U.N. approves global arms treaty

Grapeshot · Apr 2, 2013

The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to create the first international treaty regulating the global arms trade, a landmark decision that imposes new constraints on the sale of conventional arms to governments and armed groups that commit war crimes, genocide and other mass atrocities.

The treaty covers a wide range of conventional weapons, including battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, missiles and small arms.

The treaty would require governments to establish a national record-keeping system to track the trade in conventional arms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/un-approves-global-arms-treaty/2013/04/02/66867b2e-9bb7-11e2-9bda-edd1a7fb557d_story.html

eye95 · Apr 2, 2013

The UN does not write law that any nation has to follow. I don't know what our tyrant will do, but the Senate had better not ratify this. When the don't (I am confident that they won't), if the UN doesn't like it, they can go ____ themselves.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 3, 2013

The U.N. has no Authority here, in the U.S. If they want to impose it on Americans: I'm your Huckleberry.--well, the female version.

arentol · Apr 3, 2013

If the US signed the treaty and then violated it who would the UN send after us? The French?

The US is like the police. We can break the rules all day long because we are the ones who enforce them, and we are almost never going to enforce them against ourselves.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 3, 2013

arentol said:
If the US signed the treaty and then violated it who would the UN send after us? The French?

The US is like the police. We can break the rules all day long because we are the ones who enforce them, and we are almost never going to enforce them against ourselves.

Could you imagine the French landing on U.S. soil to invade us. They can keep their snobbish language, and their boots, on French soil.

Grapeshot · Apr 3, 2013

arentol said:
If the US signed the treaty and then violated it who would the UN send after us? The French?

The US is like the police. We can break the rules all day long because we are the ones who enforce them, and we are almost never going to enforce them against ourselves.

Don't think that is a valid analogy.

One states laws mean nothing in another state - no authority, no control, no infraction.

The UN would like to act as our federal government does* and impose its will on all citizens and states of our country.

Point of fact, the UN is not part of our country and they cannot force us to do anything that we do not willingly agree to permit. This meddling in our affairs, I patently reject.

* Even our federal government has been involved in making laws beyond their constitutional authority. Those in power will try to make laws beyond the legal limits...............if we let them.

ADobbs1989 · Apr 3, 2013

Beretta92FSLady said:
Could you imagine the French landing on U.S. soil to invade us. They can keep their snobbish language, and their boots, on French soil.

No, I couldn't imagine that. I would have to hope they would be smarter than to actually land on U.S. soil to try and invade. I honestly don't know that I would give our own military the advantage against gun owners (I'm not advocating fighting our military, nor do I think they would attack us even if ordered). So I couldn't do much more than laugh at the French..and maybe start loading my magazines. I doubt they would make it to Alabama though.

nonameisgood · Apr 3, 2013

The UN treaty on small arms specifically excludes those rights guaranteed by a country's constitution and the internal affairs of a country. It only seeks to regulate the "illicit" flow of conventional arms into conflict zones.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf

Begins with
<quote>The States Parties to this Treaty,
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Recalling Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations which seeks to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources,
Underlining the need to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts,
Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial interests of States in the international trade in conventional arms,
Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system, ...
</quote>

Grapeshot · Apr 3, 2013

nonameisgood said:
The UN treaty on small arms specifically excludes those rights guaranteed by a country's constitution and the internal affairs of a country. It only seeks to regulate the "illicit" flow of conventional arms into conflict zones.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf

--snipped--

Riiiight.

And how will you buy a WASR AK, a Mosin Naget, a european manufactured handgun, or British collectable shotgun much less a couple of boxes of surplus Russian ammunition when these will be considered "illicit" also?

Just like our anti gun laws make criminals of honest people, so also does this treaty only penalize the good people. Rouge nations and groups will still get guns and other hardware. This treaty will benfit the international gun runners associates though - they will be able to increase their prices and their bottom line.

beebobby · Apr 4, 2013

When N Korea, Iran and Syria are the only countries voting against a resolution, it is conventional wisdom to vote yea.

Grapeshot · Apr 4, 2013

beebobby said:
When N Korea, Iran and Syria are the only countries voting against a resolution, it is conventional wisdom to vote yea.

So our UN ambassador should vote the opposite from those with whom we disagree, even when their vote reflects what our people think too.

Oh wait...........................Susan Rice did just that! :banghead:

arentol · Apr 4, 2013

Grapeshot said:
Don't think that is a valid analogy.

One states laws mean nothing in another state - no authority, no control, no infraction.

The UN would like to act as our federal government does* and impose its will on all citizens and states of our country.

Point of fact, the UN is not part of our country and they cannot force us to do anything that we do not willingly agree to permit. This meddling in our affairs, I patently reject.

* Even our federal government has been involved in making laws beyond their constitutional authority. Those in power will try to make laws beyond the legal limits...............if we let them.

The analogy is good. In this analogy the U.S. are the local police, the U.N. is the state government, and all other member states are average citizens. My analogy is about the role of the U.S. in the UN and the world, and had nothing to do with the the U.N. being part of our government in any way.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

Grapeshot · Apr 4, 2013

“The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is deeply flawed, which is why a majority of senators recently voted to stop the administration from continuing to push it,” said Senator Lee. “I have great concerns that this treaty can be used to violate the second amendment rights of American citizens, and do not believe we should sign any treaty that infringes on the sovereignty of our country. I am pleased to join 34 of my colleagues in signaling to this administration that the UN-ATT is a non-starter in the senate.”

As of Tuesday the resolution had 33 co-sponsors but it was Lee who officially put the final nail in the coffin. The UN-ATT requires 67 Senate votes to ratify and now the maximum possible number of votes in favor of the treaty would be 66. It is now officially a “non-starter.”

“The passage of a treaty that Iran, Syria, and North Korea have made clear they have no intention of abiding by will only serve to constrain law-abiding democracies like the United States,” Sen. Moran said. “The U.S. Senate is united in strong opposition to a treaty that puts us on level ground with dictatorships who abuse human rights and arms terrorists, but there is real concern that the Administration feels pressured to sign a treaty that violates our Constitutional rights. Given the apparent support of the Obama Administration for the ATT, members of the U.S. Senate must continue to make clear that any treaty that violates our Second Amendment freedoms will be an absolute nonstarter for ratification.”

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/m...he-un-small-arms-treaty-coffin/#ixzz2PXfBtQBW

Contrarian · Apr 4, 2013

arentol said:
If the US signed the treaty and then violated it who would the UN send after us? The French?

The US is like the police. We can break the rules all day long because we are the ones who enforce them, and we are almost never going to enforce them against ourselves.

+10

nobama · Apr 4, 2013

beebobby said:
When N Korea, Iran and Syria are the only countries voting against a resolution, it is conventional wisdom to vote yea.

And the anti American barry votes for it,so its conventional wisdom to vote against it.

beebobby · Apr 5, 2013

Conventional wisdom elected Pres. Obama....twice.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 6, 2013

beebobby said:
Conventional wisdom elected Pres. Obama....twice.

Wisdom? Conventional politics has little to do with "wisdom".

eye95 · Apr 6, 2013

The election of that man twice was the sheerest of political stupidity in my lifetime. It proves why majority rule is moronic.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 6, 2013

eye95 said:
The election of that man twice was the sheerest of political stupidity in my lifetime. It proves why majority rule is moronic.

And would have just been as moronic if Romney one.....

You are right majority rule is simply as Lysander Spooner puts it a way of saying minorities have no rights except those the majority deem they deserve. Which is moronic.

nonameisgood · Apr 7, 2013

This treaty would not prevent us from buying guns from other countries. The treaty doesn't have enforcement mechanisms other than shame. And the only thing restricted is the transfer of arms into regions and to parties who have been determined to be systematically violating human rights.

U.N. approves global arms treaty

Legendary Warrior

Well-known member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

New member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member