Reply With QuoteAny Administration which would support this has an automatic death sentence at the next polls
UN arms treaty takes shape, raising alarm among gun rights advocates
Some details are emerging ahead of the UN's Friday the 27th deadline:
UNITED NATIONS – The arms trade treaty being hammered out by the United Nations is nearing completion, and the current draft shows it could lead to perpetual attacks on the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and American foreign policy, critics say.
The document, which critics say has been framed by countries hostile to U.S. interests, allows for future amendments to be approved by just two-thirds of states showing up at an amendment conference. That means it could be agreed to by the U.S., put into effect and then changed over Washington's objections. And even if the U.S. Senate refuses to ratify it, the deal could have a huge impact on the global arms trade, where the U.S. is the biggest player.But even without amendments, there is plenty for the U.S. not to like in the draft, say critics. The treaty could set the stage for legal challenges to U.S. aid to allies like Israel and Taiwan, and it could also expose private information about U.S. gun owners.
The draft treaty’s amendment provisions have become a new point of focus for campaigners keen to protect the integrity of U.S. Second Amendment rights to gun ownership and other U.S. interests.
Language stating that amendments are only legally binding on a country if “accepted” by its government is ambiguous, according to some experts. Past practice dictates acceptance is necessary if an amendment is to carry legal weight in a country, but the terms of this treaty have already veered from the norm with the UN General Assembly’s acceptance of the agreement-by-consensus provision.
He said the U.S. Second Amendment is protected only by sovereignty and “lawful private ownership” references in the draft’s preamble – a part of a treaty that is not typically legally binding.
He also lamented that the draft fails to specifically exempt civilian arms from its “covered items.”
Critics say these shortfalls are an invitation for gun control activists to cite the treaty in their campaigning even as the treaty’s supporters say it is clearly about international arms transfers.
Activists on the political left are angry ammunition is not listed as within the treaty’s scope. The United States was among countries that sought the omission as U.S. gun lobbyists and their supporters said tracking ammunition was unworkable.
The draft that emerges will become international law for countries that ratify it once 65 of them have done so. But analysts say it could take 10 years to reach that number.
Any Administration which would support this has an automatic death sentence at the next polls
US, Iran, Syria and Cuba in same boat, it seems.The talks … are now being dominated by skeptical governments including Iran, Syria and Cuba, intent on having a weak treaty, or no treaty at all,”
No worries there then.At least 58 U.S. senators have pledged to not ratify the measure “if it includes civilian firearms,”
First step into global disarmament of civilians. With Democide being among the leading causes of unnatural death in the 20th century, it seems unsettling.
You really really really think that will happen? Just because of one possible agreement? Who's going to do that and who is behind this scheming?Originally Posted by BlackFlag
I don't think it will happen because of this particular treaty, but it does lay the ground work for further treaties concerning privately held small arms.
Read the language in this excerpt from the currently proposed treaty:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100939338/...Scope-Revision
But as people elect the politicians making these treaties, then people should not have worries, rightAnd besides, wouldn't be the first international treaty that would be broken somehow at some point.
If the goal of the UN arms treaty is to prevent violence/support peace, wouldn't it be more efficient to arm and train the victims of violence instead of trying to disarm the aggressors? Process would be to send in advisers/supplies, arm villagers, train villagers, pull out, monitor situation with UAVs, provide support if needed, etc.
Peace through disarmament is pointless if it is impossible to remove all weapons from the face of the Earth. Even then, since the weapons have been invented already and ideas cannot be regulated, the knowledge of creating a weapon will always be around as long as humans are around. This applies not just to small arms, but anything invented by man. What comes next, regulating raw materials, CNC machines and forges?
How about educating "normal" people, giving them chance and possibility to live normal regular rich lifes... like live long and prosper sense of things? Let the pros do the fighting and all that. And no, this was not a comment against private gun ownership.
Maybe time has come to ignore the UN altogether? It has become a tool of the OIC anyway.
Lets see:The UN is unable to prevent the mass slaughter of innocent civilians in Syria.Best they can do is send personal over there on a sight seeing trip,yet they are so determine to destroy the Second Amendment by anymeans nesassary.
Typical of the useless United Nazis.
The irony the countries that are the world's biggest arms dealers writing a treaty to police themselves.
Professional Soldiers are predictable, but the world is full of Dangerous Amateurs.
Professional soldiers are only as predictable as the command structure appointed over them.
Then who Appoints the Appointees?
Posting Permissions
