RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Focus50 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/6/2013 6:08:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

Same can be said of the radar units tracking a motza of unidentified planes approaching Pearl Harbour in late 1941.


They were new, nobody at Pearl really nes how to use them, and they were expecting a squadron of B17s that morning. They hadn't had the radar long enough to know what that would look like.


Yes, I've seen the documentaries. A single squadron of B17's is confused with hundreds of aircraft coming from a different flight plan.

And no, I'm not mocking them. I can totally understand human nature not having such great faith in new technologies. Nor acting pre-emptively against sabre-rattlers (including book writers - Mein Kampf) who have/had, in fact, done nothing to harm anyone at that relative point in time.

The technology lesson (Pearl Harbour) should've at least been learned by 9/11. But that's the thing - something might happen, or is even likely to happen, and ultimately it boils down to one person putting his butt/reputation/career on the line and risking the right decision before the fact. That's a BIG call, even for a Prez.

Truth be known, the US hierarchy knew waaaay before it came down to grunts manning a new fangled radar that shit was likely to happen from Japan. But as I said, you just can't be a 100% sure shit is gonna happen till after it's actually happened.

Focus.




mnottertail -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/6/2013 6:30:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

I already posted a link to the text of the treaty. It clearly states "export" over and over again. It specifically says it will have no effect on private ownership of firearms where that is legal.


It also refers repeatedly to the establishment of "control systems" what do you supose that means.


That someone is watching over like Moscow and China giving arms to North Korea, or Pakistan giving arms to Afghanistan, or those sorts of deals, cuz if you read the treaty, it has nothing to do with real, imagined, or virtual second amendment.

If you have comprehension issues, perhaps you should advocate less for disinformation.




Real0ne -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/6/2013 6:33:46 AM)


we knew the jap naval codes prior to the attacks and like 911 they let it happen. That is the "People" who are chartered to protect our property and lives. It was no secret then and its no secret now. you all just read the wrong history books.

simply let it happen because the dollar was ripe for the pickin!

These assholes make up any story they want and pour it into the news drowning less connected voices completely out of the history books.

well its not so easy today, look at 911, few people believe the government after iraq and having their asses packed with enough lies to last 5 lifetimes.


quote:






Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster’s Day Of Deceit, we have the proof. Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew.

“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” was Roosevelt’s famous campaign statement of 1940. He wasn’t being ingenuous. FDR’s military and State Department leaders were agreeing that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. In White House meetings the strong feeling was that America needed a call to action. This is not what the public wanted, though. Eighty to ninety percent of the American people wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war. So, according to Stinnett, Roosevelt provoked Japan to attack us, let it happen at Pearl Harbor, and thus galvanized the country to war. Many who came into contact with Roosevelt during that time hinted that FDR wasn’t being forthright about his intentions in Europe. After the attack, on the Sunday evening of December 7, 1941, Roosevelt had a brief meeting in the White House with Edward R. Murrow, the famed journalist, and William Donovan, the founder of the Office of Strategic Services. Later Donovan told an assistant that he believed FDR welcomed the attack and didn’t seem surprised. The only thing Roosevelt seemed to care about, Donovan felt, was if the public would now support a declaration of war. According to Day Of Deceit, in October 1940 FDR adopted a specific strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii. He expressed this to Roosevelt, and so the President relieved him of his command. Later Richardson quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”

To those who believe that government conspiracies can’t possibly happen, Day Of Deceit could prove to them otherwise. Stinnett’s well-documented book makes a convincing case that the highest officials of the government—including the highest official—fooled and deceived millions of Americans about one of the most important days in the history of the country. It now has to be considered one of the most definitive—if not the definitive—book on the subject. Gore Vidal has said, “...Robert Stinnet has come up with most of the smoking guns. Day Of Deceit shows that the famous ‘surprise’ attack was no surprise





Real0ne -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/6/2013 6:37:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

I already posted a link to the text of the treaty. It clearly states "export" over and over again. It specifically says it will have no effect on private ownership of firearms where that is legal.


It also refers repeatedly to the establishment of "control systems" what do you supose that means.


That someone is watching over like Moscow and China giving arms to North Korea, or Pakistan giving arms to Afghanistan, or those sorts of deals, cuz if you read the treaty, it has nothing to do with real, imagined, or virtual second amendment.

If you have comprehension issues, perhaps you should advocate less for disinformation.




and that is exactly correct.

like the welfare clause that our corrupt judges used to usher in the police state precisely what was fought against in the revolution here now and in force twice as oppressive that control statement is the back door.

That clause will be used to eliminate or oppress our present arms laws, precisely the way they oppressed them in england. tried and true methods.

Good observation.

Its also based in civil law which means its fiat garbage on its face.




Real0ne -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/6/2013 6:54:20 AM)

fr

well thats the double standard here.

you see government preemptively incarcerates inhabitants to prevent crimes that the gub conjures up that they "MAY" commit, using the legal system to terrorize people, with no fucking standing in any law anywhere,

meanwhile people have been taught to use the rule of law and wait for the gub to commit a crime before they pass judgement.

Nice twist.

The question is how did the gub brainwash people to think like this in the first place?

Ken would have us conveniently overlook that it talks about the state. well Ken the state controls the inhabitants within it boundaries and if the state is required to control they may as well say they are controlling you directly.

The idea that rules made for the "proxy" state do not directly effect the individual is a right brain left brain disconnect.








BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/7/2013 1:32:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

I already posted a link to the text of the treaty. It clearly states "export" over and over again. It specifically says it will have no effect on private ownership of firearms where that is legal.


It also refers repeatedly to the establishment of "control systems" what do you supose that means.


That someone is watching over like Moscow and China giving arms to North Korea, or Pakistan giving arms to Afghanistan, or those sorts of deals, cuz if you read the treaty, it has nothing to do with real, imagined, or virtual second amendment.

If you have comprehension issues, perhaps you should advocate less for disinformation.


Control systems within each country.
Do you realize that had a treaty like this proports to be had been in existance4 at the time the U S might well not exist?
You honestly believe that people fighting tyrants like Assad should be disarmed?
And that is assuming your blind faith in the goverment is right.




tweakabelle -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/7/2013 1:53:47 AM)

The Treaty was an attempt to try to reduce and/or stop the international trade in illegal arms. The weapons it covers bring death, maiming and permanent injuries to millions of people annually. The Treaty is the first step nations have agreed upon to try to stop this illegal trade in the weapons of death.

It appears that this particular method falls short of satisfying your expectations, if indeed you have any. While the Treaty might not be ideal, I don't see-any realistic alternative to this kind of international co-operation if this trade is going to be reduced or hopefully, eventually eliminated.

It's easy to carp at the Treaty's perceived shortcomings. Real, lasting international co-operation on any issue is incredibly difficult to achieve and implement. So I would like to hear your ideas on how this problem might be approached realistically and hopefully eventually eliminated. Is there any realistic alternative to getting States to co-operate in devising an international treaty and implementing it? Bearing in mind the political realities that apply, do you have any alternative ideas on how the illegal trade in weapons of death can be controlled and stopped?




DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/7/2013 5:35:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

I already posted a link to the text of the treaty. It clearly states "export" over and over again. It specifically says it will have no effect on private ownership of firearms where that is legal.


It also refers repeatedly to the establishment of "control systems" what do you supose that means.


That someone is watching over like Moscow and China giving arms to North Korea, or Pakistan giving arms to Afghanistan, or those sorts of deals, cuz if you read the treaty, it has nothing to do with real, imagined, or virtual second amendment.

If you have comprehension issues, perhaps you should advocate less for disinformation.


Control systems within each country.
Do you realize that had a treaty like this proports to be had been in existance4 at the time the U S might well not exist?
You honestly believe that people fighting tyrants like Assad should be disarmed?
And that is assuming your blind faith in the goverment is right.

Did you not read a word of my posts? This treaty is only about the illegal international arms trade.

Please stop believing the crap Rush and FNC tells you and read the fucking treaty yourself.




mnottertail -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 7:09:40 AM)

quote:


Do you realize that had a treaty like this proports to be had been in existance4 at the time the U S might well not exist?

WTF does that even say?

quote:


You honestly believe that people fighting tyrants like Assad should be disarmed?

Apparently you do, it is what you advocate, I have said nothing approaching that, or nothing of the sort.

quote:

 
And that is assuming your blind faith in the goverment is right.


Pure teabagger there, the teabaggers in the government with their borrow and spend calling for less government but more military industrial complex government.

I got no blind faith in the government, that is strictly a teabagger value.  (see above).




BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 12:51:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

I already posted a link to the text of the treaty. It clearly states "export" over and over again. It specifically says it will have no effect on private ownership of firearms where that is legal.


It also refers repeatedly to the establishment of "control systems" what do you supose that means.


That someone is watching over like Moscow and China giving arms to North Korea, or Pakistan giving arms to Afghanistan, or those sorts of deals, cuz if you read the treaty, it has nothing to do with real, imagined, or virtual second amendment.

If you have comprehension issues, perhaps you should advocate less for disinformation.


Control systems within each country.
Do you realize that had a treaty like this proports to be had been in existance4 at the time the U S might well not exist?
You honestly believe that people fighting tyrants like Assad should be disarmed?
And that is assuming your blind faith in the goverment is right.

Did you not read a word of my posts? This treaty is only about the illegal international arms trade.

Please stop believing the crap Rush and FNC tells you and read the fucking treaty yourself.

I did, but not through the eyes of an anti gun person, haven't heard Rush in years and I don't recall who FNC is so they must not have much influence.




BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 12:53:08 PM)

quote:

WTF does that even say?


It would have been illegal to sell us weapons.




BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 12:54:59 PM)

quote:

Apparently you do, it is what you advocate, I have said nothing approaching that, or nothing of the sort.


A They are a non government entity.
B They are insurectionists.
C That is exactly who the treaty wants to keep guns from.




BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 12:56:45 PM)

quote:

Pure teabagger there, the teabaggers in the government with their borrow and spend calling for less government but more military industrial complex government.

I got no blind faith in the government, that is strictly a teabagger value. (see above).


I am not with the teaparty but it is impossible to listen to anythihg they actually say and believe anythig you just said.




mnottertail -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 1:04:27 PM)

Right, perhaps you open your eyes and look around without being told.




BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 1:06:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

Pure teabagger there, the teabaggers in the government with their borrow and spend calling for less government but more military industrial complex government.

I got no blind faith in the government, that is strictly a teabagger value. (see above).


I am not with the teaparty but it is impossible to listen to anythihg they actually say and believe anythig you just said.

I do, you might try it yourself




mnottertail -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 1:55:50 PM)

Having listened to what they said, and seen what they done, I am convinced that they are suffering from profound cretinism.




DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 2:32:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

I already posted a link to the text of the treaty. It clearly states "export" over and over again. It specifically says it will have no effect on private ownership of firearms where that is legal.


It also refers repeatedly to the establishment of "control systems" what do you supose that means.


That someone is watching over like Moscow and China giving arms to North Korea, or Pakistan giving arms to Afghanistan, or those sorts of deals, cuz if you read the treaty, it has nothing to do with real, imagined, or virtual second amendment.

If you have comprehension issues, perhaps you should advocate less for disinformation.


Control systems within each country.
Do you realize that had a treaty like this proports to be had been in existance4 at the time the U S might well not exist?
You honestly believe that people fighting tyrants like Assad should be disarmed?
And that is assuming your blind faith in the goverment is right.

Did you not read a word of my posts? This treaty is only about the illegal international arms trade.

Please stop believing the crap Rush and FNC tells you and read the fucking treaty yourself.

I did, but not through the eyes of an anti gun person, haven't heard Rush in years and I don't recall who FNC is so they must not have much influence.

Then why do you keep claiming things are in it that are quite clearly not and the treaty specificlly says it does not affect?




DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 2:35:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

WTF does that even say?


It would have been illegal to sell us weapons.

Wrong. The treaty would not ban a government from sending weapons to anyone and what arms we got from outside the colonies came from the French government. Once again read the treaty.




BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 4:45:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

WTF does that even say?


It would have been illegal to sell us weapons.

Wrong. The treaty would not ban a government from sending weapons to anyone and what arms we got from outside the colonies came from the French government. Once again read the treaty.

The Brits would have labeled us insergent terrorists and it would have been illegaltosell to us.




BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/8/2013 4:49:13 PM)

quote:

Then why do you keep claiming things are in it that are quite clearly not and the treaty specificlly says it does not affect?


You focus on stated goals, I focus on implementation.
The writers got the help of the Brady Bunch and others of their ilk who have no regard for the 2nd.
It was written to the satisfaction of the petty despotes who make up most of the U N.
It is what Obama turned to when gun control failed.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0546875