U.S. Senate voted 53 to 46 to Defend the Second Amendment

We've got some serious stuff going on. Something which furthers the insanity is that this is not much of a mainstream news story. It got some mention on Fox News and debate footage on C-Span, but stuff like what a Louisiana swamp duck hunter thinks of gay people seems to be a bigger deal to most of the country. None of the extreme moves by our government have been huge news lately. What percentage of the country even knows what the National Defense Authorization Acts is? https://www.aclu.org/indefinite-dete...horization-act Our government senses weakness, and lots of people at high levels of it are attacking the country they are supposed to be governing.

HOORAY - 53-46 vote U.N. small arms treaty (No votes from Texas ..., Today | Alternative

"The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI8l9sW1LAQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDldQEqIjDM

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Have you actually read the treaty?

Yes. Did I miss something?

Full Text Draft U.N. Arms Trade Treaty | The Truth About Guns

The Second Amendment says a lot more than "WE GET GUNS!" It says a well regulated milita has the right to keep and bear arms for the sake of a free state. First, well-regulated milita does not mean every single person gets a gun. Jefferson detailed what it was, and it was like white, male landowners only. Second, and most important, that was written when we had muskets. The time it takes to reload ONE musket, you could clear out a mall of human beings.

A lot of gun nuts like to say that we need guns to protect us from the US Government. They have drones, unparalleled air power, and manpower. Even if NYC united and revolted, the US Government could wipe the city out in hours. Personally, I'd rather remove the chances of public massacres.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiresias

The Second Amendment says a lot more than "WE GET GUNS!" It says a well regulated milita has the right to keep and bear arms for the sake of a free state. First, well-regulated milita does not mean every single person gets a gun. Jefferson detailed what it was, and it was like white, male landowners only. Second, and most important, that was written when we had muskets. The time it takes to reload ONE musket, you could clear out a mall of human beings.

A lot of gun nuts like to say that we need guns to protect us from the US Government. They have drones, unparalleled air power, and manpower. Even if NYC united and revolted, the US Government could wipe the city out in hours. Personally, I'd rather remove the chances of public massacres.

---

It does not say that only militias can have guns. It mentions militias as a rationale for why guns are allowed for everybody. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The word used there is "people," not "militias." A militia can be just one person any way. Also, the word "arms" is used, not "muskets." The founders were geniuses. They of course knew that guns would be advanced.

Are you familiar with the struggle the U.S. government had against North Vietnam, Iraqi insurgents, and the Taliban? Guerilla warfare is a mother fucker. If the U.S. government were to go totalitarian, they would be up against about 100 million Americans with guns. Imagine how long and bloody that would be. That fact works as a deterrent. Plus, we at least deserve a chance at defending ourselves. Don't try to take it away from us. Also, most of the military would be on our side. A huge chunk of cops would too.

So you support gun prohibition. How has drug prohibition been going? Did the government finally get the drugs off the streets? No, they didn't. Similarly, criminals are going to have guns. With that being the case, don't try to take my guns.

My parents' house was broken into a while back. My dad stopped the two burglars with a gun and held them until the police showed up. My mother and sister were in the house! With gun prohibition, my dad would not have had a gun, but the burglars would have. Is that really how you want things to work?

Also, what do you think of the United Nations having gun ownership authority over U.S. citizens? Do you not see something extremely warped about that?

First: "All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It does not say that only militias can have guns. It mentions militias as a rationale for why guns are allowed for everybody. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The word used there is "people," not "militias." A militia can be just one person any way. Also, the word "arms" is used, not "muskets." The founders were geniuses. They of course knew that guns would be advanced.

Are you familiar with the struggle the U.S. government had against North Vietnam, Iraqi insurgents, and the Taliban? Guerilla warfare is a mother fucker. If the U.S. government were to go totalitarian, they would be up against about 100 million Americans with guns. Imagine how long and bloody that would be. That fact works as a deterrent. Plus, we at least deserve a chance at defending ourselves. Don't try to take it away from us. Also, most of the military would be on our side. A huge chunk of cops would too.

So you support gun prohibition. How has drug prohibition been going? Did the government finally get the drugs off the streets? No, they didn't. Similarly, criminals are going to have guns. With that being the case, don't try to take my guns.

My parents' house was broken into a while back. My dad stopped the two burglars with a gun and held them until the police showed up. My mother and sister were in the house! With gun prohibition, my dad would not have had a gun, but the burglars would have. Is that really how you want things to work?

Also, what do you think of the United Nations having gun ownership authority over U.S. citizens? Do you not see something extremely warped about that?

---

All that other stuff is paranoid crazy talk. If the government wanted to rule us, it'd happen very very fast. You compare other wars but you forget one thing: The US is MASSIVE. Check out this: OverlapMaps - Instantly compare any two places on Earth! Texas dwarfs Vietnam. It alone is the size of Iraq. That sounds like it'd make the government conquering us hard, right? Well, it makes communication even harder. We are politically diverse. Republicans don't 100% agree with other republicans. If the government turned on us, they'd just have to shut down power for about a month. Then, they'd conquer. In Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, they were united and close (and with Vietnam without Internet anyway).

Also, the drug comparison shows a total lack of logic. No one is addicted to guns. You cannot conceal a kilo of guns anywhere. That's the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiresias

First: "All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790

---

I'll just take your word for it that Jefferson said that. It's not from the Constitution, and it says nothing about Constitutional rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiresias

All that other stuff is paranoid crazy talk. If the government wanted to rule us, it'd happen very very fast. You compare other wars but you forget one thing: The US is MASSIVE. Check out this: OverlapMaps - Instantly compare any two places on Earth! Texas dwarfs Vietnam. It alone is the size of Iraq. That sounds like it'd make the government conquering us hard, right? Well, it makes communication even harder. We are politically diverse. Republicans don't 100% agree with other republicans. If the government turned on us, they'd just have to shut down power for about a month. Then, they'd conquer. In Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, they were united and close (and with Vietnam without Internet anyway).

Also, the drug comparison shows a total lack of logic. No one is addicted to guns. You cannot conceal a kilo of guns anywhere. That's the difference.

---

Some governments have quickly changed to totalitarian, but that was when the people made crazy decisions and also couldn't fight back. I don't think it will happen in the U.S., but it could happen anywhere. It's a matter of how brainwashed and how defenseless the people are. It happened in Italy, Spain, Germany, and Russia. It happened very quickly too. That was because so many of the people welcomed the changes that made the government too powerful and had been pushing for the changes and because the people had strict gun control before the governments tried to take over all the way. It is not paranoid to say that history can repeat itself. It is ignorant to say that it doesn't.

None of what you are saying about guerilla warfare happened in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Korea. Those were/are long and rough wars, and the two most recent ones drove up our national debt big time. A war between the U.S. government and most of the rest of the country would be a many times bigger clusterfuck than any of those. And like I said, most of the military would be on the people's side any way. I don't think we will get to that point, but things have happened in recent times that have pushed us in the direction of it, and I know that we are not above the possibility of it. That is reason for concern. If you don't believe me, study what went on in Spain, Italy, Germany, China, and Russia in the 1910's through the 1940's. This stuff is real. I just think there are enough Americans who will wake up fast enough to make sure we don't go totalitarian if we ever get close enough to that point. That doesn't mean I am completely certain of it.

Banning guns is the obvious answer. Look at how effectively banning alcohol and drugs worked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=682JLrsUmEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE

That is totally untrue. This law doesn't effect gun rights of US citizens in any way. All it does is help regulate over seas gun trading in an attempt to stop illegal weapons from being funneled into war zones and used in places like Rwanda and others where genocide is going on.

We should be supporting this treaty as it will save thousands of lives world wide. The people trying to stop this are just pushing gun propaganda to scare people so they will get votes. There is nothing in it at all that would harm gun owners in the US in any way, shape or form. The idea that it goes against the 2nd amendment is just bullshit. The treaty is aimed at stopping people from smuggling guns into third world nations where genocide is going on. It has nothing to do with you or me owning guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes. Did I miss something?

Full Text Draft U.N. Arms Trade Treaty | The Truth About Guns

---

It seems more like a case of imagining something. Which passage infringes upon the Second Amendment? What do you object to in the preamble? The treaty states in its introduction that its aims include,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UN Arms Trade Treaty

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;

Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;

Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms;

---

It's about stopping illegal international arms trading. Not legal international arms trading or domestic arms trading. Do you support illegal arms trading or something? Do you think illegal foreign arms deals are somehow necessary for upholding Second Amendment?

Xei, let's start with what you quoted. Who would decide what is legal international arms trade? The United Nations would. The U.N. would be able to decide what guns can be sold from other countries to distributors in the United States (and other countries). The U.N. would also have a registry of gun owners in the United States, which means we would be required to fill out some papers so we can be okay with the U.N. if we own the guns they allow. Requiring Americans to have U.N. gun registry and to not be able to buy imported guns goes against "... shall not be infringed."

What happens when the U.N. says no guns at all are permitted for import or export? Do we have to obey that? You can forget it. Our Constitution and the laws that exist within its boundaries are what count here. What happens when we have that nonsense and Congress decides to make the manufacture of guns in the U.S. illegal? Then Congress could say, "Hey, we didn't ban owning guns. We banned the manufacture of guns." What then? New guns would be effectively illegal in the United States. That can't happen.

It is interesting that the treaty's list of reasons for owning guns does not include self-defense. They have some reason for not acknowledging that purpose. Hmmm...

Ha ha, Alric, I knew which side you would be on.

Not a surprise that you just ignored my post as well. The treaty doesn't say any of the stuff you claim it does. It doesn't require citizens to register guns. Also the treaty clearly says it is up to each country is to decide what they will allow to be imported or exported, not the UN. The treaty just asks that there be records for importing and exporting which is already the law in the US. So the UN can't say guns will not be allowed to be exported or imported under this treaty.

Basically, everything you said is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Xei, let's start with what you quoted. Who would decide what is legal international arms trade?

---

Urm... the international community? That's... what international law is? You seem rather confused. The USA is obviously not the arbiter of international law, it is a single nation. The rest of the world could randomly decide amongst themselves tomorrow to ban all international arms trading. The USA couldn't do anything about it and nor would it have any right to, obviously. None of its rights would be infringed, none of its laws would even be affected.

And of course such a hypothetical situation isn't even going to happen because it's entirely imaginary and ridiculous. If the USA was one of the countries trying to make all arms dealing against international law, then maybe you'd have something to kick up a fuss about, but as it is not doing so in this treaty or anywhere else and has shown zero intention of doing so, you're essentially protesting against something entirely imaginary.

The treaty is about illegal international arms trading. Illegal international arms trading is - get this - against international law. Clamping down on it has nothing to do with your Second Amendment.

Quote:

---

The U.N. would also have a registry of gun owners in the United States, which means we would be required to fill out some papers so we can be okay with the U.N. if we own the guns they allow.

---

Source?

Quote:

---

What happens when the U.N. says no guns at all are permitted for import or export? Do we have to obey that? You can forget it. Our Constitution and the laws that exist within its boundaries are what count here.

---

What, you're going to import and export things to yourselves? You're at perfect liberty to do so, I guess? International trade doesn't stay within US borders (obviously...) and isn't under sole US jurisdiction.

Alric's right, you seem to have gotten all of your information from nonsense, scaremongering sources, and that's why you ignored his post with a transparent and immature deflection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Not a surprise that you just ignored my post as well. The treaty doesn't say any of the stuff you claim it does. It doesn't require citizens to register guns. Also the treaty clearly says it is up to each country is to decide what they will allow to be imported or exported, not the UN. The treaty just asks that there be records for importing and exporting which is already the law in the US. So the UN can't say guns will not be allowed to be exported or imported under this treaty.

Basically, everything you said is wrong.

---

That is not true. I did address the points in your last post, and I explained my position on them. The U.N. would have the authority to decide what guns could be imported into the U.S. The language Xei quoted involving countries making their own laws is about what countries can do with gun trade within their borders.

"Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;"

The treaty involves the U.N. being in charge of what guns can be traded internationally. You are just being flat out dishonest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Urm... the international community? That's... what international law is? You seem rather confused. The USA is obviously not the arbiter of international law, it is a single nation. The rest of the world could randomly decide amongst themselves tomorrow to ban all international arms trading. The USA couldn't do anything about it and nor would it have any right to, obviously. None of its rights would be infringed, none of its laws would even be affected.

And of course such a hypothetical situation isn't even going to happen because it's entirely imaginary and ridiculous. If the USA was one of the countries trying to make all arms dealing against international law, then maybe you'd have something to kick up a fuss about, but as it is not doing so in this treaty or anywhere else and has shown zero intention of doing so, you're essentially protesting against something entirely imaginary.

The treaty is about illegal international arms trading. Illegal international arms trading is - get this - against international law. Clamping down on it has nothing to do with your Second Amendment.


Source?


What, you're going to import and export things to yourselves? You're at perfect liberty to do so, I guess? International trade doesn't stay within US borders (obviously...) and isn't under sole US jurisdiction.

Alric's right, you seem to have gotten all of your information from nonsense, scaremongering sources, and that's why you ignored his post with a transparent and immature deflection.

---

What I presented in my last post countered both of your bull shit claims. You two are on the same WTF team of nonsense and are making pretty much the same points, so for this thread, my points are for both of you.

I do not recognize international law as being above my Constitution. The U.N. has no business telling the U.S. what guns can be imported here, but the treaty says they can. The treaty limits our trade liberty to within our borders. Read what you yourself quoted. It's out of the fucking question.

The treaty also urges (which puts pressure on politicians) countries to have gun registries (which you know the U.N. would use their powers, connections, and pressures to get) and to expand existing domestic gun laws. We need to make sure we don't sign such a thing.

Check out these sources:

Kerry Blasted for Signing U.N. Arms Trade Treaty That Critics Say Creates De Facto Gun Registry | CNS News

Gun registry 'scheme' among concerns over UN arms treaty | Fox News

NRA-ILA | Obama Administration Signs United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Also see the videos I posted in post 1.

I have given you sources. Don't ignore them.

We don't need any additional sources and videos. You posted the treaty, which we can just read. It doesn't say any of the stuff you claim it does. Right at the start it says this.

1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

That is the only thing the treaty applies to, international trade. It has nothing at all to do with US citizens or stuff we do here in the US. It only applies to international trade. Also if you read what it says to do it clearly says that the country exporting is the one who decides if a weapon can be exported or not. It says the following.

Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.

See it is the country exporting that determines if you can export or not. So the US sets up the system then decides on their own if it falls under the treaty or not. The UN isn't in control each individual country is. All the other stuff in the importing and exporting section basically says you have to keep track of what is going on and should cooperate with other countries that is exporting to you or importing your stuff.

If you think I am wrong, go read the treaty. Where does it say anything about registering guns of civilians? It doesn't. It only mentions keeping track of guns being traded internationally. If your gun isn't being traded internationally it doesn't need to be recorded. Those are the laws we have now. You can not send weapons overseas without telling people you are. That is called smuggling.

It is illegal under current US law to smuggle things in and out of the US. This law basically says all transfers overseas need to be recorded, ie not smuggled secretly into a country. You are totally wrong on this.

Read the quote more carefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.

---

Obviously there is a distinction between what is within the scope of the treaty and what a country decides is okay to trade from what is within the scope of the treaty. The U.N. would be deciding what can be traded. This measure also demands paper work with explanations concerning arms trade deals countries make. That puts pressure on countries to limit their options even further.

The sources I posted links to can help you understand the treaty better.

Article 11

Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.
Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.
Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.
Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.

ARTICLE 12

ENFORCEMENT

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

If you read the entire thing the 'scope' of the treaty fully allows each country to decide for it self what is allowed and what isn't. So that doesn't change anything, each country is allowed to decide if it will authorize the exporting and importing of weapons. The one exception is that it asks that people not send weapons to countries under UN embargoes. Which isn't really a big deal since we should be going along with those sort of things anyway.

I like how you selectively highlighted stuff too. You have to read the entire thing in context.

Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.
Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.

Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.
Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.

ARTICLE 12

ENFORCEMENT

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

It clearly says that a country "may" keep records, and that they should still fit within their countries own laws and they only apply to the importing and exporting of weapons. None of that has anything to do with weapons that are not being shipping to or from overseas. There is no gun registration called for by this treaty. You are just wrong. Read it again if you have to.

Keeping the records is mandatory. What goes in the records is partly optional. Notice that one of the things the records "may" contain is "authorized arms transfers." Who authorizes them?

Countries that are not participating with all of the "may" stuff, such as "end users," will potentially be shunned and have less cooperative power at the U.N. That is an element of pressure that makes this problematic. Our leaders could use that pressure element to try to justify bad gun legislation in the U.S.

In case you haven't noticed, I am not a fan of the U.N. We have a country and a Constitution here, and we do not need to be answering to other countries. Playing games with the relationship between our domestic laws and the U.N.'s laws is a terrible idea, and I am really suspicious about why this is happening with gun laws.

I already said it was the country themselves that authorizes the transfers of arms. Also, like I pointed out several times, they are talking about international trade only. The records have nothing to do with with registering firearms belonging to any citizens in the US. It is is for overseas exporting and importing that you need records of what you are selling and buying overseas. Which is currently the law already in the US.

None of this has anything even remotely to do with any citizens owning guns and no one has to register them. This is 100% compatible with US laws and there is no reason we shouldn't be signing this treaty. All it would do is help communication between our countries and other countries so we can ensure smugglers are not slipping through the cracks. As in someone reports to the US authorities that they are shipping guns to country A but when they leave port they illegally smuggle them to country B where genocide is going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I already said it was the country themselves that authorizes the transfers of arms. Also, like I pointed out several times, they are talking about international trade only. The records have nothing to do with with registering firearms belonging to any citizens in the US. It is is for overseas exporting and importing that you need records of what you are selling and buying overseas. Which is currently the law already in the US.

---

Are you reading my posts? The treaty makes a distinction between what a country authorizes and what weapons are within the scope of the treaty. Countries would have to authorize transfers of only weapons they are authorized to authorize. Because countries have to explain their authorizations (of weapons allowed by the U.N. for transfer), countries will have reason to hesitate on allowing gun trades. That is limitation on two levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

None of this has anything even remotely to do with any citizens owning guns and no one has to register them. This is 100% compatible with US laws and there is no reason we shouldn't be signing this treaty. All it would do is help communication between our countries and other countries so we can ensure smugglers are not slipping through the cracks. As in someone reports to the US authorities that they are shipping guns to country A but when they leave port they illegally smuggle them to country B where genocide is going on.

---

Why are you ignoring my points about that? I have already cleared this up. What are you doing? This treaty involves telling countries what weapons they are allowed to have imported to them and exported from them. That gives the U.N. power to decide what guns Americans can buy from foreign companies. Why are you not getting that? Also, the treaty coupled with the U.N. political climate would put pressure on American politicians to change U.S. laws because part of the treaty agreement would be to use American domestic gun laws to aid and support the carrying out of the treaty. It would put us in a position where a politician would be prone to banning all of the guns that are barred from export by the U.N. The treaty also puts pressure on U.S. politicians to keep records of "end users" of weapons. "End users" are the last people who bought the guns. That is a gun registry. The U.N. does not demand it with the treaty, but they urge it. Urge is a strong force in a political climate. This treaty is a horrible idea.

So, the simple and innocent picture you are trying to present is false. If you disagree with the specific points I have made, explain why. You have been ignoring them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiresias

They have drones, unparalleled air power, and manpower. Even if NYC united and revolted, the US Government could wipe the city out in hours. Personally, I'd rather remove the chances of public massacres.

---

This is one of the most ridiculous and unrealistic arguments ever made...

The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense only had 2000 active members in it's prime, many of the rank-and-file members being poor and uneducated folks from the slums, yet they were deemed the greatest threat to the internal security of the United States. Not because of their guns, but simply because they had the support of a fairly sizable segment of the nation. When it comes to guerrilla warfare, the amount of firepower always has been, and always will be, largely irrelevant outside of small skirmishes.

If the US was to declare war on the citizens as a whole, the government would collapse within weeks. Not only due to external forces - international outrage, trades deals slipping the wayside, market crashes, international attempts at intervention, etc - but members within the US government itself would defect within days, along with most US soldiers. Hell, the country wouldn't even be able to recover economically without the support of the nation's taxes.

You are wrong on all points. Each country has full authority to authorize or not authorize any exports or imports. The only restrictions is that it says you will not trade in order to help commit genocide and war crimes, and you have to fulfill other obligations like following UN embargoes which UN countries should be doing anyway. There is nothing in the treaty that gives the UN any say other than that, it is fully in the hands of each country.

To repeat the treaty DOES NOT restrict the type of weapons that can be imported or exported. It doesn't. There is absolutely nothing in that treaty that allows the UN to say ban handguns from being traded, or anything like that. Also, as I said over and over again the treaty doesn't apply to people within the US, it is all about international trade. If you are not trading internationally it has nothing to do with you. There is no pressure what so ever to make politicians change any laws. As I pointed out before, it is already against the law to smuggle weapons into and out of the US so we don't have to change in laws in that regard.

Also the end user isn't talking about individual people and has nothing to do with registering the weapons. If a rifle is imported into a country and bought by a gun store then all the records would say is. "x number of rifles was bought from country A and sent to country B and sold to Gun Store C. Gun store C sold guns at their shop." That is sufficient, that is all they are talking about.

The reason it says data may contain end users as appropriate is because some times such things are required. The treaty includes battle tanks and warships and attack helicopters. If you are selling attack helicopters then they do want to know who ends up with it. 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about you having attack helicopters that are fully armed. In fact owning such things are illegal in the US. You can't have military air craft with active weapon systems and live military grade ordinances with it.

This treaty has nothing at all to do with registering guns in the US though. It doesn't put any pressure on the US to change any laws, and doesn't effect anyone at all unless they own an weapon importing/exporting business. In which such businesses are already regulated by the government, so the laws doesn't even change. The only thing this law changes in regards to the US is that it helps us coordinate and cooperate with other countries more efficent to help stop things from slipping through the cracks in regards to illegal weapon trading.

The treaty is a good thing and is aimed at saving lives over sea in places where genocide is going on.

You are just asserting that my points are incorrect, but you are not showing where the flaws in my interpretations supposedly are. Mere counterassertion does not qualify as counterargument.

Article 11

Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.
Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.
Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.
Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.

ARTICLE 12

ENFORCEMENT

Also from the treaty:

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

Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.



1. What do they mean by "conventional arms under the scope of this treaty" if they are also stating that countries must authorize export of weapons that are under the scope of this treaty? A distinction is made between what countries authorize and what is within the scope of the treaty. They are two different classifications, and one exists within the other. If you disagree, explain why.

2. What are end users, if not people?

3. How would the requirement for explanations of authorizations by countries not be a deterrent to exporting?

4. How would restrictions on exporting not cause politicians to tend to ban certain guns domestically if the guns are restricted by the U.N. from export?


Concentrate especially on "conventional arms under the scope of this treaty." That means the U.N. gets to decide what weapons can be imported and exported. What do you think it means? This is key.

You have to read the entire thing, if you did you would know what they are talking about. They clearly lay out what "conventional arms under the scope of this treaty" consist of.

A. Covered Items

- 1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

- a. Battle Tanks

- b. Armored combat vehicles

- c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

- d. Combat aircraft

- e. Attack helicopters

- f. Warships

- g. Missiles and missile launchers

- h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

They are not talking about any arms that doesn't fall under those terms. So everything in the treaty is related to what was listed. Notice that they are not saying anything at all about what is allowed to be imported or exported, they are only defining what conventional arms are. It is up to each country individually to decide what to allow and what to authorize.

End users are military groups in this context. Notice how most of the weapons listed are military hardware? That is the reason it says it 'may' list end users. In the case of small arms sold legally they don't care who the end user it. They care about the military groups that are buying tanks and stuff, in those cases they want to know who is getting them so they can prevent genocide.

Records doesn't mean registration. Like I said repeatedly we are talking about importing and exporting weapons, which means they want records of who sold what weapons to what companies when they sell and buy stuff overseas. Those are the type of records they are talking about and the law already says you have to do that. They are talking about records that would let people know who large arms companies are selling to in other countries so they know they are not selling them to warlords who are out committing war crimes. It has nothing to do with people sitting around in the US buying stuff at a gun shop.

None of this is a deterrent to exporting or importing to places legally. You already have to get permission from the US government before shipping weapons across the boarder. That is the law today. This is entirely on the government side, with the government taking those reports and sharing them with other countries, so they can follow the weapons overseas and track if anyone is smuggling major shipments of illegal weapons into war zones and places like that. There is no new burdens on US companies since they already have to report that stuff on their end.

There is no restrictions on exporting except to countries under UN embargo. Your argument really doesn't make any sense on number 4. Why would the US ban rifles used in the US because there is a UN weapons embargo on Somalia? The two are not related in any way what so ever. No politician has ever said, "We need to stop genocide in Somalia so lets ban pistols in the US." That position makes no sense. This treaty in no way what so ever puts a ban on any sort of weapons. There is nothing to suggest such at thing at all.

The UN can not determine what is allowed to be traded at all. All it can do is say "Country X is a war zone, there is a high risk of genocide, please don't sell military weapons to them." That is the extent of their power. And they are asking countries to look over their records to check for smugglers. In less developed countries they might need to pass laws to bring their local laws up to par with the rest of the world but the US already has these laws on the books. The US wouldn't need to pass any new laws but countries with a high degree of weapon smuggling might need to. On our end, the problem is we can't confirm where weapons go. So if someone leaves the US and they say they are going to Brazil we can't confirm that, with this treaty does is it allows us to contact Brazil and we can confirm that such weapons did indeed go to Brazil, if they didn't then it sends up a red flag and we know the company that lied is illegally selling weapons. That helps law enforcement track them down and we can bust them.

This treaty has nothing at all to do with private gun owners.

Did you notice that h is "small arms and light weapons?" That includes the guns every day Americans use, and it is not limited to guns for militaries. The U.N. gets to define which of them are "conventional." From that pool of weapons, countries authorize exporting and have to fill out paper work that includes explanations for why they are authorizing them.

End users are people. The treaty does not define the term as being limited to military groups. Keeping records of the end users is "urged." Passing laws to facilitate obedience to the treaty is "urged."

As I have explained, there is no way this wouldn't affect gun access and rights of American civilians.

Look at this:

Dangers of U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Begin to Surface

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDT8sPq0Pbw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixyggARYVCs


If you like your insurance policy, you can keep it. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XWXG1k8I4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puje7KfcqDc

Article 3

Prohibited Transfers

A. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

Do you see how easy it would be for the U.N. to suddenly adopt another measure that would make specific importations to the U.S. illegal? It's that simple.

Wrong! Try again. Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations deals with war. That means for example the UN could pass a resolution saying we shouldn't sell weapons to Russia because they invaded Crimea. Arms Embargoes are included as punishment against countries that are engaged in war and genocide. They can not just say guns are illegal. That isn't in the treaty. The treaty doesn't allow the UN to ban weapons in any way what so ever. It can only do things like put embargoes on countries, and they are not going to embargo the US since we would obviously veto it. Not that the UN would ever want to try set up embargoes against the US.

The UN doesn't define what is conventional, all weapons are conventional if they fall on that list. There is no ban on any of those weapons in that list. There is nothing in this treaty that could ban weapons on that list. There is no possible way for this treaty to harm private gun owners in the US. There is absolutely no pressure on law makers to harm private gun owners in the US. This treaty has absolutely nothing at all to do with private gun owners in the US.

The only reason this is at all controversial is because republicans want to rile people up and spreading false information about it. There is nothing in this treaty that even remotely effects private gun owners. You are being paranoid. Please read the entire treaty from start to finish. It doesn't say any of the stuff you think it does. It is about stopping arms smuggling into war zones and areas of extreme conflict and places where genocide is going on.

You know when people say, "How come the UN doesn't do anything to stop genocide in the world?" Well here is the reason, and that reason is you. People like you tell the UN they can not stop genocide and you run around telling congressmen to reject treaties aimed at stopping genocide and war. So that is what morons in congress do, and US being a huge country with a lot of influence makes the world a little more shitty for everyone else once again.

This treaty doesn't have anything to do with private gun owners. It doesn't effect them in any way at all.

Article 3

Prohibited Transfers

A. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.


The U.N. could very easily "adopt a measure" and say that it pertains to war.


It's all Republicans who have a problem with this treaty? No, it's also Libertarians and anybody else who values the Bill of Rights and understands the need for gun rights and self-defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

The UN doesn't define what is conventional

---

Exactly. Do you want to wait for them to do it after the U.S. has officially accepted the treaty?

They list what are conventional weapons. That is the full list. There isn't anything else, there isn't any specific weapons or anything like that. The word is just a term for normal weapons of war. Also the UN charter is already written. You can check everything it says in Chapter VII. There is nothing sneaky or shading going on at all and they can't just add something new later. They can't just adopt a measure and say it is related to war. They would have to changed the entire founding charter of the UN. That isn't going to happen.

Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't be a part of the UN in any way what so ever because the mere fact of being in the UN puts us at risk of being their slaves because they could just randomly pass any law at any moment or some time in the future. Your argument isn't at all rational.

People who have a problem with the treaty are just people who lack reading comprehension skills. It has nothing at all to do with private gun owners. Nothing at all. It can't effect us. There is no risk at all. As a libertarian who is a strong supporter of the bill of right I am telling you that there is no risk what so ever.

No, this treaty is especially bad, though the U.N. does suck in general. Please cool it with the creative writing exercises. I showed you several provisions, and what they say is obvious. It seems like I need to keep posting them for you because they are going right past you.

The weapons the treaty pertains to are subject to interpretation. Have you ever discussed "assault weapons" with anybody? The specific definitions of weapons are hazy, they overlap, and they are often debated. The U.N. would decide what qualifies under the treaty, and they would have the power to declare that certain weapons cannot be imported into the United States. Also, the U.N. Security Council would be able to "adopt a measure" and say it's because of what if in a war and oh my the children, and then importing hand guns or something into the United States is no longer allowed. That could happen, and I have shown you what the U.N.'s agenda is with gun control. I don't trust this thing for three seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnOhQYtptnI

No you are totally wrong. There is no interpretation. Everything you generally think of as weapons fall under the treaty, and nothing that falls under the treaty is banned. The only stuff that doesn't fall under the treaty are things like nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. Since the treaty doesn't ban anything, there is no risk of anything being banned. Everything that is a conventional weapon, all guns, fall under the treaty. As simple as that. However, nothing is banned by the treaty and stuff that doesn't fall under the treaty are irrelevant since they don't fall under the treaty and have nothing to do with this topic.

Show me where it says this stuff your claiming. It doesn't. The UN has no power what so ever to ban specific weapons, you pulled that out of your ass. It can only set up things like embargo that is it. There no way for them to ban specific weapons in any way what so ever under this treaty.

As I said before, they also can't just change the UN founding charter on rules for embargoes, which we have already been following since the creation of the UN over 50 years now. This treaty doesn't allow for the UN to just adopt a measure and change anything. You are living a paranoid fantasy. None of the stuff you claim is even remotely true. The UN can't do any of the stuff you think it can. None of it is in the treaty at all.

The treaty is about imports and exports on an international level. It does not effect private gun owners in any way what so ever. It can't effect them. There is no possible way the treaty could ban guns in the US. Even if the US got kicked out of the UN and then we had embargoes set against us the treaty wouldn't stop US gun manufactures from just selling guns to citizen, but that entire idea is silly any way because if we got kicked out of the UN we obviously wouldn't be following all the UN treaties.

I am not sure what is so hard to understand about this, it is all there in black and white for you to read at any time. The treaty is about import and export and only has limitations set against countries that commit genocide and war crimes, and doesn't say anything at all about specific weapons or private owners.

For what it's worth, the term "conventional weapons" does include everything non-nuclear, non-biological, or non-chemical, from handguns to aircraft carriers.

Also for what it's worth: Isn't the very premise of this conversation sort of moot? The single defining element of the UN, since its inception, has been its complete inability to do anything at all, including exercising any real power or international respect. Does anybody really think that a UN treaty would ever alter the domestic policy of any country, much less one as powerful as the US?

I'm not arguing because, frankly, there is no point; this subject is right up there with abortion in the unresolvable issues dept. But I figured it worth mentioning these two things anyway.

Sageous, I don't trust the scum at the U.N. to agree with you or Wikipedia. Conventional weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Key word: "generally." I also don't trust our politicians not to use this treaty as an excuse for unconstitutional shenanigans. This is the Obama Administration we're talking about.

Alric, look very closely this time:

Article 3

Prohibited Transfers

A. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

That gives the U.N. Security Council power to adopt a measure and tell us certain weapons cannot be imported here. There is no way around that. Would you like to argue that Barack Obama and his administration are trustworthy and have not already enacted unconstitutional policies? They want the world wide gun ban just like so many others at the U.N. Did you see the videos I posted about the U.N.'s gun prohibition agenda? We can't give these people even an inch on this. They will abuse it.

Didn't you used to be a Libertarian? What happened?

No it doesn't. Try reading that sentence again. You are misreading what it says and jumping to conclusions. It says that a country shall not authorize transfer of weapons if it violates the obligations we already have in cases of things like UN embargoes and blockades. That is what is Chapter VII of the charter talks about, and that is why it specifically mentions embargoes. The UN can not just adopt a measure and ban certain weapons. They can not do that, that isn't listed under what they can do.

The UN isn't going to put an embargo on the US and they sure the hell are not going to put a blockade on the US. The US would veto a blockade and even if we were kicked out of the UN our navy would easily crush a blockade. Not to mention there is no fucking way the UN could blockade the entire US, our country is way to big. That is the only way they can stop trade to the US, is with sanctions such as embargoes or military blockades. That is not going to happen and that isn't even what you think might happen.

There is nothing in this treaty that allows them to restrict weapons in any other way. There is nothing in it that allows them to ban weapons of citizens in any way at all. You think the US is going to allow the UN to ban our army from having weapons? That is retarded. They would have to block all weapons from the US and the point is to stop military from getting weapons illegally.

The only way this would apply to us is if the US was kicked out of the UN, they put an embargo on us and other countries were trying to supply our military with illegal weapons. That is an absurd scenario. The US is not going to get embargoed, we can vote it if it does happen, and even if we got kicked out we make our own weapons so it wouldn't even matter.

So I repeat, there is nothing in it what so ever, that allows them to ban specific weapons, or limit weapons in any way. The only limits are in references to military actions and sanctions placed on a country, which is never going to happen to us.

Also I am a libertarian and I am a strong gun supporter. You are just being crazy. This treaty doesn't say what you think it says. It is a treaty on international weapons trading, and stops illegal smuggling. It has absolutely nothing to do with private gun owners in the US.

The treaty does not only pertain to military weapons, and it does not specify already adopted measures. You are making stuff up. The treaty has several warped clauses we should not agree to or trust, and the one I quoted in my last post says that the U.N. Security Council can adopt a measure and make it binding on parties to the treaty. That means they can declare specific weapons "illicit" and make them barred from import into the United States. Chapter VII is broad and vague enough for a loop hole to be found. This is the U.N. during the Obama presidency. I can't believe you are so trusting.

Besides, why do you trust the U.N. not to impose an embargo (although Chapter VII is broader than that) on the U.S. when they have a global gun ban agenda and Obama is president of the U.S. and would love such a thing? Has Obama not been shady enough for you? By the way, what do you think of Obama? Tell me all about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OAUYDMqrA8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY7fqtT5nic


The bottom line is that the treaty makes the every day guns American civilians use subject to international regulation. It does. I have posted the simple language repeatedly to show that. The treaty makes the every day guns American civilians use subject to international regulation. It is completely out of the question.


If you like your insurance policy, you can keep it.


You are not a Libertarian. You are a U.N. loving and trusting promoter of international weapons laws. The idea that the government would do anything shady to promote stricter gun control has been completely out of your zone of consideration for weeks. You don't acknowledge the reality of false flags, and you don't acknowledge even the possibility that the government would have trolls posting disinfo and smear comments in internet forums. You don't even acknowledge that the Obama Administration or the United Nations has a gun ban agenda, though they both do. You seem to be very much a Republocrat, IF you are actually being honest about what you believe.

Why do you think posting YouTube videos with provocative, often hyberbolic titles is effective in bolstering your argument, UM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Why do you think posting YouTube videos with provocative, often hyberbolic titles is effective in bolstering your argument, UM?

---

Uh, the idea is for people to watch them and learn different perspectives and arguments concerning what is absolutely insane about the treaty. Have you actually watched any of the videos?

Why the #$%* is that the only thing you have said in this thread? Since you're here now, what do you think of the treaty, government-hating anarchist?

I am having deja vu. You have a weird habit of being silent in threads about government intrusion until you find some little thing about something I have said or posted to criticize. That's a bizarre set of priorities. How much of an anti-statist are you, really? Tell us about it.

The thread is about the treaty, not me. Say something intelligent.

You just copied and pasted the part about embargoes, how could you not have seen it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

---

That is what Chapter VII of the UN charter is all about. It is says the security council may call for things like blockades, economic sanctions and embargoes on countries that disrupt world wide peace.

There is nothing in this treaty that says the UN can make new rules later on and you have to follow them, you are totally wrong on that. Also it doesn't allow the ban of specific weapons. You are wrong on that as well. Those things are no where in the treaty. When it says adopt a measure it isn't talking about new laws, hence the reason they say measures "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations". Which means that if they put in place an embargo you are supposed to follow it. The embargo is a measure that the UN is adopting. They are not new laws but sanctions the UN places on specific countries for violating peace. There is no reference to new laws any where at all, and none of the stuff in the charter allows for the ban of specific weapons world wide.

Also there are no illicit weapons as a kind of weapon. They can not declare a kind of weapon illicit and ban it. It doesn't say that any where at all. An illicit weapon is any weapon that is brought into a country illegally, ie smuggled into a country. The treaty doesn't make any distinction what so ever in the kinds of weapon, it just lists what they consider a conventional weapon and everything else are not weapons in their mind and so the treaty doesn't effect them what so ever. Nuclear weapons and chemical weapons fall under different specific treaties. They can not ban any weapons with this treaty.

Lastly I am most definitely a libertarian. I don't really like Obama, and I think the UN can be pretty corrupt at times. I never said false flags can't happen, and I know some have happened in the past in some countries. However, I also have well developed critical thinking skills and I know that if you let your own personal biases go unnoticed it will influence your thinking in negative ways. I am an honest person, so I am not going to lie to myself or anyone else, I want the truth. No matter what that truth might be, I think it is always better to know the truth than to not know it.

That is why I can look at something like this objectively and tell what it says and what it doesn't say. I am extremely pro gun, and I can say with full confidence that this bill does not effect private gun owners in the US in any way what so ever. Further more it couldn't harm private gun owners in the US. there is nothing in the treaty that would allow such a thing. I am not saying it because I support Obama and I am not saying it because I support the UN, because I don't like either of them. I am saying it because it is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Uh, the idea is for people to watch them and learn different perspectives and arguments concerning what is absolutely insane about the treaty. Have you actually watched any of the videos?

---

I haven't. I've just often found that titles like those can be greatly exaggerated and not quite in line with the reality of a situation.

Quote:

---

Why the #$%* is that the only thing you have said in this thread? Since you're here now, what do you think of the treaty, government-hating anarchist?

---

Because I've had neither the time or interest. I might skim through it and post some thoughts soon.

Quote:

---

I am having deja vu. You have a weird habit of being silent in threads about government intrusion until you find some little thing about something I have said or posted to criticize. That's a bizarre set of priorities. How much of an anti-statist are you, really? Tell us about it.

---

Sometimes I care about the way a point of view is being portrayed more than the actual discussion. So if you find me nitpicking your posts it's because your ideas might be close to my own, just not argued as effectively as I think they could be.

Alric...

Well, at least you acknowledge that false flags have happened in other countries. Can you explain why you don't acknowledge that they have happened in the United States and that there are declassified documents which prove it?

The treaty language does say that the U.N. Security Council can adopt measures and hold all parties to the treaty to the measures. It does not specify that the measures have to have already been adopted prior to the formation of the Treaty. It doesn't! With such loose terms and such a shaky rule, we would be out of our minds to enter that treaty. If you really were a Libertarian, you would acknowledge Obama's and the U.N.'s gun control agenda and see why this shaky language treaty is an insane idea.

"It is says the security council may call for things like blockades, economic sanctions and embargoes on countries that disrupt world wide peace." - Alric

Things like that. Imagine the possibilities. Even if it were specifically embargoes, strictly defined, why would the gun control obsessed U.N., working with the Obama Administration, not use one on us. We are dealing with vague language and a gun control agenda. It would be foolish to agree to such a thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...n-to-block-it/

It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.

Now think about this major possibility, especially considering the extreme gun control agendas of the Obama Administration and the U.N. The U.N. could declare that the U.S. has violated an arms embargo, promoted war crimes (How many foreign leaders have accused us of that?), or promoted crimes against humanity. That's all it would take! Then suddenly we have the U.N. telling us we can't export or import certain weapons. That affects U.S. civilian access to imported guns and military access to imported guns. Why do you claim that such a thing couldn't happen? If you want to keep claiming that the treaty provision concerning measures adopted by the U.N. Security Council only applies to measures that have already been adopted, explain why that is not stated in the provision.

Don't lose track of the other problems, such as the political pressure to change domestic gun laws because of export potential and the tendency of exporters not to do business because of the paper work, strict requirement for explanations, and other bureacratic B.S. that would demotivate our exporters and our importers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnSPfpk9Gsc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67HN2HHs7ag

Prison Planet.com » Ex Obama Secret Service Exposes Gun Control Agenda

Playing games with THAT plus ambiguous language about banning gun imports would be profoundly stupid, for people who honestly value gun rights.

The treaty is also a terrible idea for the other reasons I have discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

So if you find me nitpicking your posts it's because your ideas might be close to my own, just not argued as effectively as I think they could be.

---

Jump in when ready. This is a huge issue.

You are suffering from a paranoia. If you think Obama would secretly work with the UN to put an embargo on the US, then I am not sure what to say. You are no longer in touch with reality. A country putting an embargo on itself would destabilize the country and likely cause a collapse. Why would Obama basically commit political suicide and ruin the chances of democrats ever winning any election ever again? Such a thing wouldn't be a secret, it would be open to everyone to see. Since the US has veto on all such things. If the US got hit by an embargo or blockade and they didn't veto it, then the person in charge would be fired on the spot and replaced by someone who would.

None of the stuff you are saying is even remotely plausible.

The second thing is that Obama really isn't that anti gun. He hasn't really done anything anti gun. His background check reforms wasn't gun control. If you own a gun you probably know that buying a gun from stores already require a background check. Those are the current laws in place. The background check reforms only made it so that background checks were also required at gun shows, and made it so background checks worked more efficiently. It wasn't anything like the tight gun restrictions people pretended it was. You are neck deep in bullshit propaganda and I don't think you are able to see reality anymore.

There isn't any vague language in the treaty, you are just reading into things that are not there. There is absolutely nothing that supports the idea that the UN can pass later laws that ban gun. Nothing. It says you have to follow embargoes and sanctions and that sort of thing. That is it. There is no possible way to ban specific guns world wide with this treaty. It is impossible with how the treaty is written.

Also there is no punishments for breaking this treaty. The UN can not place sanctions on the US for ignoring the treaty. That just isn't in there. The treaty is basically a good faith measure, that you sign it and fulfill it to the best of your ability in good faith because you want to stop genocide. The UN can't just ban guns in the US because we violated an embargo. There is nothing in that treaty to support that at all. You basically just made that up.

Also, I have no idea where you are getting this shit from. It clearly says that you are not supposed to trade if the UN puts people under embargoes and blockades or if they commit war crimes or genocide. That is it. Those are the only restrictions in that entire treaty. You can trade with everyone else all you want. The point is to stop genocide so it says you will not trade with people who commit genocide. Seems pretty simple and straight forward to me. None of these restrictions you are bringing up appear in the treaty at all, and do not exist.

It is impossible for the UN to ban guns using this treaty. It is impossible. They can not. At worst all they could do is put an embargo or blockade on the US and that isn't going to happen because the US would just veto it. The US is a permanent member of the security council and can veto those things. There is no danger what so ever to gun rights in the US. The treaty doesn't effect private gun owners in any way at all.

How many times do I need to explain it? This treaty only applies to international trade and blocks smuggling to areas of armed conflict and genocide. It doesn't effect anyone here at all.

The only US citizen who could possibly be harmed by this treaty are people who own business that illegally sells arms to warlords in places like Somalia and those people are not only criminals but they are the scum of the earth. Why are you so insistent on protecting arm smugglers who sell weapons to warlords who rape, kill and commit genocide against people in their countries? This treaty doesn't hurt any private gun owners at all.

After a cursory glance, the treaty doesn't seem like some groundbreaking new attack on our national sovereignty or gun rights. Section 6 of the Preamble pretty clearly states the tone of the treaty with regard to intranational firearms commerce. Furthermore, if this treaty provided a real legal basis to sidestep the Second Amendment, I would absolutely expect to see more attention given to it. I've seen very little outside of a few Reason articles (if you and I are restricting ourselves to libertarian circles).

There are a few issues with it, such as the use of the term "end users" in Article 11 which is quite vague. Most would probably expect that to mean members of militant groups or the militant groups themselves, but as I said, it's vague. So before you try to critique my credentials as you have done with Alric, realize that I do recognize the potential issues with this treaty.

Whatever the future implications of this treaty may be on domestic arms sales, I doubt they are as catastrophic as you believe they will be, UM. It's a UN treaty, so as with most things coming out of the UN, I expect this treaty to be largely useless and a non-issue. Maybe I'm just more optimistic than you are.

And if some future president wanted to ban guns in the U.S. using this treaty as a basis, well, they legally wouldn't be able to.

Alric...

Come on, "Libertarian." :roll: Why do you trust Obama so much? Why do you assume that he wants the best for the United States? Obama signed the continuation of the Patriot Act and the NDAA (which allows the government to indefinitely detain and kill U.S. citizens without a trial), backs the NSA's PRISM program, and is droning the shit out of innocents in the Middle East (which of course gives terrorism incentive). You trust him not to work with the U.N. to achieve a ban on imported guns to the U.S.? I don't think you are really that naive. Tell the truth.

You, a supposed Libertarian, think that Obama's gun control measures are no big deal? Then it's official. You are lying about your political affiliation.

Your side of this argument comes down to trusting (or not caring about the control agendas of) the Obama Administration and the U.N., despite their contempt for the U.S. Constitution and their gun control agenda. I do have a problem with what is going on, and I don't trust the U.N. or the Obama Administration. We should not agree to a treaty that gives the U.N. such an easy way to ban gun imports to the United States. That is what they would LOVE to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK-zfztSbak

If you ever really were a Libertarian, you should come back and join us again.


BLUELINE, you know that the liberal news media doesn't want this to be a big story. It has been big on Fox News and other non-liberal outlets. We are not debating whether the U.N. would be able to tell U.S. citizens that they can't own guns. The very realistic worry is that the U.N. could use their broad language to ban imports of certain types of guns to the United States, that American politicians would have a major excuse plus major pressure to demand a gun registry for U.S. citizens, and that inhibitions would be put on exporters because they would have to explain all of their business deals.

If you have a specific issue with my post, please quote the relevant parts and reply to them directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If you have a specific issue with my post, please quote the relevant parts and reply to them directly.

---

I responded to your entire post. I think you agree with me on the vagueness of the language and the potential for bans on imports, though you think U.N. decisions are less relevant than I think they are.

How well do you think the Second Amendment has been followed in recent times? Do you think the Obama Administration values the Second Amendment?

What do you think of U.S. involvement with the U.N.? Should there even be a U.N.?

It has nothing to do with trust. Like I said the treaty doesn't allow a gun ban, and there is nothing in it to support what you think. Also treaties don't override US constitution so you can't ban guns in the US with a treaty anyway. Though that is a moot point since this treaty doesn't ban guns and can't be used to ban guns. There is nothing in it to allow such a thing.

It doesn't matter how evil you think the UN is, or how evil you think Obama is, that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The UN could want to eat children and that doesn't change the fact that nothing in this treaty effects private gun owners. None of the things you suggested can happen with regards to this specific treaty. So there is no reason to worry, it can't happen.

They might want to pass some future treaty later but that is a future treaty. This one doesn't do anything you think it does though. It just stops smugglers from selling guns to warlords who are committing genocide.

This is Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter:

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Agression


Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

That is vague and very open to possibility. Now let's go down memory lane...

Article 3 (U.N. Arms Trade Treaty)

Prohibited Transfers

A. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

Now put all of that together. A party would not be able to authorize shipment of guns to the United States if the U.N. has adopted a measure against the United States because the U.N. has decided that the U.S. is a threat to the peace, has breached the peace, or has engaged in an act of aggression. That's all it would take. Why do you claim to trust this?

I replied to your post before you edited it. I thought that unlettered tirade was directed at me, not Alric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

BLUELINE, you know that the liberal news media doesn't want this to be a big story. It has been big on Fox News and other non-liberal outlets.

---

Do they actually think it's a big story? I don't watch any of the big-name media outlets, especially not Fox or MSNBC. That's why I restricted the reaction to libertarian circles, since that's where I'd expect most of the outcry to come from should this treaty actually be substantial. Mainline conservative outlets like the Heritage Foundation had some articles, but it's rare that I trust their analyses. They're especially poor on immigration issues, but I digress.

Quote:

---

We are not debating whether the U.N. would be able to tell U.S. citizens that they can't own guns. The very realistic worry is that the U.N. could use their broad language to ban imports of certain types of guns to the United States, that American politicians would have a major excuse plus major pressure to demand a gun registry for U.S. citizens, and that inhibitions would be put on exporters because they would have to explain all of their business deals.

---

I'm not sure what sort of traction a ban on gun imports to the U.S. would get. Worrying? Sure. Is it actually plausible? I don't know.

A gun registry is probably not likely, unless registry prohibition is repealed.

Exporters having to explain their business deals might be an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How well do you think the Second Amendment has been followed in recent times?

---

I'll put it this way: it could be worse. Our ability to legally carry and maintain guns is not directly under attack, but there are a lot of dumb laws in place.

I already explained why. Those things are not bans of specific weapons like you were saying, they are economic sanctions, and embargoes and blockades and things like that. There is no way the UN will put embargoes on the US because the US is a permanent member of the security council and can veto the embargo. There is pretty much no reason to worry as long as the US has the final say on if the embargo takes place or not, which we have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

There is no way the UN will put embargoes on the US because the US is a permanent member of the security council and can veto the embargo. There is pretty much no reason to worry as long as the US has the final say on if the embargo takes place or not, which we have.

---

A member nation of the U.N. security council can veto an embargo on itself? Where did you get that? I'm not saying you're incorrect, but do you have a source for that?

There is something you are overlooking. Barack Obama is the president of the United States.

My major problem with the treaty would be a problem even if we never agree to it. It's a bad treaty with or without us, and I don't think we should support such a thing. Where we could really get hurt by joining it is by limitations on our export potential and how that could influence our politicians to enact bad domestic laws and also by the gun registry that is urged by the treaty. Gun registries invade privacy and discourage gun ownership.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsGy4uYJhPE

That is what Russia did when the UN recently tried to pass a resolution saying they couldn't take over Crimea, Russia just said nope and vetoed it. That is the fundamental power of the people who are permanently on security council which is made up of the US, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom. I believe there is 15 members on the security council but 5 are permanent since those countries basically created the UN. The others don't get a veto and they rotate.

Voting System and Records for the United Nations Security Council

So the US would just veto anything that goes against them. So there is no danger of that. There is no gun registry mentioned in the treaty and the only thing they keep track are imports and exports. Also it doesn't effect our legit gun businesses as far as importing and exporting, it only effects illegal weapon dealers. If there are US arm dealers who are going into areas where genocide is taking place we should be shutting down their businesses. And there almost certainly are US people doing that.

I am not sure why you would want to promote illegal arms smuggling to help in the murder of innocent people. That is morally repugnant and there is no way we should be protecting businesses that does such things. This treaty is something that is needed in the world and something we should support all the way. It is aimed at stopping illegal smuggling of weapons to warlords who murder innocent people. It doesn't effect US citizens and private gun owners in any way what so ever.

What if Obama agrees with whatever it is? The language is so broad that the U.N. Security Council could ban specifically the importing of hand guns to the U.S. because we "breached the peace" or something. I don't trust that it would be vetoed. The Obama Administration would love that. Remember that we are talking about a president who has walked all over the Bill of Rights. I am talking about the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Amendments. He has backed policies that give the middle finger to all six of those amendments. We don't have a Constitutionalist for a president. We have somebody who is pushing as hard as he can toward a socialist police state.

The treaty does urge that countries keep records of things such as "end users," which are gun owners. A collection of those records would be a registry.

Also, there is the export inhibition issue I have described, especially because the treaty involves changing domestic laws to suit the treaty. I want to remind you that Obama and the U.N. both have extremist gun control agendas. This is another Obamacare style deception stunt.

Did you watch any of the Ambassador John Bolton video? He is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He explains the problems with the treaty.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal? - Forbes

"Others, such as former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, caution gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

"Don’t forget that an Illinois senator named Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. That was after he served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago which contributed large grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations."

ARTICLE 12

ENFORCEMENT

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

They can not ban specific weapons, there isn't anything to support that at all. You don't seem to understand what these things are, are basically acts of wars against countries. Economic sanctions and embargoes are a 'soft' kind of war because it doesn't directly kill people. However they can indirectly kill people and many people in like Iraq suffered and even died because of harsh UN sanctions placed on them before the war.

So what you are suggesting is the idea that Obama would allow the UN to go to war with US and he and the rest of the government is going to sit there and take it while the UN topples our government. There is no way in hell the UN is going to send troops or try to blockade the US and there is no way they are going to use soft war methods like embargoes to try to damage the US economy when we have a veto. Those fears you have are just not realistic at all. There is no rules that let the UN just ban some guns, they can't do that. They would have to use non-violant forms of war to physically block trade to the US and that just isn't going to happen.

The language is broad and vague enough to be used for something other than that, and you are not acknowledging the untrustworthy, anti-gun nature of the people we are dealing with.

Plus, what you posted only covers the clause about measures adopted by the U.N. Security Council. There are also the issues about gun export inhibitions, the clause about changing domestic laws to support the treaty, and records of end users.

Why are you not addressing any of the videos or articles I am posting?

Will you acknowledge the gun rights infringement agenda of the Obama Administration and the U.N.?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbko_zhfkmY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwro9jUf1C4

Notice the Sandy Hoax actors standing with Obama there.

More Obama anti-gun propaganda with Sandy Hoax actors present:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ04thDJE1M

Whatever legitimate arguments you may have with regard to the Sandy Hook tragedy, I guarantee you that calling it "Sandy Hoax" does you no favors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Whatever legitimate arguments you may have with regard to the Sandy Hook tragedy, I guarantee you that calling it "Sandy Hoax" does you no favors.

---

It's good for a chuckle. Thank you for again addressing what really matters in this thread.

This U.N. bull shit was one of the reasons for Sandy Hoax. Feinstein's gun control bill and the Connecticut gun grab were two other reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4d2g9XIFnE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAVnSIHryFo

I am ignoring the videos and stuff because they are not relevant to the discussion. I read the treaty my self so I don't need other people to tell me what is in it. That seems to be your problem. You are basing stuff not on what the treaty says but basing it on political rhetoric you heard in videos and stuff.

The treaty doesn't allow for the specific bans of weapons. It only allowed for the specific targeting of individual countries. The UN isn't going to declare war on all the countries on earth, or even most, or even half. So the idea that they will use the treaty to ban weapons every where is pretty silly. They only put a handful of embargoes and stuff in place and they are against the countries that really are committing genocide and war crimes at mass levels.

Also, like I pointed out several times, none of this stuff effects weapon exporters in the US. All the requirements they ask for is stuff that is already in the US laws. If you are shipping weapons across the US border and trading internationally you already have to tell the government what you are shipping and where it is going and that sort of thing. You do realize that the US isn't the only country in the world right? All this stuff basically brings the rest of the world up to the US standards as far as regulations go. Even one of your videos you posted said as much, that it wasn't about changing how the US does things but bringing people to our level.

So there isn't added paperwork on businesses or anything like that, all these laws are already in place in the US. Though they are not in place in other areas. This treaty basically brings everyone up to the same standards, and facilitates communications between countries. Which even benefits us since we can better communicate with others in case we do find people smuggling things in and out of our country.

Like I keep saying this treaty doesn't effect private gun owners at all.

The videos and articles are relevant because they explain the meaning and significance of the treaty and what the outcomes could be.

I have explained specifically how the treaty could result in problems with our export potential and changes in domestic laws that result from them, especially because the treaty agreement involves countries shaping their laws to accompany the treaty smoothly. I have also explained the shakiness of the language and the politicians who support it. The treaty does demand new paper work because it demands new information about why people are making the business deals they are making and how it's really okay, and the new paper work is very nosy and part of an international system. I have explained what is problematic about that. The treaty concerns illegal weapons, and I have explained what is ambiguous about that term and how the U.N. would be making the decisions on what qualifies and what doesn't. I have explained all of this. What you are saying does not counter my specific points. It just asserts that they are wrong. You need to explain logical and true direct counterarguments to those points. You haven't given them yet.

There are no illegal weapons under this treaty. I don't know where you keep getting this stuff from because it isn't in the treaty at all. There are no illegal weapons. There is nothing mentioning that any where in the treaty at all. See that is the problem, you keep bringing up things that are not mentioned in the treaty. How am I supposed to explain my reasoning? The reasoning is simple, it isn't in the treaty and you made it up.

What is illegal is selling weapons to people the UN has declared to be committing war crimes and genocide. The weapons are not illegal, and there is no references to any weapons being illegal. You keep mentioning they might ban certain kinds of weapons or something but there is no mention of that what so ever. All they do is mention groups that it is illegal to trade with and those are people committing war crimes and stuff.

That is why I am saying that can't do something like say, "You can no longer sell rifles to the US." That isn't how the treaty is set up. What they would have to do is say, "The US is a treat to the world so we are setting up an embargo to ban all trading with them." Which will get veto. Of course it will get veto, there is no way the US would accept that. You can't selectively ban some weapons, there is no reference to that what so ever. You can only put sanctions and embargoes on countries that is disrupting worldwide peace.

Also you keep acting like the UN is putting pressure on people, but they are not. The treaty says it recognizes the right of people to have weapons and private property and that they don't want to interfere with that. Then throughout the entire thing it mentions suggestions and specifically says the countries should follow their own laws. There is also no punishment and it says any country and stop enforcing the treaty at any time. There is pretty much no pressure at all. The treaty is pretty weak and is basically followed only by the good faith of anyone who signs it. There is no pressure put on anyone if we sign it.

I think you really need to read the entire treaty from start to finish, so you understand what it actually says.

You are still avoiding a lot of my major points. As for what the treaty says about illegal weapons, here you go:

The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:

- For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

- To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;

Why the distinction?

There is pressure in the political climate of the U.N. any way, but the treaty urges keeping records of end users and demands explanations for exporting weapons shipments. The treaty also says that nations are agreeing to shape their domestic laws to assist the treaty. Of course that puts pressure on countries. It also gives excuses to snakes in the grass in office.

Like I said, there was no reference to illegal guns was there? You just copy and pasted it, proving I was right. There are no illegal guns in this treaty only illegal destinations for guns. We already went over that, the illegal destinations are people under sanctions and embargoes from the UN. So they can't restrict trade to the US unless they put an embargo on us which we would just veto.

Also you keep ignoring the fact that none of the requirements are anything new since the US already has arms trading laws on the book. You make it sound like it is legal to freely ship weapons in and out of the country. It isn't.

Here is an example of a form to export a fire arm.

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/downl...f-f-5320-9.pdf

Notice that it requires your name, address, number of weapons, types of weapons, barrel size and descriptions, serial number, where you are exporting to, your federal firearms Federal Firearms License(which is tracked), employment identification number, State Department License Number for the Specific Shipment ect. Notice how it is just an application and it needs to be checked out and may be denied.

Wait doesn't that sound familiar?

Quote:

---

Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.

---

Look at that, all the stuff it asks for is already covered by current US laws. All that stuff your complaining about being an unneeded burden on exporters is stuff they are already required by law to do. It even has the end user listed, which would be the name and address of the consignee listed on that form. Like I said it doesn't change anything for people in the US. We already have laws for all this stuff.

The application doesn't involve an explanation for why the deal needs to be made and how it isn't a problem. That's something the treaty introduces. Also, that is a U.S. federal application. The international law factor adds a problem. Answering to your own government is one thing. Answering to the United Nations is another. They have no business screwing with American companies over their gun exports. I recognize my government as a legitimate institution of law, but not the U.N.

You didn't counter my point about the distinction between "illicit trade in conventional arms" and "their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use." The second part is concerned with who buys the guns. What is the first part about? Also, what would stop the U.N. from using their broad and vague powers granted by the treaty to declare certain guns illegal?

You still have not countered my point about how the treaty involves changing domestic laws to suit the treaty. Export complication issues would affect gun manufacture laws in the U.S. That is a problem.

Make sure you answer my questions and counter my points if you still disagree with them. I am doing a lot of repeating because you are doing a lot of dodging.

http://www.rferl.org/content/un-arms.../25117736.html

According to Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, formal support from the United States gives the treaty the potential to change the very nature of the global arms trade.

"The United States already has a very robust set of standards and export controls," he says. "This treaty essentially internationalizes the U.S. system and lays down some prohibitions on the transfer of conventional weapons. And this treaty will require all states to establish export laws, to enforce those export laws, and to abide by a common set of standards."

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ed-feu...s-trade-treaty


Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Should Not Sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty:

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...s-trade-treaty

I didn't dodge anything, and I explained it all. You are just not listening to what I am saying.

Both of those thing you said are related to who you sell to. I am not sure what is so difficult about this. The UN can't declare certain weapons illegal because there is nothing at all in the treaty that allows it. It isn't there, there is nothing there. You made that all up. Show me where it implies they can do it. I keep asking you but you can't show me because it isn't there. You say it is vague enough allow it but there is nothing that vague in the treaty. You basically made up that idea and nothing in the treaty supports it.

Secondly, exporters don't have to report to the UN. Once again you just made that part up. It clearly says the exporters report to their own country and their own country authorizes the trades, which is what happens now. The only extra step is that our government then sends the report of the stuff they collect to other countries. That is it. There is no new laws or requirements for exporters, and the government isn't collecting any new information. The only change is that the government shares the information they get with others, that is it. So it doesn't effect exporters at all. They already have to do all this. That is the current law, nothing changes for them.

You are pretending I am not counting your argument but that is because you are just ignoring what I am saying and dodging the issue. The fact that we don't have to change any laws because we already have all those laws on the books pretty much destroys your entire argument. You don't have a leg to stand on. Your idea that laws will be changed has been utterly refuted.

What is hilarious is that you just posted a quote agreeing with me. That quote from Daryl Kimball basically that it doesn't change our laws at all because they are already on the books and it just helps other countries implement laws similar to the US already has. Like I said so many times, it pretty much doesn't effect us at all, and it definitely doesn't effect private gun owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's good for a chuckle. Thank you for again addressing what really matters in this thread.

---

It does really matter. The way an argument is presented can be just as important as the argument itself. Never mind the fact that it isn't funny whatsoever. It makes you look childish.

Alric, the countries that are involved in the treaty answer to the U.N. in regard to what they are doing in accordance with the treaty. I asked why there is a distinction between the parts I separated with a big red "and." You keep ignoring the fact that the language of the treaty is broad and shaky, among the other things you are ignoring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It does really matter. The way an argument is presented can be just as important as the argument itself. Never mind the fact that it isn't funny whatsoever. It makes you look childish.

---

You are worthless in this thread. Some "anarchist" you are. If you were for real, you would have major issues with the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty and the United Nations itself. The only thing you are commenting on is ME. That is pathetic. It is extremely bizarre that you have not taken issue with Alric on a single point. Either discuss the issues or go do something with yourself. Ha ha, "anarchist." What a crock of shit.

I didn't ignore any points you made, I addressed them all. Those things are not talking about illegal weapons but weapons being illegally traded or stolen. The treaty isn't shaky at all and is a pretty simple and straight forward treaty. There is nothing at all shady about it. It is only broad in that it allows a great deal of freedom for the countries to implement things as they see fit.

I am not sure why but you are taking the fact that they are giving them a lot of freedom and flexibly to choose how to implement it, as if it was some sneaky way of tricking people or something. The reason it says stuff like, You "may" do this or that and that things should fall in line with your countries own existing laws, is because they are leaving it open to people to decide for them self how to do it.

The treaty isn't oppressive in any way at all, it is an extremely laxed treaty with a lot of room for people to decide things for them self. There is no enforcement and you can leave at all time you want, and each country can pick and choose which things they want to enforce. That isn't some oppressive treaty that is forcing people to do stuff, it is the exact opposite. If anything the treaty will probably not mean much because it lacks any sort of real bite. It is a flimsy treaty that basically relies on the good faith of everyone involved to try and improve things.

It is nothing like the evil oppressive treaty you are trying to make it out to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Some "anarchist" you are. If you were for real, you would have major issues with the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty and the United Nations itself.

---

I don't have major issues with the treaty. I said it will likely not be a serious piece of legislation, useless in effect, much like the UN in general. If I am wrong, so be it. It's hard to become riled up over something you think isn't of any significance.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for there to be a relationship between being an anarchist and having a vitriolic hatred for the UN or this treaty. Their priorities may lie elsewhere.

Quote:

---

The only thing you are commenting on is ME. That is pathetic.

---

I explained why I do so, but let me reiterate in clearer terms. You post your ideas under the tent of libertarianism, but you are also a very poor communicator for those ideas. I want you to stop poisoning our tradition and ideology with garbage like "Sandy Hoax" and overly provocative/sensationalist rhetoric.

Quote:

---

It is extremely bizarre that you have not taken issue with Alric on a single point. Either discuss the issues or go do something with yourself. Ha ha, "anarchist." What a crock of shit.

---

I haven't given his posts any time to read in detail, though from a quick look he seems to think this treaty isn't a big deal either.

By the way, I am pro-liberty before I am anti-state. I'm not worried about being considered an anarchist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't have major issues with the treaty. I said it will likely not be a serious piece of legislation, useless in effect, much like the UN in general. If I am wrong, so be it. It's hard to become riled up over something you think isn't of any significance.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for there to be a relationship between being an anarchist and having a vitriolic hatred for the UN or this treaty. Their priorities may lie elsewhere.

---

If you were really an anarchist, you would be against the treaty on general principle. You would also have said negative things about the existence of the U.N. by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I explained why I do so, but let me reiterate in clearer terms. You post your ideas under the tent of libertarianism, but you are also a very poor communicator for those ideas. I want you to stop poisoning our tradition and ideology with garbage like "Sandy Hoax" and overly provocative/sensationalist rhetoric.

---

That's bull shit, and you're opposing the person who is expressing problems with big goverment. You have yet to do that in this thread. You used to claim that you think governments should not exist. The issue of this thread involves not only our government, but other governments our government would have to answer to. And all you want to talk about is me personally? You are in no position to address the clarity of my arguments because you haven't even shown that you understand what my arguments are or even the big issue they concern. As for poisoning the image of libertarianism, you need to quit claiming that you are a libertarian while saying you are an anarchist. We are not anarchists. We are minarchists, and we are Constitutionalists. Stop trying to make us look like a bunch of moronic 15 years olds with punk rock hair styles. That is not to say that you have been doing that in this thread. You won't even address the issues in this thread. If you have been reading it, you know what the issues are by now. Address their logic, or else stop whining. If you think my points are illogical, counter them. You will be showing your true colors even more if you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I haven't given his posts any time to read in detail, though from a quick look he seems to think this treaty isn't a big deal either.

By the way, I am pro-liberty before I am anti-state. I'm not worried about being considered an anarchist.

---

You addressed the significance of the treaty. What do you think of the logic of the principles of the treaty? What do you think of the United Nations? What do you think of gun control? What is your opinion these days of the existence of governments? Tell us all about it. Show us your passion. Go off about your beliefs. Come on, here's a good opportunity for you to tell us about the evils of governments and controls, anarchist. :roll:


StephL, you just poked your face in here. What is your analysis of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty? If you disagree with my points, explain why. Although I disagree with Alric, at least he has been debating the issues with me. Nobody else has.


Alric, of course it's a trick. Has the Obama Administration not pulled enough of those? "If you like your plan, you can keep it." The rest of your points are just counter assertions and not counterarguments.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...s-trade-treaty


Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Should Not Sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

By Theodore R. Bromund, Ph.D.


The U.S. has announced that it will sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as soon as it is satisfactorily translated into all official U.N. languages. This could happen as early as August 28, when the Russian-language translation is scheduled to be completed. It is more likely to happen on September 25 at a high-profile signing ceremony currently being planned at the U.N.

Once the U.S. signs the treaty, and even without the advice and consent of the Senate, the U.S. will consider itself obliged not to violate the treaty’s object and purpose. The top 10 reasons why the U.S. should avoid putting itself in this dangerous position by not signing the ATT are:

1. A broken red line. In October 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. supported negotiation of the ATT only by “the rule of consensus decision-making.”[1] In the U.N., “consensus” means “unanimity.” But after negotiations failed to achieve consensus, the ATT was adopted with U.S. support in April 2013 by a majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. The U.S. thus broke its own red line. To protect its national interests, the U.S. often participates in negotiations only if they are conducted on the basis of consensus. The U.S.-backed turn to the majority-rule General Assembly reinforces a damaging precedent that will be cited in the future against the U.S.
2. A rushed and short-circuited review. The treaty became available on April 2. On April 5, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman stated that the U.S. review process for it would take “months, at a minimum.”[2] But on May 15, a mere six weeks later, while that review was ongoing, he announced that the U.S. would sign the ATT. Thus, the U.S. review was extremely rapid and effectively cut short before it was concluded.
3. An “ambiguous” treaty. On April 5, Countryman rightly described the ATT as “ambiguous.” The treaty defines none of its terms or defines them only by reference to other undefined terms. The treaty is a conveyor belt that will pull along its signatories—including, potentially, the U.S.—as the meanings of its terms are defined.
4. Amendments by majority rule. The treaty can be amended by a three-quarters majority vote. These amendments are binding only on nations that accept them, but the amended treaty will be used to pressure the U.S. to comply in practice with amendments it refused to accept in principle. This makes the ambiguity of the treaty more dangerous.
5. Bad for the U.S. arms export process. This process is governed by Presidential Decision Directive 34, issued by President Bill Clinton in 1995. The essence of the U.S. process is that it considers a broad range of criteria as a whole. The treaty, on the other hand, contains many prohibitions and assessment criteria that make it more akin to a checklist that must be met item by item. Over time, this checklist will become only more restrictive, further hampering the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.
6. Bad for the Second Amendment. The treaty does not exclude lawfully owned civilian firearms and contains only a weak preambular reference to civilian ownership. It creates a “responsibility” to prevent the “diversion” of firearms to the illicit trade, sets out national record-keeping on the identity of end users—i.e., individual owners—of imported firearms as a best practice, and offers justifications for imposing new administrative burdens on significant firearms imports into and exports out of the U.S. market. As the treaty is interpreted and amended, both the U.N. agencies that explicitly promote gun control and the many nations that wanted the ATT to impose even tighter domestic restrictions will pull and pressure the U.S. toward imposing further regulations.
7. Bad for the Reagan Doctrine. The treaty raises significant legal barriers against arming the opponents of totalitarian regimes. This practice is known as the Reagan Doctrine, but it has been a bipartisan instrument of U.S. foreign policy since 1945. Since the treaty will not, in practice, prevent totalitarian regimes from arming terrorists and other dictators, it offers the U.S. nothing except tighter controls on the world’s democracies.
8. Bad for export control reform. The current U.S. system of export controls is responsible but also baroquely complex. Reforms are under way to improve the U.S. system. These reforms would place tighter controls on fewer items, especially sensitive ones. But the campaign for the ATT seeks to expand the number of items covered by the treaty both through the treaty’s amendment procedure and by taking advantage of its ambiguity. The conflict between these aims can be postponed but not evaded, and the clash between them is not likely to be good for the U.S. system.
9. Bad for U.S. sovereignty. The standards at the heart of the ATT—which are based on international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and a knowledge test—are vague and readily subject to redefinition. The treaty as a whole is, as its supporters openly acknowledge, intended to create international norms that will restrain the conduct of the U.S. both by shaping the operation of the policy process and by establishing a pretended customary international law standard that will influence the deliberations of U.S. courts. This is bad for the ability of the U.S. to govern itself under the Constitution.
10. It will not work. The ATT nominally seeks to control the illicit international trade in arms. This makes as much sense as trying to control crime by outlawing it. Terrorists and dictators around the world are regularly armed directly by, or with the tacit acquiescence of, members of the U.N., frequently in violation of U.N. Security Council arms embargoes. The treaty was negotiated by the same nations that are responsible for these violations. Another serious problem is that many nations are unable or unwilling to control their own borders, secure their own stockpiles, or even keep members of their armed forces and police departments from selling their firearms. The treaty will not transform these incompetent nations into well-governed and law-abiding ones.

The U.S. Should Not Sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

The ATT is already intermingled with other U.N. institutions, several of which the U.S. has long been skeptical about on Second Amendment grounds, including the Programme of Action on Small Arms and the International Small Arms Control Standards. As a recent statement by the U.N. Secretary General put it, the U.N. sees a “synergistic relationship” between the ATT and these other institutions and expects the ATT “to lend strong impetus” to their implementation.[3] The coming years are likely to see an incremental, interpretive convergence between the ATT and these institutions in ways that will be difficult to monitor, much less control.

The U.S. decision to support negotiation of the ATT in principle was unwise. The U.S. decision to vote for the ATT in the U.N. General Assembly was even more unwise. Placing the signature of the U.S. on the ATT would be the most unwise act of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you were really an anarchist, you would be against the treaty on general principle. You would also have said negative things about the existence of the U.N. by now.

---

The UN is an institution that doesn't particularly bother or even interest me right now. I've said previously that it is largely ineffective, and I expect this treaty to be the same. Like I said, if I'm wrong, so be it. I'll change my mind.

And just to clarify your misconceptions: an anarchist does not need to immediately oppose certain laws or institutions. In the long term they might, but not necessarily the short term.

Quote:

---

That's bull shit, and you're opposing the person who is expressing problems with big goverment. You have yet to do that in this thread. You used to claim that you think governments should not exist. The issue of this thread involves not only our government, but other governments our government would have to answer to. And all you want to talk about is me personally? You are in no position to address the clarity of my arguments because you haven't even shown that you understand what my arguments are or even the big issue they concern.

---

I understand your argument perfectly. You're worried about firearm trade restrictions on the U.S. and worried about the possibility of gun registries. I don't think either are likely to happen and a gun registry is currently illegal anyway.

Quote:

---

As for poisoning the image of libertarianism, you need to quit claiming that you are a libertarian while saying you are an anarchist. We are not anarchists. We are minarchists, and we are Constitutionalists. Stop trying to make us look like a bunch of moronic 15 years olds with punk rock hair styles. That is not to say that you have been doing that in this thread. You won't even address the issues in this thread. If you have been reading it, you know what the issues are by now. Address their logic, or else stop whining. If you think my points are illogical, counter them. You will be showing your true colors even more if you do.

---

I'm surprised to see that you still haven't come to the conclusion that libertarians can be both minarchists and anarchists. I don't see many people claiming that these days, and I'm more involved with libertarians IRL now more than ever. I was at a Students for Liberty conference back in November, a libertarian student organization, and nearly everybody I talked to considered themselves anarchists.

But none of that has to do with how you poison our image by using terms like Sandy Hoax. I won't even comment here on how conspiracy theories are wildly anti-libertarian. I think I've done so in the past.

Quote:

---

You addressed the significance of the treaty. What do you think of the logic of the principles of the treaty? What do you think of the United Nations? What do you think of gun control? What is your opinion these days of the existence of governments? Tell us all about it. Show us your passion. Go off about your beliefs. Come on, here's a good opportunity for you to tell us about the evils of governments and controls, anarchist. :roll:

---

Well no, I addressed the relative insignificance of the treaty, though I did say that it was vague with regard to defining what an "end user" is. If that vagueness is exploited, you will see me become a little more interested in this treaty. The principles of this treaty seem genuine. I agree with the idea that weapons should not reach those who will do bad things with them. Whether this treaty will effectively do that is not certain, and probably not true anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The UN is an institution that doesn't particularly bother or even interest me right now. I've said previously that it is largely ineffective, and I expect this treaty to be the same. Like I said, if I'm wrong, so be it. I'll change my mind.

And just to clarify your misconceptions: an anarchist does not need to immediately oppose certain laws or institutions. In the long term they might, but not necessarily the short term.

---

The U.N. does have international laws, and sometimes they do enforce them. They are really selective with it, but they do. They have committed violence in the name of enforcing their laws. Are you all right with that? Should the United Nations exist?

So, you are okay with laws, but just not later? :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I understand your argument perfectly. You're worried about firearm trade restrictions on the U.S. and worried about the possibility of gun registries. I don't think either are likely to happen and a gun registry is currently illegal anyway.

---

You don't think this treaty could affect U.S. laws in the future? Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm surprised to see that you still haven't come to the conclusion that libertarians can be both minarchists and anarchists. I don't see many people claiming that these days, and I'm more involved with libertarians IRL now more than ever. I was at a Students for Liberty conference back in November, a libertarian student organization, and nearly everybody I talked to considered themselves anarchists.

But none of that has to do with how you poison our image by using terms like Sandy Hoax. I won't even comment here on how conspiracy theories are wildly anti-libertarian. I think I've done so in the past.

---

The Google defintion of "libertarianism":

lib·er·tar·i·an·ism
ˌlibərˈte(ə)rēəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: libertarianism

1.
an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

The Libertarian Party is minarchist.

Conspiracy theories are anti-libertarian? What about theories concerning conspiracies that did in fact happen? Many of them are declassified now. You should learn about them. Sandy Hoax has not been declassified because it just happened, but it was a hoax. Anybody with average or above intelligence who has really researched it knows that. It is not a libertarian belief. It is just a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well no, I addressed the relative insignificance of the treaty, though I did say that it was vague with regard to defining what an "end user" is. If that vagueness is exploited, you will see me become a little more interested in this treaty. The principles of this treaty seem genuine. I agree with the idea that weapons should not reach those who will do bad things with them. Whether this treaty will effectively do that is not certain, and probably not true anyway.

---

You seem pretty indifferent to governments and their rules. What I boldfaced shows clearly that you are not really an anarchist. Why have you been claiming to be one?

You seem to think that the UN is like like super government. As if they were different levels, state government, federal government then international government which is like bigger and more powerful than everyone else. Except that isn't what the UN is at all. The UN is like a forum where governments express them self and talk to each other. It really has no power what so ever. The only power it has is what everyone agrees to willingly, and since a lot of countries don't agree on how things should be done, things rarely get done.

It is kind of silly to think the UN is trying to steal everyone's guns when it can't even get rid of things like nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or stop petty war lords in third world nations. Look at how many times the UN condemns the actions of Israel and they never been able to get them to listen. Why? Because the US likes Israel.

Blueline knows that even if this treaty passes nothing will change in the US, and that the UN has no ability to pressure the US to do anything. So he isn't worried. He is absolutely right too. This treaty doesn't allow for any of the things you suggested and even if it did it can't force anyone to do anything, it can't even pressure anyone to do anything. In fact it openly states it doesn't want to pressure anyone to do anything.

The U.N. is not a government. It is a collectivity of governments, and they have international laws that they enforce with sanctions, embargoes (as you have said), force, and sometimes war.

History of peacekeeping - Post Cold-War surge. United Nations Peacekeeping

Why Is The U.N. In The War-Making Business? - Forbes

United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committees

United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Sanctions

Does the U.N. ever actually go to war? - The Week


Since you think the U.N. is so worthless, why do you support the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, Libertarian? Should the U.S. even be part of the U.N.?

I don't think the U.N. could get everybody's guns. Getting weapons from criminals is a real bitch. Getting weapons from people who care about the law, however, is a piece of cake once bans are passed, though it would be harder in the U.S. than in most countries because of our general attitudes about gun rights. The U.N.'s gun grab agenda is not about getting guns from criminals. It is about getting guns from everybody else so that socialist police states can become abundant. The U.S. is the last hope on Earth of preventing that from happening, and that is why they are extremely concerned with the passing of strict gun laws in the U.S. Governments get a lot bolder with their oppressiveness when their masses have been disarmed. Just study any dictator from the 20th Century.

You seem to have a pretty wrapped view of reality. I am not sure why you believe there is some large world wide conspiracy for all governments to implement socialist police states against everyone's will, but there is no evidence of that. Secondly, the idea that the US is special and is the only hope for the world is a pretty sad world view to have. Sounds like shitty nationalist propaganda. Don't get me wrong the US is a fine country but the idea that it is some last final bastion to defend the earth from socialist police states is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

You seem to have a pretty wrapped view of reality.

---

I love my sig line so much that I will probably never replace it, but you just really tempted me.

The United States is the world's only superpower, and we have a lot to do with why there aren't a lot more invasions and revolutions in the world. If totalitarian socialists ever were to take over the U.S. government, a lot of the protection against that type of system would be gone. As a result, major attempts at it would take place in other countries, and some would probably be successful.

With that in mind, think about the fact that there are people out there who would love to turn the United States into a socialist police state. There is a movement to push us there, though it's not completely organized. There are just politicians and others who would like to have that kind of power and also people who really believe it's the best kind of society, so it is absurd to deny that a movement pushing in that direction exists.

That isn't very libertarian of you is it? You think there are people who want to turn every country into a socialist police state and your answer is being a super power, which requires a huge massive government? It is very illogical to think you need a massive government to fight off massive governments. The fact is the US would probably be a freer country if it wasn't a super power, and there are a lot of countries a lot more freer than we are.

You claim people like me and blueline and not really libertarians, but isn't it you with no faith in your ideals? That is why you support the massive army required to be a super power, you think it is the only thing saving us. Unlike you however, I have faith in my ideals. I think the number one weapon against tyranny is knowledge and information. The world isn't a more peaceful and free place because the US is using their armies to force their rules on people, but because of things like the internet increasing global communications and spreading information like never before.

I was stating a fact, not what I believe is the best way to do things. We are the world's only superpower, and our existence is a major deterrent to the spread of totalitarianism. The problem with the picture is that too many countries depend on our military protection and lack incentive to build up their own militaries like they should. I think they should build up their own militaries and that we should stop being so far up the rest of the world's ass. However, I am very pro-military and think ours should be extremely powerful, but much more domestically oriented. That is a common libertarian view, and it is part of the Libertarian Party's platform.

What is NOT libertarian is your love for the United Nations and your acceptance of their international laws and gun control positions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The U.N. does have international laws, and sometimes they do enforce them. They are really selective with it, but they do. They have committed violence in the name of enforcing their laws. Are you all right with that? Should the United Nations exist?

---

To your first question: No, but I don't harbor a vitriolic hatred for the UN either. I recognize its faults, but it's not something I put a lot of brain power toward. I have more immediate concerns.

To the second: THE UN as it stands probably shouldn't exist, no. A better question would be to ask "Should a United Nations exist?" Are we better off with one than without? I don't know.

Quote:

---

So, you are okay with laws, but just not later? :?

---

That's not an appropriate description of my argument.

I'm content with laws that maximize liberty under the existing conditions (states exist and will for the foreseeable future). If a stateless society is one that can provide a maximally free society, then those laws will obviously become unnecessary and I will no longer support them.

To use gay marriage as an example again, I said I support the argument that the government should legalize gay marriage (i.e. enact a law that increases freedoms or at least makes everybody equal under the law) before I support the argument that the government should not even have a role in marriage (i.e. enact no laws and be barred from doing so in a given area). Why? Because we cannot readily go from "gay marriage is not allowed by law" to "the law says nothing of what kinds of marriage are legal."

I would not see people suffer from inequality under the law just to wait for society to gradually align to my views.

Quote:

---

You don't think this treaty could affect U.S. laws in the future? Why not?

---

Because the constitution supersedes international treaties and a gun registry is illegal, and a movement to legalize them probably would not get enough support.

Quote:

---

The Google defintion of "libertarianism":

lib·er·tar·i·an·ism
ˌlibərˈte(ə)rēəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: libertarianism

1.
an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

---

I'm a little concerned that you're pulling definitions from the dictionary to discuss a complex political philosophy. It makes me think you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

The Libertarian Party is minarchist.

---

And yet it is significantly populated with anarchists. Why do you think that is? I can guarantee you with great confidence that it's not because they're confused.

I'm breaking the next part of your post up to answer it more completely.

Quote:

---

Conspiracy theories are anti-libertarian?

---

It makes absolutely no sense for somebody to claim that the markets and society should be relatively free of government intervention because central planning doesn't work while also claiming that complex lies can be told and complex atrocities committed without anybody finding out, the implication from this being that central planning does work.

Quote:

---

What about theories concerning conspiracies that did in fact happen? Many of them are declassified now. You should learn about them.

---

Well, we know that things like Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred because keeping people quiet is difficult if not impossible. These are conspiracies that occurred and were exposed relatively quickly. There's a funny thing about real conspiracies: we find out about them, and we don't need to resort to letting our brain run wild to do so.

Contrast this with conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, the Apollo moon landings, the JFK assassination, and now Sandy Hook. These ideas sometimes start off understandably. Somebody finds two data points that don't share an obvious relationship. After time, the person cannot find a direct relationship between the two points. The brain frantically tries to connect the dots, and from that come conspiracy theories. People are not often content with accepting that some events really are innocuous.

This is a great primer on the psychology of conspiracy theories. You should watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TELiwR0Olk

Quote:

---

Sandy Hoax has not been declassified because it just happened, but it was a hoax. Anybody with average or above intelligence who has really researched it knows that. It is not a libertarian belief. It is just a fact.

---

Yet there are millions of incredibly intelligent people who have taken the time to review what happened and they don't accept that the shooting was orchestrated by somebody other than a deranged kid.

Quote:

---

You seem pretty indifferent to governments and their rules. What I boldfaced shows clearly that you are not really an anarchist. Why have you been claiming to be one?

---

You've misinterpreted me, which I've repeatedly shown. Take some care to go over my posts in full before replying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

To your first question: No, but I don't harbor a vitriolic hatred for the UN either. I recognize its faults, but it's not something I put a lot of brain power toward. I have more immediate concerns.

To the second: THE UN as it stands probably shouldn't exist, no. A better question would be to ask "Should a United Nations exist?" Are we better off with one than without? I don't know.

---

Then you are not an anarchist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

That's not an appropriate description of my argument.

I'm content with laws that maximize liberty under the existing conditions (states exist and will for the foreseeable future). If a stateless society is one that can provide a maximally free society, then those laws will obviously become unnecessary and I will no longer support them.

---

Then you see the possibility that you could be okay with anarchy, but you are not an anarchist. An anarchist wants anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Because the constitution supersedes international treaties and a gun registry is illegal, and a movement to legalize them probably would not get enough support.

---

Why do you trust that the Second Amendment will be respected and obeyed? Have you not seen enough of the opposite of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm a little concerned that you're pulling definitions from the dictionary to discuss a complex political philosophy. It makes me think you don't know what you're talking about.

---

I am showing you what words mean because you act like you don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

And yet it is significantly populated with anarchists. Why do you think that is? I can guarantee you with great confidence that it's not because they're confused.

I'm breaking the next part of your post up to answer it more completely.

---

A full adoption by the U.S. government of the Libertarian Party's platform would be a huge move in the direction of anarchy, so anarchists support us. If we ever got to that point, they would abandon us and push to have no government at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It makes absolutely no sense for somebody to claim that the markets and society should be relatively free of government intervention because central planning doesn't work while also claiming that complex lies can be told and complex atrocities committed without anybody finding out, the implication from this being that central planning does work.

---

We don't claim that the government has no power. We claim that it has way too much power. We also claim that the power is ineffective at making things work well in certain areas and to certain extents. We don't claim that central planning has no effect at all. We claim that it often has very harmful effects in certain areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well, we know that things like Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred because keeping people quiet is difficult if not impossible. These are conspiracies that occurred and were exposed relatively quickly. There's a funny thing about real conspiracies: we find out about them, and we don't need to resort to letting our brain run wild to do so.

Contrast this with conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, the Apollo moon landings, the JFK assassination, and now Sandy Hook. These ideas sometimes start off understandably. Somebody finds two data points that don't share an obvious relationship. After time, the person cannot find a direct relationship between the two points. The brain frantically tries to connect the dots, and from that come conspiracy theories. People are not often content with accepting that some events really are innocuous.

This is a great primer on the psychology of conspiracy theories. You should watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TELiwR0Olk

---

Have you heard of Project MK Ultra, Project Artichoke, Operation Mockingbird, or Project Bluebird? People didn't figure those out right away. The programs just eventually became declassified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Yet there are millions of incredibly intelligent people who have taken the time to review what happened and they don't accept that the shooting was orchestrated by somebody other than a deranged kid.

---

Oh, really? Can you name some of those people? What they did was hear some news stories and accept them as Gospel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You've misinterpreted me, which I've repeatedly shown. Take some care to go over my posts in full before replying.

---

No, I have quoted you to prove that you are not an anarchist, or at least the character you play on this site is not an anarchist.

I am not sure how you can say you are for a small government but want an extremely powerful military. Having a massive military creates the need for massive government. Also it is pretty naive that you think the US goes around the world protecting democracy. The US doesn't step in to help anyone unless it is of some importance to us, and the US has probably overthrown as many democracies as they have helped to defend. Most of the world democracies don't rely on us for anything, they just do their own things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then you are not an anarchist.

---

Not a logical conclusion from my argument. Belief does not require certainty. I personally don't think a UN is necessary, but I'm not certain.

Quote:

---

Then you see the possibility that you could be okay with anarchy, but you are not an anarchist. An anarchist wants anarchy.

---

I want a maximally free society. If anarchy provides that, and I accept that it does, then I want anarchy. This is not hard to understand. Certainty is not necessary.

Quote:

---

Why do you trust that the Second Amendment will be respected and obeyed? Have you not seen enough of the opposite of that?

---

No, I haven't. Very bad laws enacted, yes. "Oh fuck shit is hitting the fan, buy ammo!", no. I trust that it will be respected in the same way that I trust that the rest of the BoR will be respected. I very much doubt anybody is going to lobby to repeal anything in the Bill of Rights and gather enough support to pass that appeal.

Quote:

---

I am showing you what words mean because you act like you don't know.

---

No, you're giving me very general dictionary definitions when we're discussing complex ideas. That would never pass in a serious academic discussion.

Quote:

---

A full adoption by the U.S. government of the Libertarian Party's platform would be a huge move in the direction of anarchy, so anarchists support us. If we ever got to that point, they would abandon us and push to have no government at all.

---

Read through any academic or even semi-academic discussion of libertarian political theory. Anarchists are regularly included under the tent. I won't comment further on this issue; your perspective is too myopic and uninformed.

Quote:

---

We don't claim that the government has no power. We claim that it has way too much power. We also claim that the power is ineffective at making things work well in certain areas and to certain extents. We don't claim that central planning has no effect at all. We claim that it often has very harmful effects in certain areas.

---

This literally has nothing to do with what I said. "Doesn't work" does not equal "has no power."

Quote:

---

Have you heard of Project MK Ultra, Project Artichoke, Operation Mockingbird, or Project Bluebird? People didn't figure those out right away. The programs just eventually became declassified.

---

When we find out about conspiracies isn't the issue. I acknowledge that conspiracies happen. What I don't acknowledge is the plausibility of conspiracy theories. In other words, isn't it odd that we seem to get hold of tidbits of hard evidence that something odd is going on when a real conspiracy is happening? Those bits of evidence tend to lead to the conspiracy being exposed. And, by the way, those bits of evidence have a habit of being accepted by people who tend not to believe in conspiracy theories, Congress exposing MKUltra being an example.

Meanwhile, we are left with nothing of substance when armchair forensic scientists on the internet sift through innocuous details trying to confirm their own biases.

Quote:

---

Oh, really? Can you name some of those people? What they did was hear some news stories and accept them as Gospel.

---

You do the same. You hear a view point opposite the official story and accept it as Gospel. It's no different. Anyway, my point was that intelligence has nothing to do with accepting (or denying) a conspiracy theory. It's a natural phenomenon, but it's also one that should be discouraged.

Quote:

---

No, I have quoted you to prove that you are not an anarchist, or at least the character you play on this site is not an anarchist.

---

You've done no proving, just restricted your definitions so that they deliberately do not fit my arguments.

The character? What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I am not sure how you can say you are for a small government but want an extremely powerful military. Having a massive military creates the need for massive government. Also it is pretty naive that you think the US goes around the world protecting democracy. The US doesn't step in to help anyone unless it is of some importance to us, and the US has probably overthrown as many democracies as they have helped to defend. Most of the world democracies don't rely on us for anything, they just do their own things.

---

That is not true. Do you really think anybody would dare invade one of our European allies? No, they wouldn't. They know we would blow them off the face of the map.

I do believe in small government, except for the military. We live in an insane world, and we have to be able to fight off the scum. I do believe our allies need to build stronger militaries and we need to focus on home defense and get out of the every day affairs of the rest of the world, but we need a very powerful military. Since you are not really a Libertarian, you didn't know that strong military is part of our platform. Here, educate yourself.

https://www.google.com/#q=libertaria...itary&safe=off

"We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States ..."


BLUELINE, make sure you read that platform information. :wink: I apologize for using the dictionary to show you what the words we are using actually mean.

You said this in my other currently active gun control thread, where you have only opposed me just like you have only opposed me in this one. Some libertarian you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Maybe in order to have a maximally free society, we do need a minimal state.

---

There we have it.

If a person had a theory on a conspiracy that did happen and it turned out to be right, that conspiracy theorist would have been correct about the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories about real conspiracies are correct. I have presented a whole universe of reasons to conclude that Sandy Hook was a hoax. I have shown actual footage and copies of documents to support my arguments. So, when you say I just heard about it and accepted it as Gospel, you were lying. I didn't believe Sandy Hook was a hoax when I first heard about the hoax idea. Then I researched it, and the truth became obvious very quickly.

You are entirely misrepresenting their ideals. When they say a sufficient military they are not talking about a massive military. Pretty much all libertarians, regardless of if they are in the Libertarian party or not(there is a difference between holding libertarian ideals and being in the party that shares the name) believe we need a smaller military than we have now. Much, much smaller than we have now. There is a lot who says we don't need any military, and a lot who say we could get rid of things like the entire army(since the navy, air force and marines are more than sufficient to defend US soil). Pretty much everyone agrees we need to cut the military back though.

I am not sure how you can say you are for small government with a huge military though. Those things are not compatible. Especially since a huge military with no central government is a police state. I mean what the heck do you think a government made of nothing but the military is? When you have generals running the entire government you are just begging for corruption. Your ideals are not the ideals of a libertarian. In fact your ideas seem to lead us directly to what you claim you want to stop from happening.

Also there is little chance of European countries getting invaded even without the US. They do not need us protecting them, that is a pretty silly statement. Lastly, there is no actual footage or documents that supported anything you ever said about Sandy Hook. In fact I asked you several time for evidence of Sand Hook being a hoax and you never showed anything even resembling evidence, just random stuff that has nothing to do with anything.

A military sufficient to protect the United States is a massive military. However, I don't think we should have bases all over the world.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. He runs as a Republican so he can get enough attention, but he was the Libertarian Party's candidate in 1988. His views have remained consistent since then.

http://www.dailypaul.com/252365/dr-r...candidate-1988

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW9GIym0d5A

I also believe in having a president at the top of military decisions and the requirement of Congressional approval for war. Those provisions are in the Constitution. I am a Constitutionalist.

Oh, I haven't presented any Sandy Hoax evidence? Right. Who do you think you are fooling?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1yfJDCMU64

Do you want to claim that there is no evidence in that one too? Anybody who watches it will know that there is actually lots and lots of evidence in it.

There is no real evidence in that video. There is random nonsense that leads to random speculation but nothing at all that shows it was a hoax. I am not even sure you know what evidence is. Some person giving their opinion on some random video isn't real evidence. Especially when their opinion doesn't make sense and is illogical and wrong.

Also the US doesn't need a 'massive' army to defend itself. Other countries defend them self just fine without anything even remotely the size of our army.

Not just opinion. Lots of facts, documents, interviews, photographs, footage of events and places, etc. All somebody has to do to know that your assessment is dishonest is watch some of the video.

The U.S. is one of the largest countries in the world. We need a large military. Unlike the countries you have in mind, we don't have a more powerful bodyguard to turn to.

The US is large in size of land mass but there is only two countries next to us, Canada and Mexico and they are not going to invade us. So why do we need a massive military? Even if the US had no military at all, it is unlikely we would ever get invaded. There isn't any countries that could support an invasion of the US. The US has the two biggest barriers to invasion on earth and they are called the Pacific and Atlantic ocean.

Also I would be happy if people look at the video. They would see how stupid the claims are in it. There is a reason people laugh at that sort of stuff and it isn't because you have evidence.

Our powerful military is the reason we have not been invaded since 1812. We have to make countries like Russia and China not even consider sending their militaries here. If we had a wuss military, North America would have already been taken over, and there would be no USA, Mexico, or Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Also I would be happy if people look at the video.

---

Good. That makes two of us. :cheers: We both encourage people to watch the video! Folks, you really should watch the video, at least a few seconds of it. You will want to keep watching. I promise. I also recommend these:

Sandy Hoax Ultimate: Case Closed

Sandy Hook Massacre: A Closer Look

The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed

Sandy Hook: The Documentary 2013

Sandy Hoaxed 2nd Edition: The Sandy Hook Gun Control False Flag

The Sandy Hook Actors (all three parts)

The Sandy Hook Bizarro Show (all six parts)

:clap:

Neither China nor Russia could ever invade the US, even if we had no military at all. Maybe you could make an argument for them taking Alaska or Hawaii and so we might need a small force to defend them, but they couldn't invade mainland USA. The reason the US isn't invaded isn't the size of our army but because there is a huge ocean in between us and everyone else.

To invade the US you would need to basically invade Canada or Mexico first, otherwise it would be nearly impossible. Anyone who thinks we need a massive military to keep from being invaded doesn't know shit about military stuff. We would probably be fine with no military but even just a decent size navy(far smaller than the one we have today) would be more than sufficient. There is no way we need even 1/5th of what we have today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Neither China nor Russia could ever invade the US, even if we had no military at all. Maybe you could make an argument for them taking Alaska or Hawaii and so we might need a small force to defend them, but they couldn't invade mainland USA. The reason the US isn't invaded isn't the size of our army but because there is a huge ocean in between us and everyone else.

To invade the US you would need to basically invade Canada or Mexico first, otherwise it would be nearly impossible. Anyone who thinks we need a massive military to keep from being invaded doesn't know shit about military stuff. We would probably be fine with no military but even just a decent size navy(far smaller than the one we have today) would be more than sufficient. There is no way we need even 1/5th of what we have today.

---

Have you ever heard of the French and Indian War, the American Revolutionary War, or the War of 1812?

SparkNotes: The French and Indian War (1754-1763): General Summary

SparkNotes: The War of 1812 (1809-1815): Renewed British Vigor: The Invasion of New York (1814)

Quick Revolutionary War Tour 1765-1777

:?

Countries still have boats, and now they have airplanes. Do you think there is now an invisible forcefield protecting our land from invasion?

The military thinks we need a massive military. Do you want to tell me that they don't know shit about military stuff? We would be fine with no military? Are you joking? Have you studied the history of invasions?

List of invasions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTgV3fdP2qo

The French and Indian War was wars fought by the colonies, and if compared today it would be like Canada and the US fighting with both sides having support from foreign allies. Which is what I said, that only Canada or Mexico could invade. What you gave is an example of that. In the revolutionary war we were British colonies and many were still loyal to Britain at the time. In the war of 1812, they also had colonies in North America.

Notice a trend? In all those wars they had bases of operation in and around America, which gave them a foothold on the continent and bases from which they could supply their troops. Without those things an invasion of the US would be nearly impossible. Troops need supplies, and they need to eat and you can't really supply ships in the middle of the ocean. Which is why there is no way anyone will ever invade the US. If they wanted to they would have to go through Canada or Mexico first.

The French and Indian War was Europe's Seven Years War fought in North America. It was a European War that came here. The Revolutionary War was a result of a British invasion, and so was the War of 1812.

So, what exactly is it you think is so different about the U.S.? Did you see the list of history's invasions I posted? Did you look at the changing map of Europe video? The same could be done with Africa, Asia, and South America. Invasion is all over human history. What is special about the United States? I say it's our military. What do you say?

Has the U.S. ever invaded a country on the other side of an ocean? Has any country? Seriously, has any country? Yes. Therefore, it can be done.

http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africana...of-africa.html

United States declaration of war upon Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_...0%93present%29

http://www.95th-rifles.co.uk/researc...south-america/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish...e_Aztec_Empire

Those are just a few examples. The full list is really long.

Don't forget that Cuba and other island nations are right by us.




Meanwhile, we need to stay out of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. It is such a bad idea.

Are you ignoring my points on purpose or are you just that dense? I already explained how you can't invade a large country over that large of an ocean because you couldn't supply the army without having some type of foothold or supply base. All your examples pretty much prove my point.

Attacking a neighboring country 50 miles across a boarder is easy and is nothing like sailing 3500 miles across the ocean to attack someone(which is the distance to France). Like you said the the French and Indian War was fighting between the neighboring colonies. We were British colonies and they had supporters here in the US so they had places they could get supplies here in the US during the revolutionary war.

In WW2 we didn't just go attack Japan we had to island hop from one island to the next to build up a supply network and even then the US had to nuke Japan because it was so impractical to invade the country. We also didn't just travel from the US right into Iraq, we have military bases all over the area. In fact we have military bases all around the world in order to try to support troop movements. Same with Spain who had colonies in the area when they fought the Aztec, plus again they had a bunch of locals who supported them because they thought the Spanish were like gods.

All those examples support what I said. You need a good supply line to fight and battle and have a large ocean in the way makes that nearly impossible. Also the population in the US is way larger than the population was in any of those places back then. A larger population means you need even more troops, and the more troops you have the more strain that is placed on your supply line.

Simply put there is no way any country today could sustain any sort of major invasion on the US, even if we had no military at all. Honestly, the US coast guard could probably more than sufficient to defend all the US. In fact if you got rid of the army, navy and air force and only had the coast guard and national guard, we would still have a larger military than most countries. There is no risk to us at all.

I gave you several examples of when it has happened, and I mentioned that there are nations other than Mexico and Canada right by us. Militaries have in fact traveled over oceans to invade countries without having ally bases to go to first, and there are countries near us that could potentially be used as ally bases. Understand?

Also, they could invade Mexico or Canada first any way. That alone is reason for us to have a powerful military, but the options would not be limited to invasion through one or both of those countries. Plus, there are large boats that airplanes can fly back and forth to. Those work as bases. :roll:

This is the dumbest debate I have ever had on this site. What are you up to?


Remember that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is completely insane.

Yeah I agree, this is probably the dumbest debate I ever had on this site. I think everyone can see that you really have no clue what you are talking about. Your position is basically fear mongering. A common tactic for someone pushing propaganda. You think we should be scared of the world, scared of the UN, scared of everyone. We need a massive army or everyone is going to invade us, we shouldn't use diplomacy because all countries really are trying to control us secretly. Your entire position is, that we should be scared and should act out of fear. You are just pushing bullshit propaganda.

All your arguments are entirely transparent and laughable when looked at from a logical point of view and not a fear based point of view.

Yeah, I'm crazy for thinking we should have a strong military because the whole world is like Mayberry. I am also crazy for not trusting the Obama Administration or the U.N. because they have proven themselves to be so trustworthy. You have such a good point. However, have you ever considered studying world history?

You didn't say a strong military, you said a massive military. A strong military would be like 1/10th our current military size. What we have today is a massive military and it is a waste of money that causes more problems than it solves. Also you don't need to trust the UN or Obama, the treaty doesn't say anything you think it does. You are just paranoid and scared and think everyone is out to get you so you are reading things that are not in the treaty and just in your head.

Also, I know a lot about world history. In fact, I probably know more than you. You seem to have a very US centrist view on everything, so it makes me think you don't really have a good understanding of the world as a whole.

You said we don't even need a military. If you really believe that, you have a lot to learn about how the world works. I don't think we need bases all over the place, and I don't think we need to intervene in the affairs of other nations militarily until it is extremely necessary, but we need a military that is powerful enough to guarantee that we are never invaded, as this land and all other large lands on Earth have been many times. Reducing our military to 1/10 its size will tempt Russia and China way too much. It can't happen.

I have thoroughly illustrated the problems with the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. If you want to stay in denial, go for it.

Let's test your knowledge of world history. Name ten invasions that have taken place on Earth in which the invading military traveled over an ocean. If you really understood world history and were being honest about all of your views, you would not have said that we don't need a military.

The size of our military does not thwart incentive to invade us, nukes do. We could easily drop it down to a 10th its current size. The military is beginning the government and contractors to stop making tanks but they want to keep making them because they provide jobs and make wealthy people wealthier. Likewise our military's involvement in foreign affairs is also completely unnecessary and causes blow-back. I'm not going to get into conspiracy, too much, but opinion on why our military is so large has nothing to do with homeland security.

Countries are not just afraid of our nukes. Nukes are a good deterrent, but even without them, nobody would consider invading us. They know what would happen here, but they also have the fear that our military would go over there and destroy all of their bases and overthrow the government. They know that nukes are something we would use as a very last resort, so our other toys and our soldiers are something our enemies are even more scared of.

You are just being dishonest now. How come you keep ignoring what I said? You keep pretending like military logistics is something I made up and isn't a real factor in war. If you had any common sense or knew anything about military stuff you would know that for any sort of prolonged war effort, supplying your troops is critical. The further you have to go to supply your troops the harder it is.

The distance from china to the US is nearly 7000 miles, you can't support a front line fighting 7000 miles away without a lot of supply points in between. Why do you keep ignoring that? I already pointed out how all the examples you gave had local support for the armies so they could get supplies. You need those supplies or a real invasion just isn't possible. Also the bigger army the bigger the supply base. All the examples you gave were fairly small armies and even then they still needed local supplies to help out. With an army the size needed to invade the US the supplies required would jump extremely high and it would just be a total nightmare.

There is no risk of China or Russia invading the US. Even at 1/10th our current military size Russia and China couldn't invade the US even if they teamed up.

I am not going play your little games since you are not even trying to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Countries are not just afraid of our nukes. Nukes are a good deterrent, but even without them, nobody would consider invading us. They know what would happen here, but they also have the fear that our military would go over there and destroy all of their bases and overthrow the government. They know that nukes are something we would use as a very last resort, so our other toys and our soldiers are something our enemies are even more scared of.

---

You're justifying the size of our military in reality based on a hypothetical situation you just made up. We have nukes to deter invasion, the military is the size it is not to deter invasion but to protect overseas assets and maintain capitalist dominance of the world. It has nothing to do with protection of the nation, not even pro-military public officials kid themselves with something so irrational. They promote the military to fight terrorists, which stand apart from mutually assured destruction because they have no home to mutually destroy. And their argument is faulty, too, our military technology more than does the job of suppressing terrorism, the size is irrelevant.

What did I make up? Did you see the historical list of invasions that I posted? Did you see the video I posted of the changing map of Europe? Every power hungry sociopath in the world would love to take over the world. Think of all of the people who have tried it.

Saying that there has been war in the past so there is going to be major wars in the future is such an over simplification that the statement is pretty much meaningless. You are not taking into account any of the relevant features, such as size of invasion, distances, the political climate, terrain, time period, types of weapons or historical contexts.

There is really no reason to fear anyone trying to take over the entire world. Especially here in the US where we are far from all the major conflict areas of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What did I make up? Did you see the historical list of invasions that I posted? Did you see the video I posted of the changing map of Europe? Every power hungry sociopath in the world would love to take over the world. Think of all of the people who have tried it.

---

You invented a hypothetical situation where we don't have nukes in order to justify the size of our military which exists in a reality where we do have nukes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Saying that there has been war in the past so there is going to be major wars in the future is such an over simplification that the statement is pretty much meaningless. You are not taking into account any of the relevant features, such as size of invasion, distances, the political climate, terrain, time period, types of weapons or historical contexts.

There is really no reason to fear anyone trying to take over the entire world. Especially here in the US where we are far from all the major conflict areas of the world.

---

:lol: That's because of our military. Do you think power hungry sociopathic dictators are just too lazy to try to take over the United States? I didn't say we will be taken over. I said it's a possibility that we have to have a powerful military to prevent, and that is what we have. History proves how real the threat is. You're cracking me up.

Why did you pass up my ten invasions challenge? Come on. Show us what you know about world history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You invented a hypothetical situation where we don't have nukes in order to justify the size of our military which exists in a reality where we do have nukes.

---

No, I said that countries know we would use our nukes as a last resort so we need to have a deterrent that they know we will use immediately if they ever invade us. I also mentioned a hypothetical situation of our not having nukes to illustrate how effective of a deterrent our military is.

Another strong deterrent is our armed citizenry. We have a secondary military of civilians with guns. There are more than 100 million of us. We have 89 guns for every 100 people. Nobody wants to come here and start shit.

I find it hilarious that you said there is 100 million of us with guns and that is a secondary military all by itself and that no one would want to come here and start shit. You basically admitted that I was right and that we don't need a military because we already have an armed population that is enough of a threat to stop everyone even without our military being here. So why pay for a military?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I find it hilarious that you said there is 100 million of us with guns and that is a secondary military all by itself and that no one would want to come here and start shit. You basically admitted that I was right and that we don't need a military because we already have an armed population that is enough of a threat to stop everyone even without our military being here. So why pay for a military?

---

I said we have a military plus an armed citizenry. People in the military are professional war fighters. They are better at it than the rest of us. They give us security. The armed civilians are a great bonus. We are an extra reason nobody wants to invade the United States. Also, there is the possibility that our military would need to go to another country and fight to take down the government of an invading country. Also, a Hitler might take over South America, Central America, and Mexico, in which case we would need the military to go to those places to fight. The armed civilians wouldn't be pros at that. We also don't have the large multitude of awesome toys the military has.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdjLoGcrixI