UN Small Arms Treaty Dead in the Water

[RetiredGySgt]

It would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers, and would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons that violate arms embargoes or facilitate acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime – and if there is "a substantial risk" the treaty would prohibit the transfer.

What? This is about keeping guns away from TERRORISTS? Well NO WONDER Republicans are against it!

But...but...but...the gun makers told me this was an "Obama comes for your guns" treaty! They wouldn't lie just because this treaty affects their bottom line, would they?

Naaaaaaah!

The United States objected to any requirement to report on exports of ammunition and that remains out of the latest draft.

So the gun makers can ship all the bullets they want to terrorists without reporting it, just no small arms.

That makes sense!

You are either incredibly stupid or a practiced liar. As written the treaty would basically halt all sales of weapons outside the boundaries of any State that signed it. How you ask? By the fact that no one can be sure the weapons will not be acquired by terrorists and no one can be sure that the buying State won't eventually use them in a war.

And that would destroy most weapon manufacturer companies. And the treaty also seeks to control arms within the boundaries of States that sign the treaty.

 

[hortysir]

While, also, not doing anything about government-to-government trading.

 

[g5000]

It would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers, and would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons that violate arms embargoes or facilitate acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime – and if there is "a substantial risk" the treaty would prohibit the transfer.

What? This is about keeping guns away from TERRORISTS? Well NO WONDER Republicans are against it!

But...but...but...the gun makers told me this was an "Obama comes for your guns" treaty! They wouldn't lie just because this treaty affects their bottom line, would they?

Naaaaaaah!

The United States objected to any requirement to report on exports of ammunition and that remains out of the latest draft.

So the gun makers can ship all the bullets they want to terrorists without reporting it, just no small arms.

That makes sense!

'

yeah you're right terrorists and criminals follow the law, so of course this was a great idea! WOW!

The great law abiding gun makers are providing them with small arms. That is who the treaty is targeted at. Stopping them from arming terrorists for profit.

 

[g5000]

It would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers, and would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons that violate arms embargoes or facilitate acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime – and if there is "a substantial risk" the treaty would prohibit the transfer.

What? This is about keeping guns away from TERRORISTS? Well NO WONDER Republicans are against it!

But...but...but...the gun makers told me this was an "Obama comes for your guns" treaty! They wouldn't lie just because this treaty affects their bottom line, would they?

Naaaaaaah!

The United States objected to any requirement to report on exports of ammunition and that remains out of the latest draft.

So the gun makers can ship all the bullets they want to terrorists without reporting it, just no small arms.

That makes sense!

You are either incredibly stupid or a practiced liar. As written the treaty would basically halt all sales of weapons outside the boundaries of any State that signed it.

Wrong.

But you go ahead and knock yourself out showing us the provisions in the treaty that do that, mm-kay?

What's that you say? You don't have a copy of the treaty? So this "as written" business is just something you pulled out of your ass or you are repeating something your puppeteers told you.

But when the treaty is made publicly available, I want you to make a special effort to show us the part that will halt all sales of weapons outside the boundaries of any State that signed it.

How you ask? By the fact that no one can be sure the weapons will not be acquired by terrorists and no one can be sure that the buying State won't eventually use them in a war. And that would destroy most weapon manufacturer companies.

Bullshit. Unmitigated bullshit.

And the treaty also seeks to control arms within the boundaries of States that sign the treaty.

OBAMAZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ!!! BUY MOAR!!!

This message brought to you by the small arms manufacturers and retailers of America.

 

[Peach]

Doe s...no t...com pute.

Obama was supposed to be coming for our guns today. It is July 27. G-Day.

Zero hour. The end of the 2nd Amendment. I saw the treaty. I read it. It said "Obama must take all guns from America." It was right there in black and white. Everybody saw it. They went on and on and on about it. They all had an advance copy.

Yes, some semi lucid posters went full cycle into psychosis and dreamed up a finalized treaty that never existed.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The point is, the treaty was stupid. It's only for terrorists? We ALREADY have laws against that.....Why do liberals like more laws? Why not just kill terrorists....eventually they're lean and move on.....

 

[g5000]

The point is, the treaty was stupid. It's only for terrorists? We ALREADY have laws against that.....Why do liberals like more laws? Why not just kill terrorists....eventually they're lean and move on.....

They are easier to kill when they don't have guns. This is one of the few occasions where I am all in favor of an unlevel playing field.

 

[westwall]

The point is, the treaty was stupid. It's only for terrorists? We ALREADY have laws against that.....Why do liberals like more laws? Why not just kill terrorists....eventually they're lean and move on.....

They are easier to kill when they don't have guns. This is one of the few occasions where I am all in favor of an unlevel playing field.

Except for the fact that terrorists allways seem to get the weapons they need. It's illegal to send weapons to all sorts of countries and yet the bad guys all seem to be well armed anyways. Rwanda is a great example of that too. It seems the UN peacekeepers had found out about the upcoming massacres and disarmed them. But, the UN told them to give all the weapons back.

They did, and over a million died, the majority hacked to pieces with machetes.

Yep, your methods are sooooo effective.

 

[g5000]

The point is, the treaty was stupid. It's only for terrorists? We ALREADY have laws against that.....Why do liberals like more laws? Why not just kill terrorists....eventually they're lean and move on.....

They are easier to kill when they don't have guns. This is one of the few occasions where I am all in favor of an unlevel playing field.

Except for the fact that terrorists allways seem to get the weapons they need.

Thus the need for a treaty.

It's illegal to send weapons to all sorts of countries and yet the bad guys all seem to be well armed anyways. Rwanda is a great example of that too. It seems the UN peacekeepers had found out about the upcoming massacres and disarmed them. But, the UN told them to give all the weapons back.

They did, and over a million died, the majority hacked to pieces with machetes.

Yep, your methods are sooooo effective.

This is exactly the kind of discussion we all should be having, instead of arguing about completely made up shit about the treaty taking our guns.

When the treaty becomes publicly available, I will be more than happy to discuss what is actually in it, and whether or not it will be efficacious. You should not assume I would be on the opposite side as you. I am just pissed off the debate has been controlled by idiots who have no clue what is in it, and just blindly accept what they are told because it aligns with their paranoid delusions. The puppeteers know exactly what to say to get them all heated up.

The small arms lobby is attempting to write on a bunch of blank slate minds ahead of time to pre-load them with prejudice. And that is a very telling signal.

 

[buckeye45_73]

They are easier to kill when they don't have guns. This is one of the few occasions where I am all in favor of an unlevel playing field.

Except for the fact that terrorists allways seem to get the weapons they need.

Thus the need for a treaty.

It's illegal to send weapons to all sorts of countries and yet the bad guys all seem to be well armed anyways. Rwanda is a great example of that too. It seems the UN peacekeepers had found out about the upcoming massacres and disarmed them. But, the UN told them to give all the weapons back.

They did, and over a million died, the majority hacked to pieces with machetes.

Yep, your methods are sooooo effective.

This is exactly the kind of discussion we all should be having, instead of arguing about completely made up shit about the treaty taking our guns.

When the treaty becomes publicly available, I will be more than happy to discuss what is actually in it, and whether or not it will be efficacious. You should not assume I would be on the opposite side as you. I am just pissed off the debate has been controlled by idiots who have no clue what is in it except what they want to believe.

The small arms lobby is attempting to write on a bunch of blank slate minds ahead of time to pre-load them with prejudice.

So wait you havent seen the treaty and already know what it means? Taking the word of the UN are we? Not me, they have 3rd world thugs controlling that craptastic orginization.

 

[Politico]

That is SO different than what the loons were saying he was going to do.

Don't worry. There will be a lot of people suffering from SMS (Short Memory Syndrome). Usually identified by a lot of silence or I don't recall saying that comments.

The rest will just spin it as part of a larger preplanned conspiracy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am just amazed how nice the Obama haters are right now.

I'm not nice, maybe someone talked some sense into the bastard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That is SO different than what the loons were saying he was going to do.

Don't worry. There will be a lot of people suffering from SMS (Short Memory Syndrome). Usually identified by a lot of silence or I don't recall saying that comments.

The rest will just spin it as part of a larger preplanned conspiracy.

But obama did sign the NDAA even though he said he would not sign it.
And he signed it at the end of the year at midnight Until the conference is over and everything is over with this is not a done deal yet.

 

[g5000]

I have this really crazy dream that people will one day turn off their reality TV shows, put away their first person shooter video games, and read a piece of legislation or a treaty from beginning to end for themselves instead of waiting to hear from an AM radio or television pundit to tell them what to believe the legislation or treaty means.

Like I said. It's a crazy dream.

 

[g5000]

That is SO different than what the loons were saying he was going to do.

Don't worry. There will be a lot of people suffering from SMS (Short Memory Syndrome). Usually identified by a lot of silence or I don't recall saying that comments.

The rest will just spin it as part of a larger preplanned conspiracy.

But obama did sign the NDAA even though he said he would not sign it.
And he signed it at the end of the year at midnight Until the conference is over and everything is over with this is not a done deal yet.

Yes, there is a high probability he will sign it. That does not confirm it is a treaty which will take away our guns in any way whatsoever.

I will read the treaty, which will put me at a huge advantage over most of the people who will be talking about it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The U.N. small arms treaty is not over until September 7 2012

PoA RevCon2 - Home

obama has proven he will sign anything at the last minute.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't worry. There will be a lot of people suffering from SMS (Short Memory Syndrome). Usually identified by a lot of silence or I don't recall saying that comments.

The rest will just spin it as part of a larger preplanned conspiracy.

But obama did sign the NDAA even though he said he would not sign it.
And he signed it at the end of the year at midnight Until the conference is over and everything is over with this is not a done deal yet.

Yes, there is a high probability he will sign it. That does not confirm it is a treaty which will take away our guns in any way whatsoever.

I will read the treaty, which will put me at a huge advantage over most of the people who will be talking about it.

Yes and I will also read it when it's made available

 

[g5000]

The U.N. small arms treaty is not over until September 7 2012

PoA RevCon2 - Home

obama has proven he will sign anything at the last minute.

Two months before the election is not "last minute". And if he signed it on the day it was finalized, I can't be sure you would not be criticizing him for signing it without reading it or discussing it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The point is, the treaty was stupid. It's only for terrorists? We ALREADY have laws against that.....Why do liberals like more laws? Why not just kill terrorists....eventually they're lean and move on.....

They are easier to kill when they don't have guns. This is one of the few occasions where I am all in favor of an unlevel playing field.

How would this stop them from having guns? We have sanctions against Iran and they're building nukes, We had sanctions to prevent Iraq from having an army, he had one. We had many many sanctions against Iraq and guess what the Germans and French were breaking those sanctions under the table. Do you know how the world works? Regan had the best statemen. "trust but verify" which means.....I dont believe a fucking word you say.....And no treaty will stop them from getting weapons. We had treaties from Germany to prevent a buildup....OOOPS that didnt work out well

Man you are so naive on World Politics.....I mean we have a hard time regulation NUKES, so you think we can regulate small arms? Are you fucking crazy?

 

[Too Tall]

It would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers, and would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons that violate arms embargoes or facilitate acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime – and if there is "a substantial risk" the treaty would prohibit the transfer.

What? This is about keeping guns away from TERRORISTS? Well NO WONDER Republicans are against it!

But...but...but...the gun makers told me this was an "Obama comes for your guns" treaty! They wouldn't lie just because this treaty affects their bottom line, would they?

Naaaaaaah!

The United States objected to any requirement to report on exports of ammunition and that remains out of the latest draft.

So the gun makers can ship all the bullets they want to terrorists without reporting it, just no small arms.

That makes sense!

Obama and Holder changed their minds on the treaty when they realized they wouldn't be able to sell any more guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels.