- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 25,774
- Reaction score
- 21,434
- Location
- Fort Drum, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Moderator's Warning: |
One thing that keeps resonating from this article that really bothers me is the prediction that it simply won't be effective in doing what it's supposed to do, which is keeping arms out of the hands of nations that collude with terrorists, and oppressive states. Another issue is how do we define oppressive states, and terrorists? Those are broad terms, subject to individual interpretation. The outlines are too vague to be realistic, which is a stated problem. Honestly, I think we should dismiss it, just like we dismissed the Kyoto Protocol. I don't see anything good coming from it.
but it clearly is personal with you. that's the point.
Therein lies the stupidity of the treaty. Countries like Iran and China see the U.S. as an oppressive state and terrorists.
Therein lies the stupidity of the treaty....
There are already weapons trafficing laws in place. Why not just enforce those?
One thing that keeps resonating from this article that really bothers me is the prediction that it simply won't be effective in doing what it's supposed to do, which is keeping arms out of the hands of nations that collude with terrorists, and oppressive states. Another issue is how do we define oppressive states, and terrorists? Those are broad terms, subject to individual interpretation. The outlines are too vague to be realistic, which is a stated problem. Honestly, I think we should dismiss it, just like we dismissed the Kyoto Protocol. I don't see anything good coming from it.
I'd love to see the text of this evil treaty that you claim to know soo much about.
I understand where you are coming from, however the history of U.N. debate has proved time and again that having something concrete and final is nearly impossible.I agree that vague terms are easy to exploit, the goal should be to write them in such a fashion in which the United States is doing the exploiting. The overall principles of the conference are ultimately going to be less important than diplomatic weaseling with the details. I share your skepticism about getting any tangible accomplishments with the treaty, but it costs little in the attempt and its simple enough to avoid ratification if the final result isn't worthwhile.
I agree that vague terms are easy to exploit, the goal should be to write them in such a fashion in which the United States is doing the exploiting. The overall principles of the conference are ultimately going to be less important than diplomatic weaseling with the details. I share your skepticism about getting any tangible accomplishments with the treaty, but it costs little in the attempt and its simple enough to avoid ratification if the final result isn't worthwhile.
Pretty sure that'll never happen, since NATO is a peacekeeping organization, not a military organization. I could be wrong, but I don't believe they've ever had authorization to use deadly force. They are placed in hot spots to observe, and give aid to those who need it. Shooting a blue helmet is really no different than killing a medic, or a red cross/crescent guy.To those who have bought into the Blue helmet invasion delusion there can be no rational explanation suitable to stop the paranoia. Any attempt to dis-CUSS the treaty and how nonthreatening it is to firearm owners in the USofA is simple dismissed and incomprehensible.
There is a threat and that is all there is to it. Any straw of support for the Mein Kampf fearmongering is turned into a pillar of stone. Any facts against the delusion is called appeasement.
We either will be helpless against the blue helmets who can't keep a mud hut nation peaceful, :roll:
Or have millions of brothers and sisters ready to stand shoulder to shoulder to repel the invaders.
Seems to me, and I am a supporter of the 2nd A- some will use anything, no matter how silly to try and work the crowd for money. I am an NRA member, mostly to hold a F-Class national rank, but they are becoming wearing thin with all this 'gun-grabbing' BS.
There are a lot of things that 'could happen'. I'm amazed out staunch supporters of the 2nd A have to be so hysterical in these discussions...
Steady up there boys, hard to dress the line and stand shoulder to shoulder with all this running around like your ass hair is on fire.
I'd love to see the text of this evil treaty that you claim to know soo much about.
I agree, however, with something like this they may actually want it vague so it's "open" to include new situations. Personally, I don't see why we need a treaty to restrict giving arms to "terrorist" nations. We already sanction the **** out of nations like Iran and North Korea, and restrict what they can and can't have, so I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but redundant.
Shhhhh-
don't let the cat out of the bag...
Each election cycle the NRA, GOA, local gun shop wails about the 'hidden agenda' to the point even when NO attempt is made to restrict the 2nd A, one needs to be ginned up. The UN STUDY on how to control small arm sales in the turbulent third world is just that, there is NO, I say again for those with a low IQ, there is NO Treaty, nothing to sign.
This started in 2010 and is still being trotted out to stir up the already up in arms right wingnuts.
No way, no how the Senate, ANY Senate would ratify such a treaty if it included provisions to override our Constitution.
But until a new tactic can be developed the usual fearmongers will have to continue to beat this drum. For my marksmanship expenses it is right up there with speculator scare tactics to justify the increased price of the bullets I buy in bulk, or the wait in line at the 'gun' counter as nimrods ask such insightful questions like what caliber the AR15 is... :roll:
Is there, like, a wingnut timer that reminds them to recirculate this bull**** story ever 12 months?
The goal of the conference isn't about people selling weapons to nation states, but rather people illicitly transferring weapons to non-governmental organizations. There are many nations who don't have effective border security on weapons shipments, which make them hubs for illegal arms distribution networks.
Y'all need to stop wearing your feelings on your sleeves when it comes to Obama. You're embaressing yourelves.
I'm performing patriotic duty by questioning our elected leaders and thereby questioning this treaty. It's my duty. It's nothing personal.
When it comes to questioning our elected leaders? You're damn right it's personal.
This is why is ****ing impossible to discuss anything with this man, the second he gets called out on something his argument changes. What a clown.
Well, at least I'm not the man that used a snopes link, that is over two years old and discusses a totally seperate document.
Shhhhh-
don't let the cat out of the bag...
Each election cycle the NRA, GOA, local gun shop wails about the 'hidden agenda' to the point even when NO attempt is made to restrict the 2nd A, one needs to be ginned up. The UN STUDY on how to control small arm sales in the turbulent third world is just that, there is NO, I say again for those with a low IQ, there is NO Treaty, nothing to sign.
This started in 2010 and is still being trotted out to stir up the already up in arms right wingnuts.
No way, no how the Senate, ANY Senate would ratify such a treaty if it included provisions to override our Constitution.
But until a new tactic can be developed the usual fearmongers will have to continue to beat this drum. For my marksmanship expenses it is right up there with speculator scare tactics to justify the increased price of the bullets I buy in bulk, or the wait in line at the 'gun' counter as nimrods ask such insightful questions like what caliber the AR15 is... :roll:
Shhhhh-
don't let the cat out of the bag...
Each election cycle the NRA, GOA, local gun shop wails about the 'hidden agenda' to the point even when NO attempt is made to restrict the 2nd A, one needs to be ginned up. The UN STUDY on how to control small arm sales in the turbulent third world is just that, there is NO, I say again for those with a low IQ, there is NO Treaty, nothing to sign.
This started in 2010 and is still being trotted out to stir up the already up in arms right wingnuts.
No way, no how the Senate, ANY Senate would ratify such a treaty if it included provisions to override our Constitution.
But until a new tactic can be developed the usual fearmongers will have to continue to beat this drum. For my marksmanship expenses it is right up there with speculator scare tactics to justify the increased price of the bullets I buy in bulk, or the wait in line at the 'gun' counter as nimrods ask such insightful questions like what caliber the AR15 is... :roll:
It was updated 9Jul12, it clearly says so at the bottom, it doesn't matter if it was created two years ago because obviously the issue is still current AND its been updated. You still haven't read it have you?
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?