And Mother Jones exists to push a leftist agenda, which makes it look all the more absurd. The treaty demands a registry. We've seen gun control freaks tell us many times that banning guns or taking them away isn't actually confiscation. But thank goodness for some patriotic senators, this stinker won't be ratified.
Of course, Greg, who claims to be intelligent, uses the ad hominem to deal with this rather than actually deal with what has been said>
My guess is that Greg went as far as this peron is form Mother Jones, and then moved to his canned talking points.
Whereas, someone who was truly intelligent would have actually addressed the ramifications of the treaty.
I seriously doubt whether Greg teaches anything, because someone who was a teacher would fail someone who writes something that demonstrates the person writing the piece: failed to read the item in question. And if they did read it, they failed to get what was going on. In other words, they were unable to understand the concepts presented and use them intelligently.
This is common for, greg, and part of why I don't really like wasting my time on his comments.
Greg, this deals with military arms which could be used against US, or allied troops. This is that little word "arms" which you keep insisting applies to civilian weapons, but, in this case, refers to military armaments.
I haven't seen the final draft of the treaty, but the definition of small arms that they were using in the earlier drafts we've seen would have included civilian weapons, and I have not seen anything saying that there has been a change to that.
The treaty wouldn't be a straightforward ban on the sale of such weapons, but it would require the institution of registration and tracking schemes. This is not just something we gun rights people are saying--Canada has not signed the treaty because they are getting rid of their registry and don't want to be forced to have a new one or to restrict their people's rights should the treaty requirements become more restrictive:
Moreover, just this weekend on MSNBC some of the talking heads were talking about the tracking requirements for imported arms under this treaty, so not even the supporters of this treaty agree with Laci's weaseling interpretation.
Sorry, guys, but this isn't some NRA only conspiracy theory. It's just too bad for y'all that the founders saw fit to require Senate ratification of treaties, though I'm sure Laci won't wait long before he argues that this is an obsolete function that should be ignored since other countries' executives have the power to make treaties; just add in some high sounding discussions of the unitary executive and some Holmes quotes about the living constitution and the treaty power from the case regarding protection of passenger pigeons and I'm sure he can come up with something the other Gun Controllers will think is pure gold.
And Mother Jones exists to push a leftist agenda, which makes it look all the more absurd. The treaty demands a registry. We've seen gun control freaks tell us many times that banning guns or taking them away isn't actually confiscation. But thank goodness for some patriotic senators, this stinker won't be ratified.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Greg, who claims to be intelligent, uses the ad hominem to deal with this rather than actually deal with what has been said>
DeleteMy guess is that Greg went as far as this peron is form Mother Jones, and then moved to his canned talking points.
Whereas, someone who was truly intelligent would have actually addressed the ramifications of the treaty.
I seriously doubt whether Greg teaches anything, because someone who was a teacher would fail someone who writes something that demonstrates the person writing the piece: failed to read the item in question. And if they did read it, they failed to get what was going on. In other words, they were unable to understand the concepts presented and use them intelligently.
This is common for, greg, and part of why I don't really like wasting my time on his comments.
Greg, this deals with military arms which could be used against US, or allied troops. This is that little word "arms" which you keep insisting applies to civilian weapons, but, in this case, refers to military armaments.
It doesn't much matter because the treaty will never pass the Senate, but Greg is just repeating what his NRA masters have told him to repeat.
DeleteWhat do you mean by that, Mike? Greg said the sane thing you just said- that it won't be ratified.
DeleteLaci, of course gun control groups have been trying to blur the line between civilian arms and military arms for decades.
Laci, it's so cute to see you use the term, ad hominem.
DeleteI haven't seen the final draft of the treaty, but the definition of small arms that they were using in the earlier drafts we've seen would have included civilian weapons, and I have not seen anything saying that there has been a change to that.
DeleteThe treaty wouldn't be a straightforward ban on the sale of such weapons, but it would require the institution of registration and tracking schemes. This is not just something we gun rights people are saying--Canada has not signed the treaty because they are getting rid of their registry and don't want to be forced to have a new one or to restrict their people's rights should the treaty requirements become more restrictive:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-holds-off-on-arms-trade-treaty-even-after-u-s-signs-1.1868230
Moreover, just this weekend on MSNBC some of the talking heads were talking about the tracking requirements for imported arms under this treaty, so not even the supporters of this treaty agree with Laci's weaseling interpretation.
Sorry, guys, but this isn't some NRA only conspiracy theory. It's just too bad for y'all that the founders saw fit to require Senate ratification of treaties, though I'm sure Laci won't wait long before he argues that this is an obsolete function that should be ignored since other countries' executives have the power to make treaties; just add in some high sounding discussions of the unitary executive and some Holmes quotes about the living constitution and the treaty power from the case regarding protection of passenger pigeons and I'm sure he can come up with something the other Gun Controllers will think is pure gold.
Just another wacko pro-gun conspiracy theory... http://progunconspiracytheories.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-un-small-arms-treaty-will-remove.html
ReplyDelete