Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Wikkiwallana]

You do know, that you can multi quote in a single response right?

Seriously guy, you should start doing that and save us all the headache of a having a half page of replies to skip over.

If a mod tells me it is disruptive, I will stop. Otherwise, I am going to continue to do so, as it allows me to read and respond at my own pace, without worrying about accidentally crossing tags or deleting a half hour's worth or typing because I hit the wrong button.

[FranksFreedom]

Looks like this may become a reality, God
http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-un-gu ... -ban-guns/

Infowars?
...

Read the article, which dissects the law's text.

[Milks Empire]

Infowars?
...

Read the article, which dissects the law's text.

It's Alex Jones. Nobody here trusts him, and with good reason. Provide a credible source or be laughed out of here.

[FranksFreedom]

Read the article, which dissects the law's text.

It's Alex Jones. Nobody here trusts him, and with good reason. Provide a credible source or be laughed out of here.

I will say this again - the text of the law is in the article.

[Milks Empire]

It's Alex Jones. Nobody here trusts him, and with good reason. Provide a credible source or be laughed out of here.

I will say this again - the text of the law is in the article.

I don't trust him or his cronies not to have doctored it.

[Wikkiwallana]

Infowars?
...

Read the article, which dissects the law's text.

The actual text or their made up version?

[Veddai Hegemony]

Great! This brings me back to a point I was gonna make earlier!

So, weapons smuggled into the country. Wanna guess how many shipping containers actually get checked for guns and other such stuff? I guarantee you guess high.

I'm going to guess "not enough".

As best I recall, its something like one in one hundred, being checked from unidentified, known smuggling countries. That is to say, out of containers that are not registered with a recognized corporation, from a source that is known to traffic drugs, arms, or people, one out of every hundred gets physically opened and examined.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Looks like this may become a reality, God

http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-un-gu ... -ban-guns/

You're joking right?

edit - ninja'd...multiple times lol

[FranksFreedom]

I will say this again - the text of the law is in the article.

I don't trust him or his cronies not to have doctored it.

http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... inish_line

[Des-Bal]

http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... inish_line

Read the entire thing, not seeing your point.

It's basically impossible to pretend there isn't a bias here. One says "they're gunna take our guns!" and the other says "they're trying to prevent dealing arms to countries for the purpose of genocide."

[Veddai Hegemony]

The repeal of the second amendment would be grounds for armed resistance in any case. It would be a direct assault on our rights.

Do you know how the amendment process works?

I am familiar with this process. On the other hand, I maintain that rights cannot be removed by government action. If the second ammendment were to be repealed, it would only be oppression, attempting to strip away a right that is not derived from any governmental source, and a betrayal of the trust we have placed in our government.

[FranksFreedom]

http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... inish_line

Read the entire thing, not seeing your point.

It's basically impossible to pretend there isn't a bias here. One says "they're gunna take our guns!" and the other says "they're trying to prevent dealing arms to countries for the purpose of genocide."

http://www.examiner.com/article/examine ... reaty-text

14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;

[Ceannairceach]

Do you know how the amendment process works?

I am familiar with this process. On the other hand, I maintain that rights cannot be removed by government action. If the second ammendment were to be repealed, it would only be oppression, attempting to strip away a right that is not derived from any governmental source, and a betrayal of the trust we have placed in our government.

The ownership of guns is not a right, but a privilege.

[Des-Bal]

http://www.examiner.com/article/examine ... reaty-text

14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;

I think the problem here is you don't understand what "inter alia" means.

[Wikkiwallana]

Do you know how the amendment process works?

I am familiar with this process. On the other hand, I maintain that rights cannot be removed by government action. If the second ammendment were to be repealed, it would only be oppression, attempting to strip away a right that is not derived from any governmental source, and a betrayal of the trust we have placed in our government.

Then you are going to have to prove that the right exists outside of legal recognition of it.

[FranksFreedom]

http://www.examiner.com/article/examine ... reaty-text

14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;

I think the problem here is you don't understand what "inter alia" means.

Who decides what those are?

[Des-Bal]

I think the problem here is you don't understand what "inter alia" means.

To clarify it means "among other things," IE "just because we didn't list your favorite reason here doesn't mean we are going to force the United States of America to repeal the second amendment."

[Des-Bal]

Who decides what those are?

If there are no specifications then the nations do.

[The UK in Exile]

So a child has no natural rights? I assume at some point those rights are given to a child? So not really natural rights at then.

Thanks for proving my point. So we can expect you to no longer to trumpet the concept of natural rights...if you have any intellectual honesty that is.

I'm not sure you read that the way I wrote it. A child should have the right to purchase a firearm. A parent has the right to tell a child that it cannot have a firearm in the house. As a property owner, you may control what comes onto your property. It's o0ne of your rights. Have I simplified this sufficiently for you?

yes. so you believe a child can own a gun. indeed that no-one ought to prevent him from doing so.

[Greed and Death]

Read the article, which dissects the law's text.

It's Alex Jones. Nobody here trusts him, and with good reason. Provide a credible source or be laughed out of here.

I will humor him.

Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty,

The bold means the the treaty itself does not create any of the regulations, but instead encourages the governments through the normal democratic process to make such. There is nothing created, congress must create anything.

There are also no national punitive provisions so a filibuster on regulation will not result in the US being punished.

[Jassysworth 1]

We do not need to ban guns, it is the people's responsibility to defend themselves. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. What we need is that there should be less regulation. Even if you ban guns, it will not stop criminals from obtaining them. If you do not like those shootings or think guns should be banned, you should arm yourself with a gun, too, to defend yourself.

The end result? If everyone thought like that America would be a hell where everyone could shoot up the neighborhood. Congratulations.

''Tanks do not kill people, people kill people.'' So everyone should have tanks now right? If there were a black market in military tanks in the US (hypothetically speaking) and it was a large one... you guys would probably say something like that.

And this...

''If we ban military tanks then criminals will continue to get them. So if you want to defend yourself... get yourself a tank.''



Talk about escalating problems...

While the rest of the rational world would come up with ways to crack down on tank smuggling and getting rid of the existing illegal tanks... America will be bragging on and on about random rights and how you can't take away people's freedoms. Meanwhile entire city blocks are being blown by angry kids in the turrets.

Ah well... I am thankful I don't live in America because I am sure scared of many of you. You love your liberties so much you are perfectly ok with so many random people on the street carrying ranged weapons of destruction. Your neighbor could walk up to your house and shoot you up and this doesn't bother you. Any minute a random kid could shoot up a school, hospital, or swimming pool and all you have are some weak stats to comfort you. And this is all because you have some kind of near-cultic reverence for some overrated document that was drawn up by a bunch of old men in a time when there was slavery, no vote for women, and imperialism (and it wasn't even about everyone having the right to own guns even though somehow it got twisted to that... it was about militias).

Guns need to be banned. America needs to follow in the steps of Singapore, Japan, and continental Europe. And yes I am aware we would then need to crack down on the black market and the criminals.

[Spreewerke]

We do not need to ban guns, it is the people's responsibility to defend themselves. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. What we need is that there should be less regulation. Even if you ban guns, it will not stop criminals from obtaining them. If you do not like those shootings or think guns should be banned, you should arm yourself with a gun, too, to defend yourself.

The end result? If everyone thought like that America would be a hell where everyone could shoot up the neighborhood. Congratulations.

''Tank do not kill people, people kill people.'' So everyone should have tanks now right? If there were a black market in military tanks in the US (hypothetically speaking) and it was a large one... you guys would probably say something like that.

And this...

''If we ban military tanks then criminals will continue to get them. So if you want to defend yourself... get yourself a tank.''



Talk about escalating problems...

Ah well... I am thankful I don't live in America because I am sure scared of many of you. You love your liberties so much you are perfectly ok with so many random people on the street carrying ranged weapons of destruction. Your neighbor could walk up to your house and shoot you up and this doesn't bother you. Any minute a random kid could shoot up a school, hospital, or swimming pool and all you have are some weak stats to comfort you. And this is all because you have some kind of near-cultic reverence for some overrated document that was drawn up by a bunch of old men in a time when there was slavery, no vote for women, and imperialism (and it wasn't even about everyone having the right to own guns even though somehow it got twisted to that... it was about militias).

Guns need to be banned. America needs to follow in the steps of Singapore, Japan, and continental Europe. And yes I am aware we would then need to crack down on the black market and the criminals.

If some crazy is going to shoot up a school, hospital, or swimming pool that I'm at, you can bet that I'll sure as hell want a gun of my own to defend myself with.

Laws don't change people's brainwaves and prevent them from "snapping." Believe it or not, mentally unstable individuals pre-date firearms. Whoa, dude: that was deep. That said, whether or not a firearm is present will not change their mental composure. That said, I want a gun. Preferably multiple guns. I'd also like friends with guns.

[Bafuria]

We do not need to ban guns, it is the people's responsibility to defend themselves. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. What we need is that there should be less regulation. Even if you ban guns, it will not stop criminals from obtaining them. If you do not like those shootings or think guns should be banned, you should arm yourself with a gun, too, to defend yourself.

The end result? If everyone thought like that America would be a hell where everyone could shoot up the neighborhood. Congratulations.

''Tanks do not kill people, people kill people.'' So everyone should have tanks now right? If there were a black market in military tanks in the US (hypothetically speaking) and it was a large one... you guys would probably say something like that.

And this...

''If we ban military tanks then criminals will continue to get them. So if you want to defend yourself... get yourself a tank.''



Talk about escalating problems...

While the rest of the rational world would come up with ways to crack down on tank smuggling and getting rid of the existing illegal tanks... America will be bragging on and on about random rights and how you can't take away people's freedoms. Meanwhile entire city blocks are being blown by angry kids in the turrets.

Ah well... I am thankful I don't live in America because I am sure scared of many of you. You love your liberties so much you are perfectly ok with so many random people on the street carrying ranged weapons of destruction. Your neighbor could walk up to your house and shoot you up and this doesn't bother you. Any minute a random kid could shoot up a school, hospital, or swimming pool and all you have are some weak stats to comfort you. And this is all because you have some kind of near-cultic reverence for some overrated document that was drawn up by a bunch of old men in a time when there was slavery, no vote for women, and imperialism (and it wasn't even about everyone having the right to own guns even though somehow it got twisted to that... it was about militias).

Guns need to be banned. America needs to follow in the steps of Singapore, Japan, and continental Europe. And yes I am aware we would then need to crack down on the black market and the criminals.

Considering that the number of responisble gun owners who greatly enjoy using their weapons for recreational purposes outnumber the criminal gun owners by the thousands, banning firearms would result in far more suffering than keeping them legal. Especially considering that gun violence is almost entirely determined by external socioeconomic and environmental factors and not firearms.

You simply can't justify the punishment of jundreds of millions of gun owners worldwide because a handful rotten apples decide to kill a large number of people with guns.

[Jassysworth 1]

The end result? If everyone thought like that America would be a hell where everyone could shoot up the neighborhood. Congratulations.

''Tanks do not kill people, people kill people.'' So everyone should have tanks now right? If there were a black market in military tanks in the US (hypothetically speaking) and it was a large one... you guys would probably say something like that.

And this...

''If we ban military tanks then criminals will continue to get them. So if you want to defend yourself... get yourself a tank.''



Talk about escalating problems...

While the rest of the rational world would come up with ways to crack down on tank smuggling and getting rid of the existing illegal tanks... America will be bragging on and on about random rights and how you can't take away people's freedoms. Meanwhile entire city blocks are being blown by angry kids in the turrets.

Ah well... I am thankful I don't live in America because I am sure scared of many of you. You love your liberties so much you are perfectly ok with so many random people on the street carrying ranged weapons of destruction. Your neighbor could walk up to your house and shoot you up and this doesn't bother you. Any minute a random kid could shoot up a school, hospital, or swimming pool and all you have are some weak stats to comfort you. And this is all because you have some kind of near-cultic reverence for some overrated document that was drawn up by a bunch of old men in a time when there was slavery, no vote for women, and imperialism (and it wasn't even about everyone having the right to own guns even though somehow it got twisted to that... it was about militias).

Guns need to be banned. America needs to follow in the steps of Singapore, Japan, and continental Europe. And yes I am aware we would then need to crack down on the black market and the criminals.

Considering that the number of responisble gun owners who greatly enjoy using their weapons for recreational purposes outnumber the criminal gun owners by the thousands, banning firearms would result in far more suffering than keeping them legal. Especially considering that gun violence is almost entirely determined by external socioeconomic and environmental factors and not firearms.

Without firearms (a complete ban and lots of enforcement) you can have the the socioeconomic and environmental factors you want and there still won't be mass shootings.

It makes a huge difference if we've got shooters or people with other types of weapons. Guns are dangerous and easy to use... the most dangerous weapons and you can't run away from them.

You don't think preventing school shootings and gun crime is a worthy cause? Not worthy of completely banning guns? You want to tell this to the families of the victims of gun crime and school shootings?

There is a reason that sort of nonsense doesn't happen in places like Singapore and Japan. They take the right kind of attitude towards guns... they are DANGEROUS.

[Spreewerke]

Considering that the number of responisble gun owners who greatly enjoy using their weapons for recreational purposes outnumber the criminal gun owners by the thousands, banning firearms would result in far more suffering than keeping them legal. Especially considering that gun violence is almost entirely determined by external socioeconomic and environmental factors and not firearms.

Without firearms (a complete ban and lots of enforcement) you can have the the socioeconomic and environmental factors you want and there still won't be mass shootings.

It makes a huge difference if we've got shooters or people with other types of weapons. Guns are dangerous and easy to use... the most dangerous weapons and you can't run away from them.

You don't think preventing school shootings and gun crime is a worthy cause? Not worthy of completely banning guns? You want to tell this to the families of the victims of gun crime and school shootings?

There is a reason that sort of nonsense doesn't happen in places like Singapore and Japan. They take the right kind of attitude towards guns... they are DANGEROUS.

So, rather than fix the problem, you'd rather just get rid of firearms?