277 replies to this topic

[rashore]

Czero 101, on 26 July 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Despite all the assumptions made by whomever marked up / highlighted / commented on that document, there is still nothing in that Treaty that is specifically designed to repeal the 2nd Amendment or prevent the lawful purchase of guns by Americans.

Cz

I gotta agree with this. In the opening it affirms states get to do as they want within their own borders. The document itself is talking about trading with other states. Lots of talk about imports and exports. I may have missed it, but I didn't see domestic product.
I can see this treaty limiting the selection of imported weapons on the shelves of states that allow them. I guess that could mean a bigger PITA if you want to buy an imported weapon instead of a domestically made one.

[Babe Ruth]

And the newspaper reports that the UN vote failed.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

United Nations fails to agree landmark arms-trade treaty

By Michelle Nichols

UNITED NATIONS | Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:12am EDT
(Reuters) - Delegations from around the world failed on Friday to agree a landmark U.N. arms-trade treaty to regulate the more than $60 billion industry, opting for further talks and a possible U.N. General Assembly vote by the end of the year, diplomats said.
More than 170 countries have spent the past month in New York negotiating a treaty, which needed to be adopted by consensus, so any one country effectively could have vetoed a deal. Instead, no decision was taken on a draft treaty.
But this leaves the door open for further talks and a draft arms-trade treaty could be brought to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopted with a two-thirds majority vote. Diplomats said there could be a vote by the end of the year.
Read more here

[spud the mackem]

They had better tell this to all these guys in the Middle East who jump up and down in the street and fire bullets randomly,shoutin Allah Akbar,dangerous clowns,everyone..

[W Tell]

rashore, on 27 July 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

I gotta agree with this. In the opening it affirms states get to do as they want within their own borders. The document itself is talking about trading with other states. Lots of talk about imports and exports. I may have missed it, but I didn't see domestic product.
I can see this treaty limiting the selection of imported weapons on the shelves of states that allow them. I guess that could mean a bigger PITA if you want to buy an imported weapon instead of a domestically made one.

And what is a State?  In this context, it's a country. The United States of America is plural for a reason. We have 50 seperate states. If the goal is to dictate imports and exports across State lines, how will this affect a man in Kansas that wants to sell a gun to a guy in Oklahoma?

And what if a person wanted to buy a gun that was made in the state of Idaho and he lived in Florida? Would he be denied, or would the red tape it would have to go through just to reach him even be worth it?

Once again I see this as a move to make "arms" sales a major hinderance, if not an impossibility, to further regulate guns. (BTW "regulate" in the Constituion means to make regular, not to restrict. The Federal government now days does not view it like that.)

[Czero 101]

W Tell, on 28 July 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

And what is a State?  In this context, it's a country.

You are correct that in the context of the UN Treaty, "State" refers to a country, specifically a "Member State" is a country that is a member on the UN.

Quote

The United States of America is plural for a reason. We have 50 seperate states.

But in the "eyes" of the UN, the USA is just one country, one "state".

Quote

If the goal is to dictate imports and exports across State lines, how will this affect a man in Kansas that wants to sell a gun to a guy in Oklahoma?

And what if a person wanted to buy a gun that was made in the state of Idaho and he lived in Florida? Would he be denied, or would the red tape it would have to go through just to reach him even be worth it?

Once again I see this as a move to make "arms" sales a major hinderance, if not an impossibility, to further regulate guns. (BTW "regulate" in the Constituion means to make regular, not to restrict. The Federal government now days does not view it like that.)

However, this section above is incorrect.

The UN doesn't care what happens between Florida and Idaho, or Oklahoma and Nevada, or Kansas and Alaska.

The treaty specifically says that individual member state governments are responsible for their own security. in other words, the United States deals with how firearms are shipped within its own borders, but international shipments are (or would have been, had it passed the vote) governed by the terms of the treaty.






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 28 July 2012 - 09:29 PM.

[W Tell]

Czero 101, on 28 July 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

You are correct that in the context of the UN Treaty, "State" refers to a country, specifically a "Member State" is a country that is a member on the UN.

And that is where my argument stems from.

Czero 101, on 28 July 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

But in the "eyes" of the UN, the USA is just one country, one "state".


However, this section above is incorrect.

The UN doesn't care what happens between Florida and Idaho, or Oklahoma and Nevada, or Kansas and Alaska.

The treaty specifically says that individual member state governments are responsible for their own security. in other words, the United States deals with how firearms are shipped within its own borders, but international shipments are (or would have been, had it passed the vote) governed by the terms of the treaty.

Cz

I'm not talking about how we are recognized, but what we are. When it comes down to the letter of the law, each of the fifty states would have to denounce their own soverienty for this not to affect them.

For the record, I'm not so worried about how the U.N "sees" us, I'm more worried about how our lawmakers at home will "interprit" this. There is no such thing as a law that is written any more for the common man to understand. It's all legalize andmeant to be confusing and interpreted as the situation demands. Look how many laws there are for just transporting cabbage across the State lines.

No, this is why it worries me, and I believe there is a legit reason for that worry.

[Seeker79]

Obviousman, on 14 July 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

What people in the US do is no concern of mine; you decide what is right for your country.

I'm an Australian citizen, however, and in my country I don't want the majority of people to have access to firearms.

Just the minority of people that will obtain them illegally. Armed criminals and unarmed citizens... Great for the criminals. Australia seems to have their **** together on a lot if things, but there will be a time that will change.

[preacherman76]

Daughter of the Nine Moons, on 28 July 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

United Nations fails to agree landmark arms-trade treaty

By Michelle Nichols

UNITED NATIONS | Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:12am EDT
(Reuters) - Delegations from around the world failed on Friday to agree a landmark U.N. arms-trade treaty to regulate the more than $60 billion industry, opting for further talks and a possible U.N. General Assembly vote by the end of the year, diplomats said.
More than 170 countries have spent the past month in New York negotiating a treaty, which needed to be adopted by consensus, so any one country effectively could have vetoed a deal. Instead, no decision was taken on a draft treaty.
But this leaves the door open for further talks and a draft arms-trade treaty could be brought to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopted with a two-thirds majority vote. Diplomats said there could be a vote by the end of the year.
Read more here

Must be they didnt get a strong enough reaction to the recent shooting. Be on the watch for a much bigger false flag operation between now and the end of the year.

[psychoticmike]

ZaraKitty, on 24 July 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

Nice paranoia, bro. Goes well with your knowledge of the world.

no, nice awareness. yes my knowledge of the world is pretty vast.

[psychoticmike]

preacherman76, on 26 July 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

So im reading your post when suddenly I realise why people who dont live in this country are so against the idea that the right to own arms is fundemental for a free nation. If they admit that, then they have to face the fact that they are helpless. What ever ball thier government wants to throw at them, they cant do a single thing about it. Even if what ever that situation is makes Hitler look like santa claus. Thats a scary thing to think about.

you may be on to something.

[psychoticmike]

ZaraKitty, on 24 July 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

Also, their army will have superior weapons, you have to rely on your own army who also has superior weapons.


Aus, Germany, England COMBINED gun deaths a year are 500 (from memory)
America ALONE is 9000.

It's not the criminals.
It's the avaliablilty of guns.
Hurr durr math.

feel free to take a look at the founding of this country. belief and a strong will can overcome almost anything. they may have superior weapons ready to go, but you can make their equivalents with many common legal items and their weapons would not help them much if they were in the enemies hands after a few of them got dropped.
since you seem to like numbers so much, maybe you should check out the American population and the amount of guns we own.

your numbers are off durr. its not the criminals? really? because i thought the second you shot someone unprovoked you turned into one.

its not the guns, its the minds of the masses and bad government. maybe you'd rather not see that because blaming an inanimate object is much easier then getting to the root of the problem and coming to the realization that society as a whole is in a pretty sorry state mentally.

what makes people want to commit suicide, want to murder, and want to commit any crime regardless of the weapon used? if you solved those you might just stop gun crime. or reduce it by a huge amount.

insult me all you want, but doing so only makes your arguement weaker. calling me paranoid just shows you don't know much history.

[psychoticmike]

preacherman76, on 28 July 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Must be they didnt get a strong enough reaction to the recent shooting. Be on the watch for a much bigger false flag operation between now and the end of the year.

or because they got the opposite reaction of what they wanted. more gun sales!!!

[ZaraKitty]

psychoticmike, on 05 August 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

feel free to take a look at the founding of this country. belief and a strong will can overcome almost anything. they may have superior weapons ready to go, but you can make their equivalents with many common legal items and their weapons would not help them much if they were in the enemies hands after a few of them got dropped.
since you seem to like numbers so much, maybe you should check out the American population and the amount of guns we own.

your numbers are off durr. its not the criminals? really? because i thought the second you shot someone unprovoked you turned into one.

its not the guns, its the minds of the masses and bad government. maybe you'd rather not see that because blaming an inanimate object is much easier then getting to the root of the problem and coming to the realization that society as a whole is in a pretty sorry state mentally.

what makes people want to commit suicide, want to murder, and want to commit any crime regardless of the weapon used? if you solved those you might just stop gun crime. or reduce it by a huge amount.

insult me all you want, but doing so only makes your arguement weaker. calling me paranoid just shows you don't know much history.

edit** I meant organised criminals. Gang bangers, bikers. Etc. Once you factor that in, it makes more sense.


Do you seriously think you're going to have to defend against your government?
Really?

Your big bad government is going to knock down your door, so hide yo kids and hide yo wife!

No.

Welcome to the 21st century. It's 2012. That isn't going to happen anywhere that isn't a third world country.

You're paranoid.

At any rate, your governments army has bigger guns than you, tanks and missiles. You don't stand a chance anyway.

Edited by ZaraKitty, 06 August 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[preacherman76]

ZaraKitty, on 06 August 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

edit** I meant organised criminals. Gang bangers, bikers. Etc. Once you factor that in, it makes more sense.


Do you seriously think you're going to have to defend against your government?
Really?

Your big bad government is going to knock down your door, so hide yo kids and hide yo wife!

No.

Welcome to the 21st century. It's 2012. That isn't going to happen anywhere that isn't a third world country.

You're paranoid.

At any rate, your governments army has bigger guns than you, tanks and missiles. You don't stand a chance anyway.

I hope not, but it wouldnt surprise me. Its happened all through history. It will happen again. The way they are stomping on our liberties right now makes me wonder just how long till something like that might happen.