• 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

Moderator's Warning:
Stick to the topic rather than talking about each other, please.
 
One thing that keeps resonating from this article that really bothers me is the prediction that it simply won't be effective in doing what it's supposed to do, which is keeping arms out of the hands of nations that collude with terrorists, and oppressive states. Another issue is how do we define oppressive states, and terrorists? Those are broad terms, subject to individual interpretation. The outlines are too vague to be realistic, which is a stated problem. Honestly, I think we should dismiss it, just like we dismissed the Kyoto Protocol. I don't see anything good coming from it.

Therein lies the stupidity of the treaty. Countries like Iran and China see the U.S. as an oppressive state and terrorists.
 
but it clearly is personal with you. that's the point.

When it comes to questioning our elected leaders? You're damn right it's personal.
 
Therein lies the stupidity of the treaty. Countries like Iran and China see the U.S. as an oppressive state and terrorists.

Which is also noted in the article. It just seems like if we sign it, we'll be opening the doors to a lot of bull****.
 
There are already weapons trafficing laws in place. Why not just enforce those?

You know our Justice Department would rather traffic weapons than enforce existing laws. :wink:
 
One thing that keeps resonating from this article that really bothers me is the prediction that it simply won't be effective in doing what it's supposed to do, which is keeping arms out of the hands of nations that collude with terrorists, and oppressive states. Another issue is how do we define oppressive states, and terrorists? Those are broad terms, subject to individual interpretation. The outlines are too vague to be realistic, which is a stated problem. Honestly, I think we should dismiss it, just like we dismissed the Kyoto Protocol. I don't see anything good coming from it.

I agree that vague terms are easy to exploit, the goal should be to write them in such a fashion in which the United States is doing the exploiting. The overall principles of the conference are ultimately going to be less important than diplomatic weaseling with the details. I share your skepticism about getting any tangible accomplishments with the treaty, but it costs little in the attempt and its simple enough to avoid ratification if the final result isn't worthwhile.
 
To those who have bought into the Blue helmet invasion delusion there can be no rational explanation suitable to stop the paranoia. Any attempt to dis-CUSS the treaty and how nonthreatening it is to firearm owners in the USofA is simple dismissed and incomprehensible.

There is a threat and that is all there is to it. Any straw of support for the Mein Kampf fearmongering is turned into a pillar of stone. Any facts against the delusion is called appeasement.

We either will be helpless against the blue helmets who can't keep a mud hut nation peaceful, :roll:

Or have millions of brothers and sisters ready to stand shoulder to shoulder to repel the invaders.

Seems to me, and I am a supporter of the 2nd A- some will use anything, no matter how silly to try and work the crowd for money. I am an NRA member, mostly to hold a F-Class national rank, but they are becoming wearing thin with all this 'gun-grabbing' BS.

There are a lot of things that 'could happen'. I'm amazed out staunch supporters of the 2nd A have to be so hysterical in these discussions...

Steady up there boys, hard to dress the line and stand shoulder to shoulder with all this running around like your ass hair is on fire.
 
I agree that vague terms are easy to exploit, the goal should be to write them in such a fashion in which the United States is doing the exploiting. The overall principles of the conference are ultimately going to be less important than diplomatic weaseling with the details. I share your skepticism about getting any tangible accomplishments with the treaty, but it costs little in the attempt and its simple enough to avoid ratification if the final result isn't worthwhile.
I understand where you are coming from, however the history of U.N. debate has proved time and again that having something concrete and final is nearly impossible.
 
I agree that vague terms are easy to exploit, the goal should be to write them in such a fashion in which the United States is doing the exploiting. The overall principles of the conference are ultimately going to be less important than diplomatic weaseling with the details. I share your skepticism about getting any tangible accomplishments with the treaty, but it costs little in the attempt and its simple enough to avoid ratification if the final result isn't worthwhile.

I agree, however, with something like this they may actually want it vague so it's "open" to include new situations. Personally, I don't see why we need a treaty to restrict giving arms to "terrorist" nations. We already sanction the **** out of nations like Iran and North Korea, and restrict what they can and can't have, so I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but redundant.
 
To those who have bought into the Blue helmet invasion delusion there can be no rational explanation suitable to stop the paranoia. Any attempt to dis-CUSS the treaty and how nonthreatening it is to firearm owners in the USofA is simple dismissed and incomprehensible.

There is a threat and that is all there is to it. Any straw of support for the Mein Kampf fearmongering is turned into a pillar of stone. Any facts against the delusion is called appeasement.

We either will be helpless against the blue helmets who can't keep a mud hut nation peaceful, :roll:

Or have millions of brothers and sisters ready to stand shoulder to shoulder to repel the invaders.
Pretty sure that'll never happen, since NATO is a peacekeeping organization, not a military organization. I could be wrong, but I don't believe they've ever had authorization to use deadly force. They are placed in hot spots to observe, and give aid to those who need it. Shooting a blue helmet is really no different than killing a medic, or a red cross/crescent guy.


Seems to me, and I am a supporter of the 2nd A- some will use anything, no matter how silly to try and work the crowd for money. I am an NRA member, mostly to hold a F-Class national rank, but they are becoming wearing thin with all this 'gun-grabbing' BS.

There are a lot of things that 'could happen'. I'm amazed out staunch supporters of the 2nd A have to be so hysterical in these discussions...

Steady up there boys, hard to dress the line and stand shoulder to shoulder with all this running around like your ass hair is on fire.

I'm starting to think it's a scam gun retailers use to up their sales. Every time a democrat gets in office, gun sales sky rocket due to hysteria.
 
Shhhhh-
don't let the cat out of the bag... ;)

Each election cycle the NRA, GOA, local gun shop wails about the 'hidden agenda' to the point even when NO attempt is made to restrict the 2nd A, one needs to be ginned up. The UN STUDY on how to control small arm sales in the turbulent third world is just that, there is NO, I say again for those with a low IQ, there is NO Treaty, nothing to sign.

This started in 2010 and is still being trotted out to stir up the already up in arms right wingnuts.

No way, no how the Senate, ANY Senate would ratify such a treaty if it included provisions to override our Constitution.

But until a new tactic can be developed the usual fearmongers will have to continue to beat this drum. For my marksmanship expenses it is right up there with speculator scare tactics to justify the increased price of the bullets I buy in bulk, or the wait in line at the 'gun' counter as nimrods ask such insightful questions like what caliber the AR15 is... :roll:
 
I'd love to see the text of this evil treaty that you claim to know soo much about.

It hasn't been written yet. That's what you've claimed, anyway. Now, you asking me to show you the text, knowing that it hasn't been written?
 
I agree, however, with something like this they may actually want it vague so it's "open" to include new situations. Personally, I don't see why we need a treaty to restrict giving arms to "terrorist" nations. We already sanction the **** out of nations like Iran and North Korea, and restrict what they can and can't have, so I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but redundant.

The goal of the conference isn't about people selling weapons to nation states, but rather people illicitly transferring weapons to non-governmental organizations. There are many nations who don't have effective border security on weapons shipments, which make them hubs for illegal arms distribution networks.
 
Shhhhh-
don't let the cat out of the bag... ;)

Each election cycle the NRA, GOA, local gun shop wails about the 'hidden agenda' to the point even when NO attempt is made to restrict the 2nd A, one needs to be ginned up. The UN STUDY on how to control small arm sales in the turbulent third world is just that, there is NO, I say again for those with a low IQ, there is NO Treaty, nothing to sign.

This started in 2010 and is still being trotted out to stir up the already up in arms right wingnuts.

No way, no how the Senate, ANY Senate would ratify such a treaty if it included provisions to override our Constitution.

But until a new tactic can be developed the usual fearmongers will have to continue to beat this drum. For my marksmanship expenses it is right up there with speculator scare tactics to justify the increased price of the bullets I buy in bulk, or the wait in line at the 'gun' counter as nimrods ask such insightful questions like what caliber the AR15 is... :roll:

Fears have been justified when Obama has admitted that he's trying to implement more gun control.
 
Is there, like, a wingnut timer that reminds them to recirculate this bull**** story ever 12 months?

LOL . . . every post you write I read it with Raylan's voice in my head . . . LOL

Creme de la creme
 
The goal of the conference isn't about people selling weapons to nation states, but rather people illicitly transferring weapons to non-governmental organizations. There are many nations who don't have effective border security on weapons shipments, which make them hubs for illegal arms distribution networks.

So then it's a fools quest to once again attempt to snuff out the black market.
 
Y'all need to stop wearing your feelings on your sleeves when it comes to Obama. You're embaressing yourelves.

I'm performing patriotic duty by questioning our elected leaders and thereby questioning this treaty. It's my duty. It's nothing personal.

When it comes to questioning our elected leaders? You're damn right it's personal.

This is why is ****ing impossible to discuss anything with this man, the second he gets called out on something his argument changes. What a clown.
 
This is why is ****ing impossible to discuss anything with this man, the second he gets called out on something his argument changes. What a clown.

Well, at least I'm not the man that used a snopes link, that is over two years old and discusses a totally seperate document.
 
Well, at least I'm not the man that used a snopes link, that is over two years old and discusses a totally seperate document.

It was updated 9Jul12, it clearly says so at the bottom, it doesn't matter if it was created two years ago because obviously the issue is still current AND its been updated. You still haven't read it have you?
 
Shhhhh-
don't let the cat out of the bag... ;)

Each election cycle the NRA, GOA, local gun shop wails about the 'hidden agenda' to the point even when NO attempt is made to restrict the 2nd A, one needs to be ginned up. The UN STUDY on how to control small arm sales in the turbulent third world is just that, there is NO, I say again for those with a low IQ, there is NO Treaty, nothing to sign.

This started in 2010 and is still being trotted out to stir up the already up in arms right wingnuts.

No way, no how the Senate, ANY Senate would ratify such a treaty if it included provisions to override our Constitution.

But until a new tactic can be developed the usual fearmongers will have to continue to beat this drum. For my marksmanship expenses it is right up there with speculator scare tactics to justify the increased price of the bullets I buy in bulk, or the wait in line at the 'gun' counter as nimrods ask such insightful questions like what caliber the AR15 is... :roll:

I remember when a 50 round box of 9mm was just under 10 bucks. Now it's about 15, and 38 spl is about the same. Not a huge leap like the fear mongers said it would be, but still enough to piss me off. Some places are even pushing this overpriced Soviet era **** in giant green tins now, making appeals to the tacti-fags. No way in hell I'd ever buy that ****, I only buy Winchester and Remington rounds for my baby. I try to avoid gun store conversations, since they're usually just ego stroking bull**** stories, since all the big talkers in the gun shop are Kimber hocking know it alls.
 
Shhhhh-
don't let the cat out of the bag... ;)

Each election cycle the NRA, GOA, local gun shop wails about the 'hidden agenda' to the point even when NO attempt is made to restrict the 2nd A, one needs to be ginned up. The UN STUDY on how to control small arm sales in the turbulent third world is just that, there is NO, I say again for those with a low IQ, there is NO Treaty, nothing to sign.

This started in 2010 and is still being trotted out to stir up the already up in arms right wingnuts.

No way, no how the Senate, ANY Senate would ratify such a treaty if it included provisions to override our Constitution.

But until a new tactic can be developed the usual fearmongers will have to continue to beat this drum. For my marksmanship expenses it is right up there with speculator scare tactics to justify the increased price of the bullets I buy in bulk, or the wait in line at the 'gun' counter as nimrods ask such insightful questions like what caliber the AR15 is... :roll:

Predictable diatribe...

Apparently the "nimrods" asked an "insightful" question because they know the AR15 platform is chambered for different cartridges including:

5.56 x 45 mm, 9mm, .458 Socom, .450 Bushmaster, .50 Beowulf, 6.8 Remington, .300 Whisper, 5.45x39mm, .22 long rifle, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5mm Grendel, and 6mm BR Remington, to name a few.

It seems from your post you don't.
 
Last edited:
It was updated 9Jul12, it clearly says so at the bottom, it doesn't matter if it was created two years ago because obviously the issue is still current AND its been updated. You still haven't read it have you?

It still concerns an event that happened two years ago. Nothing about what's going on, now.
 
Back
Top Bottom