UN Arms Treaty (MERGED) - Page 11

UN Arms Treaty (MERGED)

This is a discussion on UN Arms Treaty (MERGED) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by suntzu I highly doubt that. Only if there is a 2/3 majority of liberal senators...any other thing I would say that is ...

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 286
Like Tree149Likes

Thread: UN Arms Treaty (MERGED)

  1. #151
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,087
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I highly doubt that. Only if there is a 2/3 majority of liberal senators...any other thing I would say that is a possibility
    I agree that it is highly unlikely that it will pass, however, I was just pointing out that not knowing everything that is in it does not mean it isn't a bad idea. Generally, anything recommended by or proposed by the UN is fraught with idiocy, uselessness, and bureaucratic red tape.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine


  2. #152
    Senior Member
    Array DaveWorkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    611
    This might interest you guys:

    From whom are ATT proponents getting their talking points?

    Two opinion pieces by retired U.S. military personnel published on the same day in two different publications – both supporting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty – bear strikingly similar comments, leading Gun Rights Examiner to question who provided talking points to a retired Navy rear admiral and retired Army major general.

    From whom are ATT proponents getting their talking points? - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

  3. #153
    VIP Member Array mprp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,929
    here's less oversight on sales of grenade launchers in international markets than of iPods or bananas. Yes, you read that right: We have strict international rules and regulations on selling fruit and MP3 players, but no unifying international laws governing the sale of weapons…

    "… While the United States maintains some of the strictest regulations on the import and export of tanks, guns, missiles, ammunition and other arms, many countries have little to no regulation at all. This patchwork system makes it all too easy for traffickers to sell powerful weapons and ammunition to terrorists and warlords that they can then use against our troops and innocent civilians.'
    "My name is Major General Roger R. Blunt and I approve of this message."
    Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME

    Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.

  4. #154
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Two opinion pieces by retired U.S. military personnel published on the same day in two different publications – both supporting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty – bear strikingly similar comments, leading Gun Rights Examiner to question who provided talking points to a retired Navy rear admiral and retired Army major general.
    Deleted. Who can better articulate the threat of illegally trafficked weapons than a Navy admiral or an Army general officer? These guys send troops into harms way at the whim of US presidents. Many, if not most, of the combatants those troops are fighting are being armed by international arms peddlers and rogue states.

    Maybe those officers communicated. The gun rights organizations could use some communications training: Wait!!! They're too busy stabbing each other in the back.

  5. #155
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,976
    It is also quite possible that the two of them read the same publications. Just because they are retired does not mean they are out of the game so to speak. It does not mean someone is providing them with talking points. If we all read Blackwater Tactical Weekly at 0800 and we get phone calls from reporters at 0830 wanting to know what we think about something that was covered in an article we just read, might we make almost identical comments?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #156
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,976
    From the General's piece:
    The National Rifle Association even got an amendment introduced in the Senate recently to block funding for the U.S. delegation to the ATT negotiations if the treaty violates the Second Amendment. Rather than sparking partisan battles, as the NRA had hoped, every Democratic senator supported the amendment and it passed without debate.

    The reason is simple: the ATT has never threatened our Second Amendment rights and would not be ratified if it did. Even Fox News has called out the NRA for not accurately representing this treaty and its lack of effect on domestic gun sales or ownership.

    So lest there be any doubt: ATT will have NO impact on Second Amendment rights or U.S. gun laws in any way, shape or form.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #157
    Member Array gunrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    28
    In all honesty, I'm watching what happens very closely but I have already made up my mind that if it passes, I will not comply anyway. The UN has no right to think it can change our laws in this country and personally I think we need to tell the UN to get lost. The UN is a useless group of dreamers that have done more harm than good in this world.
    tkruf likes this.

  8. #158
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    U.S. Presidents have a history of signing treaties that are never ratified by the Senate. I seem to recall some that while never ratified were complied with by the administration. Arms treaties mostly if I recall correctly.

    Michael

  9. #159
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,976
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    U.S. Presidents have a history of signing treaties that are never ratified by the Senate. I seem to recall some that while never ratified were complied with by the administration. Arms treaties mostly if I recall correctly.

    Michael
    IIRC not complying with those treaties (that we pushed for) would have involved spending billions of dollars deploying weapons we didn't really need anyway.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #160
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    IIRC not complying with those treaties (that we pushed for) would have involved spending billions of dollars deploying weapons we didn't really need anyway.
    Just pointing out that a treaty need not be ratified to go into effect.

    Michael

  11. #161
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Just pointing out that a treaty need not be ratified to go into effect.

    Michael
    Which treaties are you specifically talking about that were not ratified but were put in effect? And by effect did they break any existing US laws or not follow the Constitution?

  12. #162
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,976
    The one I am thinking of was SALT II.
    I don't personally know anyone who had turn in or register any warheads or delivery systems though.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #163
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,081
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    The one I am thinking of was SALT II.
    I don't personally know anyone who had turn in or register any warheads or delivery systems though.
    And Reagan took it with a grain of salt.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  14. #164
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    I was just reading about SALT I and II. It is apples and oranges when we are talking about the small arms treaty which is a UN treaty and the fear that it will affect US law and a treaty with the USSR which we could have done all the actions that the treaty called for unilaterally with or without a treaty or having it ratified.

    SALT II was just an agreement by two parties that they would do xyz.

  15. #165
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I was just reading about SALT I and II. It is apples and oranges when we are talking about the small arms treaty which is a UN treaty and the fear that it will affect US law and a treaty with the USSR which we could have done all the actions that the treaty called for unilaterally with or without a treaty or having it ratified.

    SALT II was just an agreement by two parties that they would do xyz.
    While the subject matter may be comparing apples to oranges the matter of honoring two different treaties that have not been ratified is the same is apples to apples.
    Honoring Salt II only proves that any signed but not ratified treaty might potentially be honored. In effect bypassing the will of the Senate.

    Michael

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

ammo prices rising because of treaty
,
did clinton sign the att
,
did hilary sign small arms treaty
,
did hillary clinton sign a treaty july 27
,
did hillary clinton sign the small arms treaty with the un
,

did hillary clinton sign the un small arms treaty

,
freedom from war
,

freedom from war snopes

,
politifact small arms treaty
,

un at&t treaty

,
un small arms treaty forum
,
would reid v. covert deny the small arms treaty
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors