Secret Society Decoder pin I got from the Little Orphan Annie program sad

              2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I tried to use the NRA decoder ring, but it misfired.  They reattached the finger, but they said I'll never shoot straight again.

            2. 82
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              . . .So when you go to the United Nations site, it reads

              "United Nations Disarmament Affairs. . . strengthening peace and security through disarmament"

              Yeah, this sounds great.  How's that for a quote?  If that doesn't say it, little will.  DISARMAMENT.

              "but their excessive accumulation . . ."  Who defines this, the United Nations?

              "Reliable data sets on small arms can only be built if countries provide information on production, holdings, trade, legislation and use."  America must provide information about "holdings" now? 

              I don't need anybody to tell me that this isn't good.  Wayne LaPierre is just saying what I am thinking.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You realize that "holdings" is used in the financial sense rather than the "What are you packing?" sense... right?

                That's why it's grouped with production and trade.

                UN really wouldn't have to ask the US for that info, they could just read the Wall Street Journal... or do a Google.

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So, you didn't read the treaty then?

                Some page on the UN website is not the same as the treaty. I'm still waiting on quotes from the treaty.

                1. 82
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You have got to be kidding!  This is a UN site, and it clearly talks about disarmament.  You have got to be kidding.  EVEN if your proposed treaty says what you say it says, and I don't necessarily agree that it does, it does not negate the fact that the UN has clearly stated that its goal is disarmament.  Spin it all you want.  Quote your treaty.  Call people uneducated.  Call the NRA names.  This is what the UN says:

                  "United Nations Disarmament Affairs. . . strengthening peace and security through disarmament"


                  HERE IS ONE OF THE 3 GOALS PROPAGATED BY THE UNODA (United Natioins Office for Disarmament Affairs):

                  • Disarmament efforts in the area of CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS, especially landmines and SMALL ARMS, which are the weapons of choice in contemporary conflicts.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I think you misunderstand the scope of what the UN can do anyway....

                    If the United States ever felt that this law would undermine its ability to do whatever it pleases, it would be done with it in a heartbeat.

                    When it comes to disarmament, it means ending conflicts in Africa or other places where civil wars are raging on and killing innocent civilians.

                    Trust me, there is no way that the UN could take your guns.

                  2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And he still won't quote from the treaty.

                    That's because he hasn't read the treaty and therefore can't quote from it.

                    Or else he has read the treaty and doesn't understand it (considering his misunderstanding of the word "holdings" above, this might be likely).

                    Or else he's read it, understood it, but still argues nonsense because he wants to tell everyone that the sky is falling for reasons of his own (whatever those might be).

                  3. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    See, that's the great thing. If you read the treaty, it outlines exactly who they are trying to disarm. Sorry, you are being obtuse if you won't read the treaty. That's as stupid as saying you won't read Obamacare but you know what is in it, even if people quote from the bill itself contrary to what you are saying.

  6. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    The plain fact is that the small arms treaty has nothing whatsoever do to with the gun rights of US citizens.

    The only thing it might stop them from doing is selling arms in bulk to known war criminals and crime lords overseas. And even there the treaty does not trump federal or state law.  So if the US and your state permit that, go for it.

  7. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago

    And because I really didn't feel up to giving you the benefit of the doubt, I went back and reread the draft of the treaty and found NONE of your quotes in it.

    1. 82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hitler's intent isn't visible in his nonagression pact with Russia.  Read it.  You have to read other papers he wrote to find out what his intent was.

      Yes, I know.  You'll be making a big deal about Hitler not being the UN.  I can hear it now.  The fact remains true.  The UN still says that its goal is small-arms disarmament.  It doesn't have to say that in your proposed treaty for it to be true.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hitler's intent isn't visible in his nonagression pact with Russia.

        Right, and when he invaded Russia, he violated the nonaggression pact.

        Are you getting paid to make bad arguments and be generally wrong?

        1. gmwilliams profile image87
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          +1,000,000,000,000,000,000.  Hitler's intent was KNOWN when he entered into the so-called nonagression pact with Russia.   When he entered into an agreement with Stalin regarding Poland, Hitler made it clear that he intended to invade Russia with the purpose of either annihilating or enslaving the Slavic and Asiatic population and to make Russia a highly productive colony for the German population. 

          Hitler wanted to materialize the idea of lebensraum i.e. living space for the German population.   Hitler even stated that the war with Russia would be a racial war and a war of a magnitude that was never heard of before.   Hitler's war with Russia was different from his war in Western Europe.

  8. 82
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Let me clarify.  What I am saying is that we are getting two different messages from the United Nations.  On one hand, people within this forum are saying that the Small Arms Treaty does not erode our national sovereignty; our gun rights will be left intact.  On the other hand, the same organization is currently stating, within its own sites, that its intent is disarmament within areas where the UN can “maintain conventional weapons control and practical disarmament.”   One could interpret this to mean areas in which warfare is ravaging the land, or one could interpret this to say any area where the UN can effectively implement its protocol.  The problem is that it requires interpretation, something other people within this forum have stated.  In justifying the need for gun disarmament, the UN Office of Disarmament also states, “They (guns) are the weapons of choice in civil wars and for terrorism, organized crime and gang warfare.”  This implies a possible intervention or interest to intervene within regions that have organized crime or gang warfare, perhaps America.

    When a politician unambiguously makes two opposing statements, which do you believe?  The United Nations is saying two different things.  It is disingenuous to say that the United Nations has no intention of eroding our second amendment rights when it clearly says that it fully intends to disarm people in one statement, and in another, claims to preserve our rights. 

    When Hitler signed the nonaggression pact, he clearly laid his cards on the table, something the United Nations has done.  He violated the pact, something I believe the United Nations WOULD do if it had the clout; I am not saying it has the authority to do this, only that it is the United Nation’s wish to do so.  That was my point.  Either I stated it poorly, or obtuse, emotional reasoning was used to counter my statement. 

    Let me put this another  way.   Opposing statements, made by the same party, must be examined and scrutinized.  That’s not unreasonable.  When Mitt Romney made two separate statements about the 47% of America, his statements were rightly scrutinized.   The United Nations is making two separate statements about its intent, and it too deserves scrutiny.

    Now, I know that many would say that the United Nations has no intention of taking guns away from Americans; its sole intent is to minimize gun proliferation in other regions.  That is an opinion, one that is not substantiated by ALL of the statements made by the United Nations.  IF the United Nations does not support disarmament in the United States or other similar regions, why don’t their websites specify this?  Why does their site clearly say that one of their goals is the disarmament of small arms?  Is it a gaff, much like Romney claimed about the 47% of Americans, or is it something more?  It’s a fair question, one that anybody should be asking and would in fact ask of any politician.  Why does the United Nations get a pass?

    Some people within this forum myopically look at only one document, the Small Arms Treaty.  What I am attempting to do is dig a bit deeper and look at additional statements that the same organization is simultaneously making.   No reasonable argument would discount additional evidence, supporting or otherwise.  That is my point.

  9. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I don't see the statements as contradictory.  And even if the were the UN cannot act contrary to international law.  And international law prevents a treaty from trumping self-government (e.g. the constitution). So no matter what anyone says or does, no action of the US could ever affect constitutional rights.

    1. 82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with part of what you said.  Yes, no treaty can supersede our Constitution.  I respectfully disagree with your statement about whether or not we are receiving contradicting statements from the UN.  Obviously, I know that the consensus is very much against my reasoning, however, I simply disagree.

  10. 82
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    CodyHodge5,

    You've quoted from the treaty, so I assume you know how to access a copy of it.  Could you please attach a link?  I want to read this treaty but can't seem to find a copy.

 
working