U.N. Debate on private gun ownership.

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: sward666
MOLON LABE!

A couple of thousand years can't be wrong

😎

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: gutharius
You call Vietnam becoming a communist country a result of being on the winning team? I wouldn't call that being on the winning team nor would I call a bunch of closed single minded self interested people the winning team either.

In America we have a long way to go when it comes to understanding the meaning of fairness. Guns are not fair when criminals purchase them and use them against our own citizens. If citizens did not have guns, police would not need guns with a lethal capacity and I argue our society would be a more peaceful one at that.

Then you have the IQ of a turnip.

If you remove guns from citizens WITHOUT removing ALL guns everywhere, then criminals will have them and citizens won't. Proven fact.

In EVERY society where private firearms are banned after having been legal to some extent crime INCREASES as much as 400%. Proven fact.

The rights of someone who does not commit a crime exceed the rights of someone who does. My own personal opinion, but one I'll fight to the death for.

And so the turnip speaks:

This is what the UN is proposing, a world wide ban on guns. Proven fact.

I would like linkage to support that claim. If you don't ban guns but ban ammunition this would effectivly ban guns because there would be nothing to shoot. Frankly, I doubt anyone would dare make their own ammo and risk having their face blown off.

As far as rights, no one should have the right to own a device which can be used to blow the head off another human being. On the way to fighting to the death for it I hope you realize I am right before you die, we would hate to have another human life lost to such an ideology that guns are good for our society, tho your death would prove us right in the end.

Signed,

The Turnip

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Good thing it'll never happen, since the hundred million of us with guns in America would go to war against anyone trying to take our weapons, including our own military and police.

Hmmm... you "we'll do what we want types, even if it's wrong" got smacked down in the Civil War. It could happen again. Don't push your luck.

It's also the "do what we want types" that fought the British in the Revolutionary War AND the War of 1812 and WON.

Psst, 1812 was a Draw.

No, the Brits gave up, that's not a draw in my book.

The US hadn't won any major battle when the peace treaty was signed. We didn't even get to keep canada and the birts didn't get to keep any US so it was basicly a draw for US. But being the under dogs a draw was a win.

Didn't win a major battle? Battle at Fort McHenry was very a much a victory. We may not have inflicted a lot of casualties or taken ground, but we held ground and exhausted the Brits ability to continue the assault. That is in fact a victory.

The war was filled with similar results on both sides in separate battles.

Your point is meaningless in this context.

Haha, we still won. 😉

The US raided York (Toronto), then capital of Canada during the war, but Canada still burned down the White House along with all other public buildings in Washington.

A sore spot that the US will never, ever, live down.

Canadan was still trying to get the hourse back from northern canada. It was the red coats that burned down DC.

Oh yes I forgot. Canada wasn't really a British colony filled with European peasants, retired soldiers, French traders, and plenty of Indians. Nope, it was actually all made up of British and the entire war was fought by English men with bad teeth.

The only ones who were generally English was officers. The vast majority of soldiers were colonized Canadians levied to fight for the Crown as "red coats".

In fact the general who burned the Whitehouse down was British but the troops were not.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Oh yes I forgot. Canada wasn't really a British colony filled with European peasants, retired soldiers, French traders, and plenty of Indians. Nope, it was actually all made up of British and the entire war was fought by English men with bad teeth.

The only ones who were generally English was officers. The vast majority of soldiers were colonized Canadians levied to fight for the Crown as "red coats".

In fact the general who burned the Whitehouse down was British but the troops were not.

Does it matter? It's credited as a British 'accomplishment' in history.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: gutharius


If you don't ban guns but ban ammunition this would effectivly ban guns because there would be nothing to shoot. Frankly, I doubt anyone would dare make their own ammo and risk having their face blown off.

:shocked:

Everything you need to cast bullets, form brass, prime, load, etc.

Much cheaper than purchasing commercial ammo in many cases.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: gutharius
If you ban the manufacture and sale of them then no more problem. If this is carried to all around the world then guess what no more problem. Other nations around the world have done this and they are better off for it. The US gun fatality rate is 10 times that of the second place holder of that statistic. And yes they have banned guns.

So what will you do to defend yourself when I, a 6'6" 490 lb man with a sword comes after you? Guns allow each citizen to defend himself regardless of physical stature - equal protection under the law. (No, I'm not really quite that big 😛)

I also believe it's completely naive to believe that eliminating gun manufacture would get rid of all guns. Millions or even billions of guns are already existing. We don't have the capability to stop countries from making nuclear weapons - how do you propose we stop them from building guns?

Then I guess I shouldn't have called him a big fat big donut whore that needs to enroll for life with Jenny Craig.

Bottom line, we live in a hostile world we, as people indeed as human beings, do not need this hostile world made any more deadly by having devices in cars, backpacks, and elsewhere used at passing motorists or pedestrians simply because you didn't approve of their driving skills or the language of their T-Shirt.

Guns DO NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS! They started the problem and we as citizens of this nation are stuck paying the price in human life and blood.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Aelius

The US raided York (Toronto), then capital of Canada during the war, but Canada still burned down the White House along with all other public buildings in Washington.

A sore spot that the US will never, ever, live down.

There wasn't even a Canadian at Washington when the British burned it down.

A sore spot on the Canadians - the Americans burned down parts of Toronto and the Canadians did nothing.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Aelius

Oh yes I forgot. Canada wasn't really a British colony filled with European peasants, retired soldiers, French traders, and plenty of Indians. Nope, it was actually all made up of British and the entire war was fought by English men with bad teeth.

The only ones who were generally English was officers. The vast majority of soldiers were colonized Canadians levied to fight for the Crown as "red coats".

In fact the general who burned the Whitehouse down was British but the troops were not.

Does it matter? It's credited as a British 'accomplishment' in history.

Depends who's history book you read.

At the time it was one and the same.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: gutharius


If you don't ban guns but ban ammunition this would effectivly ban guns because there would be nothing to shoot. Frankly, I doubt anyone would dare make their own ammo and risk having their face blown off.

:shocked:

Everything you need to cast bullets, form brass, prime, load, etc.

Much cheaper than purchasing commercial ammo in many cases.

My statement was not about price. My statement was about quality and safety. If you are going to quote me at least address what I said.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Canadan was still trying to get the hourse back from northern canada. It was the red coats that burned down DC.

Some people have to lie to feel proud of their country..combine that with what may very well be the most severe inferiority complex in the world then you have people like Aelius.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: gutharius
And so the turnip speaks:

This is what the UN is proposing, a world wide ban on guns. Proven fact.

Proven fact. They want to ban all handguns, rifles that shoot over 100 yards, and semiautomatic guns, that leaves you with muzzleloading pistols(if even that depending on the pistol).

I would like linkage to support that claim. If you don't ban guns but ban ammunition this would effectivly ban guns because there would be nothing to shoot. Frankly, I doubt anyone would dare make their own ammo and risk having their face blown off.

Loading your own ammo is VERY common. You can buy loading machines for under $100. It's an inexpensive, efficient, and safe practise.

As far as rights, no one should have the right to own a device which can be used to blow the head off another human being. On the way to fighting to the death for it I hope you realize I am right before you die, we would hate to have another human life lost to such an ideology that guns are good for our society, tho your death would prove us right in the end.

If someone has a device that can be used to blow the head off of another human being and plans to use it as such on me, then I should have every right to own the same device so I can do it to them first. I'm not going to sit there and get shot/stabbed/beat to death and then right before I die think to myself "Gee, I hope this guy gets caught by fedgov and goes to jail for a few years for doing this to me."

Self-defense is one of the most natural instincts, it is ASININE to deny someone that natural RIGHT.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Aelius

Oh yes I forgot. Canada wasn't really a British colony filled with European peasants, retired soldiers, French traders, and plenty of Indians. Nope, it was actually all made up of British and the entire war was fought by English men with bad teeth.

The only ones who were generally English was officers. The vast majority of soldiers were colonized Canadians levied to fight for the Crown as "red coats".

In fact the general who burned the Whitehouse down was British but the troops were not.

Does it matter? It's credited as a British 'accomplishment' in history.

Depends who's history book you read.

At the time it was one and the same.

Sure, but it's still much more widely credited as a British accomplishment. Maybe in Canada they credit it as a Canadian accomplishment since they're so nationalistic up there they would alter history.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Aelius

The US raided York (Toronto), then capital of Canada during the war, but Canada still burned down the White House along with all other public buildings in Washington.

A sore spot that the US will never, ever, live down.

There wasn't even a Canadian at Washington when the British burned it down.

A sore spot on the Canadians - the Americans burned down parts of Toronto and the Canadians did nothing.

When you do any research what so ever you let me know. Last time I checked you were passing off your own ideas as facts.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Aelius
In fact the general who burned the Whitehouse down was British but the troops were not.

No, the troops were British.

Even if they were Canadian...that is still a British accomplishment.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: gutharius


If you don't ban guns but ban ammunition this would effectivly ban guns because there would be nothing to shoot. Frankly, I doubt anyone would dare make their own ammo and risk having their face blown off.

:shocked:

Everything you need to cast bullets, form brass, prime, load, etc.

Much cheaper than purchasing commercial ammo in many cases.

No, you missed the best part.😛

"I would like linkage to support that claim. If you don't ban guns but ban ammunition this would effectivly ban guns because there would be nothing to shoot. Frankly, I doubt anyone would dare make their own ammo and risk having their face blown off. "

Surely that link you posted would be banned under the UN's agenda....ofcourse to protect people from blowing off their own face.😛

I guess I better tell my friends they better not load their own shells and that their equipment and powder will be confiscated under the turnipseed&UN plan.

CsG

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Aelius

The US raided York (Toronto), then capital of Canada during the war, but Canada still burned down the White House along with all other public buildings in Washington.

A sore spot that the US will never, ever, live down.

There wasn't even a Canadian at Washington when the British burned it down.

A sore spot on the Canadians - the Americans burned down parts of Toronto and the Canadians did nothing.

When you do any research what so ever you let me know. Last time I checked you were passing off your own ideas as facts.

Last I looked you were the one passing conspiracy theories off as facts.

Let me guess - you heard about this on the History Channel? You know, your last 'source'. HAHAHAHA!

Damn that inferiority complex is strong within you.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: gutharius
Then I guess I shouldn't have called him a big fat big donut whore that needs to enroll for life with Jenny Craig.

Bottom line, we live in a hostile world we, as people indeed as human beings, do not need this hostile world made any more deadly by having devices in cars, backpacks, and elsewhere used at passing motorists or pedestrians simply because you didn't approve of their driving skills or the language of their T-Shirt.

Guns DO NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS! They started the problem and we as citizens of this nation are stuck paying the price in human life and blood.

ARE YOU SERIOUS??? You claim facts?! I want you to find me some proven factual instances where a LEGALLY CARRYING citizen used their weapon "at passing motorists or pedestrians simply because you didn't approve of their driving skills or the language of their T-Shirt."

Your argument is ridiculous.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: gutharius
Then you have the IQ of a turnip.

If you remove guns from citizens WITHOUT removing ALL guns everywhere, then criminals will have them and citizens won't. Proven fact.

In EVERY society where private firearms are banned after having been legal to some extent crime INCREASES as much as 400%. Proven fact.

The rights of someone who does not commit a crime exceed the rights of someone who does. My own personal opinion, but one I'll fight to the death for.

And so the turnip speaks:

This is what the UN is proposing, a world wide ban on guns. Proven fact.

I would like linkage to support that claim. If you don't ban guns but ban ammunition this would effectivly ban guns because there would be nothing to shoot. Frankly, I doubt anyone would dare make their own ammo and risk having their face blown off.

As far as rights, no one should have the right to own a device which can be used to blow the head off another human being. On the way to fighting to the death for it I hope you realize I am right before you die, we would hate to have another human life lost to such an ideology that guns are good for our society, tho your death would prove us right in the end.

Signed,

The Turnip[/quote]
You're arguing the irrelevant. Whether or not it's feasible to disarm the world's population is not the issue - it's whether or not we SHOULD.

Originally posted by: gutharius
Then I guess I shouldn't have called him a big fat big donut whore that needs to enroll for life with Jenny Craig.

Bottom line, we live in a hostile world we, as people indeed as human beings, do not need this hostile world made any more deadly by having devices in cars, backpacks, and elsewhere used at passing motorists or pedestrians simply because you didn't approve of their driving skills or the language of their T-Shirt.

Guns DO NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS! They started the problem and we as citizens of this nation are stuck paying the price in human life and blood.

Wrong. Check stats for states that allow concealed-carry permits: crime drops dramatically. You have a right to defend yourself from GI Joe should he try to impose himself on you. In many cases, a firearm is the only method for someone to defend themself from someone who physically outclasses them.

 

[RabidMongoose]

What are we going to hear next? That Canada was once the greatest superpower in the world?

I guess you have to lie if you feel that there is so little to be proud of.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What are we going to hear next? That Canada was once the greatest superpower in the world?

I guess you have to lie if you feel that there is so little to be proud of.

Heh...

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Aelius

Oh yes I forgot. Canada wasn't really a British colony filled with European peasants, retired soldiers, French traders, and plenty of Indians. Nope, it was actually all made up of British and the entire war was fought by English men with bad teeth.

The only ones who were generally English was officers. The vast majority of soldiers were colonized Canadians levied to fight for the Crown as "red coats".

In fact the general who burned the Whitehouse down was British but the troops were not.

Does it matter? It's credited as a British 'accomplishment' in history.

Depends who's history book you read.

At the time it was one and the same.

Sure, but it's still much more widely credited as a British accomplishment. Maybe in Canada they credit it as a Canadian accomplishment since they're so nationalistic up there they would alter history.

What kind of brainwashing do they give you that makes you think that Canadians are "nationalistic" about our heritage. We don't have to pretend to accomplish something that another country did that the people of our country in fact did. It doesn't matter who was ruling over the country at that time.

If you take that as being nationalistic then you got some serious issues with facts and reality.

As for the stupid troll just ignore him. He appears to have an inferiority complex against something simple like his Canadian heritage.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What are we going to hear next? That Canada was once the greatest superpower in the world?

I guess you have to lie if you feel that there is so little to be proud of.

I wasn't even born Canadian.

What a retard.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What are we going to hear next? That Canada was once the greatest superpower in the world?

I guess you have to lie if you feel that there is so little to be proud of.

I wasn't even born Canadian.

What a retard.

Does that matter? Are you saying you cannot be Canadian if you were not born in Canada?

I guess you can't be very intelligent if your entire education comes from the History Channel.

Great Canada, the once great superpower of the world! That wasn't the British..it was the Canadians!

What next? Aelius is going to claim to be the father of quantum mechanics!

 

[sandorski]

What was to be a quick Google, turned into wading through pages and pages of over reactions(conspiracies) from both sides of the issue. I finally came across this which seemed pretty neutral to the issue. I also vaguely recall a thread on this, though it may have been a few years ago now, a Search failed to turn up anything. At anyrate, this issue has taken on a life of its' own that's far from the reality of what the UN is doing or proposing.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: sandorski
What was to be a quick Google, turned into wading through pages and pages of over reactions(conspiracies) from both sides of the issue. I finally came across this which seemed pretty neutral to the issue. I also vaguely recall a thread on this, though it may have been a few years ago now, a Search failed to turn up anything. At anyrate, this issue has taken on a life of its' own that's far from the reality of what the UN is doing or proposing.

That document is over 6 years old. Everything I've said about the UN wanting to control guns in this thread is straight from the mouth of the lady in the debate video who is with the UN.