International Gun Ban Treaty
- Thread starter MobbinINda916
- Start date
Implicit in the above is the assumption that is bad to be anti-USA. That's a totally unwarranted assumption - the US has very rarely been a positive factor in this world for anyone not in the US, and not all that often for those in the US either.
Historically, regimes that stripped citizens of guns had the lowest level of crime ever seen in history. The only crime that was left was of the really unavoidable kind - family disputes ending with murder, some rape here and there, etc. But in communist countries it was perfectly safe to walk any street and any time of the day, 10pm, 2am whatever, and you didn't have to fear anything - because nobody had any guns and because police was everywhere
The mass killing was only done by Stalinist regimes and by deranged right-wing dictators and for communist regimes it was completely unnecessary and the product of the stupidity and paranoia of their leaders (and an unfortunate element of natural selection that tends to put such people in power in the aftermath of revolutions). After Stalin was gone, communist countries significantly softened and there was neither mass killings and arrests nor any crime, as I mentioned abovem, life was in fact quite good.
Even more relevant to the discussion, after communism collapsed, both organized crime and what is the equivalent of american ghettos, with the drug and everything appeared, especially in Russia, but also in other countries, yet you don't have kids killing each other on the streets - gun violence increased but this was restricted to organized crime and mostly did not affect the rest of the population. And the reason is that while it is not impossible to find guns (control over military supplies is almost non-existent), it is still nowhere nearly as easy as it is in the US. Had it been as in the US, it may have been a very different picture.
Historically, regimes that stripped citizens of guns had the lowest level of crime ever seen in history. The only crime that was left was of the really unavoidable kind - family disputes ending with murder, some rape here and there, etc. But in communist countries it was perfectly safe to walk any street and any time of the day, 10pm, 2am whatever, and you didn't have to fear anything - because nobody had any guns and because police was everywhere
The mass killing was only done by Stalinist regimes and by deranged right-wing dictators and for communist regimes it was completely unnecessary and the product of the stupidity and paranoia of their leaders (and an unfortunate element of natural selection that tends to put such people in power in the aftermath of revolutions). After Stalin was gone, communist countries significantly softened and there was neither mass killings and arrests nor any crime, as I mentioned abovem, life was in fact quite good.
Even more relevant to the discussion, after communism collapsed, both organized crime and what is the equivalent of american ghettos, with the drug and everything appeared, especially in Russia, but also in other countries, yet you don't have kids killing each other on the streets - gun violence increased but this was restricted to organized crime and mostly did not affect the rest of the population. And the reason is that while it is not impossible to find guns (control over military supplies is almost non-existent), it is still nowhere nearly as easy as it is in the US. Had it been as in the US, it may have been a very different picture.
You dumb. I wasnt calling you paranoid, i was calling the people saying that guns are going to be banned paranoid. You just missed the point of the discussion as usual and went off on your own tangent about why guns shouldnt be banned. And then you missed the point of my response and thought i was calling you a paranoid right winger. 0 for 2
How is that relevant to gun violence rates? Are gun violence rates an order of magnitude or more higher in the US than they are, in say, the UK (not to bring really extreme example such as Japan)? They are. Constitutions, amendments, and other BS are totally irrelevant when the facts speak.
P.S. I have never understood the American obsession with the constitution - it borders insanity. Laws are to serve a society, not to be worshipped by it. That means that if a law has outlived its usefuleness, it can and should be changed, and there is a high likelihood that 18th century laws may not be very well suited to the challenges a 21st century society faces. And in fact they aren't - there are tons of things in the constitution that are in dire need of change...
P.S. I have never understood the American obsession with the constitution - it borders insanity. Laws are to serve a society, not to be worshipped by it. That means that if a law has outlived its usefuleness, it can and should be changed, and there is a high likelihood that 18th century laws may not be very well suited to the challenges a 21st century society faces. And in fact they aren't - there are tons of things in the constitution that are in dire need of change...
^
The question really is, who should have the ultimate say in what laws should and shouldn't govern a country. Especially now, in the times we live, in the midst economic and sociological turmoil where one aspect of society is a stark contrast from the other aspect of our society.. a law that governs all doesn't neccesarily benefit all.
The question really is, who should have the ultimate say in what laws should and shouldn't govern a country. Especially now, in the times we live, in the midst economic and sociological turmoil where one aspect of society is a stark contrast from the other aspect of our society.. a law that governs all doesn't neccesarily benefit all.
i swear on my momma you wouldnt call me dumb in person rusto...but keep thinkin your cool bro
anyway...i really aint tryna block you...stop talkin to me, i dont give 2 shits if you fell off the face of earth you stupid faggot...if it was possible, id make my last living wish to be you suckin a thousand dicks in front of your mom...losin ass hoe
i cant stand you or anything you say or stand for...you stand for nothin but being a homo and a lop...L7 ass bitch...
if we ever happen to be in the same place, same time, please make yourself available to me asap, cuz id love to smack the shit outta you for thinkin im some kinda sucka just cause i suffer from diabetes
i know you wanna say some shit bout how im sick and u wont fight a cancer patient or something retarded...go ahead, but remember i will still smack you if i see you hoe
anyway...i really aint tryna block you...stop talkin to me, i dont give 2 shits if you fell off the face of earth you stupid faggot...if it was possible, id make my last living wish to be you suckin a thousand dicks in front of your mom...losin ass hoe
i cant stand you or anything you say or stand for...you stand for nothin but being a homo and a lop...L7 ass bitch...
if we ever happen to be in the same place, same time, please make yourself available to me asap, cuz id love to smack the shit outta you for thinkin im some kinda sucka just cause i suffer from diabetes
i know you wanna say some shit bout how im sick and u wont fight a cancer patient or something retarded...go ahead, but remember i will still smack you if i see you hoe
http://gunowners.org/op01202012mh.htm
Analysis of the National Defense Authorization Act
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what’s wrong with Section 1021 of the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1540), which the President signed into law on New Year’s Eve.
Let’s assume you’re a member of the Michigan Militia. That’s all it would take.
Because you once hobnobbed with Timothy McVeigh, an argument could be made that you could be arrested and held indefinitely, without due process, an attorney, or constitutional rights.
Why?
Because subsection (a) of Section 1021 says the President can use all “necessary and appropriate force” to “detain covered persons” and hold them under the “law of war.”
Subsection (c) says those persons can be “[detained] under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities...” They can also be tried by a military court [section (c)(2)] or subject to rendition to a country which would torture them in ways which wouldn’t be allowed here [section (c)(4)].
In other words, if you’re a “covered person” -– and nothing more -- you can be arrested and detained indefinitely, tried without most civilian rights, and/or shipped abroad for torture, because it’s unlikely that the threat of terror is going to end anytime in our lifetimes.
So what is a “covered person”?
Under section 1021(b)(1), anyone who knowingly or unknowingly aided or harbored a 9/11 culprit in any way is a “covered person.” Ironically, this is reminiscent to the trial and execution of Mary Surratt, who owned the boarding house at which the Lincoln assassination conspirators met and may or may not have known what was happening under her roof.
Even more broadly, however, section 1021(b)(2) defines a “covered person” as a person who “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act...”
“Belligerent act” is not defined for purposes of this section.
But, at its core, a person is a “covered person” -– who can be arrested and held indefinitely without trial –- if that person “substantially supported ...any person who has committed a belligerent act,” whether knowingly or unknowingly.
Given the breadth of this statement, you would hope that its components would be defined, for purposes of that section, with precision. But they aren’t.
In particular:
* Is blowing up a federal building a “belligerent act”? If so, are militia members who associated with Timothy McVeigh all “covered persons” -– even if they didn’t understand his intentions? What about a gun dealer who sold him a gun?
* Is Barack Obama “substantially support[ing] ... the Taliban” if he releases prisoners from Guantanamo in order to get them to the negotiating table?
* Do “associated forces” have to be “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban -– or can they consist of persons associated with each other, if one or more members engage in “hostilities” against, for instance, Egypt? And do “hostilities” include efforts to overthrow the government of Hosni Mubarak?
These questions are unanswerable because section 1021 is not legislation, but rather political positioning by low-IQ legislators who are incapable of formulating legislation which could, with precision, achieve their ostensible objectives.
Incidentally, section 1021 does apply to American citizens acting on American soil. Although subsection (e) says that the section doesn’t affect current “authorities” governing those issues, the Bush administration established the “precedent” that the President’s authority to combat terrorism under his inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution is effectively unlimited.
Analysis of the National Defense Authorization Act
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what’s wrong with Section 1021 of the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1540), which the President signed into law on New Year’s Eve.
Let’s assume you’re a member of the Michigan Militia. That’s all it would take.
Because you once hobnobbed with Timothy McVeigh, an argument could be made that you could be arrested and held indefinitely, without due process, an attorney, or constitutional rights.
Why?
Because subsection (a) of Section 1021 says the President can use all “necessary and appropriate force” to “detain covered persons” and hold them under the “law of war.”
Subsection (c) says those persons can be “[detained] under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities...” They can also be tried by a military court [section (c)(2)] or subject to rendition to a country which would torture them in ways which wouldn’t be allowed here [section (c)(4)].
In other words, if you’re a “covered person” -– and nothing more -- you can be arrested and detained indefinitely, tried without most civilian rights, and/or shipped abroad for torture, because it’s unlikely that the threat of terror is going to end anytime in our lifetimes.
So what is a “covered person”?
Under section 1021(b)(1), anyone who knowingly or unknowingly aided or harbored a 9/11 culprit in any way is a “covered person.” Ironically, this is reminiscent to the trial and execution of Mary Surratt, who owned the boarding house at which the Lincoln assassination conspirators met and may or may not have known what was happening under her roof.
Even more broadly, however, section 1021(b)(2) defines a “covered person” as a person who “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act...”
“Belligerent act” is not defined for purposes of this section.
But, at its core, a person is a “covered person” -– who can be arrested and held indefinitely without trial –- if that person “substantially supported ...any person who has committed a belligerent act,” whether knowingly or unknowingly.
Given the breadth of this statement, you would hope that its components would be defined, for purposes of that section, with precision. But they aren’t.
In particular:
* Is blowing up a federal building a “belligerent act”? If so, are militia members who associated with Timothy McVeigh all “covered persons” -– even if they didn’t understand his intentions? What about a gun dealer who sold him a gun?
* Is Barack Obama “substantially support[ing] ... the Taliban” if he releases prisoners from Guantanamo in order to get them to the negotiating table?
* Do “associated forces” have to be “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban -– or can they consist of persons associated with each other, if one or more members engage in “hostilities” against, for instance, Egypt? And do “hostilities” include efforts to overthrow the government of Hosni Mubarak?
These questions are unanswerable because section 1021 is not legislation, but rather political positioning by low-IQ legislators who are incapable of formulating legislation which could, with precision, achieve their ostensible objectives.
Incidentally, section 1021 does apply to American citizens acting on American soil. Although subsection (e) says that the section doesn’t affect current “authorities” governing those issues, the Bush administration established the “precedent” that the President’s authority to combat terrorism under his inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution is effectively unlimited.
Yeah that was the buyback scheme, that was a sad time man I still remember it :*(
Thing is, we didn't make our guns, all of them were imported and even before the scheme shit was imported legally as well as illegally so alot of shit remained unacounted for.
Gun crime went down, but violent crime has risen steadily since.
Thing is, we didn't make our guns, all of them were imported and even before the scheme shit was imported legally as well as illegally so alot of shit remained unacounted for.
Gun crime went down, but violent crime has risen steadily since.
