Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

cjhsa wrote:

Thanks for posting that. It shows that the U.N. is fully for disarming the law abiding public. The attitude expressed in that article is exactly what I'm talking about. How could someone be that pathetic?

Actually, IANSA is rather open about the anti-freedom agenda they have planned for their civilian victims:

http://www.iansa.org/un/bms2005/Ownership.pdf

I've long felt that this organization should be regarded as a threat and subjected to military strikes.

I'll say it once again: We need to have the military conduct airstrikes on these NGOs. They hate our freedom even more than Osama does.

A single napalm raid on IANSA headquarters could save us a lot of grief in the long run.

oralloy wrote:

I'll say it once again: We need to have the military conduct airstrikes on these NGOs. They hate our freedom even more than Osama does.

A single napalm raid on IANSA headquarters could save us a lot of grief in the long run.

Every time I think "that's it, I've read the most worthless and ridiculous piece of crap on this forum that a supposedly rational human being can come up with", some complete and total nut job comes along and proves me wrong. If you are the type that this law would prevent from owning a firearm, then it must be a good thing.

In which case, what objection do you have to an attempt to prevent the illegal manufacture and distribution of such arms?

A 1999 report of the Disarmament Commission to the UN General Assembly:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/132/20/PDF/N9913220.pdf

On page 22 of the PDF, there is the following:

36. States should work towards the introduction of appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine-guns).

Quote:

="parados"]
The reality is the treaty says NOTHING about banning every type of gun. It doesn't even come close to banning any type of gun.

Irrelevant.

The United States goes to great lengths to ensure that small arms and light weapons transferred under our jurisdiction are done so with the utmost responsibility. The transfer of all military articles of U.S. origin are subject to extremely rigorous procedures under the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations. All U.S. exports of defense articles and services, including small arms and light weapons, must be approved by the Department of State. Assurances must be given by the importing country that arms will be used in a manner consistent with our criteria for arms exports: they must not contribute to regional instability, arms races, terrorism, proliferation, or violations of human rights. Arms of U.S. origin cannot be retransferred without approval by the United States. To ensure that arms are delivered to legitimate end-users, our government rigorously monitors arms transfers, investigating suspicious activity and acting quickly to curtail exports to those recipients who do not meet our strict criteria for responsible use. In the past five years, the United States has conducted thousands of end-use checks, interdicted thousands of illicit arms shipments at U.S. ports of exit, and cut-off exports entirely to five countries due to their failure to properly manage U.S. origin defense articles.

All commercial exporters of arms in the United States must be registered as brokers and submit each transaction for government licensing approval. Our brokering law is comprehensive, extending over citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, and also U.S. citizens operating abroad.

Believing that it is in our interest to stem the illicit trade in military arms, the United States has avidly promoted and supported such international activities as the Wassenaar Arrangement and the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Bilaterally, we offer our financial and technical assistance all over the world to mitigate the illicit trade in SA/LW. We have worked with countries to develop national legislation to regulate exports and imports of arms, and to better enforce their laws. We have provided training, technical assistance, and funds to improve border security and curb arms smuggling in many areas of the world where this problem is rampant. And in the past year, we have instituted a program to assist countries in conflict-prone regions to secure or destroy excess and illicit stocks of small arms and light weapons.

I'll say it once again: We need to have the military conduct airstrikes on these NGOs. They hate our freedom even more than Osama does.

A single napalm raid on IANSA headquarters could save us a lot of grief in the long run.

It has been pointed out that the proposed treaty deals only with the illegal manufacture and distribution of firearms--in which case, your objections don't seem to actually refer to the text of the proposed treaty.

It has also been pointed out (in particular, by me), that the consent of two thirds of the Senate would be required to secure ratification of such a treaty. Do you apprehend that this would occur?

oralloy wrote:

A 1999 report of the Disarmament Commission to the UN General Assembly:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/132/20/PDF/N9913220.pdf

On page 22 of the PDF, there is the following:

36. States should work towards the introduction of appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine-guns).

I don't see a thing different from present US law. You can't own automatic weapons in the US without a license. The US has national legislation on firearms and conditions under which they can be purchased. What is different from US law in this paragraph? (Other than your fantasies?)

What the treaty says is irrelevant when it doesn't fit your argument. Just make stuff up.

Tie the treaty to other groups that have nothing to do with it.

Don't tell us you want to enforce US laws when you argue so vociferously against international treaties that propose the same or less than present US laws.

It seems you didn't bother to read the statement by Bolton oralloy

It seems Bolton (and the US) is against "illicit" trade just like the UN treaty is.

oralloy wrote:

I'll say it once again: We need to have the military conduct airstrikes on these NGOs. They hate our freedom even more than Osama does.

A single napalm raid on IANSA headquarters could save us a lot of grief in the long run.

Setanta wrote:

It has been pointed out that the proposed treaty deals only with the illegal manufacture and distribution of firearms--in which case, your objections don't seem to actually refer to the text of the proposed treaty.

As they build stronger and stronger measures to track down "illegal weapons" they'll move into making treaties that start declaring more weapons illegal.

Setanta wrote:

It has also been pointed out (in particular, by me), that the consent of two thirds of the Senate would be required to secure ratification of such a treaty. Do you apprehend that this would occur?

The NRA does not have as strong a hold on the Senate as they do on the House. However, the requirement for 2/3rds of the votes is comforting. I'd guess that the NRA could block most of it. But my preference would be to not risk such a vote in the first place.

Also, the NRA has a poor track record in standing up for full-auto weapons, so their defense there might not be as solid as for other weapons.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

A 1999 report of the Disarmament Commission to the UN General Assembly:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/132/20/PDF/N9913220.pdf

On page 22 of the PDF, there is the following:

36. States should work towards the introduction of appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine-guns).

I don't see a thing different from present US law. You can't own automatic weapons in the US without a license. The US has national legislation on firearms and conditions under which they can be purchased. What is different from US law in this paragraph? (Other than your fantasies?)

US law does not require a license to own full-auto weapons, it requires registration.

Since you don't seem to understand hat US law actually says on the matter, you might want to dispense with snide remarks about fantasies regarding those of us who know what we are talking about.

And the difference is, US law allows it, albeit with unconstitutionally restrictive provisions. The proposal was to not allow it.

parados wrote:

What the treaty says is irrelevant when it doesn't fit your argument. Just make stuff up.

That you raised a totally irrelevant point does not justify making baseless charges that I've made something up.

parados wrote:

Tie the treaty to other groups that have nothing to do with it.

I've linked to groups that have everything to do with the treaty.

parados wrote:

Don't tell us you want to enforce US laws when you argue so vociferously against international treaties that propose the same or less than present US laws.

Request denied.