Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 235

5864 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I would say a video is as good as Wikipedia.

It could be. I mean, it’s much less likely, but still technically possible.

Plus Wikipedia is the low-end of acceptable textual links really. Sometimes a video can be great as a supporting argument, not as the main thrust.

(Jhco)
Of course it shows Obama as a lying jerk, but hey, evidently the journalists represented in the news station video are the liars as Obama is of god status and would never stoop to lying.

If you say so. Personally I don’t see him as a god, more a conniving politician who will leverage power any way he can get it – but he has policies I like, so I voted for him. You are free to continue believing he is a god though.

(Jhco)
My god Vika, you can you have your head so far up your butt you can’t admit Obama’s failings on anything?

The usual hyperbole rears its ugly head. Try a more sensible argument next time, please.

(Jhco)
And why are you posting in a gun thread, you hate guns?

Wait, when did she say that?

I never did.

What I have said, a few times is that I cannot use a gun. When I try, it brings the flashbacks back. The psychiatrists were never able to excise that particular sensory association. So I avoid guns for my personal use. This is why I use alternate means of self-defense. The taser feels very different to a handgun, and doesn’t trigger the jumbled mess of memories.

Somehow Jhco twists that into a hatred of guns.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Could you post a link that isn’t a video, please? I’d find more substance in something with actual references, and a thought out approach.

I realise I’m probably a rarity in this, but random people prattling at a camera does not for me, a convincing argument make. It’s why if I’ve ever posted a youtube link, it has been in the context of a larger argument, with the majority of the argument backed up by non-video links.

I would say a video is as good as Wikipedia. Of course it shows Obama as a lying jerk, but hey, evidently the journalists represented in the news station video are the liars as Obama is of god status and would never stoop to lying. My god Vika, you can you have your head so far up your butt you can’t admit Obama’s failings on anything? He is not a nice guy. And why are you posting in a gun thread, you hate guns?

I always wondered who could be stupid enough to not get that they are being conned by FOX news and the like. Now i know. Did you really not notice in your first link, that the Journalist of Fox news repeatedly asked “how the international treaty would actually effect the private gun owner in the US” and neither of the stooges(guests) gave a actual answer but danced around it. Instead they made bullshit claims about the Constitution and the UN.
1. The Constitution actually does give the Government the right to make the treaty. Its called the Commerce clause. For those self declared defenders of the constitution that don´t know what that clause says(which i would bet covers more than 99% of them) here the Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

2. The Claims about the UN are also false. The US would not be giving up any of its sovereignty to the UN. At most the UN would gain the power: to sue US companies that break US law in front of US courts. The US can change these laws and ignore the treaty anytime it likes. Sure this goes for other countries, so total ignorant idiots it would seem as if the treaty is inefficient. But fact is unlike the USA many smaller countries can´t say no to the UN as easily.
Iran was mentioned as someone who is ignoring a UN treaty, but fact is that same Iran has been suffering severely from trade embargoes. Sure they are still pushing along despite the embargo, but it is hurting them a lot.

 
Flag Post

Johnny, Fox is no worse than the other three, just of a different leaning than what the liberals on this forum is willing to accept. They don’t like opposing views.

The commerce clause has nothing to do with treaties. It concerns only interstate commerce. Although it includes foreign commerce, it doesn’t include being able to usurp our constitution, which is exactly what this so called treaty would do. However, all treaties must be approved by the congress, which Obama doesn’t seem to accept.

The claims about the UN are not false. The UN, when Obama is done, will make decisions on our national policies, usurping our congress and our constitution. Eventually, world leaders pushing for a one world government will accept the UN as the central government. The specific sovereignty we would be giving up is our bill of rights as small arms would be outlawed and our second amendment is in the way.

 
Flag Post

Actually the second amendment is the right to “bear arms” as in being able to hang grizzly bear arms on your wall. DUH!

 
Flag Post

Guys get back to your guns, I’ll start .
Dz Dz ptakh ptakh pakh pakh.

What I have said, a few times is that I cannot use a gun. When I try, it brings the flashbacks back. The psychiatrists were never able to excise that particular sensory association. So I avoid guns for my personal use. This is why I use alternate means of self-defense. The taser feels very different to a handgun, and doesn’t trigger the jumbled mess of memories.

Somehow Jhco twists that into a hatred of guns.
So you shot a finger of your sibling or something?
Go raise a chicken, name it, love it and after six months, slaughter it.
You’ll get numb to violence.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Johnny, Fox is no worse than the other three, just of a different leaning than what the liberals on this forum is willing to accept. They don’t like opposing views.

Fox News is a crap/biased source, the same as MSNBC or opposing biases are crap sources. People on here have admitted to that many times. You want to be taken seriously, don’t use crap sources, and find some neutral/decent ones.

The claims about the UN are not false. The UN, when Obama is done, will make decisions on our national policies, usurping our congress and our constitution. Eventually, world leaders pushing for a one world government will accept the UN as the central government. The specific sovereignty we would be giving up is our bill of rights as small arms would be outlawed and our second amendment is in the way.

So I’m just curious, why do you fearmonger all the time? I’m not just talking about politics, I’m talking about everything. Some caution can be healthy, but this “world coming to an end” attitude about everything, all the time just gets tiring to listen to. Try to stay positive, at least.

Originally posted by tenco1:

I think it’s slightly more lke PTSD.

Yes, it probably is PTSD; it smacks of a PTSD action. With PTSD, people tend to avoid things that remind them of the event. If a gun was used in the original event, it makes sense it would bring an assault of unwanted feelings/memories. But I wouldn’t take that as proof of hating guns in and of themselves.

 
Flag Post
Yes, it probably is PTSD; it smacks of a PTSD action. With PTSD, people tend to avoid things that remind them of the event. If a gun was used in the original event, it makes sense it would bring an assault of unwanted feelings/memories. But I wouldn’t take that as proof of hating guns in and of themselves.

yeah, its more like fearing them

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Yes, it probably is PTSD; it smacks of a PTSD action. With PTSD, people tend to avoid things that remind them of the event. If a gun was used in the original event, it makes sense it would bring an assault of unwanted feelings/memories. But I wouldn’t take that as proof of hating guns in and of themselves.

yeah, its more like fearing them

I haven’t really read the history, but it sounds like Vika didn’t fear them at one time. They might just remind her of an assault? I guess it would be similar to a war veteran who had to shoot an Afghani child and stayed away from rifles because of unpleasant association.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Guys get back to your guns, I’ll start .
Dz Dz ptakh ptakh pakh pakh.

What I have said, a few times is that I cannot use a gun. When I try, it brings the flashbacks back. The psychiatrists were never able to excise that particular sensory association. So I avoid guns for my personal use. This is why I use alternate means of self-defense. The taser feels very different to a handgun, and doesn’t trigger the jumbled mess of memories.

Somehow Jhco twists that into a hatred of guns.
So you shot a finger of your sibling or something?
Go raise a chicken, name it, love it and after six months, slaughter it.
You’ll get numb to violence.

LOL! Actually, Vika had a worse experience and I don’t deny her aversion toward firearms. I just don’t think she has the right to take my guns because she doesn’t like them. If she wants to tell you what happened to her she can.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

LOL! Actually, Vika had a worse experience and I don’t deny her aversion toward firearms.

So she told you then?

I just don’t think she has the right to take my guns because she doesn’t like them.

You’re still trying to push that crap?

Okay well I can’t blame you, considering how tight you’re holding on to them, it seems like you’ve become too attached to them and need a break.

If she wants to tell you what happened to her she can.

She went to see that Zorro movie.

 
Flag Post

Along time ago Tenco.

I am attached to them my boy. Many of mine come from the olden days and are valuable.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Johnny, Fox is no worse than the other three, just of a different leaning than what the liberals on this forum is willing to accept. They don’t like opposing views.

You posted the link showing a Fox news journalist who herself did notice that her quests where dodging her question and allowed them to do so. So that people like you could be coned into believing the question was actually answered.

The commerce clause has nothing to do with treaties. It concerns only interstate commerce. Although it includes foreign commerce, it doesn’t include being able to usurp our constitution, which is exactly what this so called treaty would do. However, all treaties must be approved by the congress, which Obama doesn’t seem to accept.

The first two sentences are simply wrong, which you yourself admit in he 3rd half sentence. Then you go on after admitting that power does exist (something the quest of Fox news denied totally), to claim that the treaty would usurp your constitution.
I already explained in detail why that is not true. And do so again after your next paragraph.

The claims about the UN are not false. The UN, when Obama is done, will make decisions on our national policies, usurping our congress and our constitution. Eventually, world leaders pushing for a one world government will accept the UN as the central government. The specific sovereignty we would be giving up is our bill of rights as small arms would be outlawed and our second amendment is in the way.

Lets ignore the one world government bullshit for a moment and concentrate on the bullshit your sprouting about the ability of the UN to interfere with the US government.

Again you and that Fox news guests don´t fucking understand how the UN and this Treaty works. The UN does not get to make any laws in the US. Instead the congress makes the laws and while they are obligated to make certain laws by the treaty, this obligation A. does not mean that the congress can ignore the constitution and B. the congress not following the obligations of the treaty will not have any great ill-effects on the USA.
(except people of other modern countries looking down on the USA like they do at Russia and China, world leader my Ass)

Especially telling is your claim that it will out law small arms. Which is not the case. The treaty limits(not even forbids) the international trade of Weapons(including small arms) and the production of said weapons for such trade.
At worst you will find it harder as an American to buy foreign guns. But even that won´t be as hard, with most of the foreign companies that actually produce for the US market just opening up production in the US instead(since there is nothing forbidding them from producing and selling in America).

 
Flag Post

Sir,

I could give you a few links to look, if that is what you want.

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/23/shocking-loss-of-freedom-in-u-s.aspx

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/freedom-in-america-is-the-glass-half-full-or-half-empty/#axzz2EmP9NqaE

Just because our population has increased doesn’t mean we should give up our liberty. Unless of course, this is how you view politics and are willing to succumb to an overbearing government.