Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Arms Trade Treaty Fails!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797

    Arms Trade Treaty Fails!

    Well, the UN didn't meet it's deadline to get the ATT passed. There is still talk of pushing for something down the line though. Below are three articles I saw on it

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/wo...-approval.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...-trade-treaty/

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...for-more-time/

    Feel free to pick your flavor or read all three, as they all say pretty much the same thing.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Was doomed anyway .. really would have liked it to pass and have democrats/republicans up for election show their evil faces via voting in favor of it ...

    As it is now, its a eh? from me. It was DOA in the senate.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Drab, you mean there will be no fear-mongering regarding this treaty...I'm going to miss it so.

    Per your link:

    "“The White House walked away at a critical moment by failing to move this treaty to conclusion,” Oxfam America’s senior policy adviser, Scott Stedjan, said in a statement. “It is a tremendous loss for thousands of innocent civilians around the globe who die each year from armed violence fueled by the unregulated transfer of arms.”
    Apparently the White House walked away from it. And this whole time I thought Hilary, and President Obama were hell-bent on signing the agreement.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    333
    It was DOA with the senate anyway.

    The US as one of the largest arms exporting nations, therefore has vested interest is the careful crafting of word in this treaty.

    Obama is smarter than I give him credit for, he and Hillary know that serious gun control issues will splinter the democractic "Big Tent" and break the Democractic party for the forseeable future.
    Steve


    "Life is hard, its even harder when you are stupid!"

  5. #5
    Regular Member The Airframer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Posts
    171
    It's a wonderful thing that we backed out, does this mean that the door will remain open for reconsideration once this thing decides to rear its ugly head again? Say post election perhaps?

    The alleged purpose of this thing was to disarm rebels/evil people and prevent them from mass murder and somehow, whenever you hear stories of mass murder around the globe--Africa for example, they are slaughtering innocents with machete's (made in China most likely) and AK-47's (Made in Russia because Chinese Norinko's are about 3 times the value of a Soviet special). We could go on with Saddam Hussein and the Kurds (VX nerve gas), every conflict in the Middle East (AK's/IED's), the cocaine wars in South America....

    You just don't see American made weapons in global conflicts unless preventable stupidity backfires like we've almost seen in the cover-up of fast and the furious.

    This treaty would have weakened our economy and more importantly, infringed upon our God-given right to own and bear arms.

    Thanks to all that expressed their extreme opposition to the people that matter in the defense of our freedom!
    It's better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Now I could be wrong in how I was understanding things, but it is FAR better that it failed at the UN rather than being sent to our Senate. From my understanding, had consensus been reached then the treaty would have been passed, regardless of if our Senate ratified it or not. Now granted we wouldn't of been subjected to it due to our Senate not ratifying it, but most other countries' governments most likely would have ratified it. And that still could have impacted us by either not letting us sell to those countries or those countries not selling to us. Now all of that would have depended on the final wording, but as I said, my take-away from previous readings was that even w/o us ratifying it it could still have affected our country by affecting our import/exports.

    There was also talk about how future amendments wouldn't need consensus, and they could have used those amendments to apply pressure to countries not a part of the ATT. At least, applied pressure to countries that actually play by the rules and are willing to go along with it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member The Airframer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Posts
    171
    From the article http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...eement_fails/:
    "A Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, also blamed the U.S., saying "they derailed the process," adding that nothing will happen to revive negotiations until after the U.S. presidential election in November."

    "U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement Friday evening that the U.S. supports a second round of negotiations next year."

    A temporary victory it seems, this thing is far from over.

    I wish these cowards wouldn't hide behind anonymity when they spew this vomit to the press so we know exactly who NOT to vote for.
    Last edited by The Airframer; 07-28-2012 at 09:19 AM.
    It's better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it...

  8. #8
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Drab, you mean there will be no fear-mongering regarding this treaty...I'm going to miss it so.

    Per your link:



    Apparently the White House walked away from it. And this whole time I thought Hilary, and President Obama were hell-bent on signing the agreement.
    They were. Someone must have talked some sense into them. They know if they speak out against Gun ownership or for Gun control they are dead in the next election. Obama will be a lame duck after Nov. 6th anyways, because people will not forget the remarks he has made and the destruction he has caused. And I don't believe legitimate concerns is considered fear mongering.
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 07-28-2012 at 10:54 AM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    They were. Someone must have talked some sense into them. They know if they speak out against Gun ownership or for Gun control they are dead in the next election. Obama will be a lame duck after Nov. 6th anyways, because people will not forget the remarks he has made and the destruction he has caused. And I don't believe legitimate concerns is considered fear mongering.
    +1, well said. If (God help us) obozo gets elected again, there will be NOTHING he wont go after.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DeltaOps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by wethepeople View Post
    +1, well said. If (God help us) obozo gets elected again, there will be NOTHING he wont go after.
    And we can only do our best to see that he is not re-elected. He never got my vote and he will not get it this time around as well.

  11. #11
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Had it passed the UN, am I the only one who thinks that Obama would have signed it and attempted to use Federal forces to enforce it without the advice and consent of the Senate?

    Folks, we have been looking for some time now at an administration and President that have nothing but contempt for the nation and for the Constitution. What in this world makes any of you think that he would feel constrained by that Constitution? FWIW, I am going to be very interested to see what happens between Election Day and Inauguration Day.

    Personally, I feel that it is way past time for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations, quit giving our money to this corrupt organization, and require that they remove themselves from American soil. I would also be very, very hesitant about committing American servicemen-and-women to any mission the UN came up with.

    That does not mean that we would refuse to lend our resources to help other countries during times of natural disasters.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    He might not have used Federal forces to enforce the grab but I believe he would have brought the blue helmets in to do the job for him as the Federal forces might have not been strong enough for the complete disarmament.
    For what little it is worth our rural county and city forces would have and will oppose any gun grab from the feds or blue helmets.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Apparently the White House walked away from it. And this whole time I thought Hilary, and President Obama were hell-bent on signing the agreement.
    Do you have any evidence whatsoever they were not? Heck, they only said they were pushing for it about a million times in public over the last three months. Did you miss all their grandstanding? Did you miss the fact that "on June 25, 2012, just four days ago, he actually did declare a national emergency when he signed yet another executive order, E.O. 13617. By doing so, he activated various emergency powers as laid out in previous executive orders." - Source

    Moreover, "it is more than clear that Obama is planning for the total control and takeover of America via Martial Law. Food, energy, transportation, work, banking, and health…he has it covered. While Obama is busy pulling executive orders out of the sky to control everything inside our country, he has been issuing executive orders to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our Constitution. Sher Zieve exposed this in one of her recent articles. Damn the U.S. Constitution, damn the American people and damn U.S. sovereignty." - Source

    The truth is the White House "walked away" from it ONLY after and because a majority of senators sent a signed and stern reminder to Obama that they would not ratify it. Upon receipt of the letter, Obama deceptively attempted to turn it into a win by "walking away" from a fight he'd just lost.

    Meanwhile, "U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, said in a statement Friday evening that the U.S. supports a second round of negotiations next year." No, the U.S. does NOT support a second round of negotiations next year. Victoria Nuland works for Hillary Clinton, one of the extreme liberals like Obama who support widespread disarmament of U.S. citizens and the Secretary of State. Don't be fooled by his deceptive comments to the media. He has made it abundantly clear throughout his entire career, both in Chicago, as well while chief executor, er, "executive," that he'd love nothing better than to disarm the people.

    We're doing everything we can to ensure neither Clinton nor Obama have any input on the matter next year. Or, for that matter, ever.

    Read more, here, complete with substantiating links.
    Last edited by since9; 07-30-2012 at 01:10 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Do you have any evidence whatsoever they were not? Heck, they only said they were pushing for it about a million times in public over the last three months. Did you miss all their grandstanding? Did you miss the fact that "on June 25, 2012, just four days ago, he actually did declare a national emergency when he signed yet another executive order, E.O. 13617. By doing so, he activated various emergency powers as laid out in previous executive orders." - Source
    Per your so-called source, and the so-called sources you offered-up:

    You posted:

    Both state that Obama has put forth more than 900 Executive Orders over the last 3-1/2 years. While that's only 5 per week, when you take into consideration his golf and vacation schedule, that's more like 5 a day. http://ryoc.us/forums/showthread.php...wfull=1#post51
    Then I got to the Googler, and dug a few of my own links up:

    Obama has signed 126 Executive Orders in 40 months! What did Congress do in those 40 months? The following are a few from 2011 and 2012. http://visiontoamerica.com/10286/oba...-in-40-months/
    Another Googler find--apparently W. Bush signed about the same number during his first stint:

    Administration of George W. Bush (2001-2009)
    Disposition of Executive orders signed by President George W. Bush:


    • Subject Index
    • 2009 - E.O. 13484 - E.O. 13488 (5 Executive orders issued)
    • 2008 - E.O. 13454 - E.O. 13483 (30 Executive orders issued)
    • 2007 - E.O. 13422 - E.O. 13453 (32 Executive orders issued)
    • 2006 - E.O. 13395 - E.O. 13421 (27 Executive orders issued)
    • 2005 - E.O. 13369 - E.O. 13394 (26 Executive orders issued)
    • 2004 - E.O. 13324 - E.O. 13368 (45 Executive orders issued)
    • 2003 - E.O. 13283 - E.O. 13323 (41 Executive orders issued)
    • 2002 - E.O. 13252 - E.O. 13282 (31 Executive orders issued)
    • 2001 - E.O. 13198 - E.O. 13251 (54 Executive orders issued)


    291 Total Executive orders Issued
    http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ers/wbush.html
    Now for President Obama, to-date:

    Administration of Barack Obama (2009-Present)
    Disposition of Executive orders signed by President Barack Obama:

    • Subject Index
    • 2009 - E.O. 13489 - E.O. 13527 (39 Executive orders issued)
    • 2010 - E.O. 13528 - E.O. 13562 (35 Executive orders issued)
    • 2011 - E.O. 13563 - E.O. 13596 (34 Executive orders issued)
    • 2012 - E.O. 13597 - E.O. 13618 (22 Executive orders issued)


    130 Total Executive orders Issued

    NOTE: The total number of Executive orders issued for each administration includes number-and-letter designated orders, such as 9577-A, 9616-A, etc. http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ers/obama.html
    **for the top** Basically, your Topic you Sourced me too (which was one you started, and the crap links), and what you had stated in it is complete BS.

    Okay, one more:

    This list is complete and current to July 28, 2012
    President Obama has signed 133 Executive Orders to date during his Administration. The 1461 has included a Free Download of the Official Executive Orders as they become available in the Federal Registry. http://1461days.blogspot.com/2009/01...nt-obamas.html
    Moreover, "it is more than clear that Obama is planning for the total control and takeover of America via Martial Law. Food, energy, transportation, work, banking, and health…he has it covered. While Obama is busy pulling executive orders out of the sky to control everything inside our country, he has been issuing executive orders to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our Constitution. Sher Zieve exposed this in one of her recent articles. Damn the U.S. Constitution, damn the American people and damn U.S. sovereignty." - Source
    Moreover, it is apparent that you are engaging in direct misleading, and out-right fear-mongering, but, don't fret, there are some that will buy into the inaccuracies of your post, and your so-called Sources.


    The truth is the White House "walked away" from it ONLY after and because a majority of senators sent a signed and stern reminder to Obama that they would not ratify it. Upon receipt of the letter, Obama deceptively attempted to turn it into a win by "walking away" from a fight he'd just lost.
    You missed that initially, some time ago, there were a larger group of Senators who made the same statement, this current batch was smaller.

    Meanwhile, "U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, said in a statement Friday evening that the U.S. supports a second round of negotiations next year." No, the U.S. does NOT support a second round of negotiations next year. Victoria Nuland works for Hillary Clinton, one of the extreme liberals like Obama who support widespread disarmament of U.S. citizens and the Secretary of State. Don't be fooled by his deceptive comments to the media. He has made it abundantly clear throughout his entire career, both in Chicago, as well while chief executor, er, "executive," that he'd love nothing better than to disarm the people.

    We're doing everything we can to ensure neither Clinton nor Obama have any input on the matter next year. Or, for that matter, ever.
    Read more, here, complete with substantiating links.
    You have made some things abundantly clear, and it has nothing to do with what is actually occurring in our Government; as it relates to the post you have offered-up here.

    I would read more, but you have offered claims of 900 EO's, and there have been a much smaller number than that.

    Hell, W. Bush put forth nearly 3X the number of EO's during his first stint in office. *Correction* Bush signed nearly 300 during his entire stint in office, sorry for the misread on my part.

    A little advice: You can argue against the EO's that President Obama has signed, but to offer-up sh*t links, and/or claims that he signed 900 when he signed a buck-thirty, well, you bring down your ability to help stir outrage.

    BTW, I almost forgot. That americanthinker... link you offered is scary. I hope that individuals don't actually believe the heaps of sh*t that are offered there. I mean, obviously you believe it...and that is worrisome. Please, keep a level head, stay away from reading too much fringe right-wing media...every person ought to have a little variety in their diet, both physical, and knowledge diet.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 07-30-2012 at 01:40 AM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Then I got to the Googler, and dug a few of my own links up...
    That tactic is off-topic, and therefore a fallacy of the Red Herring class, specially, a Straw Man. It's like my saying "2+2=4" and you respond with, "yeah, but they're clubbing baby seals!" Your argument isn't an argument at all. It's a deceptive attempt to divert attention away from the point I made.

    Which, by the way, stands without any logical rebuttal (yet) from you.

    Another Googler find--apparently W. Bush...
    Straw man...

    Basically, your Topic you Sourced me too...
    No.

    ...which was one you started, and the crap links...
    Please explain how my links to the U.S. National Archives are "crap?"

    ...and what you had stated in it is complete BS.
    Your assertion is 100% unqualified and therefore completely without merit.

    Moreover, it is apparent that you are engaging in direct misleading, and out-right fear-mongering...
    Again, your assertion is unqualified, and therefore completely without merit. Furthermore, it's a personal attack, known as an Ad Hominem, another red herring and deceptive logical fallacy designed to misdirect and misguide.

    You missed that initially, some time ago, there were a larger group of Senators who made the same statement, this current batch was smaller.
    More Dems = smaller bunch willing to protect and defend the Constitution. We're working to correct that by 2013.

    ...you have offered claims of 900 EO's, and there have been a much smaller number than that.
    Actually, this article made the claim of 900 E.O.s, specificically, "President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama has offered over 900 Executive Orders (EO)." I agree that link is crap, as he cites "EO 10990" and some others as belonging to Obama, but they go all the way back to J.F.K.

    This link is not crap, and the first paragraph reiterates what I just said: "(Editor’s correction: This is a list of executive orders in force that outline Emergency Powers. Some of these were signed by prior US Presidents going back all the way to JFK. Obama specifically has signed executive orders starting with the number EO-13489 and forward. But these all reference powers Obama could use to limit your freedoms."

    You would know that had you actually read the link. Your comments clearly indicate you either didn't read it while saying you did (deceptive), or that you posted as if you'd read the links without actually having read them (deceptive).

    Either way: Deceptive.

    Meanwhile, you pointed out an error. I admitted it, and have modified my post. Instead of ignoring it or trying to draw attention away from it, I admitted the error and made the correct. That's honesty, not deception.

    Hell, W. Bush...
    Strawman logical fallacy...

    ...put forth nearly 3X the number of EO's during his first stint in office.
    Strawman - quantity has no bearing on quality. That's also a formal fallacy known as a Probabalistic Fallacy.

    *Correction* Bush signed nearly 300 during his entire stint in office, sorry for the misread on my part.
    No worries - there's hope for you yet!

    BTW, I almost forgot. That americanthinker... link you offered is scary. I hope that individuals don't actually believe the heaps of sh*t that are offered there.
    Really? It's almost identical to the Western Center for Journalism article:

    "Founded in 1991 by Joseph Farah (the brains behind WND.com news website) and James H. Smith (former publisher of the Sacramento Union), the Western Center for Journalism has been sponsoring and training investigative journalists for over two decades." - Source

    I mean, obviously you believe it...and that is worrisome. Please, keep a level head, stay away from reading too much fringe right-wing media...every person ought to have a little variety in their diet, both physical, and knowledge diet.
    When you bake chocolate chip cookies, do you put a little sewage in there to provide "a little variety?" Either something's correct or it's false. If it's false, then it's false, and I don't have to swallow it "just for variety."

    There remain many healthy "correct" foods from which I can feed to provide variety, and both CWJ and WND are accurate sources of information. Calling them "crap links" simply because the information they provide counters your personal opinion of Obama is itself a highly illogical, and therefore fallacious, approach. By the way, that would be an Appeal to Nature, a logical fallacy falling under both the Vagueness and Begging the Question categories of informal fallacy.

    Fallacies don't win arguments, Beretta92FSLady. All they do is highlight the logically fallacious nature of your arguments -- no sense, rhyme, or reason -- as well as your conclusions deriving therefrom.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    [snippers]
    My response stands.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    It will come back. Mark my words. They are not done trying yet.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •