• 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

apdst said:
That's all fine and good, however, if such a treaty were ratified, how much hell would we go through before we convince the tyrants in charge that they can't **** us over?

How about we be pro-active rather than re-active? Or, would that make too much sense?
Click to expand...

I'm all for being pro-active, but this isn't a threat at all. The treaty hasn't even been written yet, and the ideas for it aren't even going to affect what you are worried about. If you are concerned about freedom there are bigger threats on the radar to look at.
 
Wiseone said:
I'm all for being pro-active, but this isn't a threat at all. The treaty hasn't even been written yet, and the ideas for it aren't even going to affect what you are worried about. If you are concerned about freedom there are bigger threats on the radar to look at.
Click to expand...
Any threat to freedom should be taken seriously, people have stated that the treaty isn't written yet but claim nothing in it can affect U.S. sovereignity pertaining to our constitution, I don't think the logic in saying there's nothing to worry about complies with the treaty being unwritten. Here's the thing, the U.N. has been trying to get the U.S. to follow it's agenda for years, add to this that there have been numerous opinions towards global disarmament both verbalized and written by many in the U.N. assembly including some American politicians, and the U.N. as a body is anti-gun. There is more reason to believe the treaty could significantly harm U.S. gun rights than to believe otherwise.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060679650 said:
Maybe you should stick to the truth if that's possible. I'm betting from seeing your posts it isn't.
Click to expand...

Oh really. Why don't we compare examples of the U.N. interfering with civilian firearms imports versus the federal government. I will start with the 1989 Semi-Automatic Rifle Import Ban. This particular piece of legislation banned foreign rifles with telescoping stocks, pistol grips or bayonet mounts. Domestic versions were exempted and had a significant sales boom.

Now why don't you see if you can find a similar example based on anything the U.N. has done.
 
Lokiate said:
From Article VI of the US Constitution:



That said, doing anything to get rid of guns is political suicide.
Click to expand...

No treaty can be passed that attempts to supercede the Constitution.
 
It is a bit ironic that the super patriotic Americans in this thread are seemingly in favour of supporting foreign arms manufacturers rather than American companies. As the Treaty's intention is to control to some extent the arms trade between nations. I would think that "True Amuricans" would be in favour of it because then Americans could only buy American made weaponry.

On the "Small Arms" definition, I believe the contemporary understanding in most of the world is a weapon that can be carried and operated by one person.
 
Somerville said:
It is a bit ironic that the super patriotic Americans in this thread are seemingly in favour of supporting foreign arms manufacturers rather than American companies. As the Treaty's intention is to control to some extent the arms trade between nations. I would think that "True Amuricans" would be in favour of it because then Americans could only buy American made weaponry.

On the "Small Arms" definition, I believe the contemporary understanding in most of the world is a weapon that can be carried and operated by one person.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but "real Americans" can believe in valid economics theories such as free trade.
 
Somerville said:
It is a bit ironic that the super patriotic Americans in this thread are seemingly in favour of supporting foreign arms manufacturers rather than American companies. As the Treaty's intention is to control to some extent the arms trade between nations. I would think that "True Amuricans" would be in favour of it because then Americans could only buy American made weaponry.
Click to expand...

Protectionism is not patriotism, its simply screwing the consumer in favor of the manufacturer.

On the "Small Arms" definition, I believe the contemporary understanding in most of the world is a weapon that can be carried and operated by one person.
Click to expand...

That isn't really accurate. The most common definition includes pistols, submachine guns, rifles, shotguns and light machine guns. Small mortars, guided missiles and recoiless rifles can be used by a single man but are classified based on their firepower not size.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Any threat to freedom should be taken seriously, people have stated that the treaty isn't written yet but claim nothing in it can affect U.S. sovereignity pertaining to our constitution, I don't think the logic in saying there's nothing to worry about complies with the treaty being unwritten. Here's the thing, the U.N. has been trying to get the U.S. to follow it's agenda for years, add to this that there have been numerous opinions towards global disarmament both verbalized and written by many in the U.N. assembly including some American politicians, and the U.N. as a body is anti-gun. There is more reason to believe the treaty could significantly harm U.S. gun rights than to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

You are misled. The General Assembly resolution which started the Internatonal Treaty process specifically states that it remains “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” ... that comprehensively rules out the scaremongering nonsense being spewed around the US gun community.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Any threat to freedom should be taken seriously, people have stated that the treaty isn't written yet but claim nothing in it can affect U.S. sovereignity pertaining to our constitution, I don't think the logic in saying there's nothing to worry about complies with the treaty being unwritten. Here's the thing, the U.N. has been trying to get the U.S. to follow it's agenda for years, add to this that there have been numerous opinions towards global disarmament both verbalized and written by many in the U.N. assembly including some American politicians, and the U.N. as a body is anti-gun. There is more reason to believe the treaty could significantly harm U.S. gun rights than to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

What reasons? There are no reason to believe it could harm the US, nothing you said justifies any kind of worry. The UN issues statements and non binding resolutions all the damn time, none of them really mean anything.

I don't understand how so many conservatives believe the UN is both A) powerless and therefore useless and B) a serious threat to their freedom at the same time. Its either one or the other guys.
 
Maybe I'm naive but I don't think the NRA would be sounding the alarm if there were absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
I get that it makes for a great platform to launch a fund raising campaign and that may be all it is. However, I cannot dismiss
the symbology of the handgun, small arms, not artillery hardware, with the barrel tied in a knot sitting out front of the UN
building. Nefarious agendas hidden in plain sight. How many thought the ACA would be construed as constitutional? How
many thought it it would have been passed as it did, using a plunger like you would to clear a clogged pipe? In regard to
tyranny, it's thriving here and we're growing accustom to it. If this were not a true statement, we wouldn't be here on
this thread as no one would be concerned as to whether this issue could materialize. The tensions building in in the
US among the citizens sparking intense debate daily now has not risen out of anger. The emotion driving daily turmoil
is fear. That is tyranny.
 
Wiseone said:
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?
Click to expand...

Dude cmon dont ruin the cheap talking points.
 
Wiseone said:
What reasons? There are no reason to believe it could harm the US, nothing you said justifies any kind of worry. The UN issues statements and non binding resolutions all the damn time, none of them really mean anything.

I don't understand how so many conservatives believe the UN is both A) powerless and therefore useless and B) a serious threat to their freedom at the same time. Its either one or the other guys.
Click to expand...
I've read up enough on the U.N. anti gun stances over the years, and it isn't a far stretch to think they would try to backend gun rights into extinction using a treaty.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I've read up enough on the U.N. anti gun stances over the years, and it isn't a far stretch to think they would try to backend gun rights into extinction using a treaty.
Click to expand...

Based on what examples?
 
I have a hunch that if the NRA were a unionized organization, you might take them seriously.
I stated this event makes a great fund raising platform for them.
 
LMR-
This has been debunked long ago. The UN's treaty goes into pretty good detail that it doesn't override any nation's internal laws. The USofA, nor any other country has to abandon it's current fire arms laws, what is the bone of contention is it will severely limit the arms sales, covert and with taxpayer funding to third world petty tyrants, who FYI seem to be excellent customers of the former arsenal of democracy.

Time to drop the BS 'defend our nation from the New World Oder blue helmets' crap. If all it takes is a few blue hats to gut our Constitution then all the loud mouths online spouting their 'blood of tyrants' stuff are all hat and no cattle.

Steady in the ranks, wait on it, don't poop yourself until you see the whites of their eyes....
 
Sphere said:
I have a hunch that if the NRA were a unionized organization, you might take them seriously.
I stated this event makes a great fund raising platform for them.
Click to expand...

How in gods name would the NRA be a "unionized organization"?
Thats not even a realistic possibility.
 
For years I supported the NRA. Got the magazine. Had the little sticker on the camper of my truck.

I don't seem to remember them, back then, trying to scare me into oblivion and make me shake in my little spaceboots because the "government was coming for my guns."

Why are they resorting to that type of paranoia nonsense now? Does it generate more revenue.

Nobody's coming for anybody's guns. Ain't nobody even talking about coming for my guns but the tinfoil hat paranoid people.

Really?!?

Get a grip.

Americans and their guns are inseparable. Everybody knows that.

You can all come out now. The wicked witch is dead.

Sheeeesh....
 
LaMidRighter said:
I've read up enough on the U.N. anti gun stances over the years, and it isn't a far stretch to think they would try to backend gun rights into extinction using a treaty.
Click to expand...

Based on what? And why would the United States sign such an agreement that required us to disarm our populous?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It does require massive record keeping and registration of ALL firearms, the hassle factor alone, never mind the fees involved, is rediculous.
Click to expand...

It's already required that massive records be kept. Most private citizens don't buy and sell internationally: particularly in any amount that anyone would notice. We're talking about trade security here. Should 238U just go through "if it fits is ships"? It's easy, "if you want to ship a tank to The Sudan, you gotta fill out these papers first".

That has nothing to do with II Amendment, nor does it any way restrict any law abiding American from sending a pistol to uncle Danny, or buyin' one online in Poland. If someone's gonna buy enough material to fit out a platoon, then he can afford the fees. If you can't afford the fees, you shouldn't be doin it. If you wanna play, you haffta pay.
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
I'm all for being pro-active, but this isn't a threat at all. The treaty hasn't even been written yet, and the ideas for it aren't even going to affect what you are worried about. If you are concerned about freedom there are bigger threats on the radar to look at.
Click to expand...

That's what the Germans said back in the 30's. Look how that turned out for them!

I say we jump all over the slightest threat to our liberties like a duck on a june-bug. Because, "this ain't no bog deal", is exactly what people said before the Commies took over in Russia and the Nazis took over in Germany; the Commies in Southest Asia; the list goes on. I would rather attack these strategies when it's just matter of fussin' rather than having to go to the cartridge box.
 
Manc Skipper said:
You are misled. The General Assembly resolution which started the Internatonal Treaty process specifically states that it remains “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” ... that comprehensively rules out the scaremongering nonsense being spewed around the US gun community.
Click to expand...

One would think you would go ahead and post a link to confirm that for us...jus' sayin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom