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

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

Expand Messages
  • bigmanfun
    Ian, ... No facts, no insight, only your opinion. ... Disarmament. That is what the UN states in their principles, You are just naieve to believe otherwise.
    Message 1 of 736 , Feb 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Ian,
      >
      > Re point 1) - so you are both wrong.

      No facts, no insight, only your opinion.

      > Re. point 2) - the reason for the treaty is ...
      Disarmament. That is what the UN states in their principles,
      You are just naieve to believe otherwise.

      > Re. 3) I agree with you - enforcement of law is a good thing.
      Great!

      > Re. 4) a) It would appear that the necessary laws already exist in the USA to control export - what additional changes do you think would be necessary to enforce a treaty?

      No treaty required, period. Only enforcement is required.

      > b) The fact that there are export restrictions does not imply internal logging of every item on the restricted list...

      Prove it. How would a treaty be enforced. We don't have the treaty, so only the current laws need to be enforced.

      > - think about the computer analogy

      No. It is a bogus comparison. Computers are not a right.

      > Re. 5) The UN would like to see fewer guns in the world - the more guns, the more people get killed.  But as the USA is a net producer of guns, in the end it is down to internal legislation in the USA not external UN trade treaties that determine the gun availability in the USA.

      There, you almost have it. Control is down to internal legislation.
      The enforcement requires internal control.

      > Re. 6)
      This is irrelavent to anything I have stated.

      > You still have not clarified which of your contradictory statements (that are of no importance to you) is supposed to be the correct one.  If you cannot make up your mind which statement you made is the truth, just let me know whether the incorrect one (whichever it is) was a mistake on your part, or a deliberate 'non-truth'.

      If my statements are contradictory, prove it. Sorry you can't read.


      > Finally, you still have not clarified the "standard for proof of lying" ...
      I said, standard of proof for explaining. Sorry you can't read.

      > All the best,
      Thomas

      >
      >
      > --- On Thu, 21/2/13, 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, 21 February, 2013, 0:26
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Ian,
      >
      > No, you don't see.
      >
      >
      >
      > 1. I fully agree with LaPierre.
      >
      > 2. If I can't sell a weapon outside the US, there is no reason for a treaty. There are already plenty of laws in place.
      >
      > 3. Enforcement of current laws is the primary issue.
      >
      > 4. It is your incorrect opinion that laws enforcing the treaty won't affect anyone inside the US if we ratify the treaty.
      >
      > a. Enforcement of the treaty occurs when laws are written that apply only to entities inside the US. That is what enforcement is. Since you haven't thought about enforcement and its implications inside the US, your opinion is incorrect.
      >
      > b. Since no guns can be exported illegally, according to the treaty, all guns inside the US have to be accounted for to enforce the treaty. All of them. Everyone that belongs to each of us, just like Lapierre said.
      >
      > 5. The UN principle reason for the treaty is disarmament.
      >
      > 6. My previous messages did not contradict. My only comment on the FL law was that it is a local matter of no interest to me.
      >
      >
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Thomas
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, Ian Newman wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Hi Thomas,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > I think I see where our differences come from:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > I am discussing LaPierre's comment that the UN treaty will (future tense) impact on every gun in the USA in private possession, whereas you are discussing existing legislation.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > As I understand it you cannot pass a gun to someone in Mexico without complying with appropriate US and Mexican customs requirements as a result of existing legislation - nothing to do with any UN treaty or UN requirement.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > So is your complaint that there are existing restrictions on your free movement of arms in and out of the USA?
      >
      > >
      >
      > > As I see it there is nothing proposed in the UN treaty that is not already implemented in US law - the treaty is about international co-operation and not internal legislation.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > LaPierre's statement that the treaty will impact on every US gun owner is only true if every US gun owner is trying to sent their weapons to a UN recognised terrorist group or oppressive regime which is clearly not the case (i.e. the statement is not true - in a non-pathological sense).
      >
      > >
      >
      > > All the best,
      >
      > > Ian
      >
      > >
      >
      > > P.S, I am still waiting for you to clarify which of your contradictory posts about LaPierre's statement about the Florida Stand Your Ground law is the truth and which has an unfortunate error in it.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > --- On Wed, 20/2/13, bigmanfun wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > From: bigmanfun
      >
      > > Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: Dave and Ian's NRA challenge - was: NBC changes ...
      >
      > > To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > > Date: Wednesday, 20 February, 2013, 0:52
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > 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 wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > Hi Thomas,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > 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?"
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > 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 have not met the standard of explaining how thre NRA has lied . 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?
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Reply via web post
      >
      >
      >
      > Reply to sender
      >
      >
      >
      > Reply to group
      >
      >
      > Start a New Topic
      >
      >
      > Messages in this topic
      > (396)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Recent Activity:
      >
      >
      >
      > New Members
      > 11
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Visit Your Group
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > .
      >
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.