46 Senators Voted against the rights of US Citizens

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

Have you actually read them, or only heard an analysis?

Wendy P.

I read 2117 and a few of the links in it
The importand one being the link on the top of page 4 regarding small arms

"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]

http://homebrewedtheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/chimp.jpg

[rushmc 23]

Andy9o8

http://homebrewedtheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/chimp.jpg

So you cant answer my question either

Or will not

Why?

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

[wmw999 2,589]

So basically you're for companies and people being able to sell arms to terrorists, terrorist states, and goon squads in other countries, right?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

To gain the info the un wants (which is to track the origians of guns) requires signatories to provide them (the un) with SN of small arms. The request includes those privately owned weapons

You've said that before, and I've asked you to provide a quote from Resolution 2117 that mentions anything of the sort.

Since you haven't done so, you know you're lying.

Quote

the "Small Arms" document is part of 2117

The existence of the Secretary-General's report on small arms is acknowledged. Which is irrelevant anyway since the Small Arms report says nothing about a registry of privately held weapons or their serial numbers.

Quote

Now, whether the UN could use the registry to take arms is irrelavant as it is none of thier business

Registry of what?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

So basically you're for companies and people being able to sell arms to terrorists, terrorist states, and goon squads in other countries, right?

Wendy P.

Nope

but I am against the UN organizing weapons embargos.

If you read the opening lines of 2117 it talks about States having rights

Then it bemones the affects of small arms on women and children

It in no place points to the right of the people to have arms

This treaty would not stop these goons or companines you post about. Grand idea but totally unenforcable
And the UN knows it

It is about disamament of people

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

[rushmc 23]

jakee

Quote

To gain the info the un wants (which is to track the origians of guns) requires signatories to provide them (the un) with SN of small arms. The request includes those privately owned weapons

You've said that before, and I've asked you to provide a quote from Resolution 2117 that mentions anything of the sort.

Since you haven't done so, you know you're lying.
Small Arms link, top of page 4

Quote

the "Small Arms" document is part of 2117

The existence of the Secretary-General's report on small arms is acknowledged. Which is irrelevant anyway since the Small Arms report says nothing about a registry of privately held weapons or their serial numbers.Again, its purpose is to create ways to track from where guns originat. In reading the Small Arms doc, it speaks to that data being provided to the un as it "needs that info". I guess in the real world 2 + 2 still = 4

Quote

Now, whether the UN could use the registry to take arms is irrelavant as it is none of thier business

Registry of what?

guns

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

[rushmc 23]

And you still have not answered

If this treaty is so toothless and week, why is it important to you the the US Senate ratify it?

What is the purpose of this treaty then?

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

[wmw999 2,589]

Well actually it does mention the rights of the states.

Quote

“Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations

.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

Well actually it does mention the rights of the states.

Quote

“Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations

.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Wendy P.

Which is my point Wendy
Just the states
I believe in the peoples rights
Not the states

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

[normiss 898]

No, it isn't.
Your inability to understand that is pretty painful from my perspective.
I'm a huge proponent of the 2nd.

Anywho, as Andy has said, you're nothing but repetitive at this point and you clearly have no desire to understand the document....so...please just register your guns with the UN already. sheesh.

[jakee 1,596]

rushmc

I asked you this question earlier
I do not remember an reply to it

IF 2117 is so innocuous, what is its purpose to begin with?

You haven't asked me that question. You're lying again.

Its purpose is to encourage action against illegal international arms deals and make it more difficult for drug cartels, warlords and terrorists to stockpile weapons.

Quote

If it is as meaningless as you stated earlier, why do care if the US or any country sign on.

I didn't say it was meaningless, I said it doesn't do what you dishonestly claim it does. Whether it does anything else is a seperate issue.

BTW, I have noticed that you've yet again avoided discussing any of the actual content of the Resolution, yet again making it painfully obvious that you know you're lying.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

It in no place points to the right of the people to have arms

Uh, yeah, because as you rightly pointed out, that's none of the UN's business, you fucking hypocrite.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,589]

It takes a martian to read it that way.

When I was a programmer, our verifiers took pride in reading the requirements in, as they put it, martian English, i.e. to deliberately misunderstand. Because their job was to take life-critical software and figure out every possible malfunction. After all, there isn't time when it's malfunctioning to fix it -- it's space shuttle software.

We're not talking space shuttle software here. If wording is tortured to say something that's not intended, it makes the torturer look like an idiot, not the guy who wrote it. It's why we talk to each other.

Not to mention that as the only remaining superpower (for now -- China has 5 times the population
There are, in fact, things in this world that are more important than American's individual rights to own bazookas.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Small Arms link, top of page 4

The Small Arms report is not part of the Resolution. If that's all you have, it's an admission that you have nothing.

Even if it was, I've already crushed any argument you had about the contents of the Small Arms report having anything to do with a registry of privately held weapons and you had no comeback.

So unless there is any specific language in either document that you haven't yet mentioned, you know you're lying.

Quote

Again, its purpose is to create ways to track from where guns originat. In reading the Small Arms doc, it speaks to that data being provided to the un as it "needs that info". I guess in the real world 2 + 2 still = 4

What info?

Quote

Quote

Registry of what?

Guns

What guns? What about them?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,596]

rushmc

And you still have not answered

You are Just. So. Cute sometimes!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

There are, in fact, things in this world that are more important than American's individual rights to own bazookas.

Wendy P.

translated
Some rights are more important than others
And you think the un should be the decider

sorry wendy
you disapoint me here

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

[wmw999 2,589]

Some rights are more important than others. This is indisputable. If you think not, try exercising your freedom of speech to say "bomb" at the airport. Sometimes what I view as my rights cannot coexist with someone else's view of their rights. That's why we have laws, and why we have manners.

I'm saying that if the UN decides and we disagree, we have absolute veto power (since we're on the Security council). Not to mention that whole we're the superpower thing.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DanG 1]

Quote

Just the states
I believe in the peoples rights
Not the states

Seriously, dude, you just quoted the text that says what you want it to:

Quote

Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations...

emphasis added because you're killing us all.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Ok
So, by your posts I will assume you are in support of this treaty and you think the US should have ratified it
If this is incorrect you will just call me a liar again and we can end this
But if I am correct in my assumption I have a couple of more questions

1) What is the desired results or outcome this treaty would (if it worked) put into place?

2) To meat those end results, what specific actions would have to be implemented and followed?

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

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

Just the states
I believe in the peoples rights
Not the states

Seriously, dude, you just quoted the text that says what you want it to:

Quote

Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations...

emphasis added because you're killing us all.

Many times through out the treaty, it speaks of states, of states rights and security

I did not make any of that up

Article 51 is looked at by the un much the same way the anti gunners look at the second amendment here

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

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

Some rights are more important than others. This is indisputable. If you think not, try exercising your freedom of speech to say "bomb" at the airport. Sometimes what I view as my rights cannot coexist with someone else's view of their rights. That's why we have laws, and why we have manners.

I'm saying that if the UN decides and we disagree, we have absolute veto power (since we're on the Security council). Not to mention that whole we're the superpower thing.

Wendy P.

again. you dissapoint me

Now, if you meant that different limits exist on rights I would agree
Stating that one right means more than another is not true IMO

"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

So, by your posts I will assume you are in support of this treaty

No, I'm just pointing out that the reason you oppose it is based on a lie that has nothing to do with what the resolution says.

Quote

2) To meat those end results, what specific actions would have to be implemented and followed?

Beef


What you assume the UN would have to do to create a registry that doesn't exist to track weapons in a way they haven't proposed is utterly irrelevant.

What is relevant is what the Resolution says about those things. I've asked you about two or three hundred times now what the Resolution says about those things and you've never provided a single word. You haven't done so because you know it doesn't say anything about it and therefore you know you're lying. If you weren't wrong and if you weren't lying it would be so, so easy for you to prove me wrong and provide a damning quote from Resolution 2117 that blows my argument out of the water. But you are wrong, you are lying and your next reply won't have anything to do with the language in the Resolution either. Just like all the others.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

jakee

Quote

So, by your posts I will assume you are in support of this treaty

No, I'm just pointing out that the reason you oppose it is based on a lie that has nothing to do with what the resolution says.

Quote

2) To meat those end results, what specific actions would have to be implemented and followed?

Beef

So you just argue to argue

got it

"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

So you just argue to argue

No, I'm arguing because I'm right and you're wrong.

Why are you lying?

I've asked you about two or three hundred times now what the Resolution says about your claims and you've never provided a single word. You haven't done so because you know it doesn't say anything about it and therefore you know you're lying. If you weren't wrong and if you weren't lying it would be so, so easy for you to prove me wrong and provide a damning quote from Resolution 2117 that blows my argument out of the water. But you are wrong, you are lying and your next reply won't have anything to do with the language in the Resolution either. Just like all the others.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?