Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything [Archive] - Page 2

Tribesman

09-26-13, 03:41 PM

Read about them, they are unabashed liberals funded by the far left money machine
Are you talking about Ronnie Reagans mates?:har:

Factcheck having ties to Annenberg, that is confirmed fact, not theory.
Wow Annenberg is tied to Annenburg, whoda thunkit.
And Soros? or is that just another angle on your jewish capitalist/communist global conspiracy?

Their "sources" are usually highly suspect or the manipulate things in their so called analysis using the source to try and back it up.Sorry, but anything related to the far left money machine has nothing to do with the truth.

So going by their current top stories....Obama makes things up, Pelosi makes things up, Boenher makes things up, McAuliffe makes things up, cucinelli makes things up, team R makes things up about other team R people, team D makes things up about other team D people newspapers make things up, tv news makes things up.......
Damn there really is a sneaky pattern there, so sneaky as to be almost invisible unless you put on the magic glasses.:yep:

Fact is I was saying this treaty calls for a de facto registration by requiring signatory governments to keep records of the gun imported/exported on the "end user". Example, I buy a shotgun from Beretta in Italy, have it imported, under the treaty the US government is required to gather and store data about this and report it to the UN and share with other countries, this is a registration system.
Fact young man or "fact"?
For some facts could you run through the current US legislation on imports and exports which would be covered by the Dept of State and the Dept of Commerce? then for good measure since its firearms could you run through the current federal legislation from the Bureau of gunz?

Then come back and see how your conspiracy "facts" float:rotfl2:

Bubblehead1980

09-26-13, 03:42 PM

http://empyreanedge.com/wp-content/uploads/tin-foil-hat.jpeg

Free your mind? That is ironic, coming from someone who obviously can not think for himself.Believes so strongly in the "main line" you deride and mock those of us who dare to speak up. I hate to say it but I am glad some things will happen, it will prove me right and idiots who have facilitated this garbage will learn the hard way.Perhaps if there is anything left of our country, future generations will not repeat our mistakes.Thanks for being part of the problem chief.

Tribesman

09-26-13, 03:47 PM

Scroll to Article 8

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410%2012-01%20PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
you could have at least tried a lame run with article 5.
Article 8, that's government purchases

Madox58

09-26-13, 03:50 PM

You very welcome Tonto.
:D

There's nothing more I enjoy then the fact I got under a Nut cases skin.
(CRAP! There's another infraction for me I guess. :har:)

Madox58

09-26-13, 03:51 PM

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
you could have at least tried a lame run with article 5.
Article 8, that's government purchases
Well, to be fair?
It is 'We the people' so a screwball can make the connection, eh?
:hmmm:

Bubblehead1980

09-26-13, 03:55 PM

You very welcome Tonto.
:D

There's nothing more I enjoy then the fact I got under a Nut cases skin.
(CRAP! There's another infraction for me I guess. :har:)

Trust me princess, you didn't get under my skin. Just sad to see so many people are oblivious to the problems.I used to wonder how the holocaust happened but it's pretty easy to see now.People are blind until it is too late.I am not implying that will happen but we do live in a "soft police state" which is en route to becoming a "hard" police state and people like you are oblivious to it but that is the point from people like obama etc, divide and conquer.

Bubblehead1980

09-26-13, 03:59 PM

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
you could have at least tried a lame run with article 5.
Article 8, that's government purchases

No, it's not and 5 is troubling as well.Point is, the entire treaty is crap, we have no business being party to this garbage.Singing anything like this is contradictory to the Constitution, the end.

Madox58

09-26-13, 04:03 PM

Well this 'Princess' is probably the one you never want to be on the other side of a deadly conflict your involved in.
:03:

I don't trust this government and is the reason I left the Service.
But I trust Nut Cases a hell of a lot less.

You do have a point at times I'll admit.
But I'd bet your hat covers it nicely.

Good Day Sir.
:D

Tribesman

09-26-13, 04:08 PM

Singing anything like this is contradictory to the Constitution, the end.
Young man, you still havn't come up with anything.
Please make the tiny effort and run through just a few of your current long standing import/export regulations.
If you get stuck with all the stuff from the 3dept/agencies I already mentioned then try some simpler stuff with Dept. of Treasurys tax and trade bureau and then the US Customs and Border Protection Agency.
So many regulations and so much form filling.:hmmm:
Why oh why can't you just import a shotgun from Brescia in the post on a whim?:rotfl2:

Madox58

09-26-13, 04:19 PM

OK. My last infraction expired I can handle another one.
:D

You started the name calling game so do you really want to play that game?
I'm willing and ready to go to the joint for a few days.
Question is?
Are you ready Mr. Richard Nutbag Cranium?

Nippelspanner

09-26-13, 05:25 PM

I wonder when Bubblehead will learn how not to post 3 times in a row instead of just editing his post or using multi-quote Dowly wrote an, I thought, idiot-safe tutorial about...:timeout:

Dowly

09-26-13, 05:47 PM

@Bubblehead

Have you also read the terms that the US proposed before they agreed to sign the treaty?

You do realize that IF the UN would start tracking personal sales, it would be illegal,
both from UN's and US' part. Which begs the question: If your government would
like to take your weapons, why go through UN, then break the deal instead of just
you know.. taking your guns.

What you conspiracy loonies never show is the big chain of events. You stick to
one little detail that MIGHT be wrong. Can you show be ANY evidence, or ANY
logical chain of events from the signing of the treaty by US to taking your weapons?

I'm willing to pay you $20 if you can show me a logical path in any of this,
that can be verified.

Madox58

09-26-13, 06:00 PM

TarJak

09-26-13, 06:03 PM

Yeah, because the UN has such a good history of taking guns away in other countries. :nope:

Big secret. No one but a select few on the Internets Tubes knows the "real truth". :yep:

Can you name one country that the United Nations, since 1945, has been able to impose, by themselves, a disarmament of the citizens?

I would really like to see a citation on this.

I'll spot him for $100US if he can answer this question with any shred of real evidence. And no Somalia won't get you the money Bubbles.

Dowly

09-26-13, 06:16 PM

Since I'm a Legally Ordained Minister now?
I proclaim Dowley a Prophet and Visionary of the Word.
He has seenith the blasphemy of the Wicked 'Truthers' and bathed himself in the Lite Beer.
He is amoungst the keelhauled brought back to Life!!

If he wasn't so far away? I'd groupe upon him and proclaim him Bishop Dowley.
:haha:

DOOOOOOOOWLY! :hmph:

PS. We don't even have "lite beer" where I live, and I hope we never do.. sounds disgusting. :hmmm:

PPS. You can still proclaim me Bishop Dowly, right? Because, that'd look great in my resume! :yep:

Platapus

09-26-13, 06:19 PM

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories. Any evidence that refutes the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy. Cool huh?

At the same time, any opinion that supports the conspiracy theory is considered a fact. Nice how that works. :yep:

Of course anyone who talks about conspiracies in a disparaging way is part of the conspiracy so I just outed myself.

I am part of the UN global "wez gonna take yur gunz" conspiracy. My cover is blown. I suck at this. :down:

Dowly

09-26-13, 06:22 PM

It happens 006234798-.. uh I mean Platapus.

(seriously, can we get rid of these double-0 callnames?)

u crank

09-26-13, 06:22 PM

The reasons behind it? Well, pretty obvious it's about the big picture agenda to disarm as much of the populace as possible ...

What you conspiracy loonies never show is the big chain of events. You stick to
one little detail that MIGHT be wrong.

And the big picture here is pretty obvious. There is no force on earth that can disarm the civilians of the U.S.A. Not by coercion, by legislation or by force. The most powerful military in the world cannot disarm Afghanistan. So it's not gonna happen. Stop worrying about it.

Bubblehead1980

09-26-13, 06:37 PM

Dowly

09-26-13, 06:37 PM

And the big picture here is pretty obvious. There is no force on earth that can disarm the civilians of the U.S.A. Not by coercion, by legislation or by force. The most powerful military in the world cannot disarm Afghanistan. So it's not gonna happen. Stop worrying about it.

But if a civil war would broke out in the US, you know, a big one. The one's loyal
to the POTUS/GOV would have a huge advantage.

They would have their chain-of-command, and orders to strike where the enemy is, right?`

The "rebels" would be in disarray for days probably, "what to do?","where should we go?". Before the rebels could even get properly organized they'd have air on them.
Apaches, Cobras, A-10s and so on. :hmmm:

Madox58

09-26-13, 06:50 PM

DOOOOOOOOWLY! :hmph:

PS. We don't even have "lite beer" where I live, and I hope we never do.. sounds disgusting. :hmmm:

PPS. You can still proclaim me Bishop Dowly, right? Because, that'd look great in my resume! :yep:
As Minister? I did that misspelling on purpose. :D
How many times have you ever seen me do that?
It was to test your humility. Which I must say fails as often as all the children here.
Even one such as I, who was Un-keelhauled, have no humility you could throw a brick at.
A Legally Ordain Minister that costs less then $40.00 U.S. dollars if I want all the documents to register in my state?

I still proclaim you Bishop Dowly!
(I know you know the usual praying place and position right?)

Tchocky

09-26-13, 06:55 PM

Jesus guys. This thread.

Dowly

09-26-13, 06:59 PM

I still proclaim you Bishop Dowly!
(I know you know the usual praying place and position right?)

:hmmm:

*strips naked, goes to the couch and throws his feet behind his back*

NNNNGGGG.... NNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG... I.. I can't reach it! My tongue just isn't long enough. :nope:

(psst, that was it right? My.. wouldnt it be awkward otherwise...)

Jesus guys. This thread.

He dead man...

u crank

09-26-13, 07:01 PM

That is such a dangerous thing, taking it for granted it won't happen. Vigilance is key, letting guard down is exactly how rights are lost.

I'm not talking about rights. Taking 200 million or so guns away from their owners is impossible. How would you do it?

But if a civil war would broke out in the US, you know, a big one. The one's loyal
to the POTUS/GOV would have a huge advantage.

They would have their chain-of-command, and orders to strike where the enemy is, right?`

The "rebels" would be in disarray for days probably, "what to do?","where should we go?". Before the rebels could even get properly organized they'd have air on them.
Apaches, Cobras, A-10s and so on. :hmmm:

A civil war may be the result of an attempt to disarm the populous, but what happens before that? And again there is the examples of failed attempts to subjugate smaller and less well armed nations. Ask the American gun owners on this forum what would happen. It would be messy. I think it would be almost impossible.

Question to the bishop. Will you wear the pointy hat?:O:

Tchocky

09-26-13, 07:01 PM

Mistah Kurtz, he dead.

Madox58

09-26-13, 07:11 PM

that was it right?
I didn't expect you to explain the Secret Ritual, but?
Ya. Ok.

You are now Bishop Dowly (That has no E's anywhere what so ever in his name)

My Church is now International!!!
:rock:

Oberon

09-26-13, 07:21 PM

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lu2e5oxe1B1r54anuo1_500.jpg
"There better be alcohol in that, old man!"

Dowly

09-26-13, 07:21 PM

A civil war may be the result of an attempt to disarm the populous, but what happens before that?
Pretty damn good question!

And again there is the examples of failed attempts to subjugate smaller and less well armed nations. Ask the American gun owners on this forum what would happen. It would be messy. I think it would be almost impossible.

It would probably go the way of Afghanistan, some remain pro-GOV, some go
anti-GOV. But like I said, the GOV forces would have a clear advantage early on.

How it would evolve, I got no idea.

I didn't expect you to explain the Secret Ritual, but?
Ya. Ok.

You are now Bishop Dowly (That has no E's anywhere what so ever in his name)

My Church is now International!!!
:rock:

Damn, sorry! (it was a diversion, I did the OTHER secret ritual :O:)

I thank you for the title, I shall put it to good use.

"Bitches and Booze, Privateer pays!!"

Madox58

09-26-13, 07:24 PM

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/N2FIY3dtkWY/hqdefault.jpg

Oberon

09-26-13, 07:30 PM

How it would evolve, I got no idea.

Probably the same as the last one, a large bloody mess that tears the country apart and is still being fought, but without weapons, over a century later.

TarJak

09-26-13, 07:35 PM

Bishop Downly can you please bless my tinfoil hat?

Dowly

09-26-13, 07:36 PM

Probably the same as the last one, a large bloody mess that tears the country apart and is still being fought, but without weapons, over a century later.

Yeah, probably. Was just thinking what would the "enemy" countries do. Would
China try to grab some land, would Russia go to Alaska?

Hopefully we'll never find out. :hmmm:

Oberon

09-26-13, 08:10 PM

Yeah, probably. Was just thinking what would the "enemy" countries do. Would
China try to grab some land, would Russia go to Alaska?

Hopefully we'll never find out. :hmmm:

Russia would leave Alaska alone, because either side would have access to nuclear weapons and be more likely to use them against external enemies intruding on US soil.
China would probably lose its government in the global economic crash that would follow the beginning of a US civil war, and the military government that would likely take over (or a hard-left government backed by the military) would probably take the opportunity to eat Taiwan and exploit the absence of an organised US force in the Pacific. However, how much it could actually exploit would be debatable because it would be facing a lot of internal unrest.

Madox58

09-26-13, 08:16 PM

Bishop Downly can you please bless my tinfoil hat?
Damn! I forgot about the other letters!
:nope:

TarJak

09-26-13, 09:16 PM

Damn! I forgot about the other letters!
:nope:

I didn't. :O:

Sailor Steve

09-26-13, 10:36 PM

Scroll to Article 8

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410%2012-01%20PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21
Talks about imports and exports. Says exactly nothing about private gun registration.

Sailor Steve

09-26-13, 10:42 PM

Trust me princess, you didn't get under my skin.
If he didn't get under your skin, then why the need to call him "Princess"? That kind of reaction only proves that he is right.

TarJak

09-26-13, 10:44 PM

Talks about imports and exports. Says exactly nothing about private gun registration.

Even if it did, how does it relate to the "BO takin' all er gunz" conspiracy theory? Because they know you imported a gun doesn't give them the power to take it off you. Particularly when you on sell it or bury with your survival kit. If the UN had any interest they could simply go to the place you bought it and ask who and where they sent it.

The whole thing makes as much sense as me becoming Formula 1 World Champion next year.

Buddahaid

09-27-13, 01:44 AM

Been away for a day or so and I see nothing's going on here still.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/Sa4QLaP14wI/AAAAAAAA7aE/p_Sn09TnSx4/s640/423727983_dac49569c5.jpg

TarJak

09-27-13, 04:15 AM

So I get to keep my $100 then.

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 07:32 AM

If he didn't get under your skin, then why the need to call him "Princess"? That kind of reaction only proves that he is right.

No, proves it was being sarcastic..Under my skin no? annoying? sure, I get annoyed with people who ignore the obvious danger.We need more people to see it.I was once someone who dismissed things as conspiracy theories etc but over time, have learned to read between the lines.Again, so many people just have never bothered to do research about Barack Hussein Obama, who he is, who has influenced him, etc Sad part is, he is probably the easiest president we have ever had to research and know the true him.People just don't bother to take the time.Yes, it is frustrating but I feel people are waking up mostly and eventually, he will go too far and it will really wake people up, but sad part is what damage will be done by then? We already are stuck with the ACA, trillions more in debt, precedent of drone strikes on us citizens without trial, which are nothing more than summary executions, a weak economy, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, countless far left appointees for life, such as other far left judges appointed to federal courts, a military in shambles, with idiot leaders, such as the current commandant of the Marines.The list just goes on and on and on and sadly will grow before he leaves, if he leaves.

The complacency and apathy is annoying, people ASSUME we can survive another bad president because we have survived plenty but the thing is, he is different.This is someone who as he has shown, has disregard for our laws,rights, traditions etc and will use his loyal band of ignorant followers and propaganda machine to his full advantage to push his agenda which just does not fall in line with the majority of the american public.People just don't realize the House being controlled by his opposition has been the only saving grace.We saw what a disaster it was him having a majority in both houses for two years and thus a blank check was.

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 07:40 AM

Talks about imports and exports. Says exactly nothing about private gun registration.

what the.... do you think documenting the end user is? Yes, imports, citizen imports some guns, they will collect data under the treaty, store it, share it, this is REGISTRATION, pure and simple. They may not call it that, because it's to overt, but that is what it is.

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 07:46 AM

Even if it did, how does it relate to the "BO takin' all er gunz" conspiracy theory? Because they know you imported a gun doesn't give them the power to take it off you. Particularly when you on sell it or bury with your survival kit. If the UN had any interest they could simply go to the place you bought it and ask who and where they sent it.

The whole thing makes as much sense as me becoming Formula 1 World Champion next year.

Okay, "BO takin er gunz" thing, really? Not a conspiracy but he is a Democrat, a far left one at that, part of their agenda is gun control.Some Democrats wants guns gone because they are emotional and think it will shootings etc or keep them way down.Others like Obama and many more, believe the general public should not have weapons and one reason is an armed populace is a check against full implementation of their agenda.I don't think Obama is evil and wants to kill everyone, in fact he means well but he holds views and an agenda that are contrary to the US Constitution and the very fabric of this country.That coupled with his psychological issues, makes for someone very dangerous.

The UN may be ineffective in disarming countries but they still seek to do so and treaties like this further erode sovereignty and violate rights of citizens, so again, knowingly doing such a thing is treason.

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 07:49 AM

Probably the same as the last one, a large bloody mess that tears the country apart and is still being fought, but without weapons, over a century later.

Yep and once again it would be a tyrannical US Government's fault.

desertstriker

09-27-13, 07:58 AM

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 07:59 AM

I'm not talking about rights. Taking 200 million or so guns away from their owners is impossible. How would you do it?

A civil war may be the result of an attempt to disarm the populous, but what happens before that? And again there is the examples of failed attempts to subjugate smaller and less well armed nations. Ask the American gun owners on this forum what would happen. It would be messy. I think it would be almost impossible.

Question to the bishop. Will you wear the pointy hat?:O:

Well it depends on how far things would escalate and who tyrannical the government is.Saying it could not and would happen here is just ignorant.Unlikely? Yes, but possible? Absolutely.

Lincoln launched a war of aggression that cost 800,0000 americans their lives, ruined an entire area of the country, left millions homeless and impoverished, scarred emotionally and physically,Lincoln suspended habeas corpus , jailed his critics for simply speaking out against him among his many other crimes. All over slavery which was on it's way out anyway.

All it takes is the wrong person in charge. I could see an unlikely but possible scenario of economic collapse(which will happened if we dont change course, could be 10, 20 years) leading to widespread unrest and with the wrong politican like BHO or worse in office, perhaps lucky enough to have a majority and shoving some wild anti gun legislation down our throats they way they did obamacare or the way the PATRIOT ACT was passed in the wake of 9/11.Then suddenly, any citizen caught with a firearm after so and so date is a felon.All depends on timing and how tyrannical said leader is willing to be. Don't say things like this won't happen, they have, Lincoln and civil war are prime example.

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 08:29 AM

bubblehead I have a feeling you hate all democrats. but i do have a good meme for this anti gun BS that you think only democrats are for

http://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj639/stormeagleV2/1237550_646803235341545_2092475055_n_zps68442561.j pg (http://s1271.photobucket.com/user/stormeagleV2/media/1237550_646803235341545_2092475055_n_zps68442561.j pg.html)https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=646803235341545&set=a.115013885187152.12534.114270361928171&type=1&theater

Okay, this meme is garbage.

First, perhaps Reagan was listening the citizens of his state? Crazy idea for politicans to do.I don't even know if it's true he did this but will do some research. Also, did he ban concealed carry or just open carry?

Okay, maybe the militant types Palin disarmed(if this is true) were a bunch of wackjobs? Not patriots but actual wackjobs, sure she was within the law and far as I know, Alaska's gun laws are gun friendly.

Romney is NOT a Conservative, so he does not count.Romney is an establishment Republican which all have a taint being half "progressive" .Also, he was governor of MA, a liberal cesspool of a state, but if that is what the citizens ignorantly wanted, perhaps he was listening to them?

That is also the difference, state's have much more leeway in firearms laws than the feds.State's can not violate second amendment either but certain details are within their purview.Obama, being president, ie the federal government, has not one shred of business discussing magazine size etc .That is difference, he has no place here and if such a law were passed by the federal government, it would be unconstitutional.

Far as hating Democrats, yes I hate what the Democratic party has devolved into.The Democratic party is the party that seeks to open the borders, raise taxes higher and higher in order have a cradle to grave welfare state, take away means of self defense(guns), pursues flawed and failed economic theory(keynesian) exploits the poor and uneducated, exploits the poor and uneducated(minorities) in particular with identity politics(race and economic) mainly in order to secure power. This party is the "Progressive" party, which is nothing more than another name for socialist or even communist but no one will get elected to national office running as that, so they brand themselves "progressives".

To be fair, some good things they do. They are better, for most part, on labor issues.California just made minimum wage $10 an hour, I agree with that.Usually, they don't tend to have almost imperial like ambitions they neocons have but are still part of the problem.None of this is compares to the lunacy and almost sheer, evil that comes out of that part.I am not usually a good, evil type, I am an atheist so don't believe in good and evil in the biblical sense.However, some ideologies are just outright evil and marxism, especially with what manifests itself as in modern america, is just evil.

Oberon

09-27-13, 08:45 AM

Yep and once again it would be a tyrannical US Government's fault.

So Lincoln was a tyrant? :hmmm:

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 08:54 AM

So Lincoln was a tyrant? :hmmm:

Absolutely. Lincoln was a divisive figure to begin with but instead of trying to work with the states, respecting their rights, their culture and understanding slavery was on it's way out , he launched a war without justification.Then the manner in which he prosecuted said war, such as allowing Sherman to pursue scorched earth policy, is just reprehensible .

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned his many of critics indefinitely until the end of the war. Sure, there is a suspension clause but to jail someone for criticizing your war against fellow American's simply standing up to a tyrannical government? Not what it was meant for.This is tyrannical behavior, any man who would do such a thing is just that, a TYRANT.

desertstriker

09-27-13, 09:01 AM

Tribesman

09-27-13, 09:11 AM

I must say that the lunacy in this CT topic is reaching new levels.
I didn't think anyone could top the troofers, but bubbles certainly has.

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 09:18 AM

bubblehead i always had you pictured for one of those uber Christian republicans that fact you seem to be uber republican astounds me if you are truly an atheist. normally the atheists are more in the middle of the political spectrum because both parties use whatever religion when it suits them the most (republicans christo-catho, dems everything else) and both parties more the republicans despise the atheists. that being said what do you think of independents like me who don't side with either party but like some of the policies of both sides? me i an not a gun fanatic but i support a round limit because i aint going hunting with an assault rifle. the main problem is that neither party wants to cooperate and get things done or address underlying causes of an issue again lets look at guns these mass shootings are done by people who are mentaly ill yet all we hear is dems want to take your guns (when i think thats furthest from the truth), video games are to violent, or we need to arm more people(which is ironic because that may mean a mentaly ill person may get a gun again) but i never heard a solution to the common factor MENTAL ILLNESS!!!!
that's my bit for now

I am a CONSERVATIVE first, a true conservative, not a religious one, one that insists we follow the constitution of the united states and have sound, sensible economic policy. I am a registered Republican so can vote in primaries and seek to do what is happening now, make the Republican party the conservative party and root out the "progessives", they have ruined the party for far too long.

Trust me, I fight with fellow about as conservatives/republicans as much as I do democrats because I am an atheist and not shy about it. Yes both parties exploit religion but that is because sadly our population has not evolved enough to not get caught up in the religious mumbo jumbo.However, since I live in a country founded on respect for individual liberties, I respect someone's right to believe in fairy tales, as long as don't try to make it law where it affects me.I often confuse people in class when I am the first one to defend a religious group's right.I will never forget the looks on some faces in a class back when the news about obamacare mandate on church hospitals providing contraception.I am pro contraception, think it is just outright ignorant to not practice it.However, it is not my place nor the government's to tell someone what to do in that realm, so I was there in class arguing for the catholic church.I will never forget a guy I sparred with all the time, absolute pinko commie, raising his hand and asking if anyone thought it was ironic mister atheist was defending the catholic church?

That is the point , I can put my own views aside in regards to the constitution and rule of law and everyone is supposed to do the same.While you may not go hunting with an assault rifle, it is not your place, nor mine, nor the government's to tell someone what type of gun they need, that is a choice and a RIGHT guaranteed by the Second Amendment.The Second Amendment says arms, not muskets.The founders knew the nature of man, the nature of government, the constitution was put in place to limit govenrment but also also provided a mechanism for enforcement if you will, the Second Amendment.The Second Amendment is the safe guard, they know they can only get away with so much due to a heavily armed populace.That was the point and it has worked mostly well as think government would be far more oppressive by now if not for second amendment.The garbage it was about hunting etc is propaganda, it is about SELF PRESERVATION, an inherent right.My politics are about one word:LIBERTY. Political, Economic liberty for myself and fellow citizens.Each time we give any little bit of ground, we lose some.

What do I think of independents? Well I think many see lunacy on both sides, and are turned away.I also think many are unprincipled, either because they are apathetic or just don't have the knowledge etc to care. Some are just trying to be pragmatic and may not understand the big picture.Example, I think if many independent voters full understood the ideology of progressives , they would never support a democratic candidate again but sadly, a large part of the voting public do not understand one bit.

TarJak

09-27-13, 09:19 AM

Okay, "BO takin er gunz" thing, really? Not a conspiracy but he is a Democrat, a far left one at that, part of their agenda is gun control.Some 9Democrats wants guns gone because they are emotional and think it will shootings etc or keep them way down.Others like Obama and many more, believe the general public should not have weapons and one reason is an armed populace is a check against full implementation of their agenda.I don't think Obama is evil and wants to kill everyone, in fact he means well but he holds views and an agenda that are contrary to the US Constitution and the very fabric of this country.That coupled with his psychological issues, makes for someone very dangerous.

The UN may be ineffective in disarming countries but they still seek to do so and treaties like this further erode sovereignty and violate rights of citizens, so again, knowingly doing such a thing is treason.
:har::har::har:

But seriously, why does the UN want to take your guns?

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 09:24 AM

I must say that the lunacy in this CT topic is reaching new levels.
I didn't think anyone could top the troofers, but bubbles certainly has.

Please explain wise one. What I said about Lincoln is true? Did he not suspend habeas corpus? Yes he did.Did he not imprison many of his critics? yes he did.Did he not launch a bloody war that left a section of the country in ruins ? yes he did. All true, so please explain.

Sailor Steve

09-27-13, 09:25 AM

Yep and once again it would be a tyrannical US Government's fault.
It wasn't then, and you're still trying to to force that faulty view into a discussion about something else. If your "knowledge" of that war is indicative of your overall perception, then maybe the people who keep trashing you are right. In that case you seem to have done zero research yourself and have no clue what you are talking about. If you want to discuss it further, bring it up in one of the several threads we already have on that subject. You don't seem to have read any of them.

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 09:28 AM

:har::har::har:

But seriously, why does the UN want to take your guns?

Well many mean well, think the world would be a better place without guns.The other side of the coin is power, much easier control people who have no means to defend themselves.There are actual people who want a one world government you know, some are at the high levels of the UN, some in various governments.Do I think it's some massive conspiracy? No. Are there people doing what they can to lay groundwork to facilitate this many years from now if possible? Absolutely.

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 09:31 AM

It wasn't then, and you're still trying to to force that faulty view into a discussion about something else. If your "knowledge" of that war is indicative of your overall perception, then maybe the people who keep trashing you are right. In that case you seem to have done zero research yourself and have no clue what you are talking about. If you want to discuss it further, bring it up in one of the several threads we already have on that subject. You don't seem to have read any of them.

Did Lincoln not launch a war? Yes he did. Did he not allow the war to be conducted in a terrible manner? Yes he did. Did Lincoln behave like a tyrant? suspending habeas corpus, jailing his critics? Yes he did.Nothing faulty chief, play again.

TarJak

09-27-13, 09:37 AM

Well many mean well, thing the world would be a better place without guns.The other side of the coin is power, much easier control people who have no means to defend themselves.There are actual people who want a one world government you know, some are at the high levels of the UN, some in various governments.Do I think it's some massive conspiracy? No. Are there people doing what they can to lay groundwork to facilitate this many years from now if possible? Absolutely.

And again your evidence for your assertion is...? Absent as usual. You really do need to research better and form more coherent arguments. And no I don't "thing" the world would be a better place without guns but I do think that. :03:

Tribesman

09-27-13, 09:41 AM

Please explain wise one. What I said about Lincoln is true? Did he not suspend habeas corpus? Yes he did.Did he not imprison many of his critics? yes he did.Did he not launch a bloody war that left a section of the country in ruins ? yes he did. All true, so please explain.
More deluded ramblings:har:
Come on bubbles, I am still waiting for you to show just some basic knowledge of legislation in relation to your crazy conspiracy theory.
So far all you have shown is that you really are crazy and totally clueless.

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 09:44 AM

And again your evidence for your assertion is...? Absent as usual. You really do need to research better and form more coherent arguments. And no I don't "thing" the world would be a better place without guns but I do think that. :03:

Obviously, you don't understand the ideology, do some research then we can talk.The UN does have an Office for Disarmament? The UN is never offering a pro gun treaty now are they? Look at the people who run that freakshow.

Tribesman

09-27-13, 09:46 AM

Obviously, you don't understand the ideology, do some research then we can talk
:har::har::har::har::har::har:Priceless

Platapus

09-27-13, 09:48 AM

I totally approve of this thread. It is like being able to go to the zoo and look at the crazy monkeys flinging poo, but then being able to step away when you get bored. :D

http://store.franscountryusa.com/TinyMCE/thumbnail.ashx?src=%2fcontent%2f172985%2fproductIm age%2fIMGP1574.JPG&size=250

Bubblehead1980

09-27-13, 09:49 AM

More deluded ramblings:har:
Come on bubbles, I am still waiting for you to show just some basic knowledge of legislation in relation to your crazy conspiracy theory.
So far all you have shown is that you really are crazy and totally clueless.

Obviously you do not know your history, he did suspend habeas corpus.I googled this for you, perhaps you can take the blinders off and read then again, you just ignore and insult.This is short and simple, so should be easy for you read but I implore you do some more research.Also mentions how he ignored Justice Taney's order also.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-lincoln-suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus-during-the-civil-war

Tribesman

09-27-13, 09:54 AM

Obviously you do not know your history, he did suspend habeas corpus.I googled this for you, perhaps you can take the blinders off and read then again, you just ignore and insult.This is short and simple, so should be easy for you read but I implore you do some more research.Also mentions how he ignored Justice Taney's order also.

More deluded ramblings:rotfl2:
Keep it coming bubbles.

Sailor Steve

09-27-13, 10:35 AM

he is different
They always are. This has been said by every hater of every president we've ever had.

Lincoln launched a war of aggression
No, he didn't. That onus falls on Jefferson Davis and Francis Pickens. Lincoln said he wouldn't fire the first shot, and he didn't. Argue about it all you want, but that's the bottom line.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus
In a limited area, for a limited time. If Maryland went with the South Washington would be cut off from the rest of the country. Once Maryland was secure the order was rescinded and the prisoners released. Hardly the act of a tyrant. There was much controversy at the time, but Congress eventually agreed with Lincoln. Here is a very good study on the subject.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0029.205?rgn=main;view=fulltext

jailed his critics for simply speaking out against him
Yes, powers were abused, and not all by the president. I'm not about to justify all his actions, but considering the times it was not to be unexpected, and when things calmed down the prisoners were released. I agree that this was wrong, and the ends never justify the means, but none of this justifies labelling Lincoln a "tyrant". At the end he was doing everything he could to make reunion peaceable and forgiving.

among his many other crimes.
You haven't shown that the previous doings were crimes. Was the suspension legal? He argued that it was, and successfully.

All over slavery which was on it's way out anyway.
But I thought the war wasn't about slavery. For Lincoln the war was about preserving the Union. He was the product of the generation who rebelled against Britain, who said "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately", and there is ample evidence that he believed the country could not survive divided, that one or both parts would soon be absorbed by one European power or another.

I agree that Lincoln had his flaws. All men do, and men who have the drive to achieve power have those flaws magnified. That said, I also believe that his motives, taken in the context of the time, were pure.

Absolutely. Lincoln was a divisive figure to begin with but instead of trying to work with the states
You mean the states that seceded simply because Lincoln was elected, without even trying to work out an equitable solution?

respecting their rights, their culture
In his inaugural address he did everything he could to placate those States and gave an eloquent statement on his beliefs concerning slavery and secession. He did indeed respect their rights.

and understanding slavery was on it's way out
In that same address he reiterated that he wasn't trying to abolish slavery in the Southern States. Also, you'll have a hard time proving that slavery was "on the way out" when all the seceeding states cited slavery as their main reason for seceding in the first place.

he launched a war without justification.
Except of course for the part where he didn't launch the war.

Then the manner in which he prosecuted said war, such as allowing Sherman to pursue scorched earth policy, is just reprehensible
That's a valid argument, but you haven't been arguing it, just using it to justify your accusation of tyrrany.

Sure, there is a suspension clause but to jail someone for criticizing your war against fellow American's simply standing up to a tyrannical government?
Let me see if I have this straight: Lincoln is a tyrant because he jailed people for criticizing him, but they stood against him because he was already a tyrant. Which came first?

I can understand your thinking on this, but you are still expressing yourself as one who has long ago made up his mind and refuses to see any possibility that he might be mistaken. You're not debating, you're shouting.

Tribesman

09-27-13, 10:49 AM

That's a valid argument, but you haven't been arguing it, just using it to justify your accusation of tyrrany.

Is it a valid argument?
What were the laws of war covering that territory at that time?
If it isn't in breach of those then there is no fault in the manner with which he conducted that campaign

Sailor Steve

09-27-13, 11:14 AM

Is it a valid argument?
What were the laws of war covering that territory at that time?
If it isn't in breach of those then there is no fault in the manner with which he conducted that campaign
When I say "valid argument" I always mean that it can be argued. I don't mean that I agree, just that the argument can be made. How it plays out is another story. This is as opposed to calling people "Tyrant" and "Emperor", which are not arguments at all, but opinionated attacks.

u crank

09-27-13, 12:30 PM

Well it depends on how far things would escalate and who tyrannical the government is.Saying it could not and would happen here is just ignorant.Unlikely? Yes, but possible? Absolutely.

You didn't answer the question. How would you do it? How would you physically take possession of an estimated 250 million guns in the hands of upwards of 80 million people. Ask politely? As I said there is no force on this earth that could accomplish this. There is no politician, including third term Obama, :O: who would be dumb enough to suggest it. No police or military leader would be dumb enough to attempt it either. The logistics are impossible. Maybe you know something no one else knows. Again, how would you do it?

All it takes is the wrong person in charge.

Apparently anyone you don't approve of.

I could see an unlikely but possible scenario of economic collapse(which will happened if we dont change course, could be 10, 20 years) leading to widespread unrest and with the wrong politican like BHO or worse in office, perhaps lucky enough to have a majority and shoving some wild anti gun legislation down our throats

In a country that is in an economic collapse, explain exactly what 'some wild anti gun legislation' would or could accomplish. It would make no sense and be even harder to do. There would be other pressing problems other than turning a large portion of the population, armed at that, against the government. Again, not a chance.

Then suddenly, any citizen caught with a firearm after so and so date is a felon.All depends on timing and how tyrannical said leader is willing to be. Don't say things like this won't happen, they have, Lincoln and civil war are prime example.

Your view of American history is as slanted as your view of current events.

Oberon

09-27-13, 12:40 PM

Dread Knot

09-27-13, 12:48 PM

I wonder how many other nations on this Earth who have had a civil war well over a hundred years ago, are still so heatedly divided today. Russia perhaps, although their most recent civil war was just under a hundred years ago, Korea as well, but that's much more recent. Ireland, perhaps, but again, although the history is long, the violence is still fairly recent. :hmmm:

The difference between the US and secession in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc, is that the in US, we drew up our own union. In Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia, the French the English, the Russians, the Ottomans and the Chinese drew up borders for other peoples.

Also, the mythos of the "Lost Cause" dies hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

Oberon

09-27-13, 01:21 PM

The difference between the US and secession in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc, is that the in US, we drew up our own union. In Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia, the French the English, the Russians, the Ottomans and the Chinese drew up borders for other peoples.

Also, the mythos of the "Lost Cause" dies hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

Aye, bit like the old Stab in the Back theory after WWI. Defeat really is too bitter a pill to swallow for some.
Fully agreed on the designation of borders, and we're seeing the end result of that in North Africa and the Middle East today, the infamous (well, infamous now but relatively unknown before the Syrian civil war) Sykes-Picot agreement.
However, there are plenty of other nations that don't fall into that category, although their civil wars generally happened much longer ago. I mean, let's face it, most of Europe has been at war with both itself and everyone else in Europe at some point over the last two thousand years. :haha:

Betonov

09-27-13, 01:26 PM

Yugoslavia had it's own civil war during WWII.

Still abused for political points today. To the point of stalemating the economy. :/\\!!

Dread Knot

09-27-13, 01:35 PM

I mean, let's face it, most of Europe has been at war with both itself and everyone else in Europe at some point over the last two thousand years. :haha:

Over its tumultuous 1200-year history the Roman Empire was mostly in a state of near civil war or out right civil war. Eventually it did break into two halves. Seems to be the fate of some nations.

What did they say in the beginning of the HBO series? Rome ruled most of the known world. It couldn't rule itself.

Tribesman

09-27-13, 02:17 PM

The difference between the US and secession in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc, is that the in US, we drew up our own union. In Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia, the French the English, the Russians, the Ottomans and the Chinese drew up borders for other peoples.

How so?
Your country spent the next 130+ years negotiating with Britain on where each of you would agree to draw the lines on the map, sometimes going to other countries for international arbitration and getting those countries to help decide on a line to draw.
Currently you have 5 ongoing border disputes with your "new" northern neighbour, in the 1970s and 80s you went to Holland to ask the Hague to draw a border for you.
As for drawing up borders for other people, you seem to be skipping over Americas role in that practice.

mapuc

09-27-13, 02:21 PM

Some one mentioned "Tin foil hat"

Here's the story of this famous hat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

I tried a hat my self-not to protect me against the government or other officials, but to protect my brain against all these conspiracy stuff.

Markus

Aktungbby

09-27-13, 03:44 PM

How so?
Your country spent the next 130+ years negotiating with Britain on where each of you would agree to draw the lines on the map, sometimes going to other countries for international arbitration and getting those countries to help decide on a line to draw.
Currently you have 5 ongoing border disputes with your "new" northern neighbour, in the 1970s and 80s you went to Holland to ask the Hague to draw a border for you.
As for drawing up borders for other people, you seem to be skipping over Americas role in that practice.
No kidding! there I was peaceably (muskie) fishing on Lake of the Woods in my home state of Minnesota (3 Quetico treks)and suddenly a Canadian ranger pulls alongside my canoe... I had drifted to his side of the lake without the proper angler license; fortunately the hook and bobber were still on the American side and he let me 'kedge the reel' back to the states..but only because we both played hockey and my mom's parents are from Toronto. I regard it as my only real life naval engagement from which I escaped intact. :arrgh!:

TarJak

09-27-13, 04:05 PM

Obviously, you don't understand the ideology, do some research then we can talk.The UN does have an Office for Disarmament? The UN is never offering a pro gun treaty now are they? Look at the people who run that freakshow.

Your entertainment value just went up a notch Bubbles. You have yet again failed to provide any evidence to sustain your assertion relying on bluster and bollox to try to shout down any opposing view.

Have you ever visited the UNODA website and read anything that they have published? If you are fine that no one makes any attempt to stem the flows of illegal and legal weapons from getting into the hands of terrorist groups and their like, then you're so called Conservatism is getting in the way of your humanity. Your strategy of straying from the point of your original argument won't work, so stick to the point and prove your argument. Or just continue to fling poo about without caring because what you think is right and no-one who posts anything contrary to your view is not so there. :O:

Tribesman

09-27-13, 04:45 PM

You're strategy of straying from the point of your original argument won't work so stick to the point and prove your argument.
But what about Jefferson Davis, a tyrant and TREASON!!!!!!!! and I bet he wanted to take der gunz too.
He was part of a secret UN plot which was so secret that most people who havn't researched properly like I does still think the UN wasn't invented to run the world till the 1940s

TarJak

09-27-13, 05:02 PM

But what about Jefferson Davis, a tyrant and TREASON!!!!!!!! and I bet he wanted to take der gunz too.
He was part of a secret UN plot which was so secret that most people who havn't researched properly like I does still think the UN wasn't invented to run the world till the 1940s

Of course! It was the previous incarnation the League of Extraordinary Nations and before that, the International Peace congress, all the way back to that loony Hugo Grotius who kicked the whole conspiracy off.

Dread Knot

09-27-13, 05:21 PM

Currently you have 5 ongoing border disputes with your "new" northern neighbour, in the 1970s and 80s you went to Holland to ask the Hague to draw a border for you.
As for drawing up borders for other people, you seem to be skipping over Americas role in that practice.

And how many of these ongoing border disputes have resulted in long lasting schisms or civil war?

When I refer to drawing up our own union, I'm speaking to the nearly 80 years of compromise and confrontation inside the US between free and slave owning states. A long running and ruinous completion between the southern and northern states for power in Congress and for control over future territories. The point I'm trying to make is we own our civil war here. We can't blame it on a former colonial or imperial master who drew lines on a map which divided us or we just didn't like. We drew them ourselves. Ultimately, the blame has to go to a Constitution that kept alive the institution of Slavery.

mapuc

09-27-13, 07:10 PM

The Truth is.......here in GT

Madox58

09-28-13, 09:44 PM

No, proves it was being sarcastic.
1 point for an original line of BS.

Under my skin no? annoying? sure,
"annoying? sure," defines the under the skin part.
:haha:

The rest reminded me of Adults in a 'Charley Brown' show.
:nope:

Bubblehead1980

09-29-13, 05:45 PM

Your entertainment value just went up a notch Bubbles. You have yet again failed to provide any evidence to sustain your assertion relying on bluster and bollox to try to shout down any opposing view.

Have you ever visited the UNODA website and read anything that they have published? If you are fine that no one makes any attempt to stem the flows of illegal and legal weapons from getting into the hands of terrorist groups and their like, then you're so called Conservatism is getting in the way of your humanity. Your strategy of straying from the point of your original argument won't work, so stick to the point and prove your argument. Or just continue to fling poo about without caring because what you think is right and no-one who posts anything contrary to your view is not so there. :O:

The only getting in the way of humanity are the socialists/collectivists etc of the world.

The whole "safety" and weapons falling into hands of terrorists etc is garbage, it's their guise for an overall objective.Don't be such a pawn.Really is sad when people.

I have no strayed unless responding to various ignorant posters.Signing the treason is treaty as it does enable a registration of sorts for those who import weapons.I posted a link to the treaty, pretty easy to read.Mentions keeping records on imports and reporting this.That is registration, period.No such treaty that binds the US government to do such a thing is permissible, period!

TarJak

09-29-13, 05:52 PM

The only getting in the way of humanity are the socialists/collectivists etc of the world.

The whole "safety" and weapons falling into hands of terrorists etc is garbage, it's their guise for an overall objective.Don't be such a pawn.Really is sad when people.

I have no strayed unless responding to various ignorant posters.Signing the treason is treaty as it does enable a registration of sorts for those who import weapons.I posted a link to the treaty, pretty easy to read.Mentions keeping records on imports and reporting this.That is registration, period.No such treaty that binds the US government to do such a thing is permissible, period!

I wish I could understand your response but there are too many words and letters missing for any of it to make sense. It also looks like some of the words are not in the right order.

Tribesman

09-29-13, 06:02 PM

The whole "safety" and weapons falling into hands of terrorists etc is garbage, it's their guise for an overall objective.Don't be such a pawn.Really is sad when people.

History and current events not your strong points either then.
No wonder you are siding with Iran and N. Korea on this issue then:doh:

I have no strayed unless responding to various ignorant posters.
Young man the ignorance is clearly on you and you alone in this topic

I posted a link to the treaty, pretty easy to read
Yet you managed the incredible feat of not being able to read it:rotfl2:

Mentions keeping records on imports and reporting this.That is registration, period.No such treaty that binds the US government to do such a thing is permissible, period!
If you ran through current long standing US legislation you could see how you are talking total bollox, but legislation is another of your weak points isn't it:yep:

u crank

09-29-13, 06:53 PM

I have no strayed unless responding to various ignorant posters.

Oh yeah, that's classy. Nice.

AndyJWest

09-29-13, 07:02 PM

The only getting in the way of humanity are the socialists/collectivists etc of the world.

The whole "safety" and weapons falling into hands of terrorists etc is garbage, it's their guise for an overall objective.Don't be such a pawn.Really is sad when people.

I have no strayed unless responding to various ignorant posters.Signing the treason is treaty as it does enable a registration of sorts for those who import weapons.I posted a link to the treaty, pretty easy to read.Mentions keeping records on imports and reporting this.That is registration, period.No such treaty that binds the US government to do such a thing is permissible, period!

Somebody needs to reboot the bubble-bot. It seems to be producing garbage...

razark

09-29-13, 07:25 PM

Signing the treason is treaty as it does enable a registration of sorts for those who import weapons.
How, exactly, is gun registration "treason"?

You seem extremely hung up on that point, yet you have never shown how "registration" equals, or necessarily leads to, "treason" (see below). Without that link, you appear to be foaming at the mouth crazy. Show that link, and you have a better chance of winning people over to your side. Scream that it's so obvious and rant about how blind people are, and you're just doing harm to those that agree with you by making them look stupid and insane by association.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Tribesman

09-30-13, 01:20 AM

How, exactly, is gun registration "treason"?

I am still waiting to see if he knows anything at all about imports and exports.
It would appear he thinks that currently there is a magic fairy that would take his Berettas registration # and make sure it is stamped "made in Italy" before he signs for it and pays any duty due.:03:

TarJak

09-30-13, 08:41 AM

I'm still waiting for a coherent argument for his assertions. Mind you I think I'll be waiting a long time.

Bubblehead1980

09-30-13, 03:22 PM

How, exactly, is gun registration "treason"?

You seem extremely hung up on that point, yet you have never shown how "registration" equals, or necessarily leads to, "treason" (see below). Without that link, you appear to be foaming at the mouth crazy. Show that link, and you have a better chance of winning people over to your side. Scream that it's so obvious and rant about how blind people are, and you're just doing harm to those that agree with you by making them look stupid and insane by association.

Okay, registration compelled by a treaty with other countries, information gathered submitted to a foreign body(the UN) is our government signing over some degree of sovereignty to a foreign body, this falls within the definition of treason.Giving a foreign body or nation authority and information on our citizens as to what guns they import ? That is treasonous behavior.

TarJak

09-30-13, 03:45 PM

Jimbuna

09-30-13, 03:46 PM

I'm still waiting for a coherent argument for his assertions. Mind you I think I'll be waiting a long time.

You can put your house on that.

TarJak

09-30-13, 04:03 PM

You can put your house on that.

That's why I offered up the readies earlier. I knew I wouldn't have to open my wallet. Fancy a pint?

Jimbuna

09-30-13, 04:10 PM

That's why I offered up the readies earlier. I knew I wouldn't have to open my wallet. Fancy a pint?

After tonight's result...oh yes :huh:

TarJak

09-30-13, 04:12 PM

After tonight's result...oh yes :huh:

Good it's your round. :O:

Jimbuna

09-30-13, 04:17 PM

Good it's your round. :O:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3874/eacx.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/eacx.gif/)

Bubblehead1980

09-30-13, 04:20 PM

Tribesman

09-30-13, 04:50 PM

AndyJWest

09-30-13, 04:52 PM

Bubblehead1980

09-30-13, 04:55 PM

The facts are clear - the treaty isn't with enemies of the United States, therefore it isn't treason.

Does not have to be an enemy, I could betray our country to canada or israel, still a traitor just same.Also, the UN is an entity that consists of many nations, some are enemies, Russia for example? Yea, exactly.

Tribesman

09-30-13, 04:58 PM

[QUOTE][The facts are clear - the treaty isn't with enemies of the United States, therefore it isn't treason. /QUOTE]
But Iran and N. Korea are the enemies.
But errrrrrr.... they hate this legislation don't they.:hmmm:
Does that mean people who oppose the legislation are the ones doing TREASON!!!!! because they are aiding and giving comfort to the enemies of the US:har:

AndyJWest

09-30-13, 04:59 PM

Does not have to be an enemy, I could betray our country to canada or israel, still a traitor just same.Also, the UN is an entity that consists of many nations, some are enemies, Russia for example? Yea, exactly.

When did the United States declare war on Russia? I must have missed it... :har:

Bubblehead1980

09-30-13, 05:01 PM

They mock because you still offer nothing of substance at all.
Might I suggest that you get one of your legal professionals at your school to explain article 8 to you.
I know you say they all know nothing about law, but their job titles would certainly suggest otherwise.

Once again, you distort things I have said.I complained about liberal bias in academia and some I have seen first hand, teaching their truth, not THE truth so you say I am claiming none of my law professors no what they are talking about.

I read Article 8, calls "documentation" ie registration of "end users" by signatory countries, this "documentation" will be shared with UN and other countries.Really, if the US, for it's own purposes chose to document those importing firearms, which is likely does, I have a problem with it but not as much of one as doing so because a treaty signed with the US says we must and said data is shared with the UN and other countries, they have no right to this.This is de facto submission to a foreign entity...

AndyJWest

09-30-13, 05:08 PM

Yeah - those darned 'liberals' that rigged the Constitution so that random people posting on internet forums couldn't declare war on Russia...

TarJak

09-30-13, 05:50 PM

Yes, you disagree so you mock, no arguments on how registration on imports compelled by a foreign entity violates our sovereignty and those leaders who sign on to this are in fact traitors.Tell me why they are not? Because you can't, you agree with this treaty.
You've got the burden of proof. You're making the assertion. How does the signing of the treaty become treason under the wording of the constitution?

Does not have to be an enemy, I could betray our country to canada or israel, still a traitor just same.Also, the UN is an entity that consists of many nations, some are enemies, Russia for example? Yea, exactly.
Unless there is an unpublished amendment to the constitution, your assertion is incorrect.

Russia? Seriously? Have you seen the signatories list of the treaty? Despite you thinking of the UN as a cabal of evil out to impinge on your rights, the treaty can only apply to signatories. Therefore Russia is not included even if your absurd assertion that they are an enemy were true.

The hole you are digging is getting deeper.

Tribesman

09-30-13, 06:54 PM

Once again, you distort things I have said.I complained about liberal bias in academia and some I have seen first hand, teaching their truth, not THE truth so you say I am claiming none of my law professors no what they are talking about.

No young man, you definitely made that claim.
Its another case of your own words rebounding on you.
If you recall you also said all the students at your law school were really dumb too, not just all the staff

I read Article 8, calls "documentation" ie registration of "end users" by signatory countries, this "documentation" will be shared with UN and other countries.
Why are you omitting all the important words?

Really, if the US, for it's own purposes chose to document those importing firearms, which is likely does, I have a problem with it but not as much of one as doing so because a treaty signed with the US says we must and said data is shared with the UN and other countries, they have no right to this.This is de facto submission to a foreign entity...
So you are still unfamiliar with your own legislation too, I had expected that, just like I expected you to not retract the nonsense you had written about imports.
But hey lets be generous, how about I hand you a few examples from recent history that are actually covered by article 8 instead of your imaginary ones.
Lets say the UK has an arms firm which wants to sell the State of Zimbabwe some guns, unfortunately there is an arms embargo against that government and an export licence would not be granted. The arm deal is brokered through the Rep. of Ireland to be manufactured in Germany for assembly in Switzerland before transhipment to Finland which will forward them to Mozambique for delivery onto Mugabe.
Do you understand where importing state party comes into play? end user?
Handy little example which not only does 8 perfectly but also covers 9 10 &11. Weird that as you could almost see exactly what the treaty is and what its supposed to do.
But hey lets try another end user state party transhipment and diversion, it really is simple.
Say the state of Iran wants to send Hezbollah some missiles but wants to claim they are being sold to the state of Syria, use the older route for an added country, so its via egypt then onto Cyprus then Syria where they are diverted to the terrorists. simple again isn't it.
You could do a whole massivebook on Libyas dodgy state shipments to end users who are not supposed to receive international arms shipments, a book an Americas dodgy shipments would also make a good read.

That young man is what the treaty is about and that specificly is what article 8 covers. it has bugger all to do with any fanciful scheme you got fed about the UN coming to take your Italian shotgun.

razark

09-30-13, 07:33 PM

Okay, registration compelled by a treaty with other countries, information gathered submitted to a foreign body(the UN) is our government signing over some degree of sovereignty to a foreign body, this falls within the definition of treason.Giving a foreign body or nation authority and information on our citizens as to what guns they import ? That is treasonous behavior.
There's a reason I included the definition of treason from the Constitution. You need to show how registration falls under that definition. Note that the definition does not say anything about giving up sovereignty. It is very clear in what "treason" is, and you need to show how that definition fits gun registration. Or are you trying to say that the UN is the enemy of the United States of America? (Note: the definition of "enemy" is not "someone I don't agree with".)

Furthermore: So what? How does it harm anyone if the UN or any other country knows you own a gun? If anything, you should be proud of that fact, and glad to know that any and all foreign countries are aware of how many guns they will face if they try to come marching in.

Tell me why they are not?
The burden of proof is on you. You made the claim that the signers are committing treason, so it is your responsibility to demonstrate how their actions fall under the definition of treason.

This is de facto submission to a foreign entity...
Oh, dear gods! Countries working together! People trying to solve problems! It's almost as if they believe they all SHARE the same earth. How did we come to this? How can they not see that everyone must submit to our will and our way of life?

Bubblehead1980

10-01-13, 12:50 PM

There's a reason I included the definition of treason from the Constitution. You need to show how registration falls under that definition. Note that the definition does not say anything about giving up sovereignty. It is very clear in what "treason" is, and you need to show how that definition fits gun registration. Or are you trying to say that the UN is the enemy of the United States of America? (Note: the definition of "enemy" is not "someone I don't agree with".)

Furthermore: So what? How does it harm anyone if the UN or any other country knows you own a gun? If anything, you should be proud of that fact, and glad to know that any and all foreign countries are aware of how many guns they will face if they try to come marching in.

The burden of proof is on you. You made the claim that the signers are committing treason, so it is your responsibility to demonstrate how their actions fall under the definition of treason.

Oh, dear gods! Countries working together! People trying to solve problems! It's almost as if they believe they all SHARE the same earth. How did we come to this? How can they not see that everyone must submit to our will and our way of life?

Treason: the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

Okay, you are trying to misuse the constitution here, I included the accepted definition of treason.This reminds of me of the guy in class trying to argue the 14th amendment did not give "anchor babies" citizenship, by trying to argue the word reside and what it meant in that context.Even I, who disagrees with birthright citizenship for children of illegals(should be denied) will accept the constitution says what it says in that matter and needs to be amended. lol come on now.

Entering a treaty with a foreign entity the registers guns and provides information to the entity, especially one such as the UN, which has a disarmament agenda as well as some members being enemies of the US and what it stands for, or what the people stand for anyways, is betraying one's country and it's sovereignty to a degree, sorry.The people who run the UN are not exactly fans of the US.How you can not see that? Well maybe you can, just won't admit it or maybe you are the type who thinks that sort of crap is okay.

May or may not harm anything if other countries know, but it is the principle, other countries should have no such information, it is none of their business, same as if our government wants to know what food I eat or if I have guns, it's none of their business, period.

While we may "share" the same earth, that is point of having a sovereign country, we live our way, you live yours, try to get along but if needed, have the ability to take the other one out.Can listen to other nations views but entering into ANYTHING at all that binds us to the will of anyone but our own citizens and laws, is a betrayal, ie treason.

Bilge_Rat

10-01-13, 01:00 PM

http://imageshack.us/a/img812/2425/yd10.jpg

Bubblehead1980

10-01-13, 01:57 PM

That is a pretty ignorant thing to post.

That is what is wrong with this country.Someone holds their constitutional rights as sacred and oh, they are a gun nut.Not a gun nut but yes I own guns, yes I have a concealed carry permit and never leave home without it.Yes, I maintain the UN has a gun control agenda as does the left/progressive that is entrenched in our our government in this country, in defiance of the constitution.Do I think the UN is trying to do this for some big plot to overthrow the US ? No. However, they have an disarmament agenda and has absolutely no business knowing what, if any weapons I or any other US citizen import.

Bilge_Rat

10-01-13, 02:05 PM

http://imageshack.us/a/img703/2493/6ymq.jpg

Tribesman

10-01-13, 02:06 PM

That is a pretty ignorant thing to post.

Actually it is spot on.

That is what is wrong with this country.Someone holds their constitutional rights as sacred and oh, they are a gun nut.Not a gun nut but yes I own guns, yes I have a concealed carry permit and never leave home without it.Yes, I maintain the UN has a gun control agenda as does the left/progressive that is entrenched in our our government in this country, in defiance of the constitution.Do I think the UN is trying to do this for some big plot to overthrow the US ? No. However, they have an disarmament agenda and has absolutely no business knowing what, if any weapons I or any other US citizen import.
If you read the actual words that are on the cartoon you see that your complaint is nonsense, if you couple the actual words with your crazy conspiracy you see that you clearly fit the definition it uses for a gun nut.

TarJak

10-01-13, 04:34 PM

Treason: the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
That definition does not apply. Only the constitutional definition matters in relation to treason.

Okay, you are trying to misuse the constitution here, I included the accepted definition of treason... the constitution says what it says in that matter and needs to be amended. lol come on now.
Yes LOL come on now indeed. As a law student you obviously haven't got to the lessons about constitutional ammendments. The "accepted" definition is irrelevant otherwise we can take a bat to the rest of the constitution. Let's do that with your precious 2nd ammendment shall we? No? Not up for that? Then instead of hanging by your own petard, admit that signing the treaty cannot be treason under the wording of the constitution. Oh wait you've already done that by trying to introduce a different definition. :nope:

Entering a treaty with a foreign entity the registers guns and provides information to the entity, especially one such as the UN, which has a disarmament agenda as well as some members being enemies of the US and what it stands for, or what the people stand for anyways, is betraying one's country and it's sovereignty to a degree, sorry.The people who run the UN are not exactly fans of the US.How you can not see that? Well maybe you can, just won't admit it or maybe you are the type who thinks that sort of crap is okay.
Your opinion does not change the fact that your assertion in your op is wrong.

May or may not harm anything if other countries know, but it is the principle, other countries should have no such information, it is none of their business, same as if our government wants to know what food I eat or if I have guns, it's none of their business, period.

While we may "share" the same earth, that is point of having a sovereign country, we live our way, you live yours, try to get along but if needed, have the ability to take the other one out.Can listen to other nations views but entering into ANYTHING at all that binds us to the will of anyone but our own citizens and laws, is a betrayal, ie treason.

Again opinion does not change the definition of treason in the constitution. Your future clients are not going to be very happy with your lawyering if this is the quality of your argument. That is if you can pass muster at college first.

eddie

10-01-13, 05:06 PM

You know TarJak, maybe Bubbles should take a swim in the Mary River, that might change his attitude!:D

TarJak

10-02-13, 08:28 AM

You know TarJak, maybe Bubbles should take a swim in the Mary River, that might change his attitude!:D

I don't give a duck's tail feathers about where he bathes. If he's serious about being a good lawyer, he needs to study how to listen and not make wild ass statements without knowing what he's talking about. Of course if all he wants is a ticket to be an ambulance chaser, then he's on the right road, but his clients might be less forgiving than this crowd.

razark

10-02-13, 10:01 AM

Treason: the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
That's not the definition in the Constitution. You're bringing in something else, and trying to apply it where it doesn't belong.

Tell you what: the Second Amendment says that you have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say anything about guns. Therefore, as long as you can have a knife, your right to bear arms is not being infringed.

That's exactly what you're doing. You don't get to pick the parts you like and throw out the parts you don't. There's an amendment process for that.

Okay, you are trying to misuse the constitution here, I included the accepted definition of treason.
Three questions, please.
-Why did the founders feel it necessary to define exactly what treason is?
-Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land?
-Is the Constitution an evolving document, open to interpretation?

The people who run the UN are not exactly fans of the US.How you can not see that? Well maybe you can, just won't admit it or maybe you are the type who thinks that sort of crap is okay.
So there are people who don't like the US. Big deal. People are entitled to their opinions. That doesn't mean the black helicopters and blue helmets are going to be appearing.

While we may "share" the same earth, that is point of having a sovereign country, we live our way, you live yours, try to get along but if needed, have the ability to take the other one out.Can listen to other nations views but entering into ANYTHING at all that binds us to the will of anyone but our own citizens and laws, is a betrayal, ie treason.
I live differently from my neighbor. If he does something I don't like, I don't get to burn his house down. I can scream and rant about it, but that's just going to make me look like a spoiled child. There are neighborhood groups to help sort out problems.
The next town over from me does things differently. The folks in my town don't get to burn their town down. We can scream and rant about it, but that's just going to make us look like spoiled children. There are political processes to help sort out problems.
The next state has different laws. That doesn't mean we get to burn their state down. We can scream and rant about it, but that's just going to make us look like spoiled children. There are political processes to help sort out problems.
The next country is different from us. That means we get to do what we want. We can scream and rant about it,and everyone else better listen to us. There are political processes to help sort out problems, but things better be done our way. If they aren't, we have no reason to try and play nice with the other children.

It's an international society, not the end of the world.