Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: Dave and Ian's NRA challenge - was: NBC changes ...

Expand Messages
  • bigmanfun
    ... No, it doesn tmake things clearer or answer the question, it avoids it. Who owns the arms about which export restrictions are written? If I sell a weapon
    Message 1 of 736 , Feb 19, 2013
      > The export restrictions on arms from the USA that are currently in place do not impact on the ownership of arms within the USA.

      No, it doesn'tmake things clearer or answer the question, it avoids it.
      Who owns the arms about which export restrictions are written?
      If I sell a weapon to my brother in Mexico, does this apply?
      To whom do the export laws apply?
      How are they enforced? Against whom?

      As I told you before, the computer example is irrelavent.

      Regards,
      Thomas


      --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, Ian Newman <ian_new@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Thomas,
      >
      > <SNIP>
      > I am still waiting for the answer to message 226736. What legal
      > mechanism do you think could be used inside the US to enforce the UN
      > treaty that "won't affect any gun owners inside the US?"
      > </SNIP>
      >
      > Sorry to have missed out a reply to your point above.
      >
      > International trade agreements and embargo commitments are usually fulfilled through import and export restrictions - these permit exports of certain items from a country only to approved destinations.  I used the example of the export restrictions on computer equipment from the USA as an example earlier.
      >
      > The export restrictions on arms from the USA that are currently in place do not impact on the ownership of arms within the USA.
      >
      > The UN treaty under discussion is about international trade, not internal trade.  Does this make things clearer?
      >
      > All the best,
      > Ian.
      >
      > P.S.  In post 226738 you state that I <SNIP>have not met the standard of explaining how thre NRA has lied</SNIP>. I have asked you to explain what you mean by the standard for judging lies, but I am still waiting for your reply.
      >
      > Also, in post 226853 you state that you answered my first two points about the statements made by LaPierre and in 226790 you deny addressing the second point - which of your posts is correct.  I cannot find any post where you explain LaPierre's errors so I'm guessing the earlier post is correct and your later one contains the incorrect statement.  Please could you confirm which version is the one you want to stand by?
      >
      >
      > --- On Thu, 14/2/13, bigmanfun <bigmanfun@...> wrote:
      >
      > From: bigmanfun <bigmanfun@...>
      > Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: Dave and Ian's NRA challenge - was: NBC changes ...
      > To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Thursday, 14 February, 2013, 13:36
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Ian,
      >
      > > You say you have already explained the comments made by LaPierre on the Florida "stand your ground" law.
      >
      > Please show me where I said this. It is one thing you said that I have never commented on and don't intend to 'cause it is a local matter.
      >
      >
      >
      > > I must have missed this - please could you refer me to the post where your explained the error made by LaPierre?
      >
      >
      >
      > Again, you are confused. I can't explain an error where one never occured. See message 226755. I explained it while answering your question.
      >
      >
      >
      > Also, while looking back at messages, I am still waiting for the answer to message 226736. What legal mechanism do you think could be used inside the US to enforce the UN treaty that "won't affect any gun owners inside the US?"
      >
      >
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Thomas
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, Ian Newman wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Hi Thomas,
      >
      > >  
      >
      > > You say you have already explained the comments made by LaPierre on the Florida "stand your ground" law.
      >
      > >  
      >
      > > I must have missed this - please could you refer me to the post where your explained the error made by LaPierre?
      >
      > >  
      >
      > > Many thanks,
      >
      > > Ian.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > --- On Tue, 12/2/13, bigmanfun wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > From: bigmanfun
      >
      > > Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: Dave and Ian's NRA challenge - was: NBC changes ...
      >
      > > To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > > Date: Tuesday, 12 February, 2013, 3:34
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Ian,
      >
      > > I read that message before and it was clear that you take things out of context.
      >
      > > The NRA, as you put it, was discussing the UN plan, and you say they are discussing the treaty. Plan does not equal treaty.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > The second example I already explained why the NRA was correct.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > The 3rd example I am not going to research as you are already wrong 2 out of 3.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > It just wastes my time when you are making up "facts" to support your political arguments.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > It is tragic that when you get your facts wrong, you visiously claim someone else is lying.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Thanks for your time,
      >
      > > Thomas
      >
      > >
      >
      > > --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, Ian Newman wrote:
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > Hi Thomas,
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > IAN,
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > I am not concerned about the international laws.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > Well there is nothing further to discuss on a treaty that concerns international laws....
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > The USA is quite capable of signing international treaties and their UN lawyers are probably better placed to judge what is legal and constitutional than you are (no disrespect to your legal knowledge).
      >
      > >>
      >
      > > > You have not met the standard of explaining how thre NRA has lied.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > Please explain "the standard"
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > What did the NRA say that is a lie?
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > You are a star Thomas!  You mean you have done all this arguing and you don't even know what the posts are about?
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > Read post 226620
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > I list three instances where the NRA published false statements in interviews.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > All the best,
      >
      > > > Ian.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > --- On Mon, 11/2/13, bigmanfun wrote:
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > From: bigmanfun
      >
      > > > Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: Dave and Ian's NRA challenge - was: NBC changes ...
      >
      > > > To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > > > Date: Monday, 11 February, 2013, 13:17
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > IAN,
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > I am not concerned about the international laws.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > The Treaty wording is what gets ratified in the US. If that wording is essentially "unconstitutional", and gets ratified by the Senate,it becomes law that can be administered through regulation. Since those regulations haven't been written, as far as we know, no one except the authors know what is in them, but we do know what could be in them if authorized by treaty.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > It seems to me that you are the one who is wiggling. You have not met the standard of explaining how thre NRA has lied. Your feelings are not part of this. What did the NRA say that is a lie?
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > How does the treaty get enforced without affecting internal entities?
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > Thomas
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, Ian 1 wrote:
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > > Hi Thomas,
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > > I'm not sure what your qualifications are in International Law - I have to admit that I'm not an expert in the intricacies of the wording of international treaties.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > > However, I'm sure the people at the UN are very experienced in wording documents in such a way that the terms are acceptable to all parties. The USA has signed many UN treaties and resolutions and I doubt if this treaty is any different, in this respect, to those that have gone before.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > > It does not matter how you wiggle and twist and turn, you and Dave are fighting a losing battle here.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > > The USA can commit to the treaty, just as it has committed to other international agreements in the past.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > > The treaty is international in scope and has no impact on private gun ownership in the USA.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > > The NRA are lying.
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > > All the best,
      >
      > > >
      >
      > > > > Ian
      >
      > > >
      >
    • Ted Miller
      Dave, that is exactly what I mean.   Ted From: dave_mucha To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:48 PM
      Message 736 of 736 , Mar 29, 2013
        Dave, that is exactly what I mean.
         
        Ted

        From: dave_mucha <dave_mucha@...>
        To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:48 PM
        Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: I dont know if dan lied, but Feinstein avoids the truth
         
        May I take it that you meant to say

        we SHOULD also prosecute anyone in the government that lies effecting our rights ?

        I wholehearted agree. The Constitution is the protector of the individual against a massive and tyrannical government.

        If pelosi actually said that her bill does one thing, when in reality it does something else, she should be brought up at LEAST on ethics violations.

        Alas, that means that the pres, VP and about 3/4 of congress would be up on charges within the week.

        Dave

        --- In mailto:7x10minilathe%40yahoogroups.com, Ted Miller <millertheo4of9@...> wrote:
        >
        > We also prosecute anyone  in the Government that lies effecting our rights.
        >  
        > Ted
        >
        > From: dave_mucha <dave_mucha@...>
        > To: mailto:7x10minilathe%40yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:23 PM
        > Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: I dont know if dan lied, but Feinstein avoids the truth
        >
        >  
        > many years ago Philadelphia did a computer cross reference of crimes
        > they has some 35,000 crimes
        > half were one-time repeat offenders
        > another 20% were multiple offenders.
        > what is showed that a much smaller percentage was first time criminals.
        >
        > in 2010, something like 350 deaths were from rifles.
        >
        > the media lies, outright lies, about what type of guns are used in many crimes.
        >
        > We would be much better served to prosecute the media for actual lies as it would remove a large segment of the artificial chaos in society.
        > since they are almost above the law, they should be held to a MUCH higher standard than regular people.
        >
        > Dave
        >
        > --- In mailto:7x10minilathe%40yahoogroups.com, Ian Newman <ian_new@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi Philip,
        > >
        > > Isn't "the ability to fire bullets" a characteristic of military all military firearms?
        > >
        > > As I have said from the start - I believe that "banning" is not the answer - effective and enforceable registration would solve a lot of problems.  Of course, effectively enforced registration and control of re-sale would deprive lunatics, terrorists and criminals of a ready supply of firearms, attacking  their constitutional right to bear arms and so would be greeted with howls of protest from some quarters.
        > >
        > > All the best,
        > > Ian
        > >
        > > --- On Thu, 28/3/13, Philip Lester <philiplester@> wrote:
        > >
        > > From: Philip Lester <philiplester@>
        > > Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: I dont know if dan lied, but Feinstein avoids the truth
        > > To: mailto:7x10minilathe%40yahoogroups.com
        > > Date: Thursday, 28 March, 2013, 17:34
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >  
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > You keep hearing that her bill would only affect 120 guns, but this part
        > >
        > > of it "semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a
        > >
        > > detachable magazine and have one military characteristic" can make all
        > >
        > > guns with a clip illegal. You could even claim the color is a military
        > >
        > > characteristic, in fact having just a clip is a military characteristic.
        > >
        >

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.