- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
UNITED NATIONS – A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations -- with Iran playing a key role -- could expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments -- and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.
International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.
Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not,” LaPierre said. “It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty,” he warned in an exclusive interview with FoxNews.com from the halls of the UN negotiating chambers.
Is there, like, a wingnut timer that reminds them to recirculate this bull**** story ever 12 months?
Is there, like, a wingnut timer that reminds them to recirculate this bull**** story ever 12 months?
Ahh more hyper-ventilation by the American right....
At worst... Americans wont be allowed into countries... and I dont see a problem with that. We are not allowed into the US if we dont hand over private information beforehand to the American authorities... so why on earth should it be any different for Americans wanting to enter other countries?
The Senate won't ratify any treaty that restricts American gun-ownership rights in any way.
so this is a big deal over nothing.
Why on Earth would any American WANT to enter any other country? Especially an American gun-owner, who will be left totally defenseless and at the mercy of the foreign population after doing so?
Aren't you leaving the United States? Why are you and where are you going?
I am in the process of working out the details of a move to Pakistan. I just don't see anything left in this country for someone like me, Wiseone. After the healthcare decision, I don't really believe there's any part of the Real AMERICA left to try and save.
We had a family gathering this past Sunday and the concensus was that my Great-Grandfather would never have left Germany (in 1900) to come to the country that the US is today. He would be utterly disgusted by what this nation now is compared to what it was even just a century ago.
Its little wonder our foreign policy is so garbage. The focus of the conference should be trying to manipulate the treaty to our advantage by creating rules that keep arms out of the hands of people who might use them against us. Instead, you get the usual tunnel-vision idiots who can't see beyond their own partisan domestic agendas.
The real question is what kind of deals can we hammer out with the Russians and Chinese. While obviously there is a certain rivalry, there is also mutual self interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of Islamic extremist groups. A good tactic would be to focus on keeping the arms trade between nation states as much as possible and limit the ability to re-transfer them to non-governmental entities. The old cold war strategy of arming dissidents had serious negative consequences and its overall a net positive in our current situation to stop the practice as much as possible.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060678666 said:Many firearms legally sold to individuals in the US are made in other countries. Implementing your suggestion would would infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.
Nobody gives a **** about legitimate civilian firearms imports, this is about preventing people from giving stingers to the IRA or artillery rockets to Hezbollah.
Or indeed to Robert Mugabe's would be overthrowers.
The person who most recently planned a coup to overthrow Mugabe was Mugabe himself in a ploy to justify his domestic crackdown.
Stinger missile systems and artillery aren't small arms, they are explosive ordnance. They therefore couldn't even be covered in a "small arms treaty" by any realistic application of logic.Nobody gives a **** about legitimate civilian firearms imports, this is about preventing people from giving stingers to the IRA or artillery rockets to Hezbollah.
UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics | Fox News
Frankly I'm not sure how this will play out internationally, but treaties do not supercede the US Constitution here.
From Article VI of the US Constitution:UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics | Fox News
Frankly I'm not sure how this will play out internationally, but treaties do not supercede the US Constitution here.
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
From what I've read in the reports, the treaty is soley aimed at regulating international transfers of military weapons, to keep the trail oput in the open so, diversions don't happen. I think that's actually a very good idea to prevent - pirates, feudal lords, faction based war and drug cartels rom getting ahold of that kind fire power to terrorize people with. I cannot in any way see how this treaty would have any affect on the II Amendment. It doesn't invole us in that respect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?