Free: Contests & Raffles.
This isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world. It is a pro business boon plain and simple.
Quote from: SuperX on April 27, 2019, 05:18:42 PMThis isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world. It is a pro business boon plain and simple.I disagree.There are several elements of that treaty that would trample our 2A rights.Read the treaty - not the articles - and then get back to me if you disagree.
NRA fights for gun manufacturers not Joe schmoe with a conceal carry permit.
Quote from: Dan-o on April 27, 2019, 06:51:52 PMQuote from: SuperX on April 27, 2019, 05:18:42 PMThis isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world. It is a pro business boon plain and simple.I disagree.There are several elements of that treaty that would trample our 2A rights.Read the treaty - not the articles - and then get back to me if you disagree. Dan-o is 100% correct. The UN wants our guns, read the treaty!
Quote from: bearpaw on April 27, 2019, 07:00:53 PMQuote from: Dan-o on April 27, 2019, 06:51:52 PMQuote from: SuperX on April 27, 2019, 05:18:42 PMThis isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world. It is a pro business boon plain and simple.I disagree.There are several elements of that treaty that would trample our 2A rights.Read the treaty - not the articles - and then get back to me if you disagree. Dan-o is 100% correct. The UN wants our guns, read the treaty! No it's not the UN that wants our guns. Obummer and the libs knew there was little chance in changing our constitution or 2A rights, so they have been looking for ways around it. This treaty was nothing more than a attempt to circumvent the constitution....period!
Quote from: elkchaser54 on April 27, 2019, 09:47:13 PMNRA fights for gun manufacturers not Joe schmoe with a conceal carry permit. Show me another organization the provides Personal Firearms Liability Insurance or supplemental loss insurance like Armscare..... especially at their prices.And it is the NRA that takes on fights all across the nation when states get to wanting to restrict our gun rights.You don't have to like every decision they make, but to say the NRA doesn't fight for Joe Schmoe with a conceal permit.......? I disagree.
Quote from: Dan-o on April 28, 2019, 12:15:36 AMQuote from: elkchaser54 on April 27, 2019, 09:47:13 PMNRA fights for gun manufacturers not Joe schmoe with a conceal carry permit. Show me another organization the provides Personal Firearms Liability Insurance or supplemental loss insurance like Armscare..... especially at their prices.And it is the NRA that takes on fights all across the nation when states get to wanting to restrict our gun rights.You don't have to like every decision they make, but to say the NRA doesn't fight for Joe Schmoe with a conceal permit.......? I disagree.The National Field Archery Association (NFAA) has personal liability insurance as part of the membership. NRA isn't the only one to go to court to fight gun control around the country and anyone could challenge new laws on the 2A, though it would be expensive for an individual. NRA scaremonger tactics and 'more guns' approach to every problem will be their end (along with their trouble with ethics).
Quote from: Dan-o on April 27, 2019, 06:51:52 PMQuote from: SuperX on April 27, 2019, 05:18:42 PMThis isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world. It is a pro business boon plain and simple.I disagree.There are several elements of that treaty that would trample our 2A rights.Read the treaty - not the articles - and then get back to me if you disagree.Save me some time and give me chapter and verse where it says anyone can take your guns. EDIT: Thought you may have meant newspaper articles not treaty articles so I deleted my comment about only reading part not all of the treaty. Give me the location of that trampling language and I'll read it and apologize if you're right. Funny though, not a word about this has come out and the treaty has been in the works for years... maybe it's because both the president and the NRA need a distraction??
Defenders of the ATT commonly argue that the treaty sets a minimum standard that is lower than the existing U.S. standard for arms exports.4“Advancing the Arms Trade Treaty: An Interview with U.S. ATT Negotiator Thomas Countryman,” Arms Control Association, April 1, 2014, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014_04/Advancing-the-Arms-Trade-Treaty_An-Interview-With-U-S-ATT-Negotiator-Thomas-Countryman (accessed February 14, 2018). They therefore conclude the ATT will have no effect on U.S. policy. This argument is incorrect. The standards at the heart of the ATT are not set in stone: The definitions of crimes against humanity, IHL, and IHRL will evolve over time. By signing the ATT, the U.S. has committed itself to changing its practices as the standards that define the ATT change. Were the U.S. to ratify the ATT, that commitment would be even firmer. The ATT is, in effect, an escalator: Once you step onto it, you are no longer in control of your direction of travel.For example, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reportedly intends to start international negotiations to end the “use of explosives in urban areas.”5Tom Miles, “Exclusive: U.N. Chief Plans Major Disarmament Push But U.S. Skeptical,” Reuters, February 7, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-arms-exclusive/exclusive-u-n-chief-plans-major-disarmament-push-but-u-s-skeptical-idUSKBN1FR1SF (accessed February 14, 2018). If these negotiations change the definition of IHL as it is understood by nations, scholars, and lawyers, then the meaning of the ATT will also have changed, as will the policies the U.S. has to follow to implement the treaty. It is important to remember that, at least in intent, treaties are forever. The question the U.S. must always consider is not merely whether a treaty is bad now, but whether it could be used—or could evolve—in ways detrimental to U.S. interests in the future.In fact, progressive activists openly acknowledge that they want to use international law and evolving international norms to change U.S. policy, U.S. law, and even existing interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. In 2012, State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh, a former Dean of Yale Law School and a renowned progressive legal activist, stated approvingly that “twenty-first century international lawmaking has become a swirling interactive process whereby norms get ‘uploaded’ from one country into the international system, and then ‘downloaded’ elsewhere into another country’s laws or even a private actor’s internal rules.”6Ted R. Bromund, “The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the Gun Grab,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, March 5, 2013, https://www.heritage.org/commentary/the-un-arms-trade-treaty-and-the-gun-grab.Under this approach, the U.S. government is not merely—or even not primarily—supposed to transmit the choices of the American people into the world at large: It is supposed to receive the views of the world at large and transmit them to (or enforce them upon) the American people. In the context of the ATT, that “swirling interactive process” could be used to “download” norms that would change the meaning of the Second Amendment or the definition of IHL.
The Obama Administration abandoned the previous administration’s opposition to the ATT on the explicit understanding that the treaty would only be adopted by consensus. But when push came to shove, the Obama Administration broke its own red line and supported the ATT’s adoption by majority vote of the U.N. General Assembly. This set a dangerous precedent for future treaty negotiations: Nations are now likely to assume that the U.S. will abandon its insistency on consensus if pressed hard enough.But even the Obama Administration recognized that “not getting a universal [ATT] agreement would make any agreement less than useless.”16Ted R. Bromund, “A Simple Plan in 2017 for the Arms Trade Treaty: Return to Sender,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4648, January 24, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/simple-plan-2017-the-arms-trade-treaty-return-sender. Today, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and many other major arms exporters and importers are not party to the ATT. By the U.S.’s own criterion, the ATT is therefore “less than useless.” This is because, to the extent that the treaty reduces arms exports from the West, it can only have the perverse effects of driving potential importers to buy from China or Russia—or to develop their own indigenous arms industries that will not fall under the treaty’s purview.As a result of these facts, the ATT deservedly lacks support in Congress. A bipartisan group of 55 current Senators, led by Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS), has signed letters opposing the ATT. A series of appropriations acts (most recently, Section 534 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017) have banned implementation funding, as does Section 1279B of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. The House, led by Representative Mike Kelly (R–PA) has repeatedly opposed the treaty. The Republican Party Platform adopted on July 19, 2016, explicitly rejects it. When the Obama Administration transmitted the ATT, Senator Bob Corker (R–TN), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated that “nothing has changed over the last four years to suggest the treaty is in our national interest, and it will remain dead in the water.” In October 2017, the U.S. abstained in a vote on the treaty in the U.N. First Committee.
NRA brinksmanship risks all individual owners of guns much like Bob33 posts is happeing around the world in reaction to gun violence. It does benefit gun manufacturers though. In America we have the 2nd Amendment which says “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In the rest of the world, gun ownership is a privilege, in USA it is a right.
Quote from: SuperX on April 28, 2019, 08:47:29 AMNRA brinksmanship risks all individual owners of guns much like Bob33 posts is happeing around the world in reaction to gun violence. It does benefit gun manufacturers though. In America we have the 2nd Amendment which says “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In the rest of the world, gun ownership is a privilege, in USA it is a right. Which is precisely why liberal gun haters are trying to use UN treaties! Thankyou!
Quote from: SuperX on April 28, 2019, 08:47:29 AMNRA brinksmanship risks all individual owners of guns much like Bob33 posts is happeing around the world in reaction to gun violence. It does benefit gun manufacturers though. In America we have the 2nd Amendment which says “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In the rest of the world, gun ownership is a privilege, in USA it is a right. Only part of the NRA's mission is lobbying, whether for manufacturers or individuals. The NRA trains more people in gun safety than any other organization in the world by many many times, including the US military. The importance of this function of the organization can not be understated. I understand the need for and do participate in memberships of other pro-2A organizations and agree somewhat with your view of their political motivations. But, the demonizing of the NRA for the goal of its eventual demise doesn't serve us, at least until the other pro-2A organizations step up and carry that mantle. None of them are making any serious moves in that direction.
Funny though, not a word about this has come out and the treaty has been in the works for years... maybe it's because both the president and the NRA need a distraction??
Quote from: SuperX on April 27, 2019, 09:45:25 PMFunny though, not a word about this has come out and the treaty has been in the works for years... maybe it's because both the president and the NRA need a distraction?? You might need to expand the perspectives of news channels you consume.
Quote from: Fl0und3rz on April 28, 2019, 10:48:51 AMQuote from: SuperX on April 27, 2019, 09:45:25 PMFunny though, not a word about this has come out and the treaty has been in the works for years... maybe it's because both the president and the NRA need a distraction?? You might need to expand the perspectives of news channels you consume.I heard about Trump's NRA speech within an hour of it taking place.
Maybe this will help you understand the implications of the UN small arms treaty:Why the U.S. Must Unsign the Arms Trade Treaty in 2018https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/why-the-us-must-unsign-the-arms-trade-treaty-2018QuoteDefenders of the ATT commonly argue that the treaty sets a minimum standard that is lower than the existing U.S. standard for arms exports.4“Advancing the Arms Trade Treaty: An Interview with U.S. ATT Negotiator Thomas Countryman,” Arms Control Association, April 1, 2014, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014_04/Advancing-the-Arms-Trade-Treaty_An-Interview-With-U-S-ATT-Negotiator-Thomas-Countryman (accessed February 14, 2018). They therefore conclude the ATT will have no effect on U.S. policy. This argument is incorrect. The standards at the heart of the ATT are not set in stone: The definitions of crimes against humanity, IHL, and IHRL will evolve over time. By signing the ATT, the U.S. has committed itself to changing its practices as the standards that define the ATT change. Were the U.S. to ratify the ATT, that commitment would be even firmer. The ATT is, in effect, an escalator: Once you step onto it, you are no longer in control of your direction of travel.For example, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reportedly intends to start international negotiations to end the “use of explosives in urban areas.”5Tom Miles, “Exclusive: U.N. Chief Plans Major Disarmament Push But U.S. Skeptical,” Reuters, February 7, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-arms-exclusive/exclusive-u-n-chief-plans-major-disarmament-push-but-u-s-skeptical-idUSKBN1FR1SF (accessed February 14, 2018). If these negotiations change the definition of IHL as it is understood by nations, scholars, and lawyers, then the meaning of the ATT will also have changed, as will the policies the U.S. has to follow to implement the treaty. It is important to remember that, at least in intent, treaties are forever. The question the U.S. must always consider is not merely whether a treaty is bad now, but whether it could be used—or could evolve—in ways detrimental to U.S. interests in the future.In fact, progressive activists openly acknowledge that they want to use international law and evolving international norms to change U.S. policy, U.S. law, and even existing interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. In 2012, State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh, a former Dean of Yale Law School and a renowned progressive legal activist, stated approvingly that “twenty-first century international lawmaking has become a swirling interactive process whereby norms get ‘uploaded’ from one country into the international system, and then ‘downloaded’ elsewhere into another country’s laws or even a private actor’s internal rules.”6Ted R. Bromund, “The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the Gun Grab,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, March 5, 2013, https://www.heritage.org/commentary/the-un-arms-trade-treaty-and-the-gun-grab.Under this approach, the U.S. government is not merely—or even not primarily—supposed to transmit the choices of the American people into the world at large: It is supposed to receive the views of the world at large and transmit them to (or enforce them upon) the American people. In the context of the ATT, that “swirling interactive process” could be used to “download” norms that would change the meaning of the Second Amendment or the definition of IHL.
more....QuoteThe Obama Administration abandoned the previous administration’s opposition to the ATT on the explicit understanding that the treaty would only be adopted by consensus. But when push came to shove, the Obama Administration broke its own red line and supported the ATT’s adoption by majority vote of the U.N. General Assembly. This set a dangerous precedent for future treaty negotiations: Nations are now likely to assume that the U.S. will abandon its insistency on consensus if pressed hard enough.But even the Obama Administration recognized that “not getting a universal [ATT] agreement would make any agreement less than useless.”16Ted R. Bromund, “A Simple Plan in 2017 for the Arms Trade Treaty: Return to Sender,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4648, January 24, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/simple-plan-2017-the-arms-trade-treaty-return-sender. Today, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and many other major arms exporters and importers are not party to the ATT. By the U.S.’s own criterion, the ATT is therefore “less than useless.” This is because, to the extent that the treaty reduces arms exports from the West, it can only have the perverse effects of driving potential importers to buy from China or Russia—or to develop their own indigenous arms industries that will not fall under the treaty’s purview.As a result of these facts, the ATT deservedly lacks support in Congress. A bipartisan group of 55 current Senators, led by Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS), has signed letters opposing the ATT. A series of appropriations acts (most recently, Section 534 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017) have banned implementation funding, as does Section 1279B of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. The House, led by Representative Mike Kelly (R–PA) has repeatedly opposed the treaty. The Republican Party Platform adopted on July 19, 2016, explicitly rejects it. When the Obama Administration transmitted the ATT, Senator Bob Corker (R–TN), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated that “nothing has changed over the last four years to suggest the treaty is in our national interest, and it will remain dead in the water.” In October 2017, the U.S. abstained in a vote on the treaty in the U.N. First Committee.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on April 28, 2019, 11:45:39 AMQuote from: Fl0und3rz on April 28, 2019, 10:48:51 AMQuote from: SuperX on April 27, 2019, 09:45:25 PMFunny though, not a word about this has come out and the treaty has been in the works for years... maybe it's because both the president and the NRA need a distraction?? You might need to expand the perspectives of news channels you consume.I heard about Trump's NRA speech within an hour of it taking place. Me too. the treaty has been out since 2013, it was 'symbolically signed' by Sec of State John Kerry. It hasn't gotten any attention until Trump made it a talking point. the only benefactors are arms manufacturers and international arms dealers based in the US.
Quote from: SuperX on April 28, 2019, 11:48:37 AMQuote from: pianoman9701 on April 28, 2019, 11:45:39 AMQuote from: Fl0und3rz on April 28, 2019, 10:48:51 AMQuote from: SuperX on April 27, 2019, 09:45:25 PMFunny though, not a word about this has come out and the treaty has been in the works for years... maybe it's because both the president and the NRA need a distraction?? You might need to expand the perspectives of news channels you consume.I heard about Trump's NRA speech within an hour of it taking place. Me too. the treaty has been out since 2013, it was 'symbolically signed' by Sec of State John Kerry. It hasn't gotten any attention until Trump made it a talking point. the only benefactors are arms manufacturers and international arms dealers based in the US.You don't believe there are any potential benefits to the individual citizen by not signing the treaty? Sovereignty, protection of personal information? My fear about us signing that treaty which specifically targets small arms would set us up down the road for encroachment on our other rights and set a precedent of giving the UN more power over the individual. We have a lot of politicians who believe that should be the way as it is.
Sure. That's what I'm doing. I don't believe we should be signatories to any UN treaties. I don't think we should be part of that organization. You evidently think it's good for the US. We'll continue to disagree on that.
Super X is either young or hasn't been paying attention. The line "eradicating the illicit trade in conventional arms" was what "Fast and Furious" was all about. Back in that era they tried to sell the idea that the US was the source of most of Mexico's illegal firearms. They did this with tricky language. "Of all the guns seized and identified most came from America". The problem here is that the majority seized couldn't be identified because of no serial numbers due to Russian and China's lack of stamping them. (Along with other countries.) first, I have been at this for a long time so not young. Also paid attention but can't draw the line between the AAT and an ATF sting operation well enough to see why you think it's relevant.If you were paying attention (which Super X obviously wasn't..) the guns the government trafficked into Mexico wasn't the politically correct type but those considered "assault rifles". The 2nd Amendment protection of this class of weapon is disputed by the left as individuals don't need them for hunting or personal protection thus we don't have a "right" to them. (A complete misconception by people who know nothing of history or the English language!)There was no gun trafficking by our government it was an operation to let illegal gun purchasers 'walk' to see where the guns ended up. Again, how is this relevant to the UN or the treaty we're talking about? You make vast assumptions based on your own theories that don't hold water. So the narrative was, we aren't doing our part in controlling small arms of the "Military Style" and violating the treaty. Thus we were to ban the sale of these types of weapons and register them.OK so this is the data you think applies to the ATT? That some people had a narrative that we should register guns. nothing of what you say is in the ATT and the argument you make is speciousThey will tell you they were tracking the guns to see who was getting them but in fact they were setting up news stories and fall guys for selling their justification for more gun control on Ar's, AKs, and that class of weapon.Your alternative facts are orthogonal to the discussionIf the far left nutjobs didn't have uneducated gullible followers they would powerless..
Quote from: pianoman9701 on April 28, 2019, 12:07:25 PMSure. That's what I'm doing. I don't believe we should be signatories to any UN treaties. I don't think we should be part of that organization. You evidently think it's good for the US. We'll continue to disagree on that.I think the UN has been overall good since it was formed. It's a council of nations, so not some sort of overlord. They'll never be in charge of domestic guns in the US, and have no authority (nor do they seek it) to take our guns. Of course if you believe anything the left says is a lie or anything the UN does is anti american, I can't stop you.
I voted for Ford, Reagan and Bush, which obviously makes me a nut job or gullible, just not left.
The treaty is 12 pages with lots of space, it shouldn't take you long to read every word yourself and make your own decision instead of parroting the NRA scare mongering.
A final problem with the ATT is that—in reality, though not in law—the treaty does not stand on its own. The activists, many U.N. member nations, and the U.N. itself seek to intermingle the ATT with a number of other political instruments in the field of conventional arms, including the U.N.’s International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) and the U.N.’s Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA). If commitments made under the ATT come to be understood in light of the PoA or ISACS—both of which are closely associated with domestic firearms regulation—the meaning of the ATT could change dramatically, even if its wording remains unaltered.
small armany man-portable lethal weapon designed for individual use that expels or launches, is designed to expel or launch, or may be readily converted to expel or launch a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of an explosiveNOTE 1 Includes, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns, as well as their parts, components and ammunition.NOTE 2 Excludes antique small arms and their replicas.
The most pressing international threat to U.S. gun owners is the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Among its most egregious provisions, the treaty encourages national recordkeeping requirements for “end users” of covered arms (including firearms), and suggests that national governments share such records. Further, the ATT compels countries to make arms import and export decisions based upon a trading partner’s willingness to abide by the treaty’s requirements, which could isolate the United States from legitimate trade in arms or force it to adopt restrictions detrimental to Second Amendment rights. During the drafting phase, NRA vigorously advocated for civilian firearm ownership be removed from the treaty’s scope. Those recommendations were ignored, meaning U.S. firearms policy could become the rest of the world’s business and subject to its approval, on pain of trade restrictions if it doesn’t meet “international norms.”
Here is NRA's statement at the time.QuoteThe most pressing international threat to U.S. gun owners is the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Among its most egregious provisions, the treaty encourages national recordkeeping requirements for “end users” of covered arms (including firearms), and suggests that national governments share such records. Further, the ATT compels countries to make arms import and export decisions based upon a trading partner’s willingness to abide by the treaty’s requirements, which could isolate the United States from legitimate trade in arms or force it to adopt restrictions detrimental to Second Amendment rights. During the drafting phase, NRA vigorously advocated for civilian firearm ownership be removed from the treaty’s scope. Those recommendations were ignored, meaning U.S. firearms policy could become the rest of the world’s business and subject to its approval, on pain of trade restrictions if it doesn’t meet “international norms.”https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/internationalun-gun-control-issues/?page=4&state=0&startDate=&endDate=&search=&contributor=0&contentBuckets=8166%2C8176%2C8177%2C8178%2C8195%2C8180%2C8188%2C8190%2C8189%2C8181%2C8183%2C8185%2C8191%2C8182%2C8186%2C8192%2C8194%2C8187&geo=I see nothing particularly scare-mongery in that particular statement, especially if you are a not a reseller-importer.
Quote from: Cougartail on April 28, 2019, 01:16:06 PMSuper X is either young or hasn't been paying attention. The line "eradicating the illicit trade in conventional arms" was what "Fast and Furious" was all about. Back in that era they tried to sell the idea that the US was the source of most of Mexico's illegal firearms. They did this with tricky language. "Of all the guns seized and identified most came from America". The problem here is that the majority seized couldn't be identified because of no serial numbers due to Russian and China's lack of stamping them. (Along with other countries.) first, I have been at this for a long time so not young. Also paid attention but can't draw the line between the AAT and an ATF sting operation well enough to see why you think it's relevant.If you were paying attention (which Super X obviously wasn't..) the guns the government trafficked into Mexico wasn't the politically correct type but those considered "assault rifles". The 2nd Amendment protection of this class of weapon is disputed by the left as individuals don't need them for hunting or personal protection thus we don't have a "right" to them. (A complete misconception by people who know nothing of history or the English language!)There was no gun trafficking by our government it was an operation to let illegal gun purchasers 'walk' to see where the guns ended up. Again, how is this relevant to the UN or the treaty we're talking about? You make vast assumptions based on your own theories that don't hold water. So the narrative was, we aren't doing our part in controlling small arms of the "Military Style" and violating the treaty. Thus we were to ban the sale of these types of weapons and register them.OK so this is the data you think applies to the ATT? That some people had a narrative that we should register guns. nothing of what you say is in the ATT and the argument you make is speciousThey will tell you they were tracking the guns to see who was getting them but in fact they were setting up news stories and fall guys for selling their justification for more gun control on Ar's, AKs, and that class of weapon.Your alternative facts are orthogonal to the discussionIf the far left nutjobs didn't have uneducated gullible followers they would powerless.. I voted for Ford, Reagan and Bush, which obviously makes me a nut job or gullible, just not left.
.Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
