46 Senators Voted against the rights of US Citizens

[rushmc 23]

jakee

******

Quote

The quote is from a resolution previous to 2117 that 2117 references

Which one, please?

I see now that when I went to the links the address does not change so
The quote is from S/2013/503
Top of page 4 of 6

And is that part of resolution 2117? Is it a Security Council resolution? Is it a UN resolution of any kind? No, it fucking isn't, as I've pointed out to you several times now, Mr Ostrich.

Re read it sir

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,596]

rushmc

*********

Quote

The quote is from a resolution previous to 2117 that 2117 references

Which one, please?

I see now that when I went to the links the address does not change so
The quote is from S/2013/503
Top of page 4 of 6

And is that part of resolution 2117? Is it a Security Council resolution? Is it a UN resolution of any kind? No, it fucking isn't, as I've pointed out to you several times now, Mr Ostrich.

Re read it sir



How much of it have you read?

Have you read as far as, oh I don't know, the title? Oh what am I saying, of course you haven't! The very idea! For your edification and education, here is the title of the document; "Small Arms. Report of the Secretary-General".

I hope you see what I'm getting at here, because I'm not going to break it down into even simpler chunks for you, I've done too much leg work for you already. No, it's your turn. You read it and tell me which bit of information contained within has tricked you into thinking it's a Security Council resolution.

And then once you've done that, you could get back to finding something, anything, from within Resolution 2117 that makes you think it affects your rights as a US citizen in any way whatsoever.

(Not that there's anything in the Secretary-General's report that would either, but it looks like you've already run away from that argument.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

TROLLING....

... is ineffective if people stop rising to the bait.

[rushmc 23]

Andy9o8

Quote

TROLLING....

... is ineffective if people stop rising to the bait.

this from a shark

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

rushmc

***

Quote

TROLLING....

... is ineffective if people stop rising to the bait.

this from a shark



Aha! Shark bait!

[rushmc 23]

Andy9o8

******

Quote

TROLLING....

... is ineffective if people stop rising to the bait.

this from a shark



Aha! Shark bait!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

You have already admitted that you tried to mislead us just to irritate people. That is generally called TROLLING and violates forum rules.

This entire thread is based on an outright lie and should be locked.

This forum permitted no limit to the number of 911 Truther postings, at least until said originators insisted on getting personal (or batshit crazy). Rush hasn't attacked the respondents in this thread. He's just insisted you're all wrong.

It's no more improper per forum conventions than your troll bait posts about how the rich are eating the poor. Since Rush is determined not to participate honestly and sticks to a "I believe what I think I read, don't trouble me with facts" approach, it's you guys' problem for continuing to engage. There are better uses of your time.

[DanG 1]

Quote

It's no more improper per forum conventions than your troll bait posts about how the rich are eating the poor. Since Rush is determined not to participate honestly and sticks to a "I believe what I think I read, don't trouble me with facts" approach, it's you guys' problem for continuing to engage. There are better uses of your time.

http://xkcd.com/386/

- Dan G

[jakee 1,596]

DanG

http://xkcd.com/386/

He was right then and he's still right now!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Exactly. He clearly wants us to stay at our keyboards until everyone on the Internet is right.

- Dan G

[jakee 1,596]

I could clear the place up in 15 minutes... if only they'd listen!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[FastRon 0]

Well- I just read the "Small Arms" position/discourse in the link listed. Much of it reads as if written by Sen. Schumer, Mayor Bloomberg or others.
I prefer not to take an alarmist position on anything any more, but what the U.N.'s position appears to be is that signators of the treaty would be required/forced, (or?) to maintain a permanent registry, and share it- they do mention "tracing" and other aspects of the gun control dialogue. Legal scholars can weigh in on whether an international treaty can usurp a signator's own consitution.
The U.N has a sorry record in preventing or halting violence around the world. It seems a large, unwieldly, many times dysfunctional organization, that I personally would prefer was not involved in our gun control discussions.

[winsor 236]

FastRon

Well- I just read the "Small Arms" position/discourse in the link listed. Much of it reads as if written by Sen. Schumer, Mayor Bloomberg or others.
I prefer not to take an alarmist position on anything any more, but what the U.N.'s position appears to be is that signators of the treaty would be required/forced, (or?) to maintain a permanent registry, and share it- they do mention "tracing" and other aspects of the gun control dialogue. Legal scholars can weigh in on whether an international treaty can usurp a signator's own consitution.
The U.N has a sorry record in preventing or halting violence around the world. It seems a large, unwieldly, many times dysfunctional organization, that I personally would prefer was not involved in our gun control discussions.

"Why can't we all just get along?"

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

I prefer not to take an alarmist position on anything any more, but what the U.N.'s position appears to be is that signators of the treaty would be required/forced, (or?) to maintain a permanent registry, and share it- they do mention "tracing" and other aspects of the gun control dialogue.

Permanent registry of what, and where in the Resolution itself did you get that idea?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[FastRon 0]

The text is under the "Small Arms" heading in the U.N. link mentioned. Perhaps I misread it?

[jakee 1,596]

FastRon

The text is under the "Small Arms" heading in the U.N. link mentioned. Perhaps I misread it?

The link to a document that's not part of the Resolution? Yeah, you misread it.

This is the Resolution. Tell me where it requires anyone to contribute to a registry of anything?



This is a link to the website of the UN's registry of Conventional Arms, a site which Member States voluntarily contribute to, which keeps track of military weapons stockpiling and procurement, and international arms deals at State level. And yes, The US already reports to it. What sort of registry did you think it referred to?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

jakee

***The text is under the "Small Arms" heading in the U.N. link mentioned. Perhaps I misread it?

The link to a document that's not part of the Resolution? Yeah, you misread it.

This is the Resolution. Tell me where it requires anyone to contribute to a registry of anything?

This is a link to the website of the UN's registry of Conventional Arms, a site which Member States voluntarily contribute to, which keeps track of military weapons stockpiling and procurement, and international arms deals at State level. And yes, The US already reports to it. What sort of registry did you think it referred to?

It's very simple: the Resolution deals with nation-state actors mutually cooperating to keep the weapons possessed by their military forces from being diverted to the ultimate use of terrorists and paramilitary actors. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the proper reading of the document, in its entirety, and in proper context.

As you and others have recognized, the propagandists and their intellectually-lazy (or simply obstinate) foot-soldiers are cherry-picking language out of context to make an argument that it would restrict the type of civilian freedom of ownership of firearms that is accorded by, for example, the US's Second Amendment. They are simply wrong. Yes, the document is a bit long and ponderous, and I'll be the first to admit that lawyerly gobbledy-gook leads to documents like this being mis-used or misunderstood, but they're still wrong.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of reading it carefully, in its entirety, and properly understanding what it does or does not say. Those who are determined to see boogeymen will see them, and rationalize it, despite all reason, logic or careful explanation.

[rushmc 23]

jakee

***The text is under the "Small Arms" heading in the U.N. link mentioned. Perhaps I misread it?

The link to a document that's not part of the Resolution? Yeah, you misread it.

This is the Resolution. Tell me where it requires anyone to contribute to a registry of anything?



This is a link to the website of the UN's registry of Conventional Arms, a site which Member States voluntarily contribute to, which keeps track of military weapons stockpiling and procurement, and international arms deals at State level. And yes, The US already reports to it. What sort of registry did you think it referred to?
The small arms part is in or included in 2117

Top of page 4

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

rushmc

******The text is under the "Small Arms" heading in the U.N. link mentioned. Perhaps I misread it?

The link to a document that's not part of the Resolution? Yeah, you misread it.

This is the Resolution. Tell me where it requires anyone to contribute to a registry of anything?



This is a link to the website of the UN's registry of Conventional Arms, a site which Member States voluntarily contribute to, which keeps track of military weapons stockpiling and procurement, and international arms deals at State level. And yes, The US already reports to it. What sort of registry did you think it referred to?
The small arms part is in or included in 2117

Top of page 4

I refer you to the post immediately previous to yours:

... their intellectually-lazy (or simply obstinate) foot-soldiers

Look in your mirror.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

The small arms part is in or included in 2117

Top of page 4

You know what dude, I don't have amnesia. I can remember the discussion we had yesterday. I can remember that I've told you all of the ways in which you misunderstand what's going on and I remember that you've pussied out of addressing any of them.

I've dealt with the above point. I've dealt with all of your other points. Just repeating them as if they're still valid isn't going to fool anyone, except maybe yourself.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

jakee

Quote

The small arms part is in or included in 2117

Top of page 4

You know what dude, I don't have amnesia. I can remember the discussion we had yesterday. I can remember that I've told you all of the ways in which you misunderstand what's going on and I remember that you've pussied out of addressing any of them.

I've dealt with the above point. I've dealt with all of your other points. Just repeating them as if they're still valid isn't going to fool anyone, except maybe yourself.

The fact is, it is part of 2117

Think about it
What would be required for the UN to track down where arms, small arms come from?
It would take sn of those small tracked to where they came from
So you think you dealt with it
Ok
I do not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

The fact is, it is part of 2117

What is?

Quote

So you think you dealt with it
Ok
I do not

Because either you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, you're intentionally trolling, or you'd rather continue to look like an idiot than admit you're wrong.

If you want to claim otherwise, you'll need to reply to all of the points raised in posts 44 and 45.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[FastRon 0]

"The link to a document that's not part of the Resolution? Yeah, you misread it."
I did read the resolution. It is consistent with other material presented by the U.N. in the past and documented on its own website, which is what I was pointing out.
Having an opinion and a computer seem the qualifications necessary for posting. Like some others here, I have both. If that somehow annoys you, does more or less medication seems in order?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

I did read the resolution.

OK, so tell me which part of it will force signees of the resolution to maintain a permanent registry of anything. Once you've found that, you can tell me what it will force them to maintain a permenent registry of.

Quote

Having an opinion and a computer seem the qualifications necessary for posting.

Having an opinion and being factually wrong are not the same thing. If you can't handle having your mistakes being pointed out then forums are not for you.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Well, regardless of how you view this treaty, 53 Senators saw it for what it was and voted for the US NOT to enter into a treaty that takes a step toward removing second amendmend rights of US citizens
And it took a bipartisn group to do the right thing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln