Obama's United Nations Backdoor to Gun Control

[AmericanFirst]

You information on this measure is sadly lacking.

It specifically excludes any regulation over domestic arms sales.

Are you saying this (From the Link) is incorrect?:

But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10 requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for"recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense.

nomuttinafight sounds like a libtard, who is typically WRONG!!!

 

[koshergrl]

It's right there, I linked and quoted it....but being progressive anti-liberty, anti-american pukes, they're going to try to tell us we just don't understand what it REALLY means.

"Are you going to believe your own eyes, or what we tell you?"

 

[nodoginnafight]

You link some opinion peace that is just as ill-informed as you are or that is purposefully ignorant to push an agenda and think you made a point about the document?

Please.

The treaty specifically ecludes domestic arms sales from regulation.

You either know your are wrong but choose to pretend you are not to save face or you just really are that stupid.

Either way - knock yourself out and have a nice day.

 

[PratchettFan]

UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty


Link to the treaty. Pick E for English.

Nothing in the treaty would have any affect on anyone who is not engaged in the export or import of weapons. Much ado about nothing.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You information on this measure is sadly lacking.

It specifically excludes any regulation over domestic arms sales.

Are you saying this (From the Link) is incorrect?:

But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10 requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for"recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense.

nomuttinafight sounds like a libtard, who is typically WRONG!!!

The bolded sections above are incorrect. The section on the regulating of brokering specifically refers to international sales. Did you delete that section out of ignorance or dishonety?

The section that claims the treaty "offers no guarantee for individual rights" is patently false.
The applicable sections are:

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,

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,

Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State in accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations;

The respect for the legitimate interests of States to acquire conventional arms to exercise their right to self-defence and for peacekeeping operations; and to produce, export, import and transfer conventional arms;

1. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by, or on behalf of, a State Party for its use provided that the conventional arms remain under that State Party’s ownership.

The entire text of the treaty can be found:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf

I suspect that many are just the misinformed tools of the willfully ignorant and blatant liars. Does that excuse them? Perhaps. An honest mistake is certainly possible given the intentional lying that surrounds this agreement. But the true test is how one responds when their inaccuracies are documented.

I eagerly await an illuminating response.

 

[koshergrl]

First state exactly what the lies are, and show exactly how you can disprove them.

 

[g5000]

First state exactly what the lies are, and show exactly how you can disprove them.

That has been done. Repeatedly. You seem incapable of understanding. You even quote parts of the treaty which clearly debunk your own claims! Yet you seem strangely deluded into believing they mean something else entirely.

This is truly bizarre.

This is why I kept insisting you tell us what you think "national control lists" are, because you so obviously believe they are something they are not. Bolton and Yoo have purposefully led you to believe they are national gun registration lists. They are taking advantage of the ignorance of people like yourself to further an agenda for defense contractors.

The only lies being told in this topic are the ones you are telling yourself, based on a deliberately misleading article written by obvious shills for the defense industry.

It was a serious question: tell us what you thought national control lists are. You clearly need to be straightened out on this matter.

I am betting a whole lot of other ignorant people are going to fall for the bullshit Bolton and Yoo crafted in that article. They are going to go batshit crazy over the term "national control lists", thinking the same thing you do. Which is EXACTLY what Bolton and Yoo wanted you to think.

 

[nodoginnafight]

First state exactly what the lies are, and show exactly how you can disprove them.

Are you saying this (From the Link) is incorrect?:

nomuttinafight sounds like a libtard, who is typically WRONG!!!

The bolded sections above are incorrect. The section on the regulating of brokering specifically refers to international sales. Did you delete that section out of ignorance or dishonety?

The section that claims the treaty "offers no guarantee for individual rights" is patently false.
The applicable sections are:

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,

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,

Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State in accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations;

The respect for the legitimate interests of States to acquire conventional arms to exercise their right to self-defence and for peacekeeping operations; and to produce, export, import and transfer conventional arms;

1. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by, or on behalf of, a State Party for its use provided that the conventional arms remain under that State Party’s ownership.

The entire text of the treaty can be found:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf

I suspect that many are just the misinformed tools of the willfully ignorant and blatant liars. Does that excuse them? Perhaps. An honest mistake is certainly possible given the intentional lying that surrounds this agreement. But the true test is how one responds when their inaccuracies are documented.

I eagerly await an illuminating response.

Right here

 

[koshergrl]

Lol...you morons quote the actual treaty and list the quote as a lie. You claim that the treaty means something other than what it says....yes, it is bizarre.

 

[g5000]

Lol...you morons quote the actual treaty and list the quote as a lie. You claim that the treaty means something other than what it says....yes, it is bizarre.

You quoted Bolton and Yoo's ominous rant about a "national control list". This obviously attracted your eye and means something to you. So please tell us why we should be so concerned about them. Explain what they are, and how they fit into Bolton and Yoo's argument.

You seem completely incapable of doing so, and thus a blind parrot.

Bolton and Yoo wanted you to infer the meaning of a "national control list" as something they aren't.

 

[t_polkow]

"Like many international schemes, this treaty has seemingly benign motives. It seeks to "eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market," where they are used in civil wars and human-rights disasters. The treaty calls for rigorous export controls on heavy conventional weapons, such as tanks, missiles, artillery, helicopters and warships.
"Yet, as with many utopian devices, the treaty fails the test of enforcement. Some of the world's largest arms traffickers either voted against the agreement or abstained. The U.S., quite rightly, already has the world's most serious export controls in place, while nations such as North Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia and China will continue to traffic in arms with abandon."

"But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10 requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for"recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense."

America has become a nation of fools to let things get this far.

John Bolton and John Yoo: Obama's U.N. Backdoor Route to Gun Control - WSJ.com

Whipping up the bottom feeders? Black Helicopters next and rounding up Christians?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Lol...you morons quote the actual treaty and list the quote as a lie. You claim that the treaty means something other than what it says....yes, it is bizarre.

You realize the treaty text completely refutes your claims don't you?

Are you just too stubborn to admit your mistake or are you really having that much difficulty reading?

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, it doesn't. You realize that, right? The language is deliberately vague.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Actually, it doesn't. You realize that, right? The language is deliberately vague.

Well, you go ahead and believe whatever you have to in order to avoid admitting you are wrong. I have my own idea about who is being intentionally dense.

Have a nice day and I sincerely hope those evil UN folks don't come in and steal your oatmeal.

 

[g5000]

Actually, it doesn't. You realize that, right? The language is deliberately vague.

Just because you don't understand the treaty does not make it vague. For those who do understand it, it is clear as vodka.

Bolton and Yoo and the other arms maker shills are taking advantage of your inability to comprehend the treaty. Conflating "national control lists" with some idea of a national gun registration is particulary scurrilous on their part. For those who know what a national control list is, that article is a screaming, blatant lie. An unbelievably bold one. A naked one. Positively amazing they are trying to pull that shit.

But for those who are clueless, it is some sort of confirmation of their fears. Their desire to believe completely overrides any logic or sense. That is what makes a con work. The desire of the rube to believe the tale being spun.

 

[koshergrl]

"Like many international schemes, this treaty has seemingly benign motives. It seeks to "eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market," where they are used in civil wars and human-rights disasters. The treaty calls for rigorous export controls on heavy conventional weapons, such as tanks, missiles, artillery, helicopters and warships.
"Yet, as with many utopian devices, the treaty fails the test of enforcement. Some of the world's largest arms traffickers either voted against the agreement or abstained. The U.S., quite rightly, already has the world's most serious export controls in place, while nations such as North Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia and China will continue to traffic in arms with abandon."

"But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10 requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for"recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense."

America has become a nation of fools to let things get this far.

John Bolton and John Yoo: Obama's U.N. Backdoor Route to Gun Control - WSJ.com

Whipping up the bottom feeders? Black Helicopters next and rounding up Christians?

Yeah, the Wall Street Journal is widely recognized as a hysterical voice.

Honestly, you people are incredibly ignorant. If it wasn't so much fun to show you up, I wouldn't bother. Continue to bury yourself in NPR news, please.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

"
The attempt to advance gun control through the Arms Trade Treaty might surprise average Americans, but not liberals, who have been long frustrated by the Constitution's limits on government. Gun-control statutes, like any others, have to survive both the House and the Senate, then win presidential approval. It is far easier to advance an agenda through treaties, unwritten international law and even "norms" delivered by an amorphous "international community."
Opponents of capital punishment have used treaties to press the Supreme Court to stop the death penalty in Texas. Women's rights groups advocate an international convention that would achieve the goals of the failed Equal Rights Amendment. And supporters of bans on "hate speech" invoke international norms to defeat First Amendment objections. There also is an international legal doctrine that during the period when a country has signed but not yet ratified a treaty, it must take no measures that defeat the treaty's object and purposes. Under some liberal theories, this would allow the president to put some measures of the new arms treaty into effect by executive order."
John Bolton and John Yoo: Obama's U.N. Backdoor Route to Gun Control - WSJ.com

 

[nodoginnafight]

You do know what that word "opinion" that is right above your quoted text indicates don't you? The text itself - without the spin :

"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,

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,

Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State in accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations;

The respect for the legitimate interests of States to acquire conventional arms to exercise their right to self-defence and for peacekeeping operations; and to produce, export, import and transfer conventional arms;

1. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by, or on behalf of, a State Party for its use provided that the conventional arms remain under that State Party’s ownership."

The entire text of the treaty can be found:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/do...Mar_2013-E.pdf

I suspect that many are just the misinformed tools of the willfully ignorant and blatant liars. Does that excuse them? Perhaps. An honest mistake is certainly possible given the intentional lying that surrounds this agreement. But the true test is how one responds when their inaccuracies are documented.

 

[koshergrl]

You're repeating yourself.

"
Yet, as with many utopian devices, the treaty fails the test of enforcement. Some of the world's largest arms traffickers either voted against the agreement or abstained. The U.S., quite rightly, already has the world's most serious export controls in place, while nations such as North Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia and China will continue to traffic in arms with abandon.
But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10 requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for"recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense."

John Bolton and John Yoo: Obama's U.N. Backdoor Route to Gun Control - WSJ.com

 

[g5000]

When you buy a shirt, it was most likely made overseas. In order to determine the importation duties and customs, there is a national control list of every possible piece of apparel that may be imported. These control lists define every possible characteristic of that shirt. That it is a shirt, to begin with. Then what fabric it is made of. Then what material the fabric is made from. Then what kind of stitching. What kind of buttons, and the material of the buttons, and on and on and on. You'd be amazed at the level of detail they get down to on these control lists.

This way, they know EXACTLY which categories that kind of shirt falls into, right down to its basic fundamental parts.

So let's say the US signs a treaty agreeing not to import any apparel which uses parts of whales, and agrees not to export any apparel made from whale parts. So wherever buttons made out of whale bones appear on the control list, those items will be flagged as being banned from importation.

Then if Wal-Mart buys a bunch of shirts from China, and they arrive on a ship and a customs inspector is checking them out, and upon examination it is discovered those shirts have whalebone buttons as the customs inspector goes down the control list questions, then those shirts would be turned away.


Now...you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to believe a national control list for apparel means we all have to register our shirts with the government, right?

Just so with Bolton and Yoo trying to get the rubes to infer a national control list for arms means we will all have to register our guns with the government.

The rubes don't know what the words "national control list" mean. But to anyone familiar with such things, it is plain English.

The treaty regulates the international trade in several types of arms. One such item on the list is "Combat aircraft".

Just like with the "shirt", the words "combat aircraft" will be defined on a national control list down to the nitty gritty. That way, a plastic toy fighter jet that shoots plastic missles and is sold to kids as a combat aircraft will not be identified on the national control list as an item that can't be sold to North Korea. But an F-15 will be identified as a banned item on that list.

Bolton and Yoo know this. But when you read their article in the OP, and understand what a national control list actually is, then their deliberate attempts to mislead the rubes becomes obvious and quite shocking to see. These two assholes are completely shameless.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I haven't read anything about all this in Prison Planet, so I know that none of it is true...