Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: We need to keep an eye on this

  1. #1
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post





    Global gun control treaty sought in U.N.








    By CHARLES J. HANLEY
    The Associated Press
    Oct. 01, 2007

    UNITED NATIONS | Britain, Japan, Australia and others are pushing for an unprecedented treaty regulating the arms trade worldwide.
    It’s a campaign sure to last years and to pit them against a determined American foe, the National Rifle Association.

    In what U.N. officials say is an “overwhelming” response, almost 100 governments have submitted ideas for such a treaty, to be reviewed over the next year. There’s an “extremely urgent” need for controls on the international gun trade, says Kenya, echoing the sentiment in much of guns-besieged Africa.

    But in the U.S., the NRA says it sees a creeping attempt to limit civilian gun ownership within nations — even though the focus is on setting standards for exports and imports.

    The international issues “necessarily will come to involve at some point domestic laws and policies regarding firearms,” said former congressman Bob Barr.

    “That’s not what we’re looking at here,” countered Greg Puley, of the Control Arms coalition of pro-treaty advocacy groups. “The point is to control trade in weapons that contribute to conflict and atrocities.”

    Alone among the world’s top 10 arms suppliers, the United States — by far the biggest, with almost $13 billion in arms export agreements in 2005 — has not filed a requested report to the United Nations with its views on a treaty.

    “The United States has not yet decided whether it will or will not participate in (the review), and thus we will have no submission at this time,” Richard Kidd, a deputy assistant secretary of state, said.

    The treaty campaign may encounter resistance beyond Washington as well. The reports from Russia and China, two other big arms exporters, offered only lukewarm endorsement for stricter controls.

    Treaty advocates favor standardizing export-import documents for weapons, and requiring governments to exchange information about weapons transfers, to ensure that the end-use criteria are being met.

    Barr said the NRA fears that any international “watch list” of gun purchasers might violate U.S. privacy rights. In addition, he said, U.S. firearms manufacturers are “extremely concerned” about trade restrictions.

    Britain, Canada, France and others propose a treaty that would cover the full range of conventional weapons, from handguns to tanks and combat aircraft.

    But concerns about illicit sales and smuggling have mostly focused on AK-47 assault rifles and other smaller weapons, especially in Africa.

    In the next step, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is expected this month to name an experts’ group from two dozen countries to review the submissions of 98 governments and report back to the General Assembly in the fall of 2008 on what kind of arms trade treaty might be feasible.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    In addition to all the other wrongness of this, it blatantly lies regarding the prevalence of guns in Africa... http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/4462.html

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    In addition to all the other wrongness of this, it blatantly lies regarding the prevalence of guns in Africa... http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/4462.html
    I am going to play the devils advocate here, "How is this report any more or less accurate than the other one". In truth it really is not a matter of how many weapons are where but the willingness of the people that have them to use them, and it is a fact undisputed that in most third world Countries life is worth Diddly Squat, and he that is willing to use the arms in possession, is king of the walk".

    I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing with a post, but to infer that the quotation of one writer in accurate and the other is pure hog wash is at best a leap of faith.

    You are entitled to your opinion and you are entitled to post your opinion but if you would apply a bit more tact, your opinions would be received in a much better light.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Yes, keep an eye on it closely.

    The UN tried this last year, oh around April or May of 2006, trying to get the treaty process off the ground. It looks like they're either trying the same thing again, or maybe have smoothed the process a bit by asking for input from various countries.

    Lets not forget the treaty clause of the Constitution. From Article VI, paragraph 3:

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis mine)

    Lets hope the Supreme Court rules very, very favorably on Parker aka Heller. I understand therehave been no rulingssaying a treaty that violates the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional; but it would be nice to have a favorable ruling in the DC gun ban case to help witharguments against adopting the UN ban.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    Damn...I never realized that. Combined with the willingness of the SC to use foreign opinion as a policy determinant (anyone remember the non-reasoning behind the ban on juvienial executions?) the situation could take a turn for the worst with a single case. All the more reason not to let the Dems take over in 2008. The current administration hasn't exactly been a bastion of rights, but I shiver to think of what could happenunder Furer Clinton...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Forgive me, for I have sinned...

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Heartless_Conservative wrote:
    SNIP Damn...I never realized that. Combined with the willingness of the SC to use foreign opinion as a policy determinant (anyone remember the non-reasoning behind the ban on juvienial executions?) the situation could take a turn for the worst with a single case.
    I didn't, either, until I read a book titled, Hologram of Liberty, by a gent who chose the psuedonym, Boston T. Party.

    Its available here: http://tinyurl.com/2ftzlc

    Hologram of Liberty is about in the middle of the page, in the yellow-highlighted section. I couldn't find the promotional info on it. I can say that Party takes a hard look at the US Constitution, its authors, and what they couldhave written if they had really meant to secure a limited government. He quotes Lysander Spooner, 19th century lawyer, "Either the Constitution authorized such government as we have had; or it was powerless to stop it."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote: Thanks. I don't trust that. Guiliani says he supports the 2nd Amendment, but look at all the loopholes he mentions.

    There is nothing at all preventing them from twisting it, or even repealing it in another Congress, with lots of noble-sounding talk.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote: I honestly do not know why we just don’t dissolve the UN, we did the League of Nations, because it was totally dysfunctional, why not the UN?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    Demarest wrote: I honestly do not know why we just don’t dissolve the UN, we did the League of Nations, because it was totally dysfunctional, why not the UN?
    My theory is that the UN is too much of a money maker. How much profit is made by those directly involved in the organization, and how much is made by contractors doing work for it? So many dictatorships would not be functional without the UN's corruption.

    Another theory is that back when the League of Nations failed, Europeans still believed in freedom. Unlike now. Today, Europeans and a majority of Americans will tolerate almost any invasion of privacy just for the false hope of security. Think it's bad here? Read UK forums.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Kelly J wrote:
    Demarest wrote: I honestly do not know why we just don’t dissolve the UN, we did the League of Nations, because it was totally dysfunctional, why not the UN?
    My theory is that the UN is too much of a money maker. How much profit is made by those directly involved in the organization, and how much is made by contractors doing work for it? So many dictatorships would not be functional without the UN's corruption.

    Another theory is that back when the League of Nations failed, Europeans still believed in freedom. Unlike now. Today, Europeans and a majority of Americans will tolerate almost any invasion of privacy just for the false hope of security. Think it's bad here? Read UK forums.
    Probably right, but it sure is iritating, when you consider the fact that, the majority of the UN operating expence, comes from the United States.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    534

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Kelly J wrote:
    Demarest wrote: I honestly do not know why we just don’t dissolve the UN, we did the League of Nations, because it was totally dysfunctional, why not the UN?
    My theory is that the UN is too much of a money maker. How much profit is made by those directly involved in the organization, and how much is made by contractors doing work for it? So many dictatorships would not be functional without the UN's corruption.

    Another theory is that back when the League of Nations failed, Europeans still believed in freedom. Unlike now. Today, Europeans and a majority of Americans will tolerate almost any invasion of privacy just for the false hope of security. Think it's bad here? Read UK forums.
    Great points, imp, but maybe consider this?

    It is my understanding that around 25% of the UN's funding comes from the USA, and were the USA to pull out, might not the UN implode? Sound like a plan?

    Quite right about Africa, are not most of the killings done with machetes, not guns?

    TrueBrit.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    @Citizen: I agree. I was just reading between the lines. That's a middle finger from the US to the UN. Would you ever have guessed? 81-10? That's that glint of hope we need to hold onto. Strike while the iron's hot

    Kelly J wrote:
    I honestly do not know why we just don’t dissolve the UN, we did the League of Nations, because it was totally dysfunctional, why not the UN?
    Agreed. Sadly, I think it's safe to say that the UN does more against our nation, our founding principles, and our way of life than the perpetrators of 9/11


Posting Permissions

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