• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN Arms Treaty could put US gun owners in foreign sights, say critics

Oh noes!

They're coming for my guns! They're coming for my guns!

Again! And again!

Oh wait... nevermind.
 
rathi said:
Nobody gives a **** about legitimate civilian firearms imports, this is about preventing people from giving stingers to the IRA or artillery rockets to Hezbollah.
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should rephrase your statement to one that would reflect upholding US law.
 
Last edited:
Tigger said:
Why on Earth would any American WANT to enter any other country? Especially an American gun-owner, who will be left totally defenseless and at the mercy of the foreign population after doing so?
Click to expand...

You should understand, as you have stated that you want to move, correct?
 
Captain America said:
Oh noes!

They're coming for my guns! They're coming for my guns!

Again! And again!

Oh wait... nevermind.
Click to expand...

Meh, I get my firearms, parts, and ammunition just fine, and will continue to do so legitimately if the 2nd Amendment remains, or through the black market if they are not. It matters not to me.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Stinger missile systems and artillery aren't small arms, they are explosive ordnance. They therefore couldn't even be covered in a "small arms treaty" by any realistic application of logic.
Click to expand...

The name is misleading, the treaty is not restricted to small arms.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060679105 said:
Then maybe you should rephrase your statement to one that would reflect upholding US law.
Click to expand...

Maybe should stop making up nonse about how international arms control is a domestic gun control issue. The only people restricting U.S. civilian firearms import is our own government, often in collusion with manufactures trying to gain a competitive advantage. It has nothing to with the issue at hand.
 
rathi said:
The name is misleading, the treaty is not restricted to small arms.
Click to expand...
Then it needs to be scrapped. Weapons terminology means what it means. Small arms pertain to rifles, pistols, most machine guns, sub-machine guns, and other projectile weapons not crew served or explosive. Ordnance pertains to explosives, etc. but if a treaty was against illegal shipments of weapons it's a starting point but there needs to be quite a bit of analysis.
 
Wiseone said:
snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

Down and dirty is that the idea, its not even a treaty yet as it hasn't even been written let alone signed, is that it would affect only international arms trading, and that internal affairs dealing with arms are left unaffected. So basically its no threat whatsoever to anybody's gun, but it makes for great politics so its been spun up and twisted into something entirely different.
Click to expand...

As you pointed out, the treaty hasn't been written yet, so you have no idea what it will, or won't affect.
 
apdst said:
As you pointed out, the treaty hasn't been written yet, so you have no idea what it will, or won't affect.
Click to expand...

Well no one is proposing or calling for Americans 2nd rights being infringed upon or taken away by this treaty.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Well no one is proposing or calling for Americans 2nd rights being infringed upon or taken away by this treaty.
Click to expand...

It is a bad treaty for other reasons though, which are far more worthy of discussion......
 
Red_Dave said:
It is a bad treaty for other reasons though, which are far more worthy of discussion......
Click to expand...

sure but these reasons on this thread are baseless accusations
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Well no one is proposing or calling for Americans 2nd rights being infringed upon or taken away by this treaty.
Click to expand...

And, you can show me in the language of the treaty where it says exactly that?
 
Red_Dave said:
But any *would-be* genuine attempts at overthrowing him would be hampered if it was difficult to get the necessary weapons. Gadafi would have been a lot harder to get rid of if the Libyan population wasn't armed.
Click to expand...

The Libyans primarily used captured weapons from the Libyan military, not foreign imports. It also would have been easy to get a green-light for arms shipments given the positive international support. I admit that there are potential situations where it would be useful to supply arms to dissident groups, but its worth sacrificing that given the much higher number of groups we don't want to have weapons.
 
Ikari said:
Let them put it on "global trial" WTF do they think they can do about it? America ain't their country, they can kindly butt the **** out.
Click to expand...

Any treaty ratified by our government is considered the law of the land. I could give a **** what the rest of the world wants to do, but if a treaty such as this is ratified, I'm seriously concerned about how our own government will use it against is, especially the Liberal assholes that are running the show, now.
 
apdst said:
Any treaty ratified by our government is considered the law of the land. I could give a **** what the rest of the world wants to do, but if a treaty such as this is ratified, I'm seriously concerned about how our own government will use it against is, especially the Liberal assholes that are running the show, now.
Click to expand...

Your personal paranoid fantasies are as irrelevant as the stupid lies made up about an international treaty which specifically excludes national law.
 
apdst said:
Right! Until you can show me in black and white that it specifically says that, let's assume that this is bad and raise hell about it, before it becomes an actual document.
Click to expand...

So what your saying is your basing your speculation based off of nothing?
 
apdst said:
Right! Until you can show me in black and white that it specifically says that, let's assume that this is bad and raise hell about it, before it becomes an actual document.
Click to expand...

I bet you Hezbollah would be laughing their asses off if they could read your post. "Hey those American are actually protecting our arms shipments from Iran because they somehow think that the U.N. wants to steal their guns."
 
apdst said:
Any treaty ratified by our government is considered the law of the land. I could give a **** what the rest of the world wants to do, but if a treaty such as this is ratified, I'm seriously concerned about how our own government will use it against is, especially the Liberal assholes that are running the show, now.
Click to expand...

Reid v. Covert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Manc Skipper said:
Your personal paranoid fantasies are as irrelevant...
Click to expand...

I'm an American. We are paranoid about potential tyranny. It's in our DNA. It's the reason we exist as the free'est country in the history of the world.



as the stupid lies made up about an international treaty which specifically excludes national law.
Click to expand...

Which lies would those be?
 
rathi said:
Maybe should stop making up nonse about how international arms control is a domestic gun control issue. The only people restricting U.S. civilian firearms import is our own government, often in collusion with manufactures trying to gain a competitive advantage. It has nothing to with the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should stick to the truth if that's possible. I'm betting from seeing your posts it isn't.
 
apdst said:
I'm an American. We are paranoid about potential tyranny. It's in our DNA. It's the reason we exist as the free'est country in the history of the world.


Which lies would those be?
Click to expand...

That really really is debatable. There's a lot of freedoms Americans don't enjoy, gay marriage being an obvious example. But this statement concerns me, I thought Obama was a tyrant and was taking away your freedoms? How are we the freest thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom