Free: Contests & Raffles.
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.
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.
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.
