Free Gay Sex Photos, Movies, Reviews and Forums at JustUsBoys
Page 1 of 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 258
  1. #1
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Location
    Kerrville
    Posts
    10,990


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    I made this post and put it in swerve's thread about One World.
    Well I found more about this Agenda 21 and cites about Obama going to sign a treaty with the UN that would ban all gun ownerships in the US. Against our U.S. Second Amendment. Of course I know this is not going to happen but People in my cousins Facebook page are talking about Obama starting 1 day after the election to work with the UN to stop all citizens from owning guns.
    I'm not familiar with The Daily Sheeple, and one other article was in the Washington Times. I know the Times is BS and I figure Sheeple is also.
    So here are 2 cites for y'all to read. From the looks of it I figure this needs it's own thread.

    I found this article by Ted Cruz our newly elected Senator from Texas. He and Glenn Beck are opposing this Agenda 21. It is an agenda that the UN has come up with but with nothing to do with "One World". They are saying that our Government, I guess meaning Obama, is gonna turn over the Government to the UN. Who in turn will make the US just like Nazi Germany. Unbelievable.
    I am gonna guess that your "One World" would become like Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck are afraid of. This is what we have to go through here in Texas, and I thought Kay Bailey Hutchinson was crazy.

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/heres...be-done_112012
    Here’s How it Will be Done…

    Eric Peters
    Incrementalism has proved depressingly effective as a tool for getting most people to quietly surrender their rights piecemeal. For gradually habituating them to an ever-diminishing circle of liberty. When the circle finally closes and their rights no longer exist at all, they hardly notice – because by that time, most of their rights have already been taken.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...obamas-agenda/

    EDITORIAL: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda
    More flexible administration revives U.N. arms treaty

    By The Washington Times

    Thursday, November 8, 2012

    That didn’t take long. Less than a day after President Obama’s re-election, the administration breathed new life into the United Nations‘ previously comatose treaty regulating guns.

    Last July, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Talks on the controversial agreement were put on indefinite hiatus after the United States requested an extension to the time allotted to negotiate the agreement. Gun rights supporters blasted the treaty as it inched toward approval, and many suspected U.S. procedural maneuvers were intended to delay the treaty so it wouldn’t become a topic of discussion during the election. It appears these suspicions were correct since “indefinite” turned out to mean until hours after Mr. Obama was re-elected.


    http://www.tedcruz.org/blog/2012/01/...nda-%E2%80%9D/

    Stop Agenda 21: The Constitution should be our only “Agenda.”
    January 20, 2012

    By Ted Cruz

    The Republican National Committee recently took a stand in voting unanimously to oppose Agenda 21, a dangerous United Nations plan that takes aim at the American economy – and American freedom – in the name of environmental reform.

    Under the guise of world sustainability the plan establishes a regime of rules that attempt to bypass Congress and the American people, handing over power over vast areas of the US economy to unelected UN bureaucrats.

    Agenda 21 is wrong, and it must be stopped.

    In 1992, the United Nations adopted Agenda 21 to “achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy,” outlining a process to eliminate environmental decay and social injustice through micromanaging industries, communities, and culture. They will meet again next year to discuss its “progress” in over 100 nations.
    http://factcheck.org/2012/06/still-n...un-ban-treaty/

    Still No International Gun Ban Treaty
    Posted on June 27, 2012 , Updated on July 30, 2012

    Q: Does the Obama administration intend to “force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens” through a United Nations treaty?

    A: No. The administration plans to negotiate a treaty to regulate the international export and import of weapons. It says that it won’t support any treaty that regulates the domestic transfer or ownership of weapons, or that infringes on the Second Amendment.
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  2. #2
    The Mother of Loki Laufey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    1,749


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    The US has one of the highest homicide by firearm rate in the western world. I doubt the easy access and total number of firearms has nothing to do with it.

    But it might be too late to go back now that the gun culture is so strong there.

  3. #3
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    I told another NRA member, back in the summer, that assuming La Pierre's wailings about Obama and this Agenda 21 were true, it left us with a sad choice: keep our guns but ruin the nation's economy for a generation, or get the economy back and perhaps surrender some guns.

    That this is possible is just a comment on the sorry state of our two major parties: we have no actual conservatives, only reactionaries, and no actual liberals, just wimps, and neither party approves of the entire Bill of Rights any longer.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  4. #4
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Location
    Kerrville
    Posts
    10,990


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    ^^ I thought you would've been harder on this. I am concerned because my cousins are believing this. Just about all of them have had a comment on these stories I cited. I have to think it is racial on my cousins part. We were all brought up with the same kind of parents and racial was a big part of it.
    I was surprised that Reuters had the same kind of article on this.
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  5. #5
    JUB Addict
    eastofeden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    9,183
    Blog Entries
    2


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    They are trying to rally the troops. Taking away their guns...along with UN/One World Order/Illuminati/Rothchilds/World Bank/Federal Reserve... usually does the trick. These buzzwords and phrases and ideas are effective and require little effort....yielding great results.

    It only took my crazy hyper religious neocon customer a week after Obama was reelected to tell me that he "warned me" that Russian and Chinese tanks were already in Montana waiting for UN orders to attack us all BUT first Obama was going to take away our guns. He also warned me (constantly...for years) that the world was gonna end on New Years Eve 2000.

    I (sorta) like him despite all of that because he is a walking sitcom waiting to happen...he has that Louie DePalma thing going on (Danny DeVito on Taxi).

  6. #6
    coleos patentes rareboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    53,595


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Seriously.

    Relax.

    No one is going to take away your guns.

    There's not a living politician alive who will make any attempt to do this.

    Relax.

    All this is, is a another scare attempt to make everyone load up on ammo and more guns.

  7. #7
    JUB Addict andysayshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,377


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    The NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the US. There's not a politician in the US with the balls to even raise a conversation about gun control, let alone actually do something about it.

  8. #8
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    Seriously.

    Relax.

    No one is going to take away your guns.

    There's not a living politician alive who will make any attempt to do this.

    Relax.

    All this is, is a another scare attempt to make everyone load up on ammo and more guns.
    Agreed. Massive scare tactic and unfortunately the gun owning portion of the U.S. is massively and reliably susceptible to scare tactics.

  9. #9
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by White Eagle View Post
    ^^ I thought you would've been harder on this. I am concerned because my cousins are believing this. Just about all of them have had a comment on these stories I cited. I have to think it is racial on my cousins part. We were all brought up with the same kind of parents and racial was a big part of it.
    I was surprised that Reuters had the same kind of article on this.
    For starters, Reuters had one important detail right: the vote was to have been before the election, but with the UN essentially shut down due to Sandy, it got postponed. So the only connection between Obama's re-election and the vote is that Americans turned out to vote despite Sandy while the UN diplomats huddled in their lush apartments waiting for it to be over.

    On top of that, given that half the Security Council are arms exporters, there's no way the matter is going anywhere soon, regardless of the General Assembly; even if Obama wanted to sign on, Russia, China, France, and the UK aren't really interested in a treaty on the issue -- and for that matter, neither are countries which buy those countries' weapons. Some are voting for the resolution for their own reasons, but all the vote will do, even were it unanimous, is say, "We want people to sit down and talk about having an actual treaty on this".

    And for Obama's purposes, that's all he needs. If his gun-control freak supporters complain, he can just say, "We're working on it".


    And BTW, the change of course came when he was first elected -- nothing has changed at this point.
    Last edited by Kulindahr; November 26th, 2012 at 09:59 AM.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  10. #10
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by andysayshi View Post
    The NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the US. There's not a politician in the US with the balls to even raise a conversation about gun control, let alone actually do something about it.
    Besides the fact that three-fifths of Americans don't want any more gun-control laws, and more than that understand that it's an individual right.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  11. #11
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Location
    Kerrville
    Posts
    10,990


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    For starters, Reuters had one important detail right: the vote was to have been before the election, but with the UN essentially shut down due to Sandy, it got postponed. So the only connection between Obama's re-election and the vote is that Americans turned out to vote despite Sandy while the UN diplomats huddled in their lush apartments waiting for it to be over.

    On top of that, given that half the Security Council are arms exporters, there's no way the matter is going anywhere soon, regardless of the General Assembly; even if Obama wanted to sign on, Russia, China, France, and the UK aren't really interested in a treaty on the issue -- and for that matter, neither are countries which buy those countries' weapons. Some are voting for the resolution for their own reasons, but all the vote will do, even were it unanimous, is say, "We want people to sit down and talk about having an actual treaty on this".

    And for Obama's purposes, that's all he needs. If his gun-control freak supporters complain, he can just say, "We're working on it".


    And BTW, the change of course came when he was first elected -- nothing has changed at this point.
    I hadn't heard of that part of it. It was all a surprise since I found it on one cousin's Facebook page. The title of the thread is misleading. It makes Obama the problem, but that is the way that this Eric Peters and Beck want the fear mongering to come out against him. Such BS.
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  12. #12
    Sex God Zu-Mendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    527


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    I just had an argument with a co-worker today when mentioning that I was in the market for an entry-level .30-06 (just about made up my mind on the Mossburg 100 ATR), and he made some remark about how "Obama is going to take all our guns away, just look at his first term!" I simply asked him one question, "give me a specific piece of legislation, SCOTUS ruling, or executive order Obama has championed that puts him at odds with the status-quo of US gun rights under the Constitution."


    Needless to say I got a lot of sputtering, I then proceeded to name off the SCOTUS cases over the past 4 years which have overturned municipal handgun bans yet the 'Left' never made a peep. He walked out of the break room when I called Obama the best thing to ever happen to the Income Statements of firearm manufacturers in decades, seeing as how Fox News and their ilk have ginned up so much fear in those who only get their news from one source.
    If you can't be part of the solution, there is plenty of money to be made being a part of the problem.

  13. #13
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Posts
    18,257


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Were you aware that the United States Senate must vote with a two thirds majority before your country can put a treaty into effect.

  14. #14
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Were you aware that the United States Senate must vote with a two thirds majority before your country can put a treaty into effect.

    You are correct. The people proffering this theory about the UN cite the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties. Specifically Article 12.

    Article 12
    Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by signature
    1.The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when:
    (a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
    (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that
    effect; or
    (c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
    2.For the purposes of paragraph 1:
    (a) the initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it is established that the negotiating States so agreed;
    (b) the signature ad referendum of a treaty by a representative, if confirmed by his State, constitutes a full signature of the treaty]
    The argument goes that simply signing onto a treaty allows the UN to consider us bound regardless of the Senate's action or lack thereof. The UN can wipe their collective asses with Article 12 and the whole Vienna Convention of The Law of Treaties. We are a sovereign nation not subordinate to the UN.

    http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...s/1_1_1969.pdf

  15. #15
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Posts
    9,673


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct
    Except, when you're part of an organization, you abide by the rules of that organization. You can't bully your way into the international scene anymore.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  16. #16
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Except, when you're part of an organization, you abide by the rules of that organization. You can't bully your way into the international scene anymore.
    Wrong. We are not bound by a signature on any treaty. We are bound only by treaties that have been ratified by 2/3 of the Senators present, like the Constitution says.

  17. #17
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by White Eagle View Post
    I hadn't heard of that part of it. It was all a surprise since I found it on one cousin's Facebook page. The title of the thread is misleading. It makes Obama the problem, but that is the way that this Eric Peters and Beck want the fear mongering to come out against him. Such BS.
    Well, the title is also misleading because there hasn't been any change in what the Obama administration's position on this has been. On that, it's worth noting that it was, IIRC, the Obama administration which got language included in the treaty which basically says that nations with crappy human rights positions can neither import nor export military arms (how the frak would that be enforced???). That would have the interesting effect of suddenly making it illegal under international law to sell arms to places like Syria!

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  18. #18
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Zu-Mendel View Post
    I just had an argument with a co-worker today when mentioning that I was in the market for an entry-level .30-06 (just about made up my mind on the Mossburg 100 ATR), and he made some remark about how "Obama is going to take all our guns away, just look at his first term!" I simply asked him one question, "give me a specific piece of legislation, SCOTUS ruling, or executive order Obama has championed that puts him at odds with the status-quo of US gun rights under the Constitution."


    Needless to say I got a lot of sputtering, I then proceeded to name off the SCOTUS cases over the past 4 years which have overturned municipal handgun bans yet the 'Left' never made a peep. He walked out of the break room when I called Obama the best thing to ever happen to the Income Statements of firearm manufacturers in decades, seeing as how Fox News and their ilk have ginned up so much fear in those who only get their news from one source.
    LOL

    Even the NRA has publivly said that Obama is the best thing to happen to personal arms manufacturers since Clinton.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  19. #19
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    You are correct. The people proffering this theory about the UN cite the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties. Specifically Article 12.



    The argument goes that simply signing onto a treaty allows the UN to consider us bound regardless of the Senate's action or lack thereof. The UN can wipe their collective asses with Article 12 and the whole Vienna Convention of The Law of Treaties. We are a sovereign nation not subordinate to the UN.

    http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...s/1_1_1969.pdf
    I think the operating part there is in two spots:

    1. signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.

    2. if confirmed by his State

    Those pretty much indicate that the signature has to be authorized by the laws of the state. For the US, that means ratification by the Senate.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  20. #20
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Posts
    18,257


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    You are correct. The people proffering this theory about the UN cite the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties. Specifically Article 12.



    The argument goes that simply signing onto a treaty allows the UN to consider us bound regardless of the Senate's action or lack thereof. The UN can wipe their collective asses with Article 12 and the whole Vienna Convention of The Law of Treaties. We are a sovereign nation not subordinate to the UN.

    http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...s/1_1_1969.pdf

    Article 12
    Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by signature
    1.The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when:
    (a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
    (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that
    effect; or
    (c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
    2.For the purposes of paragraph 1:
    (a) the initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it is established that the negotiating States so agreed;
    (b) the signature ad referendum of a treaty by a representative, if confirmed by his State, constitutes a full signature of the treaty]
    Presumably your President would be smart enough use section A, and only sign a treaty that says "subject to ratification of the US Senate." Or presumably when your President sends a letter authorizing a US representative to draft a treaty per section C, that letter would note "subject to ratification of the US Senate." Presumably your Congress would be smart enough to notice if the letter didn't say that.

    But if none of those American institutions are smart enough to do all those basic things, you can wipe your own damn asses while the rest of the world laughs.

    And by the way, having signed on to the UN, and that having been duly affirmed by the US Senate, you are bound by it, because that's not only the way international law works, that's how your own constitution works. You ratified UN membership. You ratified the relevant treaties. Suck it up.
    Last edited by bankside; November 26th, 2012 at 09:26 PM.

  21. #21
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    12,611


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    OH Bankside, I regret to inform you that the US does not feel "bound by the UN" and never has. When international law conflicts with our (perceived) national interest we will simply ignore it.

    The flaw in your argument rests solely on the might of arms - no one can force us to submit to any jurisdiction but our own - which has caused no end of problems everywhere - and while there have been administrations who have been better or worse in accommodating the international community, there has never been one in modern times that agreed that the US is subject to anyone else.

    Such is the history of all powerful nations. Which is why winning the hearts and minds of the US populace is so important for all of us.

    Now, when in the inevitable course of time, someone else has the big guns, THEN you will see the US clinging to international law.

    No it's not nice, and I don't think it's fair either, but there it is.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  22. #22
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Posts
    18,257


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    OH Bankside, I regret to inform you that the US does not feel "bound by the UN" and never has. When international law conflicts with our (perceived) national interest we will simply ignore it.

    The flaw in your argument rests solely on the might of arms - no one can force us to submit to any jurisdiction but our own - which has caused no end of problems everywhere - and while there have been administrations who have been better or worse in accommodating the international community, there has never been one in modern times that agreed that the US is subject to anyone else.

    Such is the history of all powerful nations. Which is why winning the hearts and minds of the US populace is so important for all of us.

    Now, when in the inevitable course of time, someone else has the big guns, THEN you will see the US clinging to international law.

    No it's not nice, and I don't think it's fair either, but there it is.
    If you signed the treaty in bad faith, then use the might of arms - if you think it's wise.

  23. #23
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    No treaty which reduces the individual rights of citizens is valid.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  24. #24
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Posts
    18,257


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    No treaty which reduces the individual rights of citizens is valid.
    Any treaty affirms the intent of people to do something. People are free to affirm their intent, particularly through the vehicle of a government elected in free and fair elections. It does not remove rights; it is an exercise of rights.

    Strange hyperlibertarian idea that we each get to exercise some kind of personal veto on laws, constitutions, treaties. It doesn't work that way. It ought not to work that way. The individual is not the only valid approving body for the law.
    Last edited by bankside; November 26th, 2012 at 10:12 PM.

  25. #25
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    12,611


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    If you signed the treaty in bad faith, then use the might of arms - if you think it's wise.
    So be it, you won't find me defending it - but it is the way the Western world has functioned at least since the William the Bastard. Britain was no different, nor was Napoleon, or any of them. The west has always draped this fig leaf of treaty on the might of arms, then ignored it. The western world did NOT rise to prominence through charity, understanding, and kindness.

    Even now we in the western world sometimes condemn the excesses of our lives but that is a privilege wealthy countries share that none of us have ever sought to rectify.

    We have this modern conceit in the West that we are somehow different than before, but really all that's changed is that the countries of Europe pretend that US hegemony has nothing to do with them (or Canada).
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  26. #26
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Any treaty affirms the intent of people to do something. People are free to affirm their intent, particularly through the vehicle of a government elected in free and fair elections. It does not remove rights; it is an exercise of rights.

    Strange hyperlibertarian idea that we each get to exercise some kind of personal veto on laws, constitutions, treaties. It doesn't work that way. It ought not to work that way. The individual is not the only valid approving body for the law.
    Any agreement requiring people to act immorally is invalid, and it is the duty of people to ignore it.

    Any other position is an invitation to corruption, because it cannot be countered.


    As for rights, no agreement to reduce or restrict one's rights is valid. A law to restrict the right to freedom of speech, for example, is no law at all, because there is no authority to enact such a law. To hold otherwise is to endorse the notion that might makes right, the motto of tyrants through the ages.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  27. #27
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Any agreement requiring people to act immorally is invalid, and it is the duty of people to ignore it.

    Any other position is an invitation to corruption, because it cannot be countered.


    As for rights, no agreement to reduce or restrict one's rights is valid. A law to restrict the right to freedom of speech, for example, is no law at all, because there is no authority to enact such a law. To hold otherwise is to endorse the notion that might makes right, the motto of tyrants through the ages.
    Err? Hate speech laws? Restraining orders? There are legal restrictions on individual rights.

  28. #28
    Rambunctiously Pugnacious JayHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    River Quay - KC
    Posts
    24,258


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    I find it amusing the argument over international law as if there is some precedent for this situation. There is not and what further conflates it is the precedent set by say Bulgaria does not apply to the U.S.. Only the precedents we set in abiding by international laws or treaties.

    What is even more amusing is the idea that any UN nations would be game to not having arms bought and sold....

    Finally it would be a simple act to undermine the UN... the US just need to not pay the budget and POOF the UN fails. next day... cannot operate.
    Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.
    ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.


  29. #29
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Posts
    18,257


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by JayHawk View Post
    I find it amusing the argument over international law as if there is some precedent for this situation. There is not and what further conflates it is the precedent set by say Bulgaria does not apply to the U.S.. Only the precedents we set in abiding by international laws or treaties.

    What is even more amusing is the idea that any UN nations would be game to not having arms bought and sold....

    Finally it would be a simple act to undermine the UN... the US just need to not pay the budget and POOF the UN fails. next day... cannot operate.
    The precedent for this situation is birtherism and paranoia about the democrat party and HUSSEIN and socialism.

    The US has treaties with other countries, which it is obliged to uphold, which protect its interests, and which, not surprisingly given that the US signed the treaties, respect the need for senate ratification within US domestic law.

    There is no issue here except paranoia about the United Nations and paranoia about a bunch of very bad gun laws that, regrettably, are not going away any time soon, because this is just the latest invented issue to attack Obama.

    And the UN has been operating with the US doing just that for a decade. The US is a deadbeat debtor nation in the accounts of the UN, yet the Assembly still meets and the Security Council still passes resolutions. (States is happy to show up and vote there, aren't they…)
    Last edited by bankside; November 26th, 2012 at 11:38 PM.

  30. #30
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    37,082


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    .
    I've heard it is legal to carry gun inside the shopping center, true ?


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  31. #31
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Telstra View Post
    .
    I've heard it is legal to carry gun inside the shopping center, true ?
    Those laws vary massively by state.

  32. #32
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    Err? Hate speech laws? Restraining orders? There are legal restrictions on individual rights.
    Neither of those is a restriction on rights -- there is no right to incite violence, nor one to harass others.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  33. #33
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Telstra View Post
    .
    I've heard it is legal to carry gun inside the shopping center, true ?
    I've done it, openly. The only thing that's ever happened was I got into a conversation with a security guard about the best options for a sidearm in such a crowded venue (basically, unless you're a bloody good shot and very good at judging your backdrop... don't worry about it because you aren't competent to put your finger on the trigger there ~ but if you are good enough, you want slow, blunt ammo).

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  34. #34
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Neither of those is a restriction on rights -- there is no right to incite violence, nor one to harass others.
    In the broadest interpretation of free speech, sure there is.

    I agree with the legal reasoning you are referring to when you mention inciting violence or harassing others, but nevertheless, those are qualifications and limitations on the extent of free speech. So simply saying "As for rights, no agreement to reduce or restrict one's rights is valid. A law to restrict the right to freedom of speech, for example, is no law at all, because there is no authority to enact such a law" is not correct without qualification.

    In other words I think you were running off a little bit far into the field with that statement holding really broad interpretations of rights and their sanctity when the reality is there are PLENTY of legal restrictions on virtually every single right we have. Whether it's regulations on the ownership of firearms and where you can carry them or exactly which words you can't yell in a crowded theater.
    Last edited by xbuzzerx; November 27th, 2012 at 01:25 AM.

  35. #35
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Presumably your President would be smart enough use section A, and only sign a treaty that says "subject to ratification of the US Senate." Or presumably when your President sends a letter authorizing a US representative to draft a treaty per section C, that letter would note "subject to ratification of the US Senate." Presumably your Congress would be smart enough to notice if the letter didn't say that.

    But if none of those American institutions are smart enough to do all those basic things, you can wipe your own damn asses while the rest of the world laughs.

    And by the way, having signed on to the UN, and that having been duly affirmed by the US Senate, you are bound by it, because that's not only the way international law works, that's how your own constitution works. You ratified UN membership. You ratified the relevant treaties. Suck it up.
    Would you kindly cite the section of the "treaty" with the UN wherein we surrender our sovereignty and subjugate our people to it's authority?

  36. #36
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Telstra View Post
    .
    I've heard it is legal to carry gun inside the shopping center, true ?
    Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? Shopping centers are free to deny entry to those carrying firearms, but it isn't prohibited by law anyplace that I'm aware of.

  37. #37
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    In the broadest interpretation of free speech, sure there is.

    I agree with the legal reasoning you are referring to when you mention inciting violence or harassing others, but nevertheless, those are qualifications and limitations on the extent of free speech. So simply saying "As for rights, no agreement to reduce or restrict one's rights is valid. A law to restrict the right to freedom of speech, for example, is no law at all, because there is no authority to enact such a law" is not correct without qualification.

    In other words I think you were running off a little bit far into the field with that statement holding really broad interpretations of rights and their sanctity when the reality is there are PLENTY of legal restrictions on virtually every single right we have. Whether it's regulations on the ownership of firearms and where you can carry them or exactly which words you can't yell in a crowded theater.
    I didn't refer to any legal reasoning, I referred to rights. There is no right to initiate violence either by word or deed -- that's why the Libertarian Party pledge is to incite no violence. There is no right to violate someone else's rights' that arises directly from the fact of self ownership: since every person is self-owned, the rights bestowed on me by my self-ownership cannot extend to the violation of the rights likewise bestowed on others.

    There is no authority to enact laws which interfere with individual rights because the only source of government authority is the loan of it from the citizens to act on their behalf. Thus the government has no more authority than any citizen to violate anyone's rights, because no citizen has such authority.

    None of the restrictions on ownership of firearms is valid: the right to keep and bear arms is intrinsic and inherent, part and parcel of life and liberty. That the government has enacted them and many citizens acquiesced does not change the fact (indeed, their very existence is proof that the government is not "of the people, by the people, and for the people", because the practical effect of any gun restriction law is to make citizens more vulnerable to criminals).

    As for things yelled in a crowded theater, that falls under intent to harm, because anyone with any sense knows that yelling "Fire!" will cause a stampede, and in such a stampede people will get hurt.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  38. #38
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Posts
    18,257


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    By what manner of divination do you with out what a "right" is then?

  39. #39
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Posts
    18,257


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    Would you kindly cite the section of the "treaty" with the UN wherein we surrender our sovereignty and subjugate our people to it's authority?
    The United States bound itself to the United Nations by signing the United Nations Charter (itself a treaty) on 1945/06/25 in San Francisco of all places. The Charter contains no mechanism for resigning. Though there is a mechanism to expel a country. If the US tried to get itself expelled it could be overturned by the veto of any member of the Security Council including, perversely, itself.

    Remember that the People in "We the people" granted treaty-making power to their elected officials. The power to make a treaty is not an act of subjugation but of the exercise of sovereignty. And a treaty does not mean "the whim of one signatory" or "we'll do it until some mid-term Congress decades from now has a tantrum about something." A freely-signed treaty is, subject to the terms therein, as binding an obligation on your government as any Constitutional amendment.

    Of course Constitutions get ignored by unscrupulous autocrats from time to time as well.

  40. #40
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Posts
    18,257


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by dougmc92 View Post
    Obama will NEVER ban all guns- but IHope he brings back the aasualt rifle ban, waiting periods, etc!!!!
    No sane person has ever suggested banning all guns. But lots of people observe that there is no arbitrary right to own anything that a person happens to consider a weapon. There are any number of legitimate restrictions on the type of weapon, the manner of acquisition, the manner of use and qualifications or instruction required, the manner of storage or disposition. Regulation is possible in all of those areas which may or may not intrude on the reasonable private use of a weapon.

  41. #41
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Posts
    9,673


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Why was my post deleted? All I said is that Kuli loses all reasoning when it comes to guns, and it's true, not an attack. He is a friend and he knows I'm not taking shots at him.

    Gun ownership is not an intrinsic right, and apparently half of Europe agrees with this. The safer half, yunno, where they don't have giant percentages of gun homicides...
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  42. #42
    The Mother of Loki Laufey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    1,749


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    There is a very clear difference between countries which just have guns for hunting and the ones who also allow handguns.

  43. #43
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by dougmc92 View Post
    Obama will NEVER ban all guns- but IHope he brings back the aasualt rifle ban, waiting periods, etc!!!!
    Assault rifles haven't been legal to own except by federal license for two generations.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  44. #44
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    No sane person has ever suggested banning all guns. But lots of people observe that there is no arbitrary right to own anything that a person happens to consider a weapon. There are any number of legitimate restrictions on the type of weapon, the manner of acquisition, the manner of use and qualifications or instruction required, the manner of storage or disposition. Regulation is possible in all of those areas which may or may not intrude on the reasonable private use of a weapon.
    According to the words of the Constitution, no law respecting the keeping and bearing of arms is allowed -- that's what "shall not be infringed" means: not only can't there be laws about the keeping and bearing itself, but not about anything that has to do with arms, either. That means no storage limitations, no waiting periods, no allowing some weapons and not others, no ammunition taxes -- nothing.

    It's sad that our government has been very strong in upholding freedom of the press, but gutless concerning the right to keep and bear arms. Just as porn can't be banned just because some people think it's reasonable to do so, arms can't be banned just because some people think that's reasonable. The whole point of the protection of inherent rights is that the unreasonable is protected. Just as the point of guaranteeing free speech is to protect the most objectionable, so the point of guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms is to protect the most objectionable.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  45. #45
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    The United States bound itself to the United Nations by signing the United Nations Charter (itself a treaty) on 1945/06/25 in San Francisco of all places. The Charter contains no mechanism for resigning. Though there is a mechanism to expel a country. If the US tried to get itself expelled it could be overturned by the veto of any member of the Security Council including, perversely, itself.

    Remember that the People in "We the people" granted treaty-making power to their elected officials. The power to make a treaty is not an act of subjugation but of the exercise of sovereignty. And a treaty does not mean "the whim of one signatory" or "we'll do it until some mid-term Congress decades from now has a tantrum about something." A freely-signed treaty is, subject to the terms therein, as binding an obligation on your government as any Constitutional amendment.

    Of course Constitutions get ignored by unscrupulous autocrats from time to time as well.
    While there is no mechanism for resigning, there is none prohibiting it either. Not appointing a US Ambassador to the UN (also a function of the US Senate) would accomplish our absence quite nicely. Your argument would have us believe that we are somehow compelled to be represented in perpetuity. Since that representation is contingent on actions constitutionally required to be undertaken by the legislative and executive branch, how exactly will the UN compel them to act? But, that aside, you haven't addressed the question. Where, anywhere in the UN Charter, does it say that we are subordinate to the UN? Especially in light of the recognition of state sovereignty within that charter. In the absence of such an codicil, the Constitution carries the argument, not a treaty.

  46. #46
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Why was my post deleted? All I said is that Kuli loses all reasoning when it comes to guns, and it's true, not an attack. He is a friend and he knows I'm not taking shots at him.

    Gun ownership is not an intrinsic right, and apparently half of Europe agrees with this. The safer half, yunno, where they don't have giant percentages of gun homicides...
    I agree. Kulindahr, I can tell just from my short time here, your posts, and even your avatar, that this isn't a topic that'll fly well with you, and this is not my cornerstone issue I wish to get into any protracted argument about. But suffice it to say, I do not actually agree with the interpretation of the line "in order to maintain a militia" being dropped from everyone who defends that what the constitution really meant was people having unlimited and unrestricted caches of assault rifles, semiautomatics and everything else in any quantity. Nor do I think these early legal reasonings upon which the precedent is based for individual gun ownership today reflected or even foresaw a time when people would have easy access to weaponry that would let them unload into a crowd and take down dozens of people instantaneously. Just as you yourself said "anyone with common sense would know" what would happen if you yell fire in a crowded theater, I could just as easily say anyone with common sense would know what would happen to a crowded, unequal urban society with poverty problems and a mass prevalence of automatic, semiautomatic and military grade firearms laying around.

    So in short, I respectfully disagree with your claim that "no restriction on firearms is valid", I think that's straying into gun nut territory and i don't think it's actually supported by the spirit of what was meant by the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and I think that if the choice does come down to protecting people from the impact of widespread or out of control firearm availability, there is absolutely every valid reason to regulate firearms.

    And no-- I'm not a gun ban advocate. But I am reacting to what I perceive to be the most opposite extreme.

  47. #47
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Why was my post deleted? All I said is that Kuli loses all reasoning when it comes to guns, and it's true, not an attack. He is a friend and he knows I'm not taking shots at him.

    Gun ownership is not an intrinsic right, and apparently half of Europe agrees with this. The safer half, yunno, where they don't have giant percentages of gun homicides...
    No, my reasoning becomes very clear, because this is an issue which lies very close to first principles -- unlike economics, which gets rather muddy because of the complexity.

    It's very simple: I own myself. You own yourself. Rights proceed from there; among them are life, liberty, and the purfuit of happinefs.* Since I own myself, I have the right to protect myself; that is a guarantor of my life, of my liberty, and of my ability to pursue happiness. No one can tell me what means I may choose; to do so means they have ownership over me.

    That half of Europe prefers to enjoy a mere illusion of liberty without essential substance is irrelevant.

    My life is mine. That by itself is enough to authorize my choice of arms and carrying. By the "only cops should have guns" theory, I'd almost certainly be dead. Any system that tells me I have to just hand my life to a criminal who drops in is vile and immoral.






    *spelling from an early printing of the Declaration



    p.s. -- whoever deleted your post, if it said only what you say above, is a busybody dweeb

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  48. #48
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Why was my post deleted? All I said is that Kuli loses all reasoning when it comes to guns, and it's true, not an attack. He is a friend and he knows I'm not taking shots at him.

    Gun ownership is not an intrinsic right, and apparently half of Europe agrees with this. The safer half, yunno, where they don't have giant percentages of gun homicides...
    Wrong. The Bill of Rights recognizes our inherent rights given us by our creator and enjoins the government from screwing with them. The Heller case decided by SCOTUS, acknowledged that to be the case. I have a right, as an individual, to keep and bear arms. And who gives a rat's ass what Europe thinks about anything?
    Last edited by jackoroe; November 27th, 2012 at 11:11 AM.

  49. #49
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    111,227
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    I agree. Kulindahr, I can tell just from my short time here, your posts, and even your avatar, that this isn't a topic that'll fly well with you, and this is not my cornerstone issue I wish to get into any protracted argument about. But suffice it to say, I do not actually agree with the interpretation of the line "in order to maintain a militia" being dropped from everyone who defends that what the constitution really meant was people having unlimited and unrestricted caches of assault rifles, semiautomatics and everything else in any quantity. Nor do I think these early legal reasonings upon which the precedent is based for individual gun ownership today reflected or even foresaw a time when people would have easy access to weaponry that would let them unload into a crowd and take down dozens of people instantaneously. Just as you yourself said "anyone with common sense would know" what would happen if you yell fire in a crowded theater, I could just as easily say anyone with common sense would know what would happen to a crowded, unequal urban society with poverty problems and a mass prevalence of automatic, semiautomatic and military grade firearms laying around.

    So in short, I respectfully disagree with your claim that "no restriction on firearms is valid", I think that's straying into gun nut territory and i don't think it's actually supported by the spirit of what was meant by the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and I think that if the choice does come down to protecting people from the impact of widespread or out of control firearm availability, there is absolutely every valid reason to regulate firearms.

    And no-- I'm not a gun ban advocate. But I am reacting to what I perceive to be the most opposite extreme.
    By your reasoning, we should license people's tongues.

    And what the Framers meant was the every citizen should be able to have and to carry around the latest in personal military hardware.

    There's a reason that gals I know who've been raped call gun-control advocates "pro rape": telling them they can't have the gun of their choice to protect themselves you're telling them they have to submit to the rapist.

    Over two million people annually in the US protect themselves and/or others against crime. That's a pretty widespread phenomenon -- and all gun restrictions do is reduce the ability of those people to defend themselves.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  50. #50
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Posts
    9,673


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    But you do see how you contradict yourself, right? (I know you don't, but here it comes

    If self-ownership means you should be allowed to use any means you deem fit to defend yourself, then why stop at a handgun? Why not a tank? And if you should be allowed to bear arms to defend yourself - instead of electing people whose JOB it would be to defend you - why not translate that principle to government? Government should be made illegal, you should be the only person with the right to govern you, no?
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •