UN ANTI-GUN TREATY IS DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL

@Irishk,

Yes? And?
End users, as appropriate in no way implies individual names of retail purchases.

By the way, try shipping weapons from the US without listing the final destination. Under current law, you can't or you will be charged with a crime if you misrepresent the final destination.

1 Reply

@parados,

Just an attempt to correct your assumption that it only applied to EXPORTS. Smile

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Let me clarify. It only applies to import/export.

It's rather hard to export without someone else importing.

1 Reply

@parados,

According to an article I read in NPR a few days ago, the treaty drafters also tried to apply that to ammunition exports, as well. We (U.S.) made them take that out.

I doubt this is the last we'll hear of the Arms Treaty. Any talk of gun control seems to be toxic in an election year, but we'll most likely see it pop back up in 2013.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

How about you read the damn thing before you make yourself look stupid David?
They keep records of what they EXPORT.

Rather than to post redundantly,
lemme rely upon IrishK's Post: # 5,060,767 in reply to u,
qua "end users".

In contemplation of the fact that the treaty is dead
and that if negotiations begin again in the future,
thay can go in any direction, I have not found a need
to become a super-expert upon the corpse of this incomplete attempt.
I glanced at it briefly. With its vast unpopularity in the US Senate,
I don 't see it as having been a big deal.

parados wrote:

You do realize that the US currently REQUIRES export controls for weapons leaving the country.

I never thought about it much;
maybe because I 'm keeping my guns here.

parados wrote:

I assume someone that is in MENSA would be capable of understanding
that you can't export guns without telling the government.

I remember that u have alleged that u r of a sufficiently elevated I.Q. for admission to Mensa.
Your repeated Mensa-related posts bespeak an undercurrent of pain of rejection.
I suggest that u don't let it bother u so much.
Just lead as happy a life as possible. Maybe u can find a member
who will let u attend the meetings as his guest.
Your having read the entire Encyclopedia Americana before the age of 6
speaks well for u, and I am sure that most members of this forum
deem u to be a fairly intelligent person; I do. CHEER UP!

David

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

. . . 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?

No such push.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

. . . Nonsense. Produce a link.

Several posters have beaten me to it.

2 Replies

@George,

I suppose you don't believe that GW orchestrated 911, either...

you have no imagination, G.

1 Reply

@George,

As was speaking with a friend of mine today and he pointed out the
requirement to certify the importing end user. From the import
perspective, I agree that the dealer would be the end user. However, if
an individual did import a gun, he would be an end user and he would be
documented. Those who fear that this treaty would have infringed
Second Amendment rights see this as requiring registration. I think
that's a bit of a stretch, but I concede the point.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

. . . you have no imagination, G.

Au contraire. I just finished my "self-assessment" at work.
It was very imaginative.

1 Reply

@George,

I'm sure corporate gets a chuckle out of those...

do you get to pick your own raises, too?

I might want to make widgets if so...

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I never thought about it much;
maybe because I 'm keeping my guns here.

Since you are keeping your guns here, why are you obsessing about the UN export/import treaty?

I am surprised that someone that claims to be a member of MENSA can be so ignorant and incapable of critical thinking. As a member of MENSA you should really understand the meanings of words like import and export. You should also be capable of understanding that keeping any item in a country means it has nothing to do with import/export.

2 Replies

@George,

A requirement to certify the end user within reason. The reason for this treaty is to prevent large arms shipments to parts of the world where they will be used for oppression or war. If they really think the US or any country will be reporting solitary gun purchases, then they are probably already up in arms over the required back ground check.

You can't import a gun without it being recorded now. You have to file import paperwork. This is not a new thing for people living in the US.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/import-firearms-ammo-implements-of-war.html

1 Reply

@parados,

Good points, parados.

0 Replies

@parados,

DAVID wrote:

I never thought about it much;
maybe because I 'm keeping my guns here.

parados wrote:

Since you are keeping your guns here,
why are you obsessing about the UN export/import treaty?

Y r u hallucinationg about my "obsessing" ??
I have given it little thought, deeming it of not much importance
for the reasons that I have already indicated (qua the Senate & the USSC).

parados wrote:

I am surprised that someone that claims to be a member of MENSA
can be so ignorant and incapable of critical thinking.

I don 't believe u.

parados wrote:

As a member of MENSA you should really understand the meanings of words like import and export. You should also be capable of understanding that keeping any item in a country means it has nothing to do with import/export.

As long as the (incomplete) treaty proposal is DEAD,
I attribute no importance to it.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Stop being silly. A proposed treaty can do something by being accepted and becoming an actual treaty.

Except you already stated emphatically that the US Senate would never ratify any such treaty.

That doesn't mean I can't correct misinformation and point out the reality that the UN really does want to ban civilian guns.

parados wrote:

It's not me being silly.

Yes it is.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I haven't disputed your unsupported arguments with anything you have accepted as fact so that means your unsupported arguments are now facts?

Balderdash. You've been given a ton of links that directly quote the people who push this treaty, and show them having exactly the goals I've said they have.

My arguments are fully supported and you know it.

parados wrote:

I have disputed several things you have been wrong about.

Nonsense. Name a single thing I've been wrong about.

You can't, so you will just try to bluff your way out of doing so.

parados wrote:

You haven't proved the text of any treaty or proposed treaty.

Yes I have.

parados wrote:

We only have your paranoid fantasies.

Nope. You have links directly to UN officials and treaty proposals that show them wanting to ban or heavily restrict civilian guns.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Thanks Irishk.
That's the draft treaty that they claimed doesn't exist.

No. My claim (which you had an endless fuss about) was that it *did* exist.

0 Replies

@George,

George wrote:

oralloy wrote:
. . . Nonsense. Produce a link.

Several posters have beaten me to it.

Well, that depends. I saw a reputable link from a reputable poster, so I assume it is a valid copy of the proposed treaty.

But it wasn't a link to the UN website, so I still doubt your claim that it is freely available there.

0 Replies

@George,

George wrote:

oralloy wrote:
. . . 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?

No such push.

They tried to put language about civilian gun ownership in a previous attempt at the treaty. They failed thanks to the valiant efforts of John Bolton and the Bush Administration, but they most definitely tried.

And since that failure, there have been many calls for such bans on the part of the people responsible for trying to create this treaty, which is a clear indication that they'd still like to do it if they can.

0 Replies

UN ANTI-GUN TREATY IS DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know