Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: UN's ATT Tabled... for the time-being

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428

    Thumbs up UN's ATT Tabled... for the time-being

    And here are a few selected quotes from Reuters reportage (which to me, always seems a bit less politically influenced than do our own news services):

    More than 170 countries have spent the past month in New York negotiating a treaty, which needed to be adopted by consensus, so any one country effectively could have vetoed a deal. Instead, no decision was taken on a draft treaty.

    But this leaves the door open for further talks and a draft arms-trade treaty could be brought to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopted with a two-thirds majority vote. Diplomats said there could be a vote by the end of the year.
    So, the good news is that even the member states of the U.N. can't agree on a draft at this point in time. Now, the question becomes one of "Does the UN consider a 2/3 majority to be a 'consensus', and will the current administration sign off on such a definition?" And this thought just crossed my mind - Could this be a political ploy to take the pressure off the Obama camp, possibly in return for a promise of some sort? Something like, "The U.N. will hold off on the ATT until after November 6th, if you swear to get rid of that pesky Second Amendment early in your next term." (Mind you, that is not a prediction - I don't have "the gift of prophecy" - it's just an expression of how my personal awareness sees the business of politics, and my opinion of those involved in it.)

    "We feel that we could have agreed (a treaty). It is disappointing that more time is needed. But an arms-trade treaty is coming - not today - but soon. We've taken a big step forward," said a spokesman for Britain's delegation.
    "A spokesman for Britain's delegation" represents Elizabeth II, and the royal decree restricting British subjects (as opposed to "citizens") from the ownership/possession of firearms. Such a statement from any representative of the Brits is totally unsurprising. The UK has had severe restrictions on the private ownership of firearms since 1937, and in 1997, Great Britain banned private ownership of almost all handguns. If this unnamed "spokesman" didn't sing the "party song", he would be removed from the chorus.

    While most U.N. member states favored a strong treaty, activists said there was a small minority of states, including Syria, North Korea, Iran, Egypt and Algeria, who loudly voiced opposition to global arms control throughout the negotiations
    That "small minority of states", includes four Islamic countries who cannot impose the will of Allah on the infidels without significant firepower, and one country being run by the delusional lunatic son of the late delusional lunatic leader.

    But ultimately, arms-control activists blamed the United States and Russia for the inability to reach a decision on Friday, as both countries said there was not enough time left for them to clarify and resolve issues they had with the draft treaty.
    Of course they blamed the US and Russia! They are both internationally influential... and they weren't alone.

    "Moving forward, President Obama must show the political courage required to make a strong treaty that contains strong rules on human rights a reality," said Scott Stedjan, a senior policy advisor at Oxfam America, which fights poverty and other injustices.
    They're trying to sell this as a cure for "poverty and injustice" now? And the "human rights" at issue, are those of self-defense.

    But, we will now enjoy a break in the excitement provided by the UN's ATT for an unspecified period of time. Could be a week, could be a year. My money is on sometime after November 6th. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Every person crying out that President Obama is going to sign the Treaty turned out to be wrong. I look forward to them eating more crow following election.

    You can speculate all day what you think he is going to do, but at the end of the day, it appears to be nothing more than fear-mongering rhetoric.

    Let's play the imaginary game: President Obama signs the Treaty.--the Senate, whom sent a 51'ish letter to President Obama, opposing agreement, stated that they urge him not to agree. Basically, insurmountable hurdle, and considering his deep Pragmatism, he won't broach whatever his real view of the Second Amendment may be.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 07-28-2012 at 01:43 PM.
    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...

  3. #3
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    406
    But, we will now enjoy a break in the excitement provided by the UN's ATT for an unspecified period of time. Could be a week, could be a year. My money is on sometime after November 6th. Pax...


    Yeah, there are a lot of things he doesn't want to mess with until after the election. Like having the trial of that SOB that shot up Ft. Hood! He's the most gutless President we've ever had.
    Last edited by hjmoosejaw; 07-28-2012 at 02:10 PM.
    watch your top knot !

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Every person crying out that President Obama is going to sign the Treaty turned out to be wrong. I look forward to them eating more crow following election.
    Nobody is "wrong". Obama can't sign that which does not yet exist, so wait until there is a treaty offered up before you begin gloating. And serving up "crow" from the B92FSL Restaurant is also premature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You can speculate all day what you think he is going to do, but at the end of the day, it appears to be nothing more than fear-mongering rhetoric.
    We are all free to speculate ("to think about deeply and theorize"). At least those of us who are not Obamabots still have such freedoms. And "fear mongering rhetoric" implies a psychologically nefarious intent. "Fear mongering rhetoric" is a favorite phrase of the liberal left, blurted out when they have no realistically believable evidence to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Let's play the imaginary game: President Obama signs the Treaty.--the Senate, whom sent a 51'ish letter to President Obama, opposing agreement, stated that they urge him not to agree. Basically, insurmountable hurdle, and considering his deep Pragmatism, he won't broach whatever his real view of the Second Amendment may be.
    The "insurmountable hurdle" was reduced from a high of 58 in September of 2011. Twenty-three Democrat Senators, and 10 Republican Senators face reelection in November. The chances that those 33 Senators have not yet taken a firm position on the issue of the U.N. ATT are excellent. In an election year, trying to get a straight answer from an incumbent is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. Just as Obama "won't broach whatever his real view of the Second Amendment may be", neither will the other incumbents. They want to keep that $174,000 (plus benefits, bribes and other perks) per year "job", and they realize "silence is golden" - like spinelessly voting "Present" when a bill is being considered. So the "insurmountable hurdle" is 13% smaller than it was less than a year ago, and thereby reduced to a simple majority. Teetering on the fence is a very tenuous position to be in, and quite easily surmountable (relative to which side of the fence one finds themselves). Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    Nobody is "wrong". Obama can't sign that which does not yet exist, so wait until there is a treaty offered up before you begin gloating. And serving up "crow" from the B92FSL Restaurant is also premature.
    As articles I have reade stated: The White House walked out. All I am stating is that I am excited to watch fear-mongers eat their crow when nothing happens. Geez, let me have something to look forward to!

    We are all free to speculate ("to think about deeply and theorize"). At least those of us who are not Obamabots still have such freedoms. And "fear mongering rhetoric" implies a psychologically nefarious intent. "Fear mongering rhetoric" is a favorite phrase of the liberal left, blurted out when they have no realistically believable evidence to the contrary.
    Fear-mongering rhetoric isn't Deep Thinking, it's appealing to the Base of human instinct. You have zero Freedom; that's your first mistake. And neither the Right has any evidence that President Obama is going to sign the Treaty, if, and when it is voted on.

    The "insurmountable hurdle" was reduced from a high of 58 in September of 2011. Twenty-three Democrat Senators, and 10 Republican Senators face reelection in November. The chances that those 33 Senators have not yet taken a firm position on the issue of the U.N. ATT are excellent. In an election year, trying to get a straight answer from an incumbent is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. Just as Obama "won't broach whatever his real view of the Second Amendment may be", neither will the other incumbents. They want to keep that $174,000 (plus benefits, bribes and other perks) per year "job", and they realize "silence is golden" - like spinelessly voting "Present" when a bill is being considered. So the "insurmountable hurdle" is 13% smaller than it was less than a year ago, and thereby reduced to a simple majority. Teetering on the fence is a very tenuous position to be in, and quite easily surmountable (relative to which side of the fence one finds themselves). Pax...
    So, what you are stating is that these Senators seem to be Soft on not backing the Treaty? Well then, let's play the imaginary game again: President Obama agrees to the Treaty, and the Senate votes, and it is binding here in the States--well, a wonderful exercise in Constitutional Powers just took place.
    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...

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    As articles I have reade stated: The White House walked out. All I am stating is that I am excited to watch fear-mongers eat their crow when nothing happens. Geez, let me have something to look forward to!
    The "White House" didn't "walk out". The White House proper wasn't there, but when the Treaty failed to pass, Ambassador Donald Mahley, U.S. Representative to the Arms Trade Treaty Conference walked out with everybody else when it was over.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Fear-mongering rhetoric isn't Deep Thinking, it's appealing to the Base of human instinct. You have zero Freedom; that's your first mistake. And neither the Right has any evidence that President Obama is going to sign the Treaty, if, and when it is voted on.
    Perhaps you have "zero freedom", but I have plenty. I, like many others in this forum, fought for our freedoms. And both Clinton and Obama have publicly stated their support for the treaty - therefore it's a matter of public record.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    So, what you are stating is that these Senators seem to be Soft on not backing the Treaty? Well then, let's play the imaginary game again: President Obama agrees to the Treaty, and the Senate votes, and it is binding here in the States--well, a wonderful exercise in Constitutional Powers just took place.
    "Soft on not backing the Treaty"? I don't recall saying anything of the kind. For one thing, that statement is somewhat confused... and confusing. What I did say was, "33 Senators have not yet taken a firm position on the issue of the U.N. ATT". Which simply means that they haven't committed themselves one way or the other. And, as things stand now with only a simple Senatorial majority proclaiming against the Treaty, that one person could change his/her mind and it could turn into a "dead heat" in the Senate - a 50-50 split. I don't see that as being particularly likely, but it isn't impossible either. I expect a significant number of Senators to be absent, IF the UN ATT ever publishes and reaches the Senate for ratification. Especially if that happens before the November elections. The requirement for ratification is for 2/3 of those present voting to ratify, NOT 2/3 of the entire Senate. So, if 40 of them call in sick, or make themselves otherwise unavailable for the vote, only 40 of the attending 60 would have to vote for ratification to ratify. Not being available to vote is seen by many politicians as the safe move on any controversial issue. During his short time in the 112th Congress, out of the 213 votes that he was actually present for, Obama chose "NV" (No Vote) for well over 50% of the issues (WashingtonPost.com). "Welcome to the US Senate. Please leave any weapons and your cojones at the door." Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    [snippers]

    Perhaps you have "zero freedom", but I have plenty. I, like many others in this forum, fought for our freedoms. And both Clinton and Obama have publicly stated their support for the treaty - therefore it's a matter of public record.
    I see, you have plenty of Freedom? Well than, you have nothing to worry about, nor fight for regarding Freedom, that is, since you have plenty.

    "Soft on not backing the Treaty"? I don't recall saying anything of the kind. For one thing, that statement is somewhat confused... and confusing. What I did say was, "33 Senators have not yet taken a firm position on the issue of the U.N. ATT". Which simply means that they haven't committed themselves one way or the other. And, as things stand now with only a simple Senatorial majority proclaiming against the Treaty, that one person could change his/her mind and it could turn into a "dead heat" in the Senate - a 50-50 split. I don't see that as being particularly likely, but it isn't impossible either. I expect a significant number of Senators to be absent, IF the UN ATT ever publishes and reaches the Senate for ratification. Especially if that happens before the November elections. The requirement for ratification is for 2/3 of those present voting to ratify, NOT 2/3 of the entire Senate. So, if 40 of them call in sick, or make themselves otherwise unavailable for the vote, only 40 of the attending 60 would have to vote for ratification to ratify. Not being available to vote is seen by many politicians as the safe move on any controversial issue. During his short time in the 112th Congress, out of the 213 votes that he was actually present for, Obama chose "NV" (No Vote) for well over 50% of the issues (WashingtonPost.com). "Welcome to the US Senate. Please leave any weapons and your cojones at the door." Pax...[snippers]
    You stated:
    So the "insurmountable hurdle" is 13% smaller
    That is where I concluded the Senators you were referring to are soft on backing the treaty...at the moment of course.
    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...

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I see, you have plenty of Freedom? Well than, you have nothing to worry about, nor fight for regarding Freedom, that is, since you have plenty.
    I already fought for it, and I stand ready to do so again. My oath had no expiration date on it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You stated:

    That is where I concluded the Senators you were referring to are soft on backing the treaty...at the moment of course.
    I hadn't looked at it that way, but I can see how you might have come to that conclusion. The 13% reduction in signatures (7/58) in a 10 month period, can be easily seen as indicative of those Senators withdrawing their support for any number of reasons (convincing arguments, party pressure, threats, offers to not support their favorite bills, etc). Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    I already fought for it, and I stand ready to do so again. My oath had no expiration date on it.
    I'm not refuting whether or not you fought for Freedom.


    I hadn't looked at it that way, but I can see how you might have come to that conclusion. The 13% reduction in signatures (7/58) in a 10 month period, can be easily seen as indicative of those Senators withdrawing their support for any number of reasons (convincing arguments, party pressure, threats, offers to not support their favorite bills, etc). Pax...
    I would say Pressure, but likely, for the most part, the latter.
    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...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek, ,
    Posts
    559

    Exclamation

    The best way to end this is to vote BHO and his US wrecking crew out of office this November!!!!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Every person crying out that President Obama is going to sign the Treaty turned out to be wrong. I look forward to them eating more crow following election.

    You can speculate all day what you think he is going to do, but at the end of the day, it appears to be nothing more than fear-mongering rhetoric.

    Let's play the imaginary game: President Obama signs the Treaty.--the Senate, whom sent a 51'ish letter to President Obama, opposing agreement, stated that they urge him not to agree. Basically, insurmountable hurdle, and considering his deep Pragmatism, he won't broach whatever his real view of the Second Amendment may be.
    "Deep pragmatism..." interesting definition of 'incompetent Marxism.' If there was a backhanded, unconstitutional way to shove it through, he would do it in an instant. During an election year, his own democraps would desert him in droves if he tried normal means.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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