|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Should we be afraid that the UN Arms Trade Treaty is a foot in the door to circumventing the 2nd Am?
No, we shouldn't. The UN Treaty you reference doesn't even exist yet, for one thing. No formal proposal has been submitted yet. So there's one reason not to fear.
Second, this treaty, as it has been discussed, deals strictly with the international trade. It says nothing and never has been pointed towards domestic arms sales. Furthermore, the treaty does not ban the sale of arms or the private ownership of guns. The theoretical treaty is strictly concerned with preventing the sale of arms to terrorists, organized crime, and those who wish to commit genocide.
There is a separate treaty that would like to take a stab at domestic arms sales, but unlike the Small Arms Trade Treaty, this other treaty has not received any recognition or support from the United States. Even if this treaty were signed by the President, it would not be considered binding on the USA unless it was ratified by a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. And even if that happened, the Constitution trumps any and all international treaties, as ruled in Reid vs. Covert.
I don't think so. Since when has the US ever followed UN-mandated law or any international law? We're a rogue nation that does what it wants. I happen to agree that we should not let the UN tell us what we can and cannot do on our own soil.
I agree that this could be a bit of a conspiracy theory but here's my point. Entering into this treaty means that each member has to abide by the rules which are agreed upon. From what I have seen this means that they can regulate the movement of everything from small arms to submarines. Therefore, if our representatives decide that they must restrict the movement and the sale of these arms within our borders in order to abide by this treaty then they can decide it is within their power to sidestep the second amendment in order to follow the global law. Whether you believe in the means or not we have seen multiple instances of this president utilizing executive orders to make decisions with huge implications for our country. So, does the need to abide by new world order over power our individual states right?
by KK Trainor6 years ago
Texas executed Humberto Leal yesterday evening. Leal murdered a 16 year old girl after raping and brutalizing her and bashing her head in with a huge chunk of asphalt. He was kind enough to leave a stick with a nail on...
by Barefootfae5 years ago
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.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.