Members Zamfir Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 I've been here since before the great crash of 2003. I remember when Juggs tracked that Zon thief down. Occasionally I'll come in and post something I saw in the news or on the net, sometimes along with my opinion of it, sometimes with questions. Occasionally I'll ask what pick guard you like best on the bass I'm building. Sometimes others comment and change my opinion. You guys are a rational sounding board as much as a bunch of musicians. Right now, I'm not playing much bass, but I'm watching legislation on free speech and firearms ownership get debated in my country. What better group of people to ask opinions about the topics than a bunch of peaceful Americans who play music? If someone comes out and says, "you're full of poo, and here's why", I'm just as happy as when people agree. ...you're full of poo, and it's because you keep eating things. OT: I really don't think the UN will get remotely close to taking people's guns away. I'm not an expert on the issue, but from my contact with them, UNDP does a lot of valuable work trying to get small weapons out of war zones with paramilitary groups killing civilians. Mostly trade-stopping stuff, IIRC, to get the security dilemma out of the peace-building equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted November 11, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 I wasn't talking directly to you, but the {censored} stirring over the "OMG this treaty/statute/local ordinance will infringe our Constitutional rights" is obnoxious, tired and juvenile. Thanks for clarification and I agree: the knee-jerk reactions are silly. Problems are always more complex than first glance. I looked for a news story that wasn't so hawkish and couldn't find it, so I used the blog link and asked if it was true. I still don't understand why Americans are buying up all the ammo in the free world, especially since their firearms legislation is loosening its belt with an attendant reduction in crime rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted November 11, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 11, 2009 Problems are always more complex than first glance. Or the exact opposite is true. No treaty, no law, no local ordinance can impact Constitutional rights. Period. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted November 11, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 OT: I really don't think the UN will get remotely close to taking people's guns away. I'm not an expert on the issue, but from my contact with them, UNDP does a lot of valuable work trying to get small weapons out of war zones with paramilitary groups killing civilians. Mostly trade-stopping stuff, IIRC, to get the security dilemma out of the peace-building equation. It's not the UN directly, but rather the international pretext they supply for governments to facilitate civilian disarmament, sometimes to the end of extinguishing a troublesome minority. I'm all for disarming the thugs that roam from village to village enforcing their power with rifles and RPGs, but those are the very groups that are being supplied with illegal cash and armaments to come to power. Who is sponsoring them and how can they be stopped? This should be the focus of international efforts (I think so)? What separates a legitimate struggle against a despot and acts of evil and mass murder? IMO it's human rights violations: Violate human rights and you should have the full weight of international cooperation acting to remove you from power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 Or the exact opposite is true. No treaty, no law, no local ordinance can impact Constitutional rights. Period. End of story.Tell that to those sad, lonely, unincorporated amendments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted November 11, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 11, 2009 Tell that to those sad, lonely, unincorporated amendments... I hold weekly group counseling and support sessions for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted November 11, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 Or the exact opposite is true. No treaty, no law, no local ordinance can impact Constitutional rights. Period. End of story. It may be this simple inside the country. And yet the US government may be endorsing a plan which includes broad-based civilian disarmament in other countries, shoring up state powers globally in contrast to deeply-held domestic beliefs about the tyranny it could lead to. 1. Are they? 2. If so, how do they rationalize it? This paper seems to explain the treaty a bit better, and says it only applies to automatic rifles on up from there. It also says the USA signed on in 1997 and 2000 already. Same treaty? http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RS22108.pdf If so, then the world must ensure that this initiative isn't used as a pretext to seize all the guns in a country or group within a country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members toolbar Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 for what its worth, I dont own, never have owned nor plan to own a gun... just that if you arnt a criminal I dont see why you cant own one. I mean it IS inherently dangerous, but people make legal dangerous decisions all the time It's legal to decide to own a firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 I dedicate this song to the thread. dKm8TuEVPZQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted November 11, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 11, 2009 If so, then the world must ensure that this initiative isn't used as a pretext to seize all the guns in a country or group within a country.Or, "the world" can do just that. Regardless, it makes about as much sense to be discussing this here as it does for me to be concerned about a green spaceman stealing my burrito before I get a chance to finish eating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chunky-b Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 Or, "the world" can do just that. Regardless, it makes about as much sense to be discussing this here as it does for me to be concerned about a green spaceman stealing my burrito before I get a chance to finish eating it. Dude!? The green guy stole your burrito too? ? It happened to me about two weeks ago!!! I barely got a picture right as he was grabbing it!! That little bugger is fast!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted November 11, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 11, 2009 Dude!? The green guy stole your burrito too? ? It happened to me about two weeks ago!!! I barely got a picture right as he was grabbing it!! That little bugger is fast!!! Gazoo!!!:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 They are using the auspices of preventing international gun smuggling as an excuse for this, and that is one of the many reasons things like kidnappings across the US mexico border have been more widely publicized lately. Justification. WTF? Last time I checked, our media outlets are privately held and are free to report on whatever they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 I still don't understand why Americans are buying up all the ammo in the free world, especially since their firearms legislation is loosening its belt with an attendant reduction in crime rate. Question asked and answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted November 11, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 Question asked and answered. Good point. I don't see the fire either. Target shooting is getting expensive thanks to all the paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 Good point. I don't see the fire either. Target shooting is getting expensive thanks to all the paranoia. That sucks. I really enjoy target shooting - let's just say I haven't done much of it lately, but I'm always up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fireball_73 Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 There are serious considerations to civilian disarmament, including genocide.Where is the genocide in my country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fireball_73 Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 Btw meant to say: I do a lot of charity events for Amnesty International. One of their campaigns is pushing for a small arms treaty. The important thing is that it doesn't stop you from having small arms, it stops the free trade of arms throughout the world. Weapons made in the West often end up in parts of the world where they are used for conflicts, including countries that use Child soldiers. The aim of this treaty is to stop these arms getting into the wrong hands, and to make arms trade transparent and responsible. It isn't a threat to the second amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 Getting a firearm (legally) in some states in the US is already more restrictive than it ought to be. The last thing we need is more regulation, licensing, and registration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 Btw meant to say: I do a lot of charity events for Amnesty International. One of their campaigns is pushing for a small arms treaty.The important thing is that it doesn't stop you from having small arms, it stops the free trade of arms throughout the world. Weapons made in the West often end up in parts of the world where they are used for conflicts, including countries that use Child soldiers. The aim of this treaty is to stop these arms getting into the wrong hands, and to make arms trade transparent and responsible.It isn't a threat to the second amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted November 11, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 Btw meant to say: I do a lot of charity events for Amnesty International. One of their campaigns is pushing for a small arms treaty.The important thing is that it doesn't stop you from having small arms, it stops the free trade of arms throughout the world. Weapons made in the West often end up in parts of the world where they are used for conflicts, including countries that use Child soldiers. The aim of this treaty is to stop these arms getting into the wrong hands, and to make arms trade transparent and responsible.It isn't a threat to the second amendment. It seems that way from the PDF link I posted above. This endeavor predates Obama by a more than a decade. As long as it doesn't push for disarmament of peaceful civilians, I'm cool. But based on Australia, UK, Ethiopia and Uganda, as well as a perusal of IANSA's website and a few online battles I've observed with their vocal ambassadors, I have to call bull{censored}. IANSA is all about {censored}ing with internal gun control regulations to the ends of civilian disarmament. They are brazen about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jazz Ad Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 As much as I dislike the right for the average US bozo to own and brandish deadly items, it is indeed a right for you and a cultural specificity that shouldn't be abandoned unless citizens say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fireball_73 Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 But based on Australia, UK, Ethiopia and Uganda, as well as a perusal of IANSA's website and a few online battles I've observed with their vocal ambassadors, I have to call bull{censored}. IANSA is all about {censored}ing with internal gun control regulations to the ends of civilian disarmament. They are brazen about it. I wouldn't be worried about them screwing the second amendment. It's the US's law's and international law allows it*. Point being there is a problem with gun control worldwide that needs to be addressed - just think of the bit in Iron Man where Tony Stark finds his own weapons are being used by terrorists and put it in a real world context. *Hell even if it was against international law I doubt if the US would care... but that's another can of worms that isn't for this thread, and probably not this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted November 11, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 I wouldn't be worried about them screwing the second amendment. It's the US's law's and international law allows it*. Point being there is a problem with gun control worldwide that needs to be addressed - just think of the bit in Iron Man where Tony Stark finds his own weapons are being used by terrorists and put it in a real world context.*Hell even if it was against international law I doubt if the US would care... but that's another can of worms that isn't for this thread, and probably not this forum. As long as we can agree on what 'terrorists' are? In an Islamautocracy, people who fight for free speech, freedom of religion and democracy, and sometimes even bras and pants are the terrorists. To the British empire, Ghandi was a terrorist. in the 1970s, the USA armed the Mujaheddin against Russian occupation. Then they turned into Al Quaeda. Some of the countries at the UN represent victorious terrorists! How do you measure who to cut off? I'd certainly say that there are a few organizations and governments I would embargo, based on human rights violations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FreestyleIntruder Posted November 11, 2009 Members Share Posted November 11, 2009 What's it like, living in paranoid fantasy land? Is it sort of like a cross between the Daily Mail and The Neverending Story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.