Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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...

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

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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?

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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Unless there is an unpublished amendment to the constitution, your assertion is incorrect.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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by razark

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]

[Bubblehead1980]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

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]

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

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by eddie

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

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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?

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.