Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd... - Page 4

Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd...

This is a discussion on Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; aw....the awkward silence as some folks eagerly google away for info on the ATT...

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 99
Like Tree89Likes

Thread: Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd...

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,923
    aw....the awkward silence as some folks eagerly google away for info on the ATT
    technomonster likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8


  2. #47
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    aw....the awkward silence as some folks eagerly google away for info on the ATT
    The treaty is only 17 pages long in English. The reason the main document is 122 pages is because it has a lot of other languages in there. It is pretty easy to read.

  3. #48
    Senior Member Array cn262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I am curious to those that say this is doom (hypotheticaly if ratified) to hear from them. Can folks that think this is doom articulate without adding hyperbole, slippery slope, and red herring arguments as to exactly what parts specifically they are concerned about.

    BTW: This is more of an exercise in finding out who has actually read the document and understands it. I guess it is only fitting since many of us are upset at Congress voting on things without understanding or reading bills. Thought to be intellectually honest, those on this forum should be able to intelligently explain the treaty.
    I've read this several times, although the last time was 4-5 weeks ago. The points that bothered me most were related to "brokering" (sales / transfer), "record keeping" (registration), and the ability to add amendments after six years (presumably for further restriction). The stated intent is on controlling illegal imports and exports - something that sounds innocuous enough. But, when President Obama (presumably) authorizes efforts like "Fast & Furious" and later tells Mexico that most of the guns used illegally there come from here (see link below) then you can see how they could very easily state that these efforts are required nationally in order to control those illegal exports to Mexico and elsewhere. Given the lack of integrity that the administration has shown this doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch IMO.

    Barack Obama tells Mexico: 'Most of the guns used here come from the US' - Telegraph

  4. #49
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,923
    Quote Originally Posted by cn262 View Post
    I've read this several times, although the last time was 4-5 weeks ago. The points that bothered me most were related to "brokering" (sales / transfer), "record keeping" (registration), and the ability to add amendments after six years (presumably for further restriction). The stated intent is on controlling illegal imports and exports - something that sounds innocuous enough. But, when President Obama (presumably) authorizes efforts like "Fast & Furious" and later tells Mexico that most of the guns used illegally there come from here (see link below) then you can see how they could very easily state that these efforts are required nationally in order to control those illegal exports to Mexico and elsewhere. Given the lack of integrity that the administration has shown this doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch IMO.

    Barack Obama tells Mexico: 'Most of the guns used here come from the US' - Telegraph
    That is a slippery slope arguement...a slippery slope arguement can be used to debate anything. It is usually used when there is no real evidence to debate something. You yourself said the treaty pretty much does not affect domestic sales.

    I can't find it yet, but I also beleive that there is wording to the affect that no nations constitutions will be affected byt this treaty.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  5. #50
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by cn262 View Post
    I've read this several times, although the last time was 4-5 weeks ago. The points that bothered me most were related to "brokering" (sales / transfer), "record keeping" (registration), and the ability to add amendments after six years (presumably for further restriction). The stated intent is on controlling illegal imports and exports - something that sounds innocuous enough. But, when President Obama (presumably) authorizes efforts like "Fast & Furious" and later tells Mexico that most of the guns used illegally there come from here (see link below) then you can see how they could very easily state that these efforts are required nationally in order to control those illegal exports to Mexico and elsewhere. Given the lack of integrity that the administration has shown this doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch IMO.

    Barack Obama tells Mexico: 'Most of the guns used here come from the US' - Telegraph
    Brokering is for brokering sales between Exporting and Importing STATES (countries). What they are saying is that people in a country that are being brokers need to follow the rules of the treaty, it has nothing to do with sales within a country. "Record Keeping" is of import and exports only. Once it enters the country there is no record keeping.

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    \

    How does it threaten civilian firearm ownership? What part of the treaty does that? I have read the treaty and it has NOTHING to do with civilian firearms ownership at all. It has no effect on us purchasing firearms at all.
    You Are So Very Wrong.
    GSDSchutzhund likes this.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,672
    Suntzu and Hopyard:

    I would like to hear your reasons why you support the treaty, or at the least why you think it's "no big deal".
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    You Are So Very Wrong.
    Show me in the 17 pages of text where I am wrong. You keep making claims but you have yet to back up a single one of those claims.

  9. #54
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    Show me in the 17 pages of text where I am wrong. You keep making claims but you have yet to back up a single one of those claims.
    Are you not an "end user"?

    The U.N. purposely used vague terms.

    If you have ever purchased a firearm, then you are most definitely an "end user".
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    Are you not an "end user"?

    The U.N. purposely used vague terms.

    If you have ever purchased a firearm, then you are most definitely an "end user".
    Each State Part is "encouraged" to report, up to end users, as appropriate. In the US that is not appropriate by Federal Law, so what is the problem?

  11. #56
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    Suntzu and Hopyard:

    I would like to hear your reasons why you support the treaty, or at the least why you think it's "no big deal".
    Did I write that I support the treaty? NO. I asked those who are complaining about it to show me why they are complaining
    about it. To articulate in a meaningful way why you oppose it. This you have not even attempted to do.
    Link to and cite a specific portion of the text that shows it will negatively affect civilian gun owners in the US. If that is what the treaty does I will be on your side.

    P.S. I'm no big fan of the UN in general, nor of treaties that actually would alter our sovereignty.
    I'm asking that you make your case on some basis other then partisan hatreds and domestic
    politics, such as the actual text of the document.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #57
    Senior Member Array cn262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    That is a slippery slope arguement...a slippery slope arguement can be used to debate anything. It is usually used when there is no real evidence to debate something. You yourself said the treaty pretty much does not affect domestic sales.

    I can't find it yet, but I also beleive that there is wording to the affect that no nations constitutions will be affected byt this treaty.
    It's supposed to be in the Preamble and therefore non-binding, but when I looked last time I did not see anything that specific (somewhat legalese in nature). I downloaded the PDF a while back so it will be easy enough to check and see. I'll post again in a little while if I find it.

  13. #58
    Member Array Backwoodz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Flint area
    Posts
    81
    From what I read it needs a national gun registry. This is what alarms me the most.

  14. #59
    Senior Member Array cn262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I can't find it yet, but I also beleive that there is wording to the affect that no nations constitutions will be affected byt this treaty.
    It's on page 23. The PDF is locked so you can't cut and paste, so here's the paragraph:

    "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,"

    First, it's in the Preamble and therefore non-binding. Then, it states "conventional arms" (ambiguous, possibly intentionally so given the past and recent events to categorize firearms with certain features as "weapons of war"), and then does not specifically mention "protection" or "security" - only troubling because of the other specific uses mentioned.

    Regarding the "slippery slope" comment, I would beg to differ. If I were making the implication without any historical context then yes, I would agree. But that is not the case. Our President, VP, AG, and at least one senior Senator (Feinstein) have been on record for a very long time (more than a decade for most) for stating that they would like to eliminate firearm ownership by civilians. Legislation from the past 20 years, and most recently the last six months, shows that a certain percentage of our elected officials have similar feelings. So while not inevitable, it is very far from unlikely.

    It's sort of like discussing the probability versus the possibility of an event with an attorney. Many things are possible, but generally few are probable. WRT to this Treaty I feel that this tends to land more towards the "possible" end of the scale.


    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    Brokering is for brokering sales between Exporting and Importing STATES (countries). What they are saying is that people in a country that are being brokers need to follow the rules of the treaty, it has nothing to do with sales within a country. "Record Keeping" is of import and exports only. Once it enters the country there is no record keeping.
    OutWestSystems - The Treaty does not provide specific definitions on the key terms (something that should always be a concern for a legal agreement). While the text does focus non-State transactions (which I interpret as unofficial sales) for import or export (i.e., between states), it does not specifically exclude civilian activity. It is very specific in some areas, and very ambiguous in others, and that personally concerns me - especially when the current administration appears to be making direct links to regular FFL dealers and international gun transfers.

    I'm not an attorney, but have worked closely with them for the better part of the past 20 years in business and sales management roles. What you tend to see is that when there are very specific concerns the language in an agreement is very specific. But, where there are general concerns (even opportunities) and there is a desire to have room for interpretation in the future that the language will be intentionally vague. If there is a problem you look for past transactions and activity, as well as "generally accepted" or "industry specific" use or interpretation of a point to try to prove your case. Not to mention that there are many systems of law, not to mention the application of International Law.

    It just feels a bit sinister to me. Make it appear "safe" but leave wiggle room to accomplish many related goals.

  15. #60
    Member Array Zeebra724's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    148
    Obama is basically saying, "Damn the torpedoes!" for the next 2.5 years--he's obviously enjoying building on his legacy as the US President who's actions offered the easiest arguments for impeachment and yet got to enjoy 2 full terms in the people's White House.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 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

az republic - the illogical need to believe obama

,
discuss three reasons for either supporting or opposing the gun amnesty programs in the usvi
,
gun control
,

obama signing peace treaty

,
obama to sign gun bill today
,
un att june 3rd
Click on a term to search for related topics.