UN ANTI-GUN TREATY IS DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL

Forums: Guns
Email this Topic • Print this Page

UN Arms Treaty Dead

By James S. Robbins - The Washington Times
July 27, 2012, 06:53PM

Talks over the UN Arms Trade Treaty fell apart
today, effectively killing the agreement.

The Arms Trade Treaty Legal Blog reports that the
process seemed to be moving to completion when
the United States requested an extension to the
time to negotiate the agreement. This opened the
door to other countries to begin registering
objections, and it soon became clear that
reaching agreement within the allowed timeframe
would be impossible. The proposed treaty, which
raised considerable domestic opposition from gun
rights advocates in the United States, died
before it had a chance to become a threat. As a
delegate from China observed, "C'est la vie et la vie c'est ça."

The UN may take up the matter at a later date,
but for now it is on indefinite hiatus.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,405 • Replies: 69

No top replies

I believe that obama killed it
because he knew that if he sent it to the Senate
for ratification, it woud have lost him a lot of votes in November.

He KNOWS clearly, what happened to AlGore.
He does not wanna follow in his footsteps.

David

0 Replies

Such treaty would limit arms exports.
Which country exports the most arms?

1 Reply

@George,

There had been disquiet
in regard to any possible violation of American sovereignty,
qua freedom of self defense. I never saw much viability in the treaty anyway.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Frankly, I don't think the treaty has anything to do with self-defense.
But ya see what ya wanna see.

2 Replies

@George,

George wrote:

Frankly, I don't think the treaty has anything to do with self-defense.
But ya see what ya wanna see.

Citizens' possession of small arms ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

How is that addressed in the proposed treaty?
Maybe I haven't studied it closely enough.

2 Replies

@George,

Nor have I, being satisfied in its non-viability.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I see.

1 Reply

@George,

George wrote:

I see.

Several months ago,
2 groups of US Senators, totaling to about 2/3 of Senate membership,
wrote obama 2 letters condemning the treaty as being anti-gun freedom
and promising to vote AGAINST ratification.

The Constitution requires a vote of 2/3 of the Senators in favor,
to achieve ratification of a treaty.

I was also aware that it is legally impossible
to amend the Constitution by a treaty. Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1956)

David

1 Reply

@George,

George wrote:

Frankly, I don't think the treaty has anything to do with self-defense.
But ya see what ya wanna see.

The people pushing the treaty want it to ban most guns from civilian possession.

1 Reply

@George,

George wrote:

How is that addressed in the proposed treaty?
Maybe I haven't studied it closely enough.

The texts of the current proposals have been kept secret so far as I can tell.

However, there have been past attempts, and the people who push the treaty have always before wanted to include various forms of civilian gun bans in it.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David you're letting dogma get in the way of reason. This treaty is all about limiting arms to countries that will use them for internal repression. For example Syria and Bahrain. It has nothing to do with restricting the rights of American citizens to walk into cinemas tooled up and start annihilating their fellow citizens.

Had this treaty been passed you would still be able to do that.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

This treaty is all about limiting arms to countries that will use them for internal repression. For example Syria and Bahrain.

Then its backers over the years shouldn't have been trying to use it to ban civilian possession of most guns.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Don't talk about things you don't understand.

You going off half-cock is a given, you just like to spout your paranoid ignorance. I was talking to David, he at least has a brain.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzytheretard wrote:

Don't talk about things you don't understand.

You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own stupidity.

izzytheretard wrote:

You going off half-cock is a given,

Liar.

izzytheretard wrote:

you just like to spout your ignorance.

You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own ignorance.

izzytheretard wrote:

paranoid

Liar.

izzytheretard wrote:

I was talking to David, he at least has a brain.

You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own stupidity.

Oh, and since you're so stupid, I'd best clarify so you don't get confused: I'm calling YOU stupid, not calling Dave stupid.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

. . . The people pushing the treaty want it to ban most guns from civilian
possession.

Not true.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

. . . The texts of the current proposals have been kept secret so far as
I can tell. . . .

They're available online at the UN website.

1 Reply

@George,

George wrote:

oralloy wrote:
. . . The people pushing the treaty want it to ban most guns from civilian possession.

Not true.

Oh? Why have the people who push the treaty been calling for years to put a civilian gun ban of one form or another in it?

And why was there a push to put such a ban in the treaty during previous attempts to create it?

1 Reply

@George,

George wrote:

oralloy wrote:
. . . The texts of the current proposals have been kept secret so far as I can tell. . . .

They're available online at the UN website.

Nonsense. Produce a link.

1 Reply

UN ANTI-GUN TREATY IS DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know