NationStates Jolt Archive

Nothing like paying a critic under the table to be your attack dog.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2217839,00.html

Not that I dislike Bolton, but the whole US/UN relationship has been in trouble for over a decade. So I expect a certain amount of stink, raised by people who honestly say what they think, and are not paid by private interests to be a shill. This is one of the complaints that I hear from Gymoor and The Nazz - that there shouldn't be shills. On this I agree.

If Bolton were being compensated by a private interest for the stink he makes, I'm sure you would all be up in arms, saying what an outrage and travesty that constitutes.


The appointment raised eyebrows when it was reported that Mr Malloch Brown was renting a house on George Soros’s estate for $2,500 a month less than the previous occupant. Even before Mr Bolton was named US Ambassador, he seemed destined to clash with Mr Malloch Brown. Mr Soros, Mr Malloch Brown’s landlord and old friend, helped to fund the Stop Bolton campaign, aimed at stopping him from getting the post.

Mr Malloch Brown has been criticised by dissident UN staff for aligning the world body too closely with Democrats in US domestic politics. They accuse him of allowing a UN staffer, Justin Leites, to play a leading role in the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry, violating staff rules. It is a charge that he denies. “I don’t consider myself aligned with any American political establishment,” he said. “I am British. I have worked in the UN and in international jobs all of my life.”

I think that's a reasonable defence.

George Soros is a great man, the world needs more like him.

I think that's a reasonable defence.
I see.

Q. Did you do this? (on being presented the fact that he allowed a UN staffer to work for a US political campaign).

A. No, I've never done that.


Ok. If that's what you think a "defence" is, we'll call that the Xandabia defence. Even better than the Chewbacca defence.

The bit I was thinking of was

I don’t consider myself aligned with any American political establishment,” he said. “I am British. I have worked in the UN and in international jobs all of my life.”

I see.

Q. Did you do this? (on being presented the fact that he allowed a UN staffer to work for a US political campaign).

A. No, I've never done that.


Ok. If that's what you think a "defence" is, we'll call that the Xandabia defence. Even better than the Chewbacca defence.


And we'll call either not understanding the post or deliberately attacking a flimsy strawman (or shooting somone in the back?) the "Deep Kimchee Attack."

Clearly, he was referring to “I don’t consider myself aligned with any American political establishment,” he said. “I am British. I have worked in the UN and in international jobs all of my life.”

The bit I was thinking of was

I don’t consider myself aligned with any American political establishment,” he said. “I am British. I have worked in the UN and in international jobs all of my life.”

That's not an answer for him - why did he allow a waiver for a UN staffer to actively work for a US political campaign?

That's not a defence or an answer.

Thank you - new Grenada.

Without the full text of the interview we'll never know. The report does make clear his claim not to be involved in US politics. I don't think that freindship with George Soros + special rental arangement does not automatically equal plot to destabilise US domestic politics. Do we even know that the member of his staff made it clear to him the reason he was taking time off? is it unreasonable to allow someone to take a secondment or sabbatical to be involved in a domestic political campaign?

“Maybe it is fashionable in some circles to look down on Middle America, to say they don’t get the complexities of the world"

That's not fashion. That's the truth, unfortunately.

Soros was a great anti-communist, and he is now against the crookedness and bad and dangerous governance of former soviet regimes and the american republicans.

Proves that not all very wealthy people are turned into crooks and scumbags.

“Maybe it is fashionable in some circles to look down on Middle America, to say they don’t get the complexities of the world"

That's not fashion. That's the truth, unfortunately.
Not any less than the people who live in Yorkshire, or who read Bild in Germany.

Not any less than the people who live in Yorkshire, or who read Bild in Germany.

Those people don't fail to realise when their own government is BSing them - case in point, Schröder's loss, Blair's humiliating slap on the wrist in the parliamentary elections. It's obvious the US uses the UN and hinders it in its work just like every other member state, but for some reason "middle America" has this idea that the UN is not what it's member states make it - they don't get that the UN can't do anything its member states don't want it to do so they bitch about "UN this and UN that" when in fact they should have bitched "The US veto this, the Chinese subterfuge that, Russia's protectionism, also", and fail to grasp that one of the reasons the UN has failed has been due to, among others, the actions of their own government, and not just everyone else.

So, indeed, they do seem not to understand the complexities of the UN.

Well, Republicans may not approve of Soros' work, but Dems disapprove of Richard Melon Scaife. He's the republican version of Soros with, in my opinion, some extra corruption and sleaze thrown in for good measure.

Scaife has turned mandatory education sessions for Michigan judges into mandatory conservative indoctrination, at least in part.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060517/NEWS05/605170347/1007

Each year, all of the state's 617 judges participate in two days of seminars designed to sharpen their legal skills. Attendance is compulsory; jurists who play hooky face disciplinary action unless their absence is excused in advance.

So what, exactly, did judges attending this week's annual judicial conference at Grand Rapids' Amway Grand Plaza Hotel learn?

Most of the electives offered at the conference, which concluded Tuesday, addressed recent developments in Michigan law. Workshops included "Tips for Handling Custody and Domestic Relations Proceedings," "Sentencing Law Update" and two investment seminars for judges contemplating retirement.

But the most striking thing was that six of the 30 workshops were sponsored by the Law & Economics Center (LEC), a nonprofit organization whose antiregulatory, market-oriented seminars for judges have been the object of controversy since a 2001 expose by the ABC News show "20/20."

Loosely affiliated with the George Mason University Law School in Arlington, Va., the LEC is funded largely by Fortune 500 corporations and conservative philanthropists such as Richard Mellon Scaife, a Republican billionaire best known for financing investigations into Bill Clinton's personal life.

I was thinking this was about a sequel to "Manos, Hand of Fate" or something similar. :)

Those people don't fail to realise when their own government is BSing them - case in point, Schröder's loss, Blair's humiliating slap on the wrist in the parliamentary elections. It's obvious the US uses the UN and hinders it in its work just like every other member state, but for some reason "middle America" has this idea that the UN is not what it's member states make it - they don't get that the UN can't do anything its member states don't want it to do so they bitch about "UN this and UN that" when in fact they should have bitched "The US veto this, the Chinese subterfuge that, Russia's protectionism, also", and fail to grasp that one of the reasons the UN has failed has been due to, among others, the actions of their own government, and not just everyone else.

So, indeed, they do seem not to understand the complexities of the UN.

And where do you get your "data" on what middle America thinks sitting in Sweden?

The typical view in the South is that the very Charter of the UN is fatally flawed - at least that was the view of my uneducated Southern grandfather and his friends up until he died in the late 1990s.

They consider it to be an unworkable arrangement, due to the Charter. I haven't seen too much difference of opinion here - the veto problem, the Security Council problem, and the "not intervening in the internal affairs of sovereign nations" problem are things my grandfather discussed with me in the 1970s - and he was the TYPICAL redneck (grandfather on my mother's side).

I was thinking this was about a sequel to "Manos, Hand of Fate" or something similar. :)

George Soros=Torgo?

Well, Republicans may not approve of Soros' work, but Dems disapprove of Richard Melon Scaife. He's the republican version of Soros with, in my opinion, some extra corruption and sleaze thrown in for good measure.

Scaife has turned mandatory education sessions for Michigan judges into mandatory conservative indoctrination, at least in part.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060517/NEWS05/605170347/1007
I don't like that either - our entire political system is essentially being gamed by a handful of billionaires and a handful of multinational corporations.

And it doesn't matter which party anymore. Both parties have sold their souls because the only thing they care about is being elected. Everything else is window dressing and bullshit.

Well Soros funds IANSA which has pretty much openly stated that it wants to disarm the US populace and is the driving force behind the UN conference on it July 4th (as if that date isn't a coincidence). He also funded moveon.org and other various groups that fell under the loophole he pushed for in the campaign finance law to influence the US elections.

And now he has a UN exec living on his property and making attacks against the US populace which is technically against the UN charter.

Shock.

And where do you get your "data" on what middle America thinks sitting in Sweden?

There are these things called "travels" and "news papers that print polls" and so forth.

The typical view in the South is that the very Charter of the UN is fatally flawed - at least that was the view of my uneducated Southern grandfather and his friends up until he died in the late 1990s.

The charter was made flawed in these respects because the big countries - again, the US one of them - wanted it so. They wanted to be able to go "I don't wanna play any more when you don't agree with me."

They consider it to be an unworkable arrangement, due to the Charter. I haven't seen too much difference of opinion here - the veto problem, the Security Council problem, and the "not intervening in the internal affairs of sovereign nations" problem are things my grandfather discussed with me in the 1970s - and he was the TYPICAL redneck (grandfather on my mother's side).

That's the thing, though, the very things they bitch about are the things the US uses constantly. You'd think they'd bitch a bit about that? Be a little bit more upset that the US isn't any better than the other countries they see manipulating the UN. That of course requires understanding, again, that the member states make the UN what it is...

And now he has a UN exec living on his property and making attacks against the US populace which is technically against the UN charter.

Shock.


What did he attack them with, a stick?

Get a thicker skin and dont whine so much.

That's the thing, though, the very things they bitch about are the things the US uses constantly. You'd think they'd bitch a bit about that? Be a little bit more upset that the US isn't any better than the other countries they see manipulating the UN. That of course requires understanding, again, that the member states make the UN what it is...

For the longest time, my grandfather said it wasn't worth complaining about, because it would have to be done over (as the League of Nations was dissolved because it was worthless bullshit, too).

Let's see
- Russia manipulates the UN, and bitches when others do it
- US manipulates the UN, and bitches when others do it
- UK manipulates the UN, and bitches when others do it
- French manipulate the UN, and bitch when others do it
- China manipulates the UN, and bitches when others do it

And you are saying somehow that the US is the only one who manipulates the UN, and then bitches when others do it?

No, it's not the member states that make the UN work. It can never work until the Charter is dissolved and completely re-written - establishing a completely different system in its place.

What did he attack them with, a stick?

Get a thicker skin and dont whine so much.

A thicker skin? Did you say that about the Muslims who rioted over cartoons? If Bolton went around saying that the French are a bunch of surrender monkeys, would you critisize him or tell the French to get a "thicker skin"?

You do know it's against the UN charter for execs to make verbal attacks against specific nations, right? Are you saying it's OK for the UN to break its own rules?

The UN does have some serious problems. Aside from the fact that the Security Council is unrealistically structured according to the world of the 1940's, the veto power is ridiculously unrealistic and undemocratic. The UN was forced to sit on its ass too many times during the Cold War because either the US or the Soviet Union would hamstring anything that threatened their spheres of influence, which in turn led to a lot of atrocities and violations of international law in the Third World that the UN could do nothing about.

I like the idea of the UN and feel it is important for world affairs, but it runs the risk of impotence due to the ability of one permanent-member nation to veto a decision and to make that decision effectively tabled even if all of the other members support it. It is unfair to give that kind of power to a group of unelected representatives and effectively renders the concerns of elected members meaningless if their concerns conflict with those of the permanent members.

A thicker skin? Did you say that about the Muslims who rioted over cartoons? If Bolton went around saying that the French are a bunch of surrender monkeys, would you critisize him or tell the French to get a "thicker skin"?




Yeah I did, are you comparing yourself to muslims who riot over cartoons and claiming that because it was alright for them to whine about something stupid its alright for you to do the same?

Is this the "Kecibukia Defense?" Saying its OK because rioting muslims do it?

I don't like that either - our entire political system is essentially being gamed by a handful of billionaires and a handful of multinational corporations.

And it doesn't matter which party anymore. Both parties have sold their souls because the only thing they care about is being elected. Everything else is window dressing and bullshit.
Yeah, that's true. Until there is real campaign finance reform and money doesn't get you elected anymore we won't have true democracy. Of course the people and companies with money won't let anyone interested in reform get elected, so we're fucked.

Yeah I did, are you comparing yourself to muslims who riot over cartoons and claiming that because it was alright for them to whine about something stupid its alright for you to do the same?

Is this the "Kecibukia Defense?" Saying its OK because rioting muslims do it?

No, that's a "New Grenada False Dichotomy".

Now howabout answering the rest of the questions?

I find it disingenuous that you (Deep Kimchi), go after George Soros.

Conservative millionaires have been contributing, financing and otherwise orchestrating the right's political ascendancy for over two decades. Now a wealthy liberal does the same and you claim it is the height of scandal.

Now...for the record. I could care less which millionaire contributes the scandalous amount of money. I care more about how much access the wealthy donor gets to the candidate who because of the disgusting amount of payola said donor provides to get direct access.

This is the system we have allowed to dominate US politics. Now, unless you are extremely lucky and catch lightning in a bottle, you must be a millionaire yourself to enter the arena of federal elective politics.

I no longer feel like I have a place in the election of my Representative, Senator or President. My one little vote and a hundred bucks to the candidate of my choice does nothing but yield tons of unwanted solicitation mail from that person, the party and the party hiearchy. So my money goes to the local race where it will have an impact.

This is a deceptive system put into place to make us as individual voters feel important, when it doesn't matter one iota one way or the other as long as the PACS, lobbyists and the wealthy keep lining up to drop enough money to make Solomon blush onto candidates in the races. The little guy's money means practically NOTHING.

Now, I'm aware that you hate liberals. Yet, other than the odd difference here or there, I have the same hopes, dreams and aspirations for this country that you do. The genius that WAS the United States was all of the different people of different beliefs working together to make it work. Now we have a nation divided along ideological lines and political lines. We are the poorer for it.

When the end comes, and we hasten it daily, it will be remembered that the parties sold their souls to SPLIT the ordinary US citizens along those political and ideological fault lines. I hope we all have the decency to feel ashamed.

For the longest time, my grandfather said it wasn't worth complaining about, because it would have to be done over (as the League of Nations was dissolved because it was worthless bullshit, too).

Let's see
- Russia manipulates the UN, and bitches when others do it
- US manipulates the UN, and bitches when others do it
- UK manipulates the UN, and bitches when others do it
- French manipulate the UN, and bitch when others do it
- China manipulates the UN, and bitches when others do it

And you are saying somehow that the US is the only one who manipulates the UN, and then bitches when others do it?

I'm saying that a striking amount of people from the US seem not to be able to include the US in that list, and conveniently forget when bitching about "the UN didn't do this, or doesn't do that" that the ultimate reason it doesn't is because the member states don't want it to do that. Like the bitching about the Iraq resolutions back and forth - really, how many times has not the US vetoed something? Someone else does it against the US wishes, and all hell breaks loose... but, then again, they have the "perfect" excuse for the US vetos: "The US only vetos bad stuff." Hah!

No, it's not the member states that make the UN work. It can never work until the Charter is dissolved and completely re-written - establishing a completely different system in its place.

Good luck with that, seeing as the big countries, and, yes, that includes the US yet again, want the UN to be broken, and gladly continue to make it so. The thing that irks me about it is they blame the UN itself for that.

Good luck with that, seeing as the big countries, and, yes, that includes the US yet again, want the UN to be broken, and gladly continue to make it so. The thing that irks me about it is they blame the UN itself for that.

That's the problem they had with the League of Nations - it was powerless and toothless by design. And look where that ended up...

I find it disingenuous that you (Deep Kimchi), go after George Soros.

Conservative millionaires have been contributing, financing and otherwise orchestrating the right's political ascendancy for over two decades. Now a wealthy liberal does the same and you claim it is the height of scandal.



Now the fact of the matter that "liberal" millionaires have also been doing that doesn't matter.

The fact that Soros is a foriegn millionaire using his money to unduly influence US politics using "international" organizations and individuals is the idea.

Nothing like paying a critic under the table to be your attack dog.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2217839,00.html

Not that I dislike Bolton, but the whole US/UN relationship has been in trouble for over a decade. So I expect a certain amount of stink, raised by people who honestly say what they think, and are not paid by private interests to be a shill. This is one of the complaints that I hear from Gymoor and The Nazz - that there shouldn't be shills. On this I agree.

If Bolton were being compensated by a private interest for the stink he makes, I'm sure you would all be up in arms, saying what an outrage and travesty that constitutes.
I don't understand the point of this. George Soros is a private citizen. Anything he wants to do and anyone he wants to hire to achieve any political goal is not only legal, but is the essence of how American politics is supposed to work.

Now the fact of the matter that "liberal" millionaires have also been doing that doesn't matter.

The fact that Soros is a foriegn millionaire using his money to unduly influence US politics using "international" organizations and individuals is the idea.


Much like the former soviet countries where soros bankrolls democracy and good governance, he is compelled to do so here.

If the US were capable of fixing itself on its own, it would have. We need all the help we can get.

The US runs on bribery called "lobbying" and "campaign contribution." Sometimes to fix a toilet you have to get your hands dirty and play the crooked game a bit.

I don't understand the point of this. George Soros is a private citizen. Anything he wants to do and anyone he wants to hire to achieve any political goal is not only legal, but is the essence of how American politics is supposed to work.
Ah, but it's the money that stinks.

There's no chance you or I could pay anyone enough to say something on our behalf in any major political arena.

That's the problem they had with the League of Nations - it was powerless and toothless by design. And look where that ended up...

And the UN ended up in Iraq. The sad thing is, these people seem to think the big ones, again, including the US, would actually want to put something better in place. Better as in "has actual teeth." The US, and the rest, don't like others to have teeth.

Ah, but it's the money that stinks.

There's no chance you or I could pay anyone enough to say something on our behalf in any major political arena.


Well, if you and I were financial whizes who managed to earn billions of dollars, we certainly could.

Now the fact of the matter that "liberal" millionaires have also been doing that doesn't matter.

The fact that Soros is a foriegn millionaire using his money to unduly influence US politics using "international" organizations and individuals is the idea.

The idea is depressing, I agree.

But again, hardly unusual. Soros is not the first and certainly will not be the last.

Ah, but it's the money that stinks.

There's no chance you or I could pay anyone enough to say something on our behalf in any major political arena.
So instead we find political organizations that reflect our world view and join or support them. George Soros, despite all his money, is certainly not driving American foreign policy. That policy is squarely in the hands of the neocon administration - an ideology diametrically opposed to George Soros'.

Well, if you and I were financial whizes who managed to earn billions of dollars, we certainly could.

And you would say this is OK even if what they were pushing for is antithetical to what the country stands for?

The idea is depressing, I agree.

But again, hardly unusual. Soros is not the first and certainly will not be the last.

So because of that we should do nothing?

More on how "wonderful" Soros is to the world.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/engdahl-soros.html
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/lindaemu.html

And you would say this is OK even if what they were pushing for is antithetical to what the country stands for?


It isn't OK but it is how things are done. If things are going to be fixed, hands have to get dirty.

Now the fact of the matter that "liberal" millionaires have also been doing that doesn't matter.

The fact that Soros is a foriegn millionaire using his money to unduly influence US politics using "international" organizations and individuals is the idea.
George Soros has been a US ctizen for 50 years. That's longer than a certain governor I know of.

It isn't OK but it is how things are done. If things are going to be fixed, hands have to get dirty.

So you think it's acceptable for a billionaire to manipulate currencies to get himself more control of a countries economy and politics? What is he going to "fix" in the US? Will he crash our banks like he did in the UK? Cause massive unemployment like in Eastern Europe? Take away out individual rights like he's pushing for through IANSA?

So because of that we should do nothing?

<sigh>

No. We should do something alright. We should cap all domestic contrubutions, corporate and otherwise at $2000.00 per election period. Any politician that takes foreign money should be fined the amount of the contribution for the first offense, and then disqualified from running for the second offense.

I am tired of public servants feeding at the trough of big money. They should only be allowed their franking, travel and salaries when in office and not be allowed to accept any money for public speaking engagements.

Common sense solutions that politicians will immediately balk at should all be considered.

I want Congresscritters and Senators to go to jail for accepting bribes and gifts and kicked out of office. Mostly, I want these bastards to pay as they go for meals and meetings.

You could say I want change alright.

Yes, liberal millionaires/billionaires do the same thing, I stand corrected.

So you think it's acceptable for a billionaire to manipulate currencies to get himself more control of a countries economy and politics? What is he going to "fix" in the US? Will he crash our banks like he did in the UK? Cause massive unemployment like in Eastern Europe? Take away out individual rights like he's pushing for through IANSA?


Of course its OK to manipulate currencies, thats how world finance works. Private citizens have every right to participate in public markets.

The Bank of England set itself up for failure, and a lot of countries have significant unemployments, especially former soviet ones.

To blame this solely on the Soros Boogeyman is pushing it a bit.

If you want to know what soros hopes to accomplish, read one of his books or his website. Open Society, &c.

So you think it's acceptable for a billionaire to manipulate currencies to get himself more control of a countries economy and politics? What is he going to "fix" in the US? Will he crash our banks like he did in the UK? Cause massive unemployment like in Eastern Europe? Take away out individual rights like he's pushing for through IANSA?
We're in Iraq, Bolton's in the UN and Bush is in office. Apparently he lacks the power to do any of the things you have listed.

George Soros has been a US ctizen for 50 years. That's longer than a certain governor I know of.

And I care about a "certain governor"? Why does he spend most of his time in the UK? Does a "certain governor" finance "international" organizations or bankroll national political websites using loopholes he had created? Has that "governor" been convicted of insider trading?

We're in Iraq, Bolton's in the UN and Bush is in office. Apparently he lacks the power to do any of the things you have listed.

So you're denying that he's attempting these things? What is he going to "fix"?

So you're denying that he's attempting these things? What is he going to "fix"?

http://www.soros.org/initiatives

read it, lazybones.

And I care about a "certain governor"? Why does he spend most of his time in the UK? Does a "certain governor" finance "international" organizations or bankroll national political websites using loopholes he had created?
My point is that George Soros is a US citizen and, as such, has teh right to be politically active in our system. If Schwarzenegger (sp?) has teh right to run for and hold a governorship, certainly Soros has the right to support his own political agenda - and just for clarity's sake, I voted for Arnold and will again and I think Soros' swing moves way too far to the left.

"I may not support what you have to say, but I'll defend to teh death your right to say it."

And I care about a "certain governor"? Why does he spend most of his time in the UK? Does a "certain governor" finance "international" organizations or bankroll national political websites using loopholes he had created? Has that "governor" been convicted of insider trading?


When did americans lose their rights to travel and spend their money how they like?

Martha Stewart was more or less convicted of insider trading, its not an uncommon thing in finance.

So you're denying that he's attempting these things? What is he going to "fix"?
No I'm saying two things.

1. He has every right under the US Constitution to "attempt these things."
2. He hasnt' been very successful so why the worry?

http://www.soros.org/initiatives

read it, lazybones.

Right, the word that stands out is "globalization". Did you even bother reading the articles I posted from non-Soros sights?

Notice it doesn't include his bankrolling of IANSA and the intiatives (using his words) to reduce individuality?

Right, the word that stands out is "globalization". Did you even bother reading the articles I posted from non-Soros sights?

Notice it doesn't include his bankrolling of IANSA and the intiatives (using his words) to reduce individuality?


Is it his love of communism that makes him hate individuality?

I wasnt aware that you had to own a lot of guns to be an individual, but hey, thats just me.

People have every right to try to litigate against guns, its what we do in free countries, we debate things.

Something wrong with globalization?

No I'm saying two things.

1. He has every right under the US Constitution to "attempt these things."
2. He hasnt' been very successful so why the worry?

He wasn't "very successful" in funding the Dems in the last election? Seems they came awful close w/ all his extra money? You're saying that we shouldn't "worry" about his attempts to disarm the US populace?

Right, the word that stands out is "globalization". Did you even bother reading the articles I posted from non-Soros sights?

Notice it doesn't include his bankrolling of IANSA and the intiatives (using his words) to reduce individuality?
You do realize that our current administration blow their spunk all over the place everytime they hear the word "globalization," right? I hear GW actually has it tattooed on his penis.

Is it his love of communism that makes him hate individuality?

I wasnt aware that you had to own a lot of guns to be an individual, but hey, thats just me.

People have every right to try to litigate against guns, its what we do in free countries, we debate thinge.

Something wrong with globalization?

Now weren't you saying he opposed communist regimes? Which is it?

Thank God for IANSA's work regarding the thirld world.

This is God's Work from the Bible. Blessed are the peacemakers.

"Arms brokers
Arms brokers are the middlemen who negotiate, arrange for, or otherwise facilitate the transfer of weapons. Insufficient controls on such activities greatly facilitate the work of unscrupulous brokers who are involved in illicit or otherwise undesirable arms transfers. They have been identified as key to illicit transfers that have fuelled many recent civil wars, including in Sierra Leone, Angola or Colombia. More

Marking and Tracing of Small Arms
There is a crucial need for enhancing the ability of law enforcement agencies to trace weapons found in illicit possession back to the point at which these weapons were diverted from the legal to the illicit arms market. This, in turn, requires easily identifiable markings on all small arms and light weapons, the establishment of registers to follow their trade routes, and the capacity of national authorities to trace these in their records. More

Child soldiers
More than 300,000 children under 18 are fighting in armed conflicts in more than 30 countries. Many are coerced into service and combat, and the widespread availability of small arms and light weapons has enabled child soldiers to become ruthless killers. More

Weapons collection and destruction
Collection and destruction programs are popular ways to eliminate existing small arms stockpiles, especially in post-conflict regions. How effective are they? What are the key elements that make collection and destruction successful? More

Trade controls
Strict controls on export, transit and import of weapons are essential to prevent the further proliferation of small arms and their abuse by those violating human rights and international humanitarian law. However, existing national and regional controls continue to contain significant loopholes and there is a crucial lack of an appropriate international treaty to regulate international arms transfers. More

Small arms vs. development
How can a country improve its infrastructure and economy when it is rife with small arms violence? Whether through crime, armed rebellion, or civil war, small arms not only hinder development, their presence limits the willingness of other nations to provide humanitarian assistance. More

"

He wasn't "very successful" in funding the Dems in the last election? Seems they came awful close w/ all his extra money? You're saying that we shouldn't "worry" about his attempts to disarm the US populace?
Now you're getting it. Even with all his extra money, which I'm sure amounts to a pittance when compared to the overall pot, he still was unable to get John Kerry elected - I'm sad to say. In fact, can you think of one thing he has been successful at? I have a gun, GW is in office, our troops are in Iraq, Bolton is in the UN... for all his money he does not seem to be able to get much of his political agenda accomplished.

And, "disarm the US populace?" That' alarmist nonsense language. He's for gun control.

Now weren't you saying he opposed communist regimes? Which is it?


Over your head I guess?

At any rate, the notion that the US is going to be "disarmed" is nonsense at best.

IANSA's website makes it look like they are mainly concerned with arms dealers and the immense suffering and death caused in the third world by small arms.

But maybe its a conspiracy!

Is it his love of communism that makes him hate individuality?

I wasnt aware that you had to own a lot of guns to be an individual, but hey, thats just me.

another false dicotomy.

People have every right to try to litigate against guns, its what we do in free countries, we debate things.

but he's not 'debating'. He's funding organizations that present blatant lies as facts and manipulates the legislature to promote his efforts.

Something wrong with globalization?

When it comes at the expense of rights, yes. When he's using it to gain economic andpolitical footholds in countries for his own personal gain, yes.




http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11703

another false dicotomy.

but he's not 'debating'. He's funding organizations that present blatant lies as facts and manipulates the legislature to promote his efforts.

When it comes at the expense of rights, yes. When he's using it to gain economic andpolitical footholds in countries for his own personal gain, yes.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11703


Isnt our entire political system composed of "organizations" which people fund?

People presenting lies as facts in politics! WHAT MANNER OF STRANGE HORROR IS THIS!?????

Manipulating the legislature? How much does he spend on lobbying compared to, say, the corn-growing industry, or for that matter the gun industry?

Which and how many rights are we losing for his "personal gain" ?

Thank God for IANSA's work regarding the thirld world.



"

And since this has nothing to do w/ the majority of individuals who own firearms but thier governments, IANSA's goals are to disarm the US. They did so well in Rwanda. How many hundreds of thousands died after being disarmed by the Gov't?

IANSA says that there are about 640 million small arms in the world, 57% in civilian hands. Since there are about 300 million personally owned small arms in the US, that means that their goal of disarming the populace is almost exclusively aimed at the US. Yet Peters and her bankroller want us to trust in Gov'ts. when they are doing most of the killing.

Isnt our entire political system composed of "organizations" which people fund?[/qoute]

people, not a person.

[QUOTE=New Granada]People presenting lies as facts in politics! WHAT MANNER OF STRANGE HORROR IS THIS!?????

So you find it acceptable then?

Manipulating the legislature? How much does he spend on lobbying compared to, say, the corn-growing industry, or for that matter the gun industry?

Here, do some reading lazybones.

Which and how many rights are we losing for his "personal gain" ?

Why don't you ask the people in Eastern Europe that have had their economies destroyed? How about the people disarmed due to his connections?

And since this has nothing to do w/ the majority of individuals who own firearms but thier governments, IANSA's goals are to disarm the US. They did so well in Rwanda. How many hundreds of thousands died after being disarmed by the Gov't?

IANSA says that there are about 640 million small arms in the world, 57% in civilian hands. Since there are about 300 million personally owned small arms in the US, that means that their goal of disarming the populace is almost exclusively aimed at the US. Yet Peters and her bankroller want us to trust in Gov'ts. when they are doing most of the killing.


What are ten things IANSA has done in pursuit of their goal of "disarming the US?"

What percent of their funding is spent on efforts to lobby the US legislature to outlaw owning guns or elect politicians whose platform is disarming the US population.

Is this blathering about "disarming the us" a strawman argument? It certainly looks like one.

You can answer the questions above and settle the matter though.

[QUOTE=New Granada]Isnt our entire political system composed of "organizations" which people fund?[/qoute]

people, not a person.



So you find it acceptable then?



Here, do some reading lazybones.



Why don't you ask the people in Eastern Europe that have had their economies destroyed? How about the people disarmed due to his connections?


So george soros doesnt have the right to spend his money how he likes? Is he the only person who funds any of his organizations? Does it matter at all?

How much does soros spend lobbying compared to corn or guns? Answer the question, it is absolutely integral to your argument.

Which economies did he destroy and how, in detail, did he do it?

Which people have been disarmed by him? Arms dealers?


Much like the "frontpagemag" blog, you're short on facts.

Its time to ground this discussion in numbers and specifics.

What are ten things IANSA has done in pursuit of their goal of "disarming the US?"

Nice number, here's a few:

UN Small Arms Review Conference
called for full registration of firearms
full licensing
only "allow" single shot rifles of less than 300'

What percent of their funding is spent on efforts to lobby the US legislature to outlaw owning guns or elect politicians whose platform is disarming the US population.

Being that he also funds the MMM, Tides Foundation, the HELP Network and SAFE Colorado,Funders` Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention,Harvard Injury Control Center, lawsuits like:Hamilton v. Accu-tek and NAACP v. ACUSPORT Inc. to name a few.

Is this blathering about "disarming the us" a strawman argument? It certainly looks like one.

Now it's "blathering"? Don't like the facts? Maybe you should get a thicker skin. Do yo deny the numbers from the FBI and IANSA itself?

You can answer the questions above and settle the matter though.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]


So george soros doesnt have the right to spend his money how he likes? Is he the only person who funds any of his organizations? Does it matter at all?

How much does soros spend lobbying compared to corn or guns? Answer the question, it is absolutely integral to your argument.

Which economies did he destroy and how, in detail, did he do it?

Which people have been disarmed by him? Arms dealers?


Much like the "frontpagemag" blog, you're short on facts.

Its time to ground this discussion in numbers and specifics.

I've already posted numerous websites/articles/links w/ quite a few facts. WHat you consider "integral", isn't.

Maybe if you did some reading, you'ld find out.

More on his "legit" dealings:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200505\SPE20050512a.html

How much money does george soros spend lobbying congress to outlaw guns?

How much of IANSA's budget and which activities are aimed at disarming the US population?

How much money do corn growing companies spend lobbying congress?

How much money do gun makers spend lobbying congress?

Which politicians take contributions from george soros and in what ammounts.

What are theirs stances on disarming the US population?

By what means did george soros destroy the economies of eastern europe?

Which rights and how many does george soros want to deprive the american people of, and how much money does he stand to gain from doing so?

No more voodoo politics or voodoo economics. No more shady blogs or political "news" sites. There are factual numerical answers to most of these questions.

How much money does george soros spend lobbying congress to outlaw guns?

How much of IANSA's budget and which activities are aimed at disarming the US population?

How much money do corn growing companies spend lobbying congress?

How much money do gun makers spend lobbying congress?

Which politicians take contributions from george soros and in what ammounts.

What are theirs stances on disarming the US population?

By what means did george soros destroy the economies of eastern europe?

Which rights and how many does george soros want to deprive the american people of, and how much money does he stand to gain from doing so?

No more voodoo politics or voodoo economics. There are factual numerical answers to most of these questions.


You're the one that posted his website. I've provided links/names to some of the organizations that he funds which has all the data as well as non-us reports on E. Europe already. Keep ignoring it and denying his accountablity to it. It does you well.

and here's more:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13584

You're the one that posted his website. I've provided links/names to some of the organizations that he funds which has all the data as well as non-us reports on E. Europe already. Keep ignoring it and denying his accountablity to it. It does you well.


This doesnt answer any of those questions.

No more voodoo economics, there are factual numerical answers for those questions.

This doesnt answer any of those questions.

No more voodoo economics, there are factual numerical answers for those questions.

And if you actually look, you'ld see them. You've ignored my direct questions w/o providing any info. I'll ignore yours but provide the data.

and more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

http://www.saf.org/gt/gt85.pdf#search='soros%20fund%20antigun'

http://www.nssf.org/common/PR/101804.cfm?wTPL=X&print=X&PR=X

And if you actually look, you'ld see them. You've ignored my direct questions w/o providing any info. I'll ignore yours but provide the data.

and more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

http://www.saf.org/gt/gt85.pdf#search='soros%20fund%20antigun'

http://www.nssf.org/common/PR/101804.cfm?wTPL=X&print=X&PR=X
None of this makes any difference at all. You disagree with him. You're allowed to do that. He disagrees with you. He's allowed to do that. Thia is the United States of America. We're allowed to have opinions, make political statements and found anf fund any political organizations we want as long as we don't advocate terrorism or the like. I don't understand what you are saying here. Should he be in prison? Should his First Amendment rights be suspended? What are you advocating?

None of this makes any difference at all. You disagree with him. You're allowed to do that. He disagrees with you. He's allowed to do that. Thia is the United States of America. We're allowed to have opinions, make political statements and found anf fund any political organizations we want as long as we don't advocate terrorism or the like. I don't understand what you are saying here. Should he be in prison? Should his First Amendment rights be suspended? What are you advocating?

Did I say anything about him being in prison or his rights suspended? No I didn't.

What I "advocate" is that his practices be brought to public notice so that they won't be effective. Just as his elaborate funding of the anti-gun movement was brought out.

And if you actually look, you'ld see them. You've ignored my direct questions w/o providing any info. I'll ignore yours but provide the data.

and more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

http://www.saf.org/gt/gt85.pdf#search='soros%20fund%20antigun'

http://www.nssf.org/common/PR/101804.cfm?wTPL=X&print=X&PR=X

The Post article doesnt touch on anything but the fact that he, like thousands of other rich people, supported one candidate or the other in the 2004 election.

He's apparently one of the 49% of americans who didnt think bush would be a good president. The horror.

The saf article is about a bill to create a national gun registry for law enforcement. Where is the part about how the bill is going to ban the ownership of guns in the US?



From the nssf article "Soros is spending his fortune to finance the destruction of the American firearm industry through predatory lawsuits and to install a president who will allow the United Nations to rewrite our gun laws and delete the Second Amendment from the Constitution," added Keane.
"


Numbers, not voodoo!

You've also yet to substantiate the voodooo-economics stuff about how he somehow managed to destroy all the economies of eastern europe.

I've only studied economics in college, but it doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

Also from the post article:

"He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit ("The enemy is listening"). "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me," he said in a soft Hungarian accent. "

Dirty meddling foreigner!

The Post article doesnt touch on anything but the fact that he, like thousands of other rich people, supported one candidate or the other in the 2004 election.

The saf article is about a bill to create a national gun registry for law enforcement. Where is the part about how the bill is going to ban the ownership of guns in the US?

He's apparently one of the 49% of americans who didnt think bush would be a good president. The horror.

From the nssf article "Soros is spending his fortune to finance the destruction of the American firearm industry through predatory lawsuits and to install a president who will allow the United Nations to rewrite our gun laws and delete the Second Amendment from the Constitution," added Keane.
"


Numbers, not voodoo!

Are you incapable of adding 2+2 or comprehending more than one article? Is it to difficult to remember the associations/numbers w/ the other half dozen + articles I've posted? Did you miss how many millions he donated to various groups or how he pushed for organizations to get around finance laws?

Or would you rather just claim "voodoo" or "blathering" to make it easier for yourself?

Are you incapable of adding 2+2 or comprehending more than one article? Is it to difficult to remember the associations/numbers w/ the other half dozen + articles I've posted? Did you miss how many millions he donated to various groups or how he pushed for organizations to get around finance laws?

Or would you rather just claim "voodoo" or "blathering" to make it easier for yourself?


Whats wrong with donating money to groups?

Neither of those lawsuits sought to ban the ownership of guns in the US, like you claim he's secretly trying to do.

How much money has he spent compared to companies that grow corn or make guns?

The problem with all the links you've posted is that they dont answer any concrete questions.

There are factual numberical answers to a lot of those questions.

Also, you have made a lot of noise about soros using his magic to wreck all the eastern european economies, but not explained what process you think he used to do this.

There is a fact problem here.

Calling soros a foreigner was a fact problem.

Saying he destroyed the economies of eastern europe -a pretty ridiculous claim on its face- and then not substantiating it is a fact problem.

Saying he is trying to take away all the guns in the US -a pretty ridiculous claim on its face - and then not substantiating it is a fact problem.

Which politicians and which bills and which lawsuits seek to outlaws gun ownership in the US? There are factual answers to these questions.

Implying that he has undue influence and then not substantiating it, say by comparing his financial contributions to those of corn growers or gun makers, is a fact problem.

Did I say anything about him being in prison or his rights suspended? No I didn't.I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply wanted clarification about what you were advocating in response to Soros' philanthropy.

What I "advocate" is that his practices be brought to public notice so that they won't be effective. Just as his elaborate funding of the anti-gun movement was brought out.
Done. Thank you for bringing his efforts to our attention. We can now all decide whether we wish to support his endeavors or not.

Also from the post article:

"He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit ("The enemy is listening"). "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me," he said in a soft Hungarian accent. "

Dirty meddling foreigner!

Or maybe he just has never heard of how sad a "Godwin" arguement is.

Or maybe he just has never heard of how sad a "Godwin" arguement is.


Yeah, that stuff's for amateur kids on internet forums.

Dirty meddling foreigner!
I undertand your reference, and I obviously agree with you, but I object to the context of this debate. He is not a foreigner. He has been a citizen of the United States for longer than me and I'd bet most people on this board.

I undertand your reference, and I obviously agree with you, but I object to the context of this debate. He is not a foreigner. He has been a citizen of the United States for longer than me and I'd bet most people on this board.


It was meant sarcastically.

I undertand your reference, and I obviously agree with you, but I object to the context of this debate. He is not a foreigner. He has been a citizen of the United States for longer than me and I'd bet most people on this board.


It was meant sarcastically, I'm well aware he's an american.

Whats wrong with donating money to groups?

Nothing, unless the groups were specifically designed to thwart a law( ie 527's)

Neither of those lawsuits sought to ban the ownership of guns in the US, like you claim he's secretly trying to do.

You don't think that the junk lawsuits were designed to reduce/discourage privat ownership?

How much money has he spent compared to companies that grow corn or make guns?

Corn isn't in danger of being banned. Much less than the gun companies.

The problem with all the links you've posted is that they dont answer any concrete questions.

They answer the questions if you read them

There are factual numberical answers to a lot of those questions.[/quote]

They answer the questions if you read them all and not just one or two sentances of each one.

Also, you have made a lot of noise about soros using his magic to wreck all the eastern european economies, but not explained what process you think he used to do this.

I linked to the economic reports as well as other articles.

There is a fact problem here.

Calling soros a foreigner was a fact problem.

And yet he spends most of his time not in the US.

Saying he destroyed the economies of eastern europe -a pretty ridiculous claim on its face- and then not substantiating it is a fact problem.

See above. You're ignoring links.

Saying he is trying to take away all the guns in the US -a pretty ridiculous claim on its face - and then not substantiating it is a fact problem.

More ignoring of the links and the stated goals of the anti-gun groups he finances.

Which politicians and which bills and which lawsuits seek to outlaws gun ownership in the US? There are factual answers to these questions.

Once again, try reading the articles and looking at the links.

Implying that he has undue influence and then not substantiating it, say by comparing his financial contributions to those of corn growers or gun makers, is a fact problem.

You picked "corn growers". I've linked numerous articles on his financing of various political endeavors that showed percentages as well as all the organizations the he controls that helped fund them.

You seem to be the one w/o any "facts".

It was meant sarcastically, I'm well aware he's an american.
I know, but you provided an opportunity to make it clear again so I took it.

Yeah, that stuff's for amateur kids on internet forums.

Yet you defended his use of a child's arguement to influence the US election.

Yet you defended his use of a child's arguement to influence the US election.


Nononono, the whole whiney nonsense about "godwin argument" is for kids on forums. In a serious discussion there is no such thing as a "godwin rule."

And what do you mean "influence the US election?" He's an american, its his duty to try to influence the election, its called a democracy.

Nononono, the whole whiney nonsense about "godwin argument" is for kids on forums. In a serious discussion there is no such thing as a "godwin rule."

And what do you mean "influence the US election?" He's an american, its his duty to try to influence the election, its called a democracy.

If someone seriously does the GWB=Hitler/Stalin arguement, they need their heads examined. He must have had things pretty easy then if he makes that comparison. Or else maybe he should be more "thick skinned" instead of being so "sensitive".

It's his duty to push for loopholes in election law that he can exploit? Really? You don't see anything wrong w/ this?

If someone seriously does the GWB=Hitler/Stalin arguement, they need their heads examined. He must have had things pretty easy then if he makes that comparison. Or else maybe he should be more "thick skinned" instead of being so "sensitive".

It's his duty to push for loopholes in election law that he can exploit? Really? You don't see anything wrong w/ this?
Can you please cut and paste some text to me about how he tried to exploit some loophole in election laws?

The simple fact of the matter is that George Soros is not the enemy. He is a US citizen.

My issue with the wealthy is that they are allowed to "game the game." I have no problem with Soros in particular. Just the amount of influence the wealthiest citizens wield in US society in political elections.

Until the rules change, he is no better or worse than his conservative equivalent.

Your arguments are paranoid.

I could care less where he lives, that is the beauty of being free, he may live where he chooses, even if it is outside the US. Trust me, he isn't the only eccentric US citizen living outside the US.

If someone seriously does the GWB=Hitler/Stalin arguement, they need their heads examined. He must have had things pretty easy then if he makes that comparison. Or else maybe he should be more "thick skinned" instead of being so "sensitive".

It's his duty to push for loopholes in election law that he can exploit? Really? You don't see anything wrong w/ this?


Did you read the post article that you posted and I'm referring to?

Your article never mentions anything about "gwb=hitler/stalin" and that wasnt his argument in your article.

You said that he used a "child's argument to influence the election," this clearly has nothing at all to do with loopholes in election law.

Did he dictate those loopholes into law or did congress enact them?

Are they his alone to use, or are they available to both parties?

It would be nice if we had clean elections, but we dont, and we have to fight fire with fire.

Did you read the post article that you posted and I'm referring to?

Your article never mentions anything about "gwb=hitler/stalin" and that wasnt his argument in your article.

You said that he used a "child's argument to influence the election," this clearly has nothing at all to do with loopholes in election law.

Did he dictate those loopholes into law or did congress enact them?

Are they his alone to use, or are they available to both parties?

It would be nice if we had clean elections, but we dont, and we have to fight fire with fire.

He made a direct GWB=Nazi remark in the bit you posted. Are you denying this?

So now you're saying that he didn't influence the politicians? That 527's were not created by influenced politicians, the $18million he spent for "campaign finance reform? It was "clean"? Are you saying that we shouldn't do anything because "that's the way things are"?




http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/02_04_FW.pdf
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527indivs.asp?cycle=2004

Can you please cut and paste some text to me about how he tried to exploit some loophole in election laws?

Here it is again for those who don't like going back a few pages:

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/02_04_FW.pdf

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0323-06.htm

McCain, Feingold

The authors of the 2002 law -- Senators John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, and Representatives Meehan and Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican -- have introduced separate legislation to restrict 527 groups. It would treat them as corporate or union political action committees, capping individual donations to them at $5,000 and banning contributions from corporate or union treasuries.

Shays and Meehan have also gone to court to force the Federal Election Commission to regulate 527s.

He made a direct GWB=Nazi remark in the bit you posted. Are you denying this?

So now you're saying that he didn't influence the politicians? That 527's were not created by influenced politicians, the $18million he spent for "campaign finance reform? It was "clean"? Are you saying that we shouldn't do anything because "that's the way things are"?




http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/02_04_FW.pdf
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527indivs.asp?cycle=2004


Yeah, its basically dishonest to pretend that what he said was "george bush is a nazi." Fact problem again I guess.


Why can't you just respond to what I say, why do you keep inventing things I didnt say and then responding to them?

"So now you're saying that he didn't influence the politicians? " Huh?
"That 527's were not created by influenced politicians, the $18million he spent for "campaign finance reform? It was "clean"? " Huh?

Everything in the whole country is done by "influenced politicians," thats how all government has always worked everywhere.

Why are you having such a hissy fit about george soros lobbying congress? Who DOESNT lobby congress? How could anyone possibly get anything done without lobbying congress?

Here it is again for those who don't like going back a few pages:

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/02_04_FW.pdf

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0323-06.htm

McCain, Feingold

The authors of the 2002 law -- Senators John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, and Representatives Meehan and Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican -- have introduced separate legislation to restrict 527 groups. It would treat them as corporate or union political action committees, capping individual donations to them at $5,000 and banning contributions from corporate or union treasuries.

Shays and Meehan have also gone to court to force the Federal Election Commission to regulate 527s.
And I agree with their legislation but there is no law against it now so Soros' only did what every other 527 is currently allowed to do. Why single him out? I think all "soft" money should be banned from politics, but this is the field we play on now. Soros' is just a different player in the game. I see no reason why he is any worse than the NRA or the Christian Coalition. Singling Soros' out is like pulling over a car at the Indy 500 for a speeing ticket.

And I agree with their legislation but there is no law against it now so Soros' only did what every other 527 is currently allowed to do. Why single him out? I think all "soft" money should be banned from politics, but this is the field we play on now. Soros' is just a different player in the game. I see no reason why he is any worse than the NRA or the Christian Coalition. Singling Soros' out is like pulling over a car at the Indy 500 for a speeing ticket.

I have a "problem" w/ it because he was the one that lobbyed for the loophole in the first place.

I have a "problem" w/ it because he was the one that lobbyed for the loophole in the first place.
The loophole has existed for a long time and I doubt very seriously that Soros' voice was alone when lobbying to maintain it.

Yeah, its basically dishonest to pretend that what he said was "george bush is a nazi." Fact problem again I guess.

Only for those who choose to deny it.


Why can't you just respond to what I say, why do you keep inventing things I didnt say and then responding to them?

"So now you're saying that he didn't influence the politicians? " Huh?
"That 527's were not created by influenced politicians, the $18million he spent for "campaign finance reform? It was "clean"? " Huh?



Everything in the whole country is done by "influenced politicians," thats how all government has always worked everywhere. [/quote]

I'm trying to bring to light the unethical actions of an individual and you've effectively stated that we should bother trying to clean it up. You've denied his influence on creating 527's and then exploiting them when I've clearly shown it and then gone on to give a "meh" to dirty politics. You refuse to read the articles clearly showing that his own interests are much more important than any "greater good" he may tout as his goals.

Why are you having such a hissy fit about george soros lobbying congress? Who DOESNT lobby congress? How could anyone possibly get anything done without lobbying congress?

maybe because his beliefs in how to "fix" things in the US are antithetical to everything I hold dear and the fact that he will use any measure to get it. Maybe because he lobby's them through dozens of sub groups to make it seem like he's not trying to be a sole influence.

The loophole has existed for a long time and I doubt very seriously that Soros' voice was alone when lobbying to maintain it.

Um, the MF act was in 2002. He was a primary supporter. Read the articles.

Only for those who choose to deny it.






Everything in the whole country is done by "influenced politicians," thats how all government has always worked everywhere.

I'm trying to bring to light the unethical actions of an individual and you've effectively stated that we should bother trying to clean it up. You've denied his influence on creating 527's and then exploiting them when I've clearly shown it and then gone on to give a "meh" to dirty politics. You refuse to read the articles clearly showing that his own interests are much more important than any "greater good" he may tout as his goals.



maybe because his beliefs in how to "fix" things in the US are antithetical to everything I hold dear and the fact that he will use any measure to get it. Maybe because he lobby's them through dozens of sub groups to make it seem like he's not trying to be a sole influence.[/QUOTE]

You're doing it again. I never denied his influence in creating 527s. Fact problem.

You've yet to explain how he benefits or which of his personal interests are served by outlawing guns in the US.

If you just disagree with his politics, say so instead of making up nonsense about ruining eastern europe's economies and confiscating all the guns in the US.

Um, the MF act was in 2002. He was a primary supporter. Read the articles.
Reread what I said. I said that the ability for 527 groups to spread money around Congress is very old. The 2002 bill was intended to stop it. I said I doubt Soros's was alone in his opposition to it. I'm sure there were plenty of groups that you agree with try to stop it as well.

]

You're doing it again. I never denied his influence in creating 527s. Fact problem.

I asked you if you thought it was acceptable to influence things in these ways. You said dirty politics is a reality and refused to answer my questions. Are you now accepting he did help influence the creation of the 527 loophole and exploited it? Do you think this is an acceptable thing?

You've yet to explain how he benefits or which of his personal interests are served by outlawing guns in the US.

If you just disagree with his politics, say so instead of making up nonsense about ruining eastern europe's economies and confiscating all the guns in the US.

Now who's making things up. He's clearly stated that he's opposed to individuality. I've posted the links quoting him. I've also posted the links showing the anti-gun designs of the groups that he bankrolls. Personal firearm ownership is a form of individuality.

You can keep ignoring all the links and evidence.

Reread what I said. I said that the ability for 527 groups to spread money around Congress is very old. The 2002 bill was intended to stop it. I said I doubt Soros's was alone in his opposition to it. I'm sure there were plenty of groups that you agree with try to stop it as well.

Now if you would actually read the articles, he was a primary supporter of allowing 527's to continue to be exempt through the MF act. If you're so sure, copy and paste some links then.

Now if you would actually read the articles, he was a primary supporter of allowing 527's to continue to be exempt through the MF act. If you're so sure, copy and paste some links then.
I don't need to. You juts said what I did in the first place.
The loophole has existed for a long time and I doubt very seriously that Soros' voice was alone when lobbying to maintain it.
In saying that he was "a primary" supporter you are defacto saying there were not only other people lobbying against the reform bill, you are saying there were other "primary" supporters. I ask again, why single him out? He wasn't doing anything different, and still isn't, than plenty of groups that oppose his views. Why single him out? He's acting within the law.

You know what you remind me of? There was a race in this last primary out here in CA where one politician accused another of voting for a bill that would hand out millions of dollars to illegal aliens. What he failed to mention when he accused him of that was that HE AUTHORED THAT BILL! You remind me of that. Your groups, obviously the NRA, I'm sure were lined up there with Soros' in their opposition to a bill that would limit their ability to sway public opinion and yet you single him out as though he is somehow more guilty. It's ridiculous and disengenuous.

I don't need to. You juts said what I did in the first place.

In saying that he was "a primary" supporter you are defacto saying there were not only other people lobbying against the reform bill, you are saying there were other "primary" supporters. I ask again, why single him out? He wasn't doing anything different, and still isn't, than plenty of groups that oppose his views. Why single him out? He's acting within the law.

You know what you remind me of? There was a race in this last primary out here in CA where one politician accused another of voting for a bill that would hand out millions of dollars to illegal aliens. What he failed to mention when he accused him of that was that HE AUTHORED THAT BILL! You remind me of that. Your groups, obviously the NRA, I'm sure were lined up there with Soros' in their opposition to a bill that would limit their ability to sway public opinion and yet you single him out as though he is somehow more guilty. It's ridiculous and disengenuous.


Isn't it fun to make things up in your head and assume they're accurate. Soros supported the MF act w/ the 527 loophole. It's exactly what he lobbied for. I've already linked to that article several times. The NRA opposed the act in its entirety.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=60

]



I asked you if you thought it was acceptable to influence things in these ways. You said dirty politics is a reality and refused to answer my questions. Are you now accepting he did help influence the creation of the 527 loophole and exploited it? Do you think this is an acceptable thing?



Now who's making things up. He's clearly stated that he's opposed to individuality. I've posted the links quoting him. I've also posted the links showing the anti-gun designs of the groups that he bankrolls. Personal firearm ownership is a form of individuality.

You can keep ignoring all the links and evidence.

You seem to be pretty severely misapprehending what he means by "individualism." (which isnt "individuality")

His idea is that people should work with eachother rather than against eachother, that a society of purely selfish, competing individuals is not the best society.

Its ludicrous to pretend that the right to own a gun is in serious jeapardy. The gun industry and gun advocacy groups have enormously more power than george soros to influence politicians, and the idea of banning guns is simply unpopular with voters.

Unless a large majority of americans decide to amend the constitution to get rid of the second amendment, dont expect the us to be "disarmed" any time soon.

Isn't it fun to make things up in your head and assume they're accurate. Soros supported the MF act w/ the 527 loophole. It's exactly what he lobbied for. I've already linked to that article several times. The NRA opposed the act in its entirety.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=60
You are dense. I don't care if the NRA did or did not support it. You deliberately dodge the point. Soros is not alone in how he plays the game. That's the point. Why single him out? Why? Why is he somehow worse than any other lobbying group or person? If you don't like how the game is played, support people who want to change it, but I see no reason why Soros stands out. The truth is you don't like his politics so it bothers you when he plays the same game guys you like play. Its assinine. BTW - I do not accept any source you post because they are all very bad sources.

You seem to be pretty severely misapprehending what he means by "individualism." (which isnt "individuality")

His idea is that people should work with eachother rather than against eachother, that a society of purely selfish, competing individuals is not the best society.

Its ludicrous to pretend that the right to own a gun is in serious jeapardy. The gun industry and gun advocacy groups have enormously more power than george soros to influence politicians, and the idea of banning guns is simply unpopular with voters.

Unless a large majority of americans decide to amend the constitution to get rid of the second amendment, dont expect the us to be "disarmed" any time soon.


And here's the catch. Up until the early 90's, it was in danger. It was the overzealous actions of groups like VPC, MMM, HCI, etc. ( some of which healily supported by Soros) that put the pendelum on the other side. Now he's pushing for international "treaties" that could become US law if an anti-gun politician gets into office. Kerry, who Soros endorsed with tens of millions of dollars, does NOT support firearm rights. His voting record confirmed that.

Is it in "serious jeapardy"? No, and I'm working to make sure it stays that way.

And here's the catch. Up until the early 90's, it was in danger. It was the overzealous actions of groups like VPC, MMM, HCI, etc. ( some of which healily supported by Soros) that put the pendelum on the other side. Now he's pushing for international "treaties" that could become US law if an anti-gun politician gets into office. Kerry, who Soros endorsed with tens of millions of dollars, does NOT support firearm rights. His voting record confirmed that.

Is it in "serious jeapardy"? No, and I'm working to make sure it stays that way.


There is a huge difference between things like gun registries and confiscating all weapons and repealing the second amendment.

What you're saying is the equivalent of calling a food-stamp budget cut "an attempt to do genocide by starvation," it is a ridiculous and foolish exaggeration and it is dishonest.

You are dense. I don't care if the NRA did or did not support it. You deliberately dodge the point. Soros is not alone in how he plays the game. That's the point. Why single him out? Why? Why is he somehow worse than any other lobbying group or person? If you don't like how the game is played, support people who want to change it, but I see no reason why Soros stands out. The truth is you don't like his politics so it bothers you when he plays the same game guys you like play. Its assinine.

You specifically stated that you were sure that the groups that I support wanted to limit the "ability to sway public opinion". I showed you you were wrong.

He's not alone but he's a major player trying to directly affect me and my interests. That's why I single him out in this thread which is what the topic was about. I also oppose groups that play the same unethical games. You've also just assumed again that "guys like me" play the same game in an effort to make unjustified/unsupported personal attacks.

BTW - I do not accept any source you post because they are all very bad sources.

That's one of the most pathetic statements I've heard. I guess it's just because you don't like what they're saying.

That's one of the most pathetic statements I've heard. I guess it's just because you don't like what they're saying.


No, thats completely wrong.

Its because instead of posting things from reputable and mainstream sources of information like newspapers you post things from blogs and political lobbying groups.

Grow up.

You specifically stated that you were sure that the groups that I support wanted to limit the "ability to sway public opinion". I showed you you were wrong.

He's not alone but he's a major player trying to directly affect me and my interests. That's why I single him out in this thread which is what the topic was about. I also oppose groups that play the same unethical games. You've also just assumed again that "guys like me" play the same game in an effort to make unjustified/unsupported personal attacks. No, I said "guys you like." I'm pretty certain you havn't been pouring millions into some ad campaign to sway public opinion. In anycase, then since you admit that "guys you like" play the same game, why not attcka Soros' political stances rather than the way in which he gets them aired?



That's one of the most pathetic statements I've heard. I guess it's just because you don't like what they're saying.
I don't get my views or my news nor do I back up my stances with websites with an obvious agenda. I don't accept it from others. The NRA's opening paragraph that you linked to is a perfect example.
Campaign finance reform--especially in the guise of S.27, the McCain-Feingold legislation that passed the Senate in April--is a direct killing attack on every individual American`s First Amendment right to use political speech to protect the entire Bill of Rights.
I'm fairtly certain that you will be able to use political speech to back up your views. In fact, when you respond to this, emember that you are right at that moment using political speech to back up your views.

There is a huge difference between things like gun registries and confiscating all weapons and repealing the second amendment.

What you're saying is the equivalent of calling a food-stamp budget cut "an attempt to do genocide by starvation," it is a ridiculous and foolish exaggeration and it is dishonest.

And now read up on what Rebecca Peters has to say on the subject. It's in her own words. Of course they edited out most of the NRA statements.

Only registered licensed single shot rifles of less than 300' range for people who can prove it to their Gov't.

That's like raising the drinking age to 75.

http://www.iansa.org/action/gun_debate_transcript.doc

Of course they edited out most of the NRA statements.

No, thats completely wrong.

Its because instead of posting things from reputable and mainstream sources of information like newspapers you post things from blogs and political lobbying groups.

Grow up.

Like international papers as well as US, overwatch groups, and foriegn reports?

Now who's being dishonest?

Like international papers as well as US, overwatch groups, and foriegn reports?

Now who's being dishonest?


You did have the washington post article, but it didnt really have anything to dow ith anything you were claiming, so its hard to really count it as a source, plus you didnt read it.

No, I said "guys you like." I'm pretty certain you havn't been pouring millions into some ad campaign to sway public opinion. In anycase, then since you admit that "guys you like" play the same game, why not attcka Soros' political stances rather than the way in which he gets them aired?

I admitted this? Where. You've yet to show it.




I don't get my views or my news nor do I back up my stances with websites with an obvious agenda. I don't accept it from others. The NRA's opening paragraph that you linked to is a perfect example.

I posted one link from the NRA showing thier opposition to the MFA. Is that the best you can do?

I'm fairtly certain that you will be able to use political speech to back up your views. In fact, when you respond to this, emember that you are right at that moment using political speech to back up your views.

Now read up on the act. Are you saying I can take out a political ad 10 days before the election? Can I contribute what I want to a politician I support?

You did have the washington post article, but it didnt really have anything to dow ith anything you were claiming, so its hard to really count it as a source, plus you didnt read it.

I posted quite a bit more than that.

And now read up on what Rebecca Peters has to say on the subject. It's in her own words. Of course they edited out most of the NRA statements.

Only registered licensed single shot rifles of less than 300' range for people who can prove it to their Gov't.

That's like raising the drinking age to 75.

http://www.iansa.org/action/gun_debate_transcript.doc

Of course they edited out most of the NRA statements.


When did they make rebecca peters dictator of the united states?

Who cares what she thinks? She isnt influential in US politics.

Your huge mistake is that you're confused about what IANSA is trying to accomplish.

Their goal is to control guns in developing countries, where they do the most harm. The US is lost to the anti-gun people because of the second amendment, and they more or less all know it.

Lots of countries have severe gun laws, they have for a long time. It has never affected US gun laws, and it never will.

I own guns myself and am an NRA member, by the way.

When did they make rebecca peters dictator of the united states?

Who cares what she thinks? She isnt influential in US politics.

Your huge mistake is that you're confused about what IANSA is trying to accomplish.

Their goal is to control guns in developing countries, where they do the most harm. The US is lost to the anti-gun people because of the second amendment, and they more or less all know it.

Lots of countries have severe gun laws, they have for a long time. It has never affected US gun laws, and it never will.

I own guns myself and am an NRA member, by the way.

Ok Fine. Now if you read up on what they want to accomplish through their meeting on July 4th, a major aspect is to reduce/limit civilian firearm ownership.
By US census there are about 300 million civilian firearms.
Iansa states there are 640 million world wide, 57% in civilian hands. Do the math. Who are they trying to affect?
If they pass a UN treaty limiting civilian ownership to what she wants, a future president can sign it.

Her bankroller is influential in US politics.

Do you see the connection?

The ability to own a firearm will not likely be taken away. This country is too protective of that privilege.

I just wish other gun owners would remember that owning a firearm carries serious responsibilities.

If we fought as tenaciously for our OTHER rights under the Constitution as we defend our privilege of owning firearms, we would have no fear of Presidents like Bush who strip rights away in the name of national security.

I am very certain a very well reasoned argument could be made for getting all of the private handguns as part of a "National Security" plan.

Ok Fine. Now if you read up on what they want to accomplish through their meeting on July 4th, a major aspect is to reduce/limit civilian firearm ownership.
By US census there are about 300 million civilian firearms.
Iansa states there are 640 million world wide, 57% in civilian hands. Do the math. Who are they trying to affect?
If they pass a UN treaty limiting civilian ownership to what she wants, a future president can sign it.

Her bankroller is influential in US politics.

Do you see the connection?


I think you're pulling meaning out of those statistics that isnt intended.

Everything about this organization point to the fact that they are concerned with small arms in the third world.

This weird backwards reasoning is what makes these claims so ridiculous, it isnt a secret conspiracy that has to be 'decoded' and the 'connections' are not as sinister as you make them out to be.

At any rate, the constitution trumps UN treaties, even if signed by the president, and the supreme court has recently been packed with right wing ideologues, so there is no danger in the forseeable future of them hacking away at the 2nd amendment, which they havent done even under more liberal jurispruidence.

The problem with this gun issue is that it's a non-issue, its contrived. There are much much much more serious problems that should get this energy and attention, much as schwartz. said.

I think you're pulling meaning out of those statistics that isnt intended.



Everything about this organization point to the fact that they are concerned with small arms in the third world. [/quote]

So IANSA and other organizations do NOT want civilian ownership in the US restricted? Did you read the debate? Did you catch the part about the rules they want to play by and that the US should follow along?

This weird backwards reasoning is what makes these claims so ridiculous, it isnt a secret conspiracy that has to be 'decoded' and the 'connections' are not as sinister as you make them out to be.

There's no "backwards reasoning" to it at all nor a "secret conspiracy" . IANSA has clearly stated goals. George Soros finances IANSA as well as numerous groups in the US. He has financed junk lawsuits attacking the firearm industry. He also heavily supports politicians that have similar politics. The groups are all pushing for UN treaties. Seems pretty open to me.

At any rate, the constitution trumps UN treaties, even if signed by the president, and the supreme court has recently been packed with right wing ideologues, so there is no danger in the forseeable future of them hacking away at the 2nd amendment, which they havent done even under more liberal jurispruidence.

Really? They haven't? Show me a SCOTUS case that was successfully defended using the 2nd. Show me a gun ban/registration/storage/etc. scheme that was deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

The problem with this gun issue is that it's a non-issue, its contrived. There are much much much more serious problems that should get this energy and attention, much as schwartz. said.


You can believe it's a "non-issue" if you want. When my state nearly passed a bill w/ the old "assault weapon" bait n switch that wasn't grandfathered, it makes it an issue.

Just answer me this question honestly.

What business does a private citizen have with an Assault Rifle? In my view assault rifles are classified as semi-automatic, military grade weapons. They have no legitimate purpose for hunting any creature other than a human being.

Sporting rifles I can see, shotguns I can live with, handguns for self-defense WITH proper training I accept.

You as a private citizen have no business with a military class firearm. I used to be a member of the NRA until they went way kooky on me.

You may skip the whole "slippery slope" argument. I want an answer other than that one for a change.

Just answer me this question honestly.

What business does a private citizen have with an Assault Rifle? In my view assault rifles are classified as semi-automatic, military grade weapons. They have no legitimate purpose for hunting any creature other than a human being.

Sporting rifles I can see, shotguns I can live with, handguns for self-defense WITH proper training I accept.

You as a private citizen have no business with a military class firearm. I used to be a member of the NRA until they went way kooky on me.

You may skip the whole "slippery slope" argument. I want an answer other than that one for a change.

Well, here's the rub, an "assault rifle" is not what you defined. An "assault rifle" is a select fire weapon that fires either semi or fully automatic. These have been heavily regulated since 1934 and very few people are trying to change that. What you're attempting to define is an "assault weapon", the redesignation of a class of firearm by the anti-gun lobby previously known as "sporters". They are not "military class" weapons(well maybe 60 years ago). Any semi-auto hunting rifle is more "powerful". "Assault weapons" are the most common ones used for target shooting, both amateur and competative. They are also excellent for home defense (with the proper ammo), plinking, and varmint control.

Looks like you fell for the bait n switch.

Just answer me this question honestly.

What business does a private citizen have with an Assault Rifle? In my view assault rifles are classified as semi-automatic, military grade weapons. They have no legitimate purpose for hunting any creature other than a human being.

Sporting rifles I can see, shotguns I can live with, handguns for self-defense WITH proper training I accept.

You as a private citizen have no business with a military class firearm. I used to be a member of the NRA until they went way kooky on me.

You may skip the whole "slippery slope" argument. I want an answer other than that one for a change.
Just answer this question honestly.

Since when has a "percieved" need ever had anything to do with the exercizing of one's rights?

Well, here's the rub, an "assault rifle" is not what you defined. An "assault rifle" is a select fire weapon that fires either semi or fully automatic. These have been heavily regulated since 1934 and very few people are trying to change that. What you're attempting to define is an "assault weapon", the redesignation of a class of firearm by the anti-gun lobby previously known as "sporters". They are not "military class" weapons(well maybe 60 years ago). Any semi-auto hunting rifle is more "powerful". "Assault weapons" are the most common ones used for target shooting, both amateur and competative. They are also excellent for home defense (with the proper ammo), plinking, and varmint control.

Looks like you fell for the bait n switch.

No, I had specific weapons in mind. I grew up in a gun-owning household. I personally own a Walther PPK (not the PPK/S), a SiG Saeur P230 9mm, and two 30.06 hunting rifles. Since my grandfather lives in rural Florida he has the rifles. I have the pistols.

I fail to understand why a private citizen needs a weapon that fires a three shot burst. We have always been obsessed with weapons here in the United States. I can hunt with a single shot rifle and it will do precisely what I need it to do. I do well enough with my 7.65 mm pistol for home defense, but I prefer my SiG.

There are two sides to an argument, and it appears to me both the anti-gun and the gun lobbies lie their asses off. Compromise should be possible. I see no reason not to have to submit to a background check to purchase a firearm. It would only seem to be common sense. I know the vast majority of criminals who get firearms generally get them from a private source, but many a criminal has gotten a firearm from a gun show and the odd gun shop as well. We would do well to plug that leak in the system. The NRA could go a long way towards accomplishing such goals. But it has spent it's time arguing against background checks (at both shops and shows) and accepts no compromise about the right to own weapons.

Gun owners in must accept the responsibilities that go along with owning a firearm. The first step towards this is realizing that private gun ownership is not an unlimited right guaranteed in the US Constitution, it is conditionally given. Owning a firearm is a privilege, and failing to accept responsibility for that privilege bears consequences.

No, I had specific weapons in mind. I grew up in a gun-owning household. I personally own a Walther PPK (not the PPK/S), a SiG Saeur P230 9mm, and two 30.06 hunting rifles. Since my grandfather lives in rural Florida he has the rifles. I have the pistols.

I fail to understand why a private citizen needs a weapon that fires a three shot burst. We have always been obsessed with weapons here in the United States. I can hunt with a single shot rifle and it will do precisely what I need it to do. I do well enough with my 7.65 mm pistol for home defense, but I prefer my SiG.
As has been pointed out, the guns you are refering to (three shot burst) fall under the assault rifle catagory and have been heavily regulated since the early part of the 20th century. No one here is arguing that people should have unrestricted access to assault rifles.
But again, why must there be a (percieved on your part) need for one to exercise their rights?
The collector does not need to own the firearms, yet he has the right to do so.

There are two sides to an argument, and it appears to me both the anti-gun and the gun lobbies lie their asses off. Compromise should be possible. I see no reason not to have to submit to a background check to purchase a firearm. It would only seem to be common sense. I know the vast majority of criminals who get firearms generally get them from a private source, but many a criminal has gotten a firearm from a gun show and the odd gun shop as well. We would do well to plug that leak in the system. The NRA could go a long way towards accomplishing such goals. But it has spent it's time arguing against background checks (at both shops and shows) and accepts no compromise about the right to own weapons.
You are mistaken. The NRA has championed background checks. They fight for instantanious back ground checks. They have never spent any time arguing against them. They have argued against arbitrary waiting periods. 2 different animals.

Gun owners in must accept the responsibilities that go along with owning a firearm. The first step towards this is realizing that private gun ownership is not an unlimited right guaranteed in the US Constitution, it is conditionally given. Owning a firearm is a privilege, and failing to accept responsibility for that privilege bears consequences.
Again, you are mistaken. Gun ownership is a right, not a privilidge.
And no one is arguing for complete unrestricted/unlimited gun ownership.

Now the fact of the matter that "liberal" millionaires have also been doing that doesn't matter.

The fact that Soros is a foriegn millionaire using his money to unduly influence US politics using "international" organizations and individuals is the idea.

Rupert Murdoch, anyone?

The way that "need" plays into legal discussion about rights is analagous to the notion of a person being liable if he yells "fire" in a crowded theater.

His right to free speech is not absolute, and when it infringes upon other, more fundamental rights of others - like safety of life and limb - it can be limited.

A person does not need a semiautomatic rifle that holds fifty rounds in a drum magazine in order to fufill his constitutional right to bear arms.

The threat to public safety by having powerful semi-automatic rifles freely available with large ammunition capacity far outweighs the gun owner's need to own that specific sort of weapon.

Just as a person doesnt need to be able to threaten to kill the president or to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater in order to enjoy his right to free speech, a gun owner does not need to be able to own every sort of weapon in order to enjoy his right to bear arms.

Again, you are mistaken. Gun ownership is a right, not a privilidge.
And no one is arguing for complete unrestricted/unlimited gun ownership.

No, gun ownership is NOT a full fledged right as protected by the Constitution. It is a limited right under specific circumstances that has not been enforced as such for over 200 years.

I know the difference between the classes of firearms, and I know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Yet, I see gun owners purchase Uzis, FNFALs, AK-47's and 74s. Naturally claiming to be gun collectors. I don't buy the argument that they have the "right" to buy them in full working order. I am no fan of the anti-gun lobby, but I am also not a fan of the gun lobby either. The truth gets lost in the middle of their pissing match somewhere, and you will find that there are extremists on both sides of the issue.

I do know that most murders in the United States are committed with firearms. How we might solve this problem is a mystery to me, but I do know that it won't be solved by guys with bumper stickers or opinionated, bloviating fools like us on a message board.

No, I had specific weapons in mind. I grew up in a gun-owning household. I personally own a Walther PPK (not the PPK/S), a SiG Saeur P230 9mm, and two 30.06 hunting rifles. Since my grandfather lives in rural Florida he has the rifles. I have the pistols.

I fail to understand why a private citizen needs a weapon that fires a three shot burst. We have always been obsessed with weapons here in the United States. I can hunt with a single shot rifle and it will do precisely what I need it to do. I do well enough with my 7.65 mm pistol for home defense, but I prefer my SiG.

There are two sides to an argument, and it appears to me both the anti-gun and the gun lobbies lie their asses off. Compromise should be possible. I see no reason not to have to submit to a background check to purchase a firearm. It would only seem to be common sense. I know the vast majority of criminals who get firearms generally get them from a private source, but many a criminal has gotten a firearm from a gun show and the odd gun shop as well. We would do well to plug that leak in the system. The NRA could go a long way towards accomplishing such goals. But it has spent it's time arguing against background checks (at both shops and shows) and accepts no compromise about the right to own weapons.

Gun owners in must accept the responsibilities that go along with owning a firearm. The first step towards this is realizing that private gun ownership is not an unlimited right guaranteed in the US Constitution, it is conditionally given. Owning a firearm is a privilege, and failing to accept responsibility for that privilege bears consequences.


What you're describing is a select fire weapon, it is considered "fully-automatic" for legal purposes and is covered under the 1934 act. To own one requires a class III federal license w/ extensive background checks, etc. Nowadays, that and the rifle would cost over $15K. Not something the regular person goes out and buys.

Now you're being dishonest. The NRA does not oppose background checks. What it opposes are delayed checks that hinder private ownership. They fully support the NICS system presently in place. They also helped write the anti-AP law. They also support mandatory safety courses for CCW. I guess that's "no compromise" in your book.

No, gun ownership is NOT a full fledged right as protected by the Constitution. It is a limited right under specific circumstances that has not been enforced as such for over 200 years.

Full fledged? What does that mean? Do you mean unlimited? Noone is claiming it is.

I know the difference between the classes of firearms, and I know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Yet, I see gun owners purchase Uzis, FNFALs, AK-47's and 74s. Naturally claiming to be gun collectors. I don't buy the argument that they have the "right" to buy them in full working order. I am no fan of the anti-gun lobby, but I am also not a fan of the gun lobby either. The truth gets lost in the middle of their pissing match somewhere, and you will find that there are extremists on both sides of the issue.

Apparently you don't know the difference. You classified an M16A2 as "semi-automatic". Uzis, FNFALs, and AK's are NOT "semi-automatic assault rifles". There is no such thing.

Here, do some reading:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

I do know that most murders in the United States are committed with firearms. How we might solve this problem is a mystery to me, but I do know that it won't be solved by guys with bumper stickers or opinionated, bloviating fools like us on a message board.

There's lots of things people can do to help reduce crime.

George soros is a multimillionaire gun banner in bed with sarah peters. What more can be said?

The way that "need" plays into legal discussion about rights is analagous to the notion of a person being liable if he yells "fire" in a crowded theater.

His right to free speech is not absolute, and when it infringes upon other, more fundamental rights of others - like safety of life and limb - it can be limited.

A person does not need a semiautomatic rifle that holds fifty rounds in a drum magazine in order to fufill his constitutional right to bear arms.

The threat to public safety by having powerful semi-automatic rifles freely available with large ammunition capacity far outweighs the gun owner's need to own that specific sort of weapon.

Just as a person doesnt need to be able to threaten to kill the president or to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater in order to enjoy his right to free speech, a gun owner does not need to be able to own every sort of weapon in order to enjoy his right to bear arms.

Why do you keep using the misnomer "powerful"? The ammunition is low powered. There are numerous semi-automatic huting rifles that use higher powered ammuntion that aren't classified as "assault weapons".


There are hundreds of thousands of "assault weapons" in the US. How many are used in crime? Would you support a complete handgun ban being that more of those are used in murders?

Why do you bring up the strawman of an unlimited right? Nobody here has called for that.

George soros is a multimillionaire gun banner in bed with sarah peters. What more can be said?

Rebecca Peters.

Just answer me this question honestly.

What business does a private citizen have with an Assault Rifle? In my view assault rifles are classified as semi-automatic, military grade weapons. They have no legitimate purpose for hunting any creature other than a human being.

Sporting rifles I can see, shotguns I can live with, handguns for self-defense WITH proper training I accept.

You as a private citizen have no business with a military class firearm. I used to be a member of the NRA until they went way kooky on me.

You may skip the whole "slippery slope" argument. I want an answer other than that one for a change.

Who is to say I don't? I have everybusiness owning a military-style weapon. They are RELIABLE, accurate, and pretty abuse tolerant. Some of us use them for hunting (YES, they are VERY good at that) some of us use them for home defense (Very good there too) and some of us use them for plinking, something they are good for. Why?

High velocity ammo, better penetion, LESS recoil, more lethal,

LESS over penetration of targets, more ammo in the magazine (30+), longer range, most will easily perforate a car if need be.

Handguns are a good choice for HD, but not THE BEST. Neither are shotguns. Rifles are Waaaaaay better. That's why the Police issue AR15s to officers if they qualify.

The founders used military-grade weapons to fight the british. Americans today use military grade firearms to bushwhack goblins and other never-do-wells who burglarize our homes, murder our people, and in general cause mischeif.

Rebecca Peters.

M'bad.

The way that "need" plays into legal discussion about rights is analagous to the notion of a person being liable if he yells "fire" in a crowded theater.

His right to free speech is not absolute, and when it infringes upon other, more fundamental rights of others - like safety of life and limb - it can be limited.

A person does not need a semiautomatic rifle that holds fifty rounds in a drum magazine in order to fufill his constitutional right to bear arms.

The threat to public safety by having powerful semi-automatic rifles freely available with large ammunition capacity far outweighs the gun owner's need to own that specific sort of weapon.

Just as a person doesnt need to be able to threaten to kill the president or to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater in order to enjoy his right to free speech, a gun owner does not need to be able to own every sort of weapon in order to enjoy his right to bear arms.
When one "yells fire in a crowded theater" (God what a tired argument) does not apply in this circumstance. Yelling "fire" is a direct threat to someone elses life.
Firearm ownership is NOT a direct threat to anyone else. I can't know why you feel it is. Maybe you had a bad experience in your past with guns... maybe you shot a toe off playing with daddy's pistol in his closet. Whatever it may be, you have an unrational fear of firearms.

I feel sorry for you, I really do.

All that being said, need has nothing to do with the exercising of one's rights. Nor should it. Someone shouldn't have to show a "need" to be able to purchase a firearm. They should have to show that they haven't proven themselves to be unresponsible in said ownership. Period.

a gun owner does not need to be able to own every sort of weapon in order to enjoy his right to bear arms
You do it again. You make an exagerated claim to make your opponents argument seem insane.
The ONLY one who has mentioned anything about "every sort of weapon" is you. Intellectually dishonest, isn't it?

You do it again. You make an exagerated claim to make your opponents argument seem insane.
The ONLY one who has mentioned anything about "every sort of weapon" is you. Intellectually dishonest, isn't it?

The strawman is very common in these arguements.

I wonder if those calling for restrictions based on "need" would accept a limit on internet access because they don't "need" it to excersize thier 1st amendment rights? I mean, after all, high powered assault computers are responsible for the majority of ID theft and are a direct threat to society. We should have them highly restricted.

Or limiting the sizes of homes they can own. Someone doesn't "need" a 20 room house to excersize thier property rights.

Sound silly? It's meant to be.

The strawman is very common in these arguements.

I wonder if those calling for restrictions based on "need" would accept a limit on internet access because they don't "need" it to excersize thier 1st amendment rights? I mean, after all, high powered assault computers are responsible for the majority of ID theft and are a direct threat to society. We should have them highly restricted.

Or limiting the sizes of homes they can own. Someone doesn't "need" a 20 room house to excersize thier property rights.

Sound silly? It's meant to be.

LOl...:D

True true true.

George soros is a multimillionaire gun banner in bed with sarah peters. What more can be said?


Multibillionaire

When one "yells fire in a crowded theater" (God what a tired argument) does not apply in this circumstance. Yelling "fire" is a direct threat to someone elses life.
Firearm ownership is NOT a direct threat to anyone else. I can't know why you feel it is. Maybe you had a bad experience in your past with guns... maybe you shot a toe off playing with daddy's pistol in his closet. Whatever it may be, you have an unrational fear of firearms.

I feel sorry for you, I really do.

All that being said, need has nothing to do with the exercising of one's rights. Nor should it. Someone shouldn't have to show a "need" to be able to purchase a firearm. They should have to show that they haven't proven themselves to be unresponsible in said ownership. Period.


You do it again. You make an exagerated claim to make your opponents argument seem insane.
The ONLY one who has mentioned anything about "every sort of weapon" is you. Intellectually dishonest, isn't it?


Indeed, it was my "irrational fear of firearms" that has led me to buy and shoot them and join the NRA.

Try again.

"Need" as it is applied to rights was adressed above and concerns which freedoms a person 'needs' in order to reasonably excercize his rights, balanced against the social good or ill caused by those freedoms.

Indeed, it was my "irrational fear of firearms" that has led me to buy and shoot them and join the NRA.

Try again.

"Need" as it is applied to rights was adressed above and concerns which freedoms a person 'needs' in order to reasonably excercize his rights, balanced against the social good or ill caused by those freedoms.

Now since there is no connection between legally owning "assault weapons" and social "ills" in comparison to the social good they provide the thousands of owners, your desire to restrict them further is unjustified.

He made a direct GWB=Nazi remark in the bit you posted. Are you denying this?

Considering Bush extolled the virtue of Joseph Goebbel's finer points of propaganda warfare not to mention how Bush forefather Prescott was a Nazi supporter, it's not really a Godwin.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in... to kind of catapult the propaganda."

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Considering Bush extolled the virtue of Joseph Goebbel's finer points of propaganda warfare not to mention how Bush forefather Prescott was a Nazi supporter, it's not really a Godwin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Soros statement made before the Bushism?

The "Godwin" thing was definately tongue in cheek. My point was that a statement like Soros's coming from one who had lived under Nazism and Communism was a pretty pathetic PR manuever and should be given all the seriousness it deserves.

Now since there is no connection between legally owning "assault weapons" and social "ills" in comparison to the social good they provide the thousands of owners, your desire to restrict them further is unjustified.


You know, I rarely see solid evidence either way. I see a lot of political moves and a lot of neither side listening to the finer points of the discourse. Everyone seems to cling to their absolutes and no one ever approaches a debate like this with any intention of actually learn something.

Sorry for the tangent. I now return you to this rather pointless discussion of firearms place in society.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Soros statement made before the Bushism?

The "Godwin" thing was definately tongue in cheek. My point was that a statement like Soros's coming from one who had lived under Nazism and Communism was a pretty pathetic PR manuever and should be given all the seriousness it deserves.


Especially because someone like soros, who lived under communism and nazism, wouldnt know the first thing about the subject, right?

At any rate the LORD OF DEATH was interviewed in the times magazine this week, you can read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/magazine/11wwln_q4.html

Especially because someone like soros, who lived under communism and nazism, wouldnt know the first thing about the subject, right?

Which is exactly why making statements like the ones he made are so openly pathetic.

At any rate the LORD OF DEATH was interviewed in the times magazine this week, you can read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/magazine/11wwln_q4.html


You consider him the "LORD OF DEATH" now? That's quite a change from your previous position. Unless of course you're trying to imply extreme statements that noone made in order to bolster your own arguement. Again.

Especially because someone like soros, who lived under communism and nazism, wouldnt know the first thing about the subject, right?

At any rate the LORD OF DEATH was interviewed in the times magazine this week, you can read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/magazine/11wwln_q4.html

It's funny-Soros and the commies have one thing in common-


Gun control.

Now since there is no connection between legally owning "assault weapons" and social "ills" in comparison to the social good they provide the thousands of owners, your desire to restrict them further is unjustified.

Meh. As I remember one friends comment:

"The need to own an assault weapon is a sign of a little peepee"

She could outshoot just about anybody. :D

It's funny-Soros and the commies have one thing in common-


Gun control.


Yup, a pretty good indication that gun control doesnt equal communism.

Which is exactly why making statements like the ones he made are so openly pathetic.




'Openly pathetic' stupid hungarian holocaust survivors, always trying to point out when things remind them of the bad-old-days. Openly pathetic I tell ya.

George Soros is a great man, the world needs more like him.
George Soros? We're talking about the same guy here right now, aren't we?

You do mean the currency speculator extraordinaire, and grand ruiner of economies himself, right?

George Soros? We're talking about the same guy here right now, aren't we?

You do mean the currency speculator extraordinaire, and grand ruiner of economies himself, right?

OH you mean Karl Rove!

You mean George Soros the alcoholic?

George Soros? We're talking about the same guy here right now, aren't we?

You do mean the currency speculator extraordinaire, and grand ruiner of economies himself, right?

Ruiner of economies? You know, it would be nice if someone besides a far-right mouthpiece made that claim or indeed backed it up with some hard info.

As it is, it smells remarkably like bullshit to me.

You mean George Soros the alcoholic?

That would be Bush.

OH you mean Karl Rove!
There's plenty of other things Rove is, but speculator and ruiner he is not.

There's a reason that he's known as "the man who broke the bank of england."

Picked some of this stuff up the otherday from Cabelas. 154 grain softpoint ammo. 2100 FPS out of a 16" barrel. Naasty stuff. Have four mags loaded four it.....:eek:

This is for the goblins who invade my home. It's also going to be my hunting ammo.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=6/16103013799.jpg&s=f5

Picked some of this stuff up the otherday from Cabelas. 154 grain softpoint ammo. 2100 FPS out of a 16" barrel. Naasty stuff. Have four mags loaded four it.....:eek:

This is for the goblins who invade my home. It's also going to be my hunting ammo.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=6/16103013799.jpg&s=f5

"Waaaa, calling me a USian hurts my feelings. Here's my big gun. It goes boom boom to scare away the mean people."

"Waaaa, calling me a USian hurts my feelings. Here's my big gun. It goes boom boom to scare away the mean people."

What gun?

This is the George Soros thread, so I found it appropriate to post pics of my latest acquisition.

'Openly pathetic' stupid hungarian holocaust survivors, always trying to point out when things remind them of the bad-old-days. Openly pathetic I tell ya.

Remember Boys and Girls, it's only okay for Kahanists to bring up the Holocaust and how it affected them. :D

Ruiner of economies? You know, it would be nice if someone besides a far-right mouthpiece made that claim or indeed backed it up with some hard info.

As it is, it smells remarkably like bullshit to me.

As it is, I've already posted several links on his "wonderful" economic manuevers in England and Eastern Europe.

'Openly pathetic' stupid hungarian holocaust survivors, always trying to point out when things remind them of the bad-old-days. Openly pathetic I tell ya.

So when was our Kristallnacht? Our local Gulag keeping political dissidents? Bush's "My Struggle"? How many TV stations/newspapers/radio stations have been forced to close? How many thousands of dissenters have dissappeared?

Oh, right. Nothing at all like that. Just political manueverings.

Plus some more red herrings. Good Job.