Post by: Bigshooter on November 09, 2012, 07:50:00 AM
If you voted for Obama you should just turn your guns in now.
Post by: B-Nut on November 09, 2012, 07:53:11 AM
Post by: CedarPants on November 09, 2012, 08:01:29 AM
Post by: Bob33 on November 09, 2012, 08:42:03 AM
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 09, 2012, 08:48:34 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on November 09, 2012, 08:57:22 AM
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 09, 2012, 09:07:43 AM
define your idea of meaningful
The treaty will not change in any way what an American citizen is legal to own. It will also not register any firearm purchase by an American except in the case where an American citizen buys a gun directly from a foreign manufacturer. However, tracking high end European O/U shotguns is not the purpose of this treaty.
Post by: jaymark6655 on November 09, 2012, 09:20:28 AM
Post by: JLS on November 09, 2012, 09:28:30 AM
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 09, 2012, 09:40:17 AM
So I just have to give up Glocks, Ak clones and cheap ammo.... or will it just jack the prices up to where its not worth buying stuff. Yep won't effect me at all (sarcasm).
No you won’t. If you buy the items from an American shop, your transaction will not be recorded. The transaction between the foreign manufacturer and the American distributor is recorded by a 3rd party. That is all. The entire purpose of the treaty is to create a paper trail to track how rebel, insurgent, and terror groups (IE. Our enemies) acquire their weapons.
The countries involved with the treaty make a lot of money in the arms trade. They are not going to risk losing revenue, especially to the US civilian market. Especially since the treaty is voluntary and the UN can’t make anyone do anything. It's even more superficial because we all know that if America wants to arm a particular group, it's going to do it anyway and everyone knows that.
I don’t particularly like the treaty. Who knows if the next reasonable, democratic revolution from wherever will be unable to arm itself against its oppressors because of this. But as US citizen customers, this treaty will not affect us at all.
If I had a say, I would vote against it. The only reason I keep defending it is because the hysteria surrounding it isn’t based in fact. The blue helmets aren’t coming for your guns.
Post by: Woodchuck on November 09, 2012, 09:43:16 AM
I would have to read it before I bought into it.define your idea of meaningful
The treaty will not change in any way what an American citizen is legal to own. It will also not register any firearm purchase by an American except in the case where an American citizen buys a gun directly from a foreign manufacturer. However, tracking high end European O/U shotguns is not the purpose of this treaty.
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 09, 2012, 09:47:36 AM
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/ (http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/)
Snopes has a pretty decent summary here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp)
Post by: KFhunter on November 09, 2012, 09:50:00 AM
The first few steps always seem innocuous; until that toddler is running around getting into everything.
Post by: jaymark6655 on November 09, 2012, 09:59:37 AM
"Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety and they have an interest in providing human security and development to their citizens. So they should ensure that small arms from Government stocks or from private ownership are not misused and do not enter illicit circuits, where their use may contribute to instability and to exacerbating poverty.
To attain those goals, within the UN, countries have agreed on several commitments on small arms control: the Firearms Protocol, the Programme of Action on small arms - including an Instrument on marking and tracing - and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. "
Directly from the UN. Just the first baby steps mags.
As for it needed to be ratified, yeah I trust those two to follow the rules (sacasm).
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 09, 2012, 10:09:56 AM
Furthermore, the final draft of the treaty isn't even final, let alone agreed upon.
Post by: Bigshooter on November 09, 2012, 12:06:50 PM
That doesn't say anything about any new registration regulations. More than that, the UN legally can't compel the US to increase regulation of any kind within the borders of America.
Furthermore, the final draft of the treaty isn't even final, let alone agreed upon.
Yep. And now that he doesn't have to worry about reelection I can't wait to see what it will say.
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 09, 2012, 12:25:20 PM
That doesn't say anything about any new registration regulations. More than that, the UN legally can't compel the US to increase regulation of any kind within the borders of America.
Furthermore, the final draft of the treaty isn't even final, let alone agreed upon.
Yep. And now that he doesn't have to worry about reelection I can't wait to see what it will say.
Well then wait until then before you start freaking out about it. As it sits now, it doesn't infringe upon our 2A rights.
Post by: Bigshooter on November 09, 2012, 12:27:53 PM
That doesn't say anything about any new registration regulations. More than that, the UN legally can't compel the US to increase regulation of any kind within the borders of America.
Furthermore, the final draft of the treaty isn't even final, let alone agreed upon.
Yep. And now that he doesn't have to worry about reelection I can't wait to see what it will say.
Well then wait until then before you start freaking out about it. As it sits now, it doesn't infringe upon our 2A rights.
Or we could just wait until it becomes law and then see what's in it.
Post by: huntrights on November 09, 2012, 08:31:08 PM
The threat is real, make no mistake about it!
Obama Administration Endorses New U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/obama-administration-endorses-new-un-arms-trade-treaty-negotiations.aspx
Post by: ICEMAN on November 09, 2012, 09:05:05 PM
The United States has denied it sought to delay negotiations for political reasons, saying it had genuine problems with the draft as written.
For some strange reason I find this hard to believe. :dunno:
Post by: shorthair15 on November 09, 2012, 09:23:39 PM
Post by: Mudman on November 09, 2012, 09:38:31 PM
No matter what Obama and Hillary do, the treaty would still have to be ratified by Congress. An international treaty cannot supercede the Constitution. Any changes to it have to be via amendment.There is a way around this for the president. He doesnt bring it to a vote and keeps it in effect until he leaves office!!
Post by: Special T on November 15, 2012, 02:22:36 PM
Its too bad that the Right cannot seem to accept incremental change...
There is a proverb that fits this issue perfectly.... How do you eat an Elephant? Once bite at a time... :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 15, 2012, 02:57:40 PM
The UN small arms treaty does not effect US gun ownership in any meaningful way.
If this is true, why did Hillary pull our support for it before the election and then, re-affirm our support after the election? If what you say it true to the letter, the Arms Treaty could've been explained away as soon as it came up in a debate.
Post by: Mudman on November 15, 2012, 03:05:34 PM