Notice anything about these names?
They all have the initial for Donkey next to them.
Always makes me think of Pinocchio and what happened to the boys in that movie that hung out with the wrong crowd.Seriously the conspiracy nuts are still up on this one? The treaty in no way affects gun rights in the US, it is simply an attempt to prevent those guns being used for crimes overseas.
Lord Monckton once told a similar lie about the Copenhagen treaty in '09.
Like the Copenhagen Treaty, the idea that this small arms treaty would affect US law or the 2nd Amendment in any way is preposterous.
- JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago
0The Arms Treaty would not threaten our gun rights in any way, and I'm a huge gun-right supporter.
JaxsonRaine,
I hope you are right, but I'm reading an article in "American Rifleman" right now. The article was written by Wayne LaPierre, and it clearly does not agree with your statement. In fact, LaPierre quoted Ambassador Bolton in an NRA interview, "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international trade between nations, but there's no doubt. . .that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
"The First Step in Trampling our Rights"I read the treaty. The treaty recognizes the laws of the countries, so the only way the treaty would impact private ownership would be if the US made private ownership illegal. It does nothing.
Why would you ever take anything LaPierre says seriously? He and his organization are a joke, and anyone who claims they have a need to own more than 3 guns...it's overkill. You seriously don't need more than that.
Edit your post, you just insulted members of this forum.
You're right. I do not need that many. I choose to have that many.
He and his organization are a joke,
While I agree that the NRA has pretty much become a mockery of what it was founded to be, it's a mistake to dismiss it as a joke. The NRA is politically powerful and has unrestricted access to most lawmakers. And those lawmakers listen to them, for good or ill.I don't need more than three guns? Gee, I'm glad you're out there to decide these things FOR me. Say.....howsabout you come and take my guns? I dare ya!
Your statement is just as bad. Dismissing LaPierre's statement just because he is LaPierre is like dismissing a post because of a misspelling or dismissing something important Rand Paul said just because he's Rand Paul. You have to listen to the message and determine if it is true. Josak and I disagree on pretty much everything, but I have agreed with some of his statements; I've even agreed with some things the POTUS has said. I do not discount what is said based solely on the source. I look at the meaning, something you need to do before drinking the anti-LaPierre propaganda.
This one is true. If you think it's propaganda, prove your point instead of making short, meaningless statements. I'm stunned.I dunno, it seems even worse on your part to not even consider your source before declaring that the sky is falling.
I dunno either. I did consider the source. Are you going to prove your point? Prove that it's a false statement and that it's propaganda. Can you do that? It's easy to say something is false because of the source. Prove your point. I'm guessing that LaPierre knows more about the topic than you do.
Kool-aid much?You don't see why I'm skeptical of the guy who runs the NRA saying that something may infringe on the rights of people to carry arms even when it doesn't? Hmmmm.....why would he possibly say something like that? Could it be that he has some agenda or perhaps an interest to promote?
But...just to end this real quick.
From the treaty itself..
...the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”You don't get it. I don't want some foreign entity putting my name on a list. Don't you see how wrong that is? I am not saying that this is about gun control. I'm saying that this might just be about making gun-ownership lists. I am adamantly opposed to that, because it is the first step in a confiscation process.
So, rather than accept that the actual words of the actual treaty (and not Wayne LaPierre's mendacious misinterpretation thereof) do not infringe on either national sovereignty or the rights of individuals, you're going to claim that the treaty will put your name on some foreign entity's list, when it bloody well doesn't (unless you order a load of firearms from an overseas manufacturer).
Facts really don't seem to matter to you: you're all about ideology on this one.
Of course he's biased. Does that mean he's wrong? You assume that he's wrong, because he's biased? That means everybody is wrong. We're all biased when it comes to certain topics. Are we all wrong? Statements need to be evaluated based on their merit. When you discount somebody's statements because they may be biased, you yourself are biased.
Can you prove he's wrong?How many times do people need to quote from the treaty to prove that he's wrong?
"Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control conventional
arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems,
Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional
arms... where such ownership and use are permitted and protected by law."
The treaty says the each State has the sovereignty to regulate intra-state guns. This only applies to international imports and exports.
It also recognizes private ownership and use of guns.The fact that Wayne's biased helps him along the path to being wrong, but bias by itself isn't enough to conclude that he's wrong.
The fact that he's making up stuff about the treaty that isn't in the treaty is what's making him wrong in this case.
Some people will believe darn near anything, especially if they really want it to be true or if they're afraid it might be true.
Would you care to prove your statement?
Search for it, I've posted before, it's no big deal. Read the text, where it recognizes the laws of each country in regards to private use and ownership. By definition, the treaty cannot override a country's laws, nor does it attempt to.
Any infringement on this nation's sovereignty is a BIG DEAL. It becomes like eating an elephant. Research that one...
The Frog PrinceI have, I didn't see any infringement.
I saw a treaty that, rather than infringing on sovereignty, recognizes and yields to it.
Have you read the treaty?Yes. Have you? Now I suppose in your mind Agenda 21 isn't infringement either? Have you read the US Constitution? I doubt it seriously by your statements.
Ah it's hilarious, on one hand the sane pro gun conservative, on the other... well Frog Prince
"reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any state or nation to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place within it's own territory pursuant to it's own legal or constitutional systems"
Which you would know if you had actually read it.
Basically the treaty itself stats it CANNOT have any effect on gun ownership, regulation or trade inside the US, but no amount of facts or reason will stop the loons from inventing conspiracy theories.Josak - Crawl back in your hole son. I know exactly what the treaty says and the UN has no business in this nation. Now scram and stop being a pest boy.
The FrogGet a kick out of calling black people boy? Good for you.
As for the quote it's direct from the bill and it proves the bill cannot in any way affect this nation. So you can be offensive and dismissive all you want the facts will still prove you wrong as they are and where they are.
"reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any state or nation to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place within it's own territory pursuant to it's own legal or constitutional systems"
Still the factsIf you know what the treaty says, why won't you talk about what the treaty says?
Where is the infringement, is it unconstitutional for the US to ratify a treaty?
Please, quote from the treaty the parts that are bad.Furthermore even if there was anything that contradicted the constitution in the treaty (which there is not) Reid v Covert established that no foreign treaty can supersede the constitution so the the treaty would be utterly powerless to do anything against the second amendment anyway.
What do we gain by signing? What's the point? People keep saying that we won't lose our sovereign rights, but why should we sign?
Well it's a UN treaty.
You know.....those guys who are happy to be away from their homelands.....So that guns bought from America are not shipped wholesale overseas to terrorist groups and gangs around the world costing thousands of lives. It's basically a method of keeping track of gun purchases to outside the US are going and possibly preventing them if the receiving source is a criminal organization (and all other signatory nations also).
Josak,
I love how you make it sound like guns are only coming from America. Seriously? Other countries sell guns too and sometimes to us. This treaty also keeps track of guns that are manufactured in other parts of the world and sold to Americans. Did you intentionally leave that out of your comment?
It does not surprise me that you want an international law to keep track of gun sales. You obviously like that sort ot thing. I am opposed to list making. When you are on a list, your gun can then be confiscated. I know. . . it's to keep people safe. We've heard that one before.
To help prevent international arms trafficking to known war criminals and terrorists, and the resulting acts of genocide and terrorism.
Truth, justice, and the American way? Yes, it all sounds great.
By making a list of people, in a manner that is consistent internationally, we are going too far. We gun owners often agree on several issues. One of them is that we don't want a list, because it's usually the first step in confiscation. IF you don't believe that to be the case, look at what has been proposed in New York and other states. Confiscation was absolutley on the table.
If you know what the treaty says, why won't you talk about what the treaty says?
There are a few possibilities:
1) He actually has no friggin' clue what the treaty actually says, and is basing his opinion on an incoherent rant from someone like Alex Jones (Seventeen Sevinny Six will cuh-mey-unce again if yew trah tuh take uhway are guhnz!)
or
2) He has read the treaty but doesn't really understand it, and doesn't want to look (even more) silly when the grown-ups explain why he's wrong,
or
3) He has read the treaty, and knows that it doesn't do what he claims, but he has some interest in getting people to believe that the scary UN is coming for their guns. I can't imagine what that would be, but there we are.Based on this childish post I'm guessing you mean some other grown up.
Don't know anything about this treaty, but I do know a childish response when I read one.
Does that work for you?Also notice she assumes she knows the correct answer....if there is one.
There has to be a reason, even if it is: I am sick of you people and don't want to discuss this any more.
I don't know the correct answer because I am not the person in question, and not in a Vulcan mind meld with them.Then don't post to things you don't want to discuss. That make sense?
If she has read the treaty SHE DOES. She knows, and left or right people in this thread that have actually informed themselves and not been willfully ignorant on the issue are all very clear on the facts, did you read it?
"reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any state or nation to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place within it's own territory pursuant to it's own legal or constitutional systems"
Read it a few times, might help it sink in.
You don't know anything about the treaty?
I'm stunned....
Pathetic and typical insults aside, why exactly would the UN have "no business in this nation"? We are a member, we give them a billion dollars or so a year, and their headquarters is in NYC. That would seem to suggest they have plenty of business here.
I get that some people don't like the UN, other people do. We are a democracy still aren't we? Isn't that the sort of thing that should be determined by voting?
Actually, its not.....unless your enjoy reading propaganda.
Now I expect you to tell make what make and model of guns you own.
"The treaty would require member states to monitor cross-border trade of those weapons and establish what amounts to a universally accepted system of background checks on the recipients."
"The N.R.A. also contends that the requirements of record-keeping open the door to a national registry of guns in the United States, which the group opposes."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/world … .html?_r=0
I am opposed to this treaty.Are you aware of what the Arms Trade Treaty is for?
Are you familiar with how international law works in relation to the United States constitution?Knowing the views and opinions of some of those involved in this thread, I have to say this is probably the most surreal experience I could have had this morning.
I'm wondering if I just need more coffee or if I suffered a stroke during the night.
I agree with both JaxsonRaine and Josak. Which is a sentence I don't believe I've ever typed before.
You have to ignore simple fact, plain words, to think that the Treaty is a threat to 2A rights. Even I'm not willing to go that far
Jaxson, my admiration to you for daring to stand in opposition to right wing thinking that could care less about the facts .that has been explained by both you and Josak. They would rather recite from the playbook. Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble are busy taking issue with something they never took the time to read, brilliant!... I will do better to give you the benefit of the doubt in future forums as someone who can actually put the truth before the playbook?
Thanks, despite what some think I do try to be objective. I don't even know a single 'official' party platform, because I'm either for something cause I think it's right, or against it because I think it's wrong.
Not for it because 'conservatives are currently for it'.
I appreciate it.I have been reading it, and I still disagree. I don't need an international playbook. I don't need to be put on a list, because I purchased a foreign-made gun.
Who is going to keep this list?
Why do they need a list?You're not going to be on a list. The treaty only applies to international imports and exports. If you become a licensed gun importer, then your company would be on the list, true. But nobody you sell to. They just want to stop the people who are selling guns to terrorist organizations and drug cartels.
Besides, there are already records about imports and exports, it's not that big of a deal.
Why don't you, or anyone else who thinks this is such a bad thing, just QUOTE FROM THE TREATY?
I've never seen a SINGLE person who doesn't like the treaty actually quote the part they don't like. All they do is link to what someone else is saying about the treaty.You need the magical NRA decoder ring to see the invisible text that is hidden in the treaty. It's behind the photo of Obama riding his unicorn across the rainbow, so liberals can't see it even if they had a ring.
Dang, all I have is the Secret Society Decoder pin I got from the Little Orphan Annie program
I tried to use the NRA decoder ring, but it misfired. They reattached the finger, but they said I'll never shoot straight again.
. . .So when you go to the United Nations site, it reads
"United Nations Disarmament Affairs. . . strengthening peace and security through disarmament"
Yeah, this sounds great. How's that for a quote? If that doesn't say it, little will. DISARMAMENT.
"but their excessive accumulation . . ." Who defines this, the United Nations?
"Reliable data sets on small arms can only be built if countries provide information on production, holdings, trade, legislation and use." America must provide information about "holdings" now?
I don't need anybody to tell me that this isn't good. Wayne LaPierre is just saying what I am thinking.You realize that "holdings" is used in the financial sense rather than the "What are you packing?" sense... right?
That's why it's grouped with production and trade.
UN really wouldn't have to ask the US for that info, they could just read the Wall Street Journal... or do a Google.So, you didn't read the treaty then?
Some page on the UN website is not the same as the treaty. I'm still waiting on quotes from the treaty.You have got to be kidding! This is a UN site, and it clearly talks about disarmament. You have got to be kidding. EVEN if your proposed treaty says what you say it says, and I don't necessarily agree that it does, it does not negate the fact that the UN has clearly stated that its goal is disarmament. Spin it all you want. Quote your treaty. Call people uneducated. Call the NRA names. This is what the UN says:
"United Nations Disarmament Affairs. . . strengthening peace and security through disarmament"
HERE IS ONE OF THE 3 GOALS PROPAGATED BY THE UNODA (United Natioins Office for Disarmament Affairs):
• Disarmament efforts in the area of CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS, especially landmines and SMALL ARMS, which are the weapons of choice in contemporary conflicts.I think you misunderstand the scope of what the UN can do anyway....
If the United States ever felt that this law would undermine its ability to do whatever it pleases, it would be done with it in a heartbeat.
When it comes to disarmament, it means ending conflicts in Africa or other places where civil wars are raging on and killing innocent civilians.
Trust me, there is no way that the UN could take your guns.And he still won't quote from the treaty.
That's because he hasn't read the treaty and therefore can't quote from it.
Or else he has read the treaty and doesn't understand it (considering his misunderstanding of the word "holdings" above, this might be likely).
Or else he's read it, understood it, but still argues nonsense because he wants to tell everyone that the sky is falling for reasons of his own (whatever those might be).See, that's the great thing. If you read the treaty, it outlines exactly who they are trying to disarm. Sorry, you are being obtuse if you won't read the treaty. That's as stupid as saying you won't read Obamacare but you know what is in it, even if people quote from the bill itself contrary to what you are saying.
If a politician says one thing but posts another on their site, which do you believe? Should you believe one statement over another, or should you believe both equally? That's the problem here. The UN MIGHT say one thing in their treaty, but on one of their sites they are calling for small-arms disarmament. Do you remember Romney's statement about 47% of America? He couldn't take that away no matter how many times he said other things. The UN can't simultaneously say two opposing things and deserve any credibility, as they are still posting a site that clearly says that one of its goals is to disarm the world of small, conventional arms, guns.
Ok, you have a generic statement(which I still haven't seen) about disarmament, and a specific legal document that outlines all the details. Which are you going to believe? The one that would be considered law, and lays out the details, or the one that has no legal holding?
This is exactly the same as you believing what someone says about Obamacare over the actual bill itself. Hint: only the BILL is LAW.
The words of politicians aren't laws.
Keep screaming though, chicken little. The sky is falling. The UN wants to recognize our sovereignty! OH NOOOOOO!The bill would be law, but it does not necessarily show further intent.
Apparently, a lot of people agree with me, if not in this forum, in the real world. You see, Congress voted against this fine, fine treaty. I know, it's all because people like me, the NRA propagandists who want to make you feel like the sky is falling. Perhaps it's because the average American isn't as far left as you would like him/her to be. Before you respond, remember that the Senate is controlled by democrats, and you can't even get a majority of the Senate to agree with this.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co … ade-treatya lot of people agree with me
That's proof of nothing. If a lot of people agreed that pi equals three, that wouldn't change the real value of pi. It'd just make all those people make stupid mistakes when trying to make round things.
efore you respond, remember that the Senate is controlled by democrats, Yeah, and they're just as scared of the NRA's political power as the GOP ones are.
Our politicians are gutless. Not exactly news.
You're still wrong.It seems that we do agree on something. The majority of people can be wrong. Just look at the re-election of the POTUS, and you can clearly see a great example of that.
Another conservative source saying what conservatives want to hear?
There are plenty of liberal sources that report the same news. Feel free to Google it.
Why are you scared of reading and quoting from the treaty?
It's sad, you refuse to consider the only primary source on the matter.You seem to think that I am opposed to reading the treaty. I am not. The proposed treaty is the primary source. That is a fact. I am not disputing that. We just simply have a disagreement about the United Nations, its purpose, and its primary goals. I am not a big fan of the United Nations any more than you are a big fan of LaPierre and the NRA. I will, however, make an effort choke down some of my disdain for the United Nations and read the treaty, as I too dislike it when somebody speaks out without fully researching the topic.
I have read excerpts that are readily available, but I must admit that I have had a difficult time finding the complete document. Could you please provide a link?
Thank you.You do know that I'm a huge gun-rights advocate, right? Have I said anything at all against the NRA?
Also, the treaty is still being worked on, so many things have changed in the last 3 months. I re-read it to make sure there wasn't anything I didn't know about.
I don't care about the long-term goals of the UN. When talking about the treaty, all I care about is the treaty.Interesting. I'm glad to hear that. Do you have a link to the full text or whatever you have been reading?
Thanks.http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ … arch_2013_(ATT_Final_Conference).pdf
That link doesn't work. It says the page doesn't exist. Do you have another link?
Sorry, it didn't copy correctly. This should work.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ … arch_2013_(ATT_Final_Conference).pdf
No, nevermind, it's Hubpages messing it up.
Paste these two together.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/
+
Presidents_Non_Paper_of_22_March_2013_(ATT_Final_Conference).pdf
Or maybe this will workThe following portions of the proposed treaty will result in greater government control, record keeping, and potential future confiscation.
“Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.” I appreciate the fact that this is left up to each country to decide, preserving some shred of sovereignty. Under this treaty, Congress would be under obligation to set and maintain a “control system.” Ultimately, this opens the door for more possible gun control, and I simply do not support that.
“Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,
model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.” By “end users,” does that refer to gun owners? I do not support an additional national register of gun owners, as lists ultimately can be used for confiscation. Proposed legislation in New York and other states clearly illustrates this very real possibility.
The vote you mention wasn't a vote on the actual treaty. To be honest, I don't really understand what the vote was really even about. It seems to be non-binding which means it is entirely symbolic. Perhaps someone could explain what the heck a "deficit neutral reserve fund" is and what point they have.
Either way, there are reasons people are opposed to the treaty other than 2nd amendment concerns. Some people just seem to think it is poorly devised and written. There also seem to be some concerns about it interfering with our ability to transfer weapons to allies. So you may or may not be right that the majority of people agree with you overall on the treaty, that doesn't necessarily mean the majority of people agree it is a threat to our 2nd Amendment rights. I think that is a subset of the overall opposition.
There are also probably Senators who might agree with the treaty but can't support it for political reasons. Senators in states which tend red (Mark Begich, Alaska, Mark Pryor, Arkansas) or strong pro-gun states (Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota, Jon Tester, Montana), are examples.That's fair. It does, however, play to one of my primary themes. The United Nations has not clearly articulated its message. It is unclear whether or not many of its statements regarding disarmament pertain to America or other regions in the world. That is one of my points.
The topic of the conversation is not "do you agree with the long term disarmament plans of the UN" it is "will the small arms treaty affect the gun rights of Americans and as such do those people listed deserve that criticism" the treaty specifically says it recognizes sovereignty, US law states that the treaty cannot supersede the constitution so the obvious answer is the small arms treaty does not affect the gun rights of Americans and those listed do not deserve criticism on that basis, their votes were in fact to prevent the deaths of innocents overseas at the hands of criminals and terrorists, something they deserve to be praised for.
I think that you are taking the word disarmament completely out of context. It does not mean taking away arms from everyone. This is the opening paragraph from UNODA regarding small arms:
"Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower. The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities, and impacts security and development in all regions of the world." (bolded words by me).
It seems pretty clear that the weapons of concern are not weapons owned by legitimate governments or those lawfully owned by citizens. Further along the page is a section titled, "How do small arms become illicit?" Which again pretty clearly demarcates illicit weapons from non-illicit weapons. They then describe how most weapons are traded legally but that some aren't, which also draws a clear distinction between two classes of weapons (legal and illegal). In this regard their goal is simply that "Governments must assure that the shipments...are regulated according to the rule of law."
Taken as a whole their meaning and intent seems extremely clear. They want to eliminate the illegal trade of weapons to groups who engage in some form of illicit conflict. No more, no less. There is nothing at all in their words, or the treaty, to support the idea that they want to eliminate all small arms in the whole world or even in any way to limit any lawful ownership anywhere.Oh i get it. The UN is going to make sure there aren't any illegal firearms!
Define illegal. Does our Congress or court system define it? That's the problem. Is it an international definition that is set by the treaty? Gun control, or some form of gun limitation, becomes the central theme of this discussion if in fact, that's the purpose of the treaty.
You make valid points, however, the UN also makes other statements in other areas and on other pages.
After awhile, you just gotta go with the old saw:
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Or
"Never rassle with a pig; you both get dirty and the pig likes it.""I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."
Winston Churchill
We can all talk about pigs. LOL
The plain fact is that the small arms treaty has nothing whatsoever do to with the gun rights of US citizens.
The only thing it might stop them from doing is selling arms in bulk to known war criminals and crime lords overseas. And even there the treaty does not trump federal or state law. So if the US and your state permit that, go for it.And because I really didn't feel up to giving you the benefit of the doubt, I went back and reread the draft of the treaty and found NONE of your quotes in it.
Hitler's intent isn't visible in his nonagression pact with Russia. Read it. You have to read other papers he wrote to find out what his intent was.
Yes, I know. You'll be making a big deal about Hitler not being the UN. I can hear it now. The fact remains true. The UN still says that its goal is small-arms disarmament. It doesn't have to say that in your proposed treaty for it to be true.Hitler's intent isn't visible in his nonagression pact with Russia.
Right, and when he invaded Russia, he violated the nonaggression pact.
Are you getting paid to make bad arguments and be generally wrong?+1,000,000,000,000,000,000. Hitler's intent was KNOWN when he entered into the so-called nonagression pact with Russia. When he entered into an agreement with Stalin regarding Poland, Hitler made it clear that he intended to invade Russia with the purpose of either annihilating or enslaving the Slavic and Asiatic population and to make Russia a highly productive colony for the German population.
Hitler wanted to materialize the idea of lebensraum i.e. living space for the German population. Hitler even stated that the war with Russia would be a racial war and a war of a magnitude that was never heard of before. Hitler's war with Russia was different from his war in Western Europe.
Let me clarify. What I am saying is that we are getting two different messages from the United Nations. On one hand, people within this forum are saying that the Small Arms Treaty does not erode our national sovereignty; our gun rights will be left intact. On the other hand, the same organization is currently stating, within its own sites, that its intent is disarmament within areas where the UN can “maintain conventional weapons control and practical disarmament.” One could interpret this to mean areas in which warfare is ravaging the land, or one could interpret this to say any area where the UN can effectively implement its protocol. The problem is that it requires interpretation, something other people within this forum have stated. In justifying the need for gun disarmament, the UN Office of Disarmament also states, “They (guns) are the weapons of choice in civil wars and for terrorism, organized crime and gang warfare.” This implies a possible intervention or interest to intervene within regions that have organized crime or gang warfare, perhaps America.
When a politician unambiguously makes two opposing statements, which do you believe? The United Nations is saying two different things. It is disingenuous to say that the United Nations has no intention of eroding our second amendment rights when it clearly says that it fully intends to disarm people in one statement, and in another, claims to preserve our rights.
When Hitler signed the nonaggression pact, he clearly laid his cards on the table, something the United Nations has done. He violated the pact, something I believe the United Nations WOULD do if it had the clout; I am not saying it has the authority to do this, only that it is the United Nation’s wish to do so. That was my point. Either I stated it poorly, or obtuse, emotional reasoning was used to counter my statement.
Let me put this another way. Opposing statements, made by the same party, must be examined and scrutinized. That’s not unreasonable. When Mitt Romney made two separate statements about the 47% of America, his statements were rightly scrutinized. The United Nations is making two separate statements about its intent, and it too deserves scrutiny.
Now, I know that many would say that the United Nations has no intention of taking guns away from Americans; its sole intent is to minimize gun proliferation in other regions. That is an opinion, one that is not substantiated by ALL of the statements made by the United Nations. IF the United Nations does not support disarmament in the United States or other similar regions, why don’t their websites specify this? Why does their site clearly say that one of their goals is the disarmament of small arms? Is it a gaff, much like Romney claimed about the 47% of Americans, or is it something more? It’s a fair question, one that anybody should be asking and would in fact ask of any politician. Why does the United Nations get a pass?
Some people within this forum myopically look at only one document, the Small Arms Treaty. What I am attempting to do is dig a bit deeper and look at additional statements that the same organization is simultaneously making. No reasonable argument would discount additional evidence, supporting or otherwise. That is my point.I don't see the statements as contradictory. And even if the were the UN cannot act contrary to international law. And international law prevents a treaty from trumping self-government (e.g. the constitution). So no matter what anyone says or does, no action of the US could ever affect constitutional rights.
I agree with part of what you said. Yes, no treaty can supersede our Constitution. I respectfully disagree with your statement about whether or not we are receiving contradicting statements from the UN. Obviously, I know that the consensus is very much against my reasoning, however, I simply disagree.
CodyHodge5,
You've quoted from the treaty, so I assume you know how to access a copy of it. Could you please attach a link? I want to read this treaty but can't seem to find a copy.
Related Discussions
- 27
Anybody know anything about crows?
by pgrundy 14 years ago
Got up this morning to this unbelievable racket that sounded like about 100 crows. It's twelve hours later and they are still at it. As near as I can tell, it isn't 100 after all, it's just a few, and they seem to be stationed in a tree in our yard (right next to the bedroom). I walked under it and...
- 14
Do animals know anything about God?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 10 years ago
Do animals know anything about God?I would like to know that do animals have their own Gods? Or they are unaware abut the existence God?
- 7
Does anybody know ANYTHING about this doll company? It's called Victoria Impex C
by Spirit Of Romance 14 years ago
Does anybody know ANYTHING about this doll company?It's called Victoria Impex Corporation.Does anybody know their website, a site I can buy some from, the rest of the series?~ The Spirit Of Romance.
- 211
Why is Trump not doing anything about the Russians meddling.
by Randy Godwin 6 years ago
With all of Trump's Intel agencies testifying before congress that the Russians meddled in the Presidential election, he has done nothing to prevent this from happening in the future. I cannot imagine any past POTUS ignoring this threat to our country. I realize he doesn't want to bring...
- 7
If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?
by Ashantina 13 years ago
If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?
- 42
Does Anyone Know Anything About MyBizzyBlog
by Barbara Badder 9 years ago
Someone just recommend this site. Has anyone tried it or know anything about it?