46 Senators Voted to Cede Our 2nd Amendment Rights to UN

[IlarMeilyr]

can you explain how the treaty could be used to go after gun manufacturers?

i assume of course you aren't talking about manufacturers that sell to warlords.

Go back and re-read.

No. Not just what I already wrote. Read what I linked to.

That includes the treaty itself.

Educate yourself, lad.

i got it. i read the treaty. but if this is such an easy scenario to imagine i must be having an imagination failure.

so help me out. what's the scenario? you say it's a practical certainty - so how's it happen?

Well, no. I don't recall ever saying that it was a "practical certainty." Saying "could be" is not the same as saying "practical certainty."

Your failure of imagination is pretty sad.

Let me suggest that you give it some thought since the conclusions we reach on our own tend to be clearer to us than those that are merely professed to us. Start by looking at the enforcement provisions.

Go. Start thinking.

 

[ogibillm]

Go back and re-read.

No. Not just what I already wrote. Read what I linked to.

That includes the treaty itself.

Educate yourself, lad.

i got it. i read the treaty. but if this is such an easy scenario to imagine i must be having an imagination failure.

so help me out. what's the scenario? you say it's a practical certainty - so how's it happen?

Well, no. I don't recall ever saying that it was a "practical certainty." Saying 'could be" is not the same as saying "practical certainty."

Your failure of imagination is pretty sad.

Let me suggest that you give it some thought since the conclusions we reach on our own tend to be clearer to us than those that are merely professed to us. Start by looking at the enforcement provisions.

Go. Start thinking.

i'm sorry, i thought that was the implication.

so no, i'm not suddenly going to become more creative. i'm clearly not seeing what you are seeing - so could you spell out the scenario where the treaty is used to 'go after' gun manufacturers here in the US?

again, there must be a scenario you've envisioned or you wouldn't be so sure it could happen

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i got it. i read the treaty. but if this is such an easy scenario to imagine i must be having an imagination failure.

so help me out. what's the scenario? you say it's a practical certainty - so how's it happen?

Well, no. I don't recall ever saying that it was a "practical certainty." Saying 'could be" is not the same as saying "practical certainty."

Your failure of imagination is pretty sad.

Let me suggest that you give it some thought since the conclusions we reach on our own tend to be clearer to us than those that are merely professed to us. Start by looking at the enforcement provisions.

Go. Start thinking.

i'm sorry, i thought that was the implication.

so no, i'm not suddenly going to become more creative. i'm clearly not seeing what you are seeing - so could you spell out the scenario where the treaty is used to 'go after' gun manufacturers here in the US?

again, there must be a scenario you've envisioned or you wouldn't be so sure it could happen

The government in accordance with the terms of the treaty will have to keep track of all gun and ammo sales which will lead to registration.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The "treaty" calls for lots of shit. It entails keeping records and that translates into gun registration. It also calls upon signatory states to adopt laws etc to fulfill the "purposes" of the treaty.

I think it is quite unlikely that the U.S. WILL ratify the stupid treaty, but if we pretend that the Senate somehow makes that ridiculous decision, it is not so clear that the full Congress will ever "adopt" the laws to put into effect the various "purposes" of the treaty.

In that event, it is easy enough to picture the typical liberal effort to do by the judicial branch that which it cannot achieve via the legislative process. Lawsuits. Sue the gubmint for failing to "adopt" those "laws." And sue the gun manufacturers for not doing themselves what the legislature did not compel them to do.

And if you lolberals think that is just fanciful thinking, you forget what history teaches.

The treaty fails to distinguish between civilian weapons and the more familiar military arms which the damn treaty is supposed to address. This puts a bullseye on gun manufacturers. The anti-gun pro-treaty lobby actually ridicules the notion of a "civilian" gun.

“The NRA claim that there is such a thing as ‘civilian weapons’ and that these can and need to be treated differently from military weapons under the Arms Trade Treaty is — to put it politely — the gun lobby’s creativity on full display,” Ringuette said in a statement. “There is no such distinction. To try to create one would create a loophole that would render the treaty inoperative, as anyone could claim that he or she was in the business of trading ‘civilian weapons.’ ”

See, NRA opposes U.N. arms treaty - The Washington Post

That very article goes on to note how the treaty itself lacks a real enforcement mechanism. Maybe. But since it CALLS upon signatory states to adopt laws to put its purposes into effect, it is easy to predict how the same anti-gun pro treaty lobbyists will try to use the COURTS and lawsuits to fill that void.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I see we need to buy 6 more Senators.

 

[ogibillm]

Well, no. I don't recall ever saying that it was a "practical certainty." Saying 'could be" is not the same as saying "practical certainty."

Your failure of imagination is pretty sad.

Let me suggest that you give it some thought since the conclusions we reach on our own tend to be clearer to us than those that are merely professed to us. Start by looking at the enforcement provisions.

Go. Start thinking.

i'm sorry, i thought that was the implication.

so no, i'm not suddenly going to become more creative. i'm clearly not seeing what you are seeing - so could you spell out the scenario where the treaty is used to 'go after' gun manufacturers here in the US?

again, there must be a scenario you've envisioned or you wouldn't be so sure it could happen

The government in accordance with the terms of the treaty will have to keep track of all gun and ammo sales which will lead to registration.

bullshit.

the treaty only pertains to the import and export of weapons. domestic sales would not fall under the treaty.

so go come up with another one.

 

[foxyladi]

Today, 46 traitors were so intent on advancing their anti-gun agenda, they voted to forfeit OUR 2nd Amendment Rights to the UN. Check out the link to see who was willing to put their own agenda above our rights.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

All Democrats. Imagine that.

Amen

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i'm sorry, i thought that was the implication.

so no, i'm not suddenly going to become more creative. i'm clearly not seeing what you are seeing - so could you spell out the scenario where the treaty is used to 'go after' gun manufacturers here in the US?

again, there must be a scenario you've envisioned or you wouldn't be so sure it could happen

The government in accordance with the terms of the treaty will have to keep track of all gun and ammo sales which will lead to registration.

bullshit.

the treaty only pertains to the import and export of weapons. domestic sales would not fall under the treaty.

so go come up with another one.

Where do you think Glock, Saiga, Sig, Taurus, Rossi. Beretta, Benelli, Rock Island Armory are manufactured? If they aren't made here wouldn't they be imported?

 

[ogibillm]

The government in accordance with the terms of the treaty will have to keep track of all gun and ammo sales which will lead to registration.

bullshit.

the treaty only pertains to the import and export of weapons. domestic sales would not fall under the treaty.

so go come up with another one.

Where do you think Glock, Saiga, Sig, Taurus, Rossi. Beretta, Benelli, Rock Island Armory are manufactured? If they aren't made here wouldn't they be imported?

and if they were would they need to be tracked once they entered into the US?

nope.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bullshit.

the treaty only pertains to the import and export of weapons. domestic sales would not fall under the treaty.

so go come up with another one.

Where do you think Glock, Saiga, Sig, Taurus, Rossi. Beretta, Benelli, Rock Island Armory are manufactured? If they aren't made here wouldn't they be imported?

and if they were would they need to be tracked once they entered into the US?

nope.

According to the terms of the treaty yes.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

i'm sorry, i thought that was the implication.

so no, i'm not suddenly going to become more creative. i'm clearly not seeing what you are seeing - so could you spell out the scenario where the treaty is used to 'go after' gun manufacturers here in the US?

again, there must be a scenario you've envisioned or you wouldn't be so sure it could happen

The government in accordance with the terms of the treaty will have to keep track of all gun and ammo sales which will lead to registration.

bullshit.

the treaty only pertains to the import and export of weapons. domestic sales would not fall under the treaty.

so go come up with another one.

Not so much. It is not that domestic sales are directly implicated by the treaty: it is that the fucking lists of end-purchasers (like a U.S. citzien buying a Glock from outside of the USA) will be required. That may not strike YOU as gun registration, but it sure seems indistinguishable from gun registration to many others.

Article 12
Record keeping
1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and regulations, of its issuance of export
authorizations or its actual exports of the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination
or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment
State(s), and end users, as appropriate.
* * * *

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

The lists and record-keeping get reported to "the Secretariat."

 

[foxyladi]

Who cares what the UN says any way We are a Sovereign nation.

 

[hortysir]

We should void their lease and kick 'em out

 

[ogibillm]

The government in accordance with the terms of the treaty will have to keep track of all gun and ammo sales which will lead to registration.

bullshit.

the treaty only pertains to the import and export of weapons. domestic sales would not fall under the treaty.

so go come up with another one.

Not so much. It is not that domestic sales are directly implicated by the treaty: it is that the fucking lists of end-purchasers (like a U.S. citzien buying a Glock from outside of the USA) will be required. That may not strike YOU as gun registration, but it sure seems indistinguishable from gun registration to many others.

Article 12
Record keeping
1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and regulations, of its issuance of export
authorizations or its actual exports of the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination
or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment
State(s), and end users, as appropriate.
* * * *

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

The lists and record-keeping get reported to "the Secretariat."

that doesn't say what you claim it does

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bullshit.

the treaty only pertains to the import and export of weapons. domestic sales would not fall under the treaty.

so go come up with another one.

Not so much. It is not that domestic sales are directly implicated by the treaty: it is that the fucking lists of end-purchasers (like a U.S. citzien buying a Glock from outside of the USA) will be required. That may not strike YOU as gun registration, but it sure seems indistinguishable from gun registration to many others.

Article 12
Record keeping
1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and regulations, of its issuance of export
authorizations or its actual exports of the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination
or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment
State(s), and end users, as appropriate.
* * * *

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

The lists and record-keeping get reported to "the Secretariat."

that doesn't say what you claim it does

It most certainly does

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We should void their lease and kick 'em out

Yes we should.

 

[ogibillm]

Not so much. It is not that domestic sales are directly implicated by the treaty: it is that the fucking lists of end-purchasers (like a U.S. citzien buying a Glock from outside of the USA) will be required. That may not strike YOU as gun registration, but it sure seems indistinguishable from gun registration to many others.

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

The lists and record-keeping get reported to "the Secretariat."

that doesn't say what you claim it does

It most certainly does

no, it doesn't.

i guess you don't understand what the word 'encouraged' means, do you?

 

[francoHFW]

Too bad RW arguments aren't based on reality...keep it up- hilarious and self destructive...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

46 Senators Voted to Cede Our 2nd Amendment Rights to UN

Republican credo: “Contrive and repeat a lie often enough in the hope its perceived to be true.”

 

[bigrebnc1775]

that doesn't say what you claim it does

It most certainly does

no, it doesn't.

i guess you don't understand what the word 'encouraged' means, do you?

I understand that if the UN didn't want it inforced they would not push it.