• 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 adopts pact to regulate multibillion-dollar global arms trade

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
UN adopts pact to regulate multibillion-dollar global arms trade | Fox News

The U.N. General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved the first U.N. treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar international arms trade.

The resolution adopting the landmark treaty was approved by a vote of 154 to 3 with 23 abstentions.

The 193-member world body voted after Iran, North Korea and Syria blocked its adoption by consensus at a negotiating conference last Thursday. The three countries voted "no" on the resolution.
Click to expand...

This is unlikely to be ratified by the US Senate since the Senate has already voted not to do so.

The NRA sees the treaty as a threat to 2nd Amendment rights although treaties don't trump the Constitution. It's not clear to me how this treaty would be a hinderance to American gun owners.
 
And I say good. Such a large industry that has the potential to facilitate large scale death needs to be regulated on a global scale.


Those citing that it would override the 2nd Ammenment or "hurt our business" are selfish, moronic and are totally missing the point of this treaty and its potenital to save lives.
 
But what about my precious right to bear and sell arms ****ing tanks to terrorists and warlords!?
 
Deuce said:
But what about my precious right to bear and sell arms ****ing tanks to terrorists and warlords!?
Click to expand...

Ya, so let's get rid of our right to defend ourselves against those "terrorists and warlords". Since its not likely that they will disarm either way (except forcibly), so let's make sure that they have free reign. I mean gotta make sure that nobody except government can resist these evils.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, so let's get rid of our right to defend ourselves against those "terrorists and warlords". Since its not likely that they will disarm either way (except forcibly), so let's make sure that they have free reign. I mean gotta make sure that nobody except government can resist these evils.
Click to expand...

This treaty will not get of the right of someone to have a weapon. It will try to regulate the global arms trade. The Constitution trumps all treaties and on top of that, you have the right to have a gun, but you don't have the right to sell that gun to a warlord.
 
If Iran, North Korea and Syria are agin it, Im for it.
 
LowDown said:
UN adopts pact to regulate multibillion-dollar global arms trade | Fox News



This is unlikely to be ratified by the US Senate since the Senate has already voted not to do so.

The NRA sees the treaty as a threat to 2nd Amendment rights although treaties don't trump the Constitution. It's not clear to me how this treaty would be a hinderance to American gun owners.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...ba_chr_white_paper_att_final.authcheckdam.pdf
 
The greatest concern among the gun owners I talk with, including myself; is that this is a stepping stone. Right now the UN wants to track and verify all international arms shipments from dealers and manufacturers. How long is it until the UN decides it would just be easier to track every firearm manufactured worldwide from cradle to grave? At that point there become serious Constitutional infringement concerns and questions.
 
Treaties certainly don't trump the Constitution, but they do have the force of law:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Article VI.

Naturally there is plenty in that clause to debate because it may also indicate that if a state has a law that a treaty would violate, would that treaty not be permitted. Hmmmm.
 
LowDown said:
UN adopts pact to regulate multibillion-dollar global arms trade | Fox News



This is unlikely to be ratified by the US Senate since the Senate has already voted not to do so.

The NRA sees the treaty as a threat to 2nd Amendment rights although treaties don't trump the Constitution. It's not clear to me how this treaty would be a hinderance to American gun owners.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. It's just another example of how the NRA is doing no gun owner any favors. Their obnoxious protests and stupid antics are going to eventually hurt my rights.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
This treaty will not get of the right of someone to have a weapon. It will try to regulate the global arms trade. The Constitution trumps all treaties and on top of that, you have the right to have a gun, but you don't have the right to sell that gun to a warlord.
Click to expand...

Which is messed up since some of them are really nice guys.
 
I can see it if the UN were to make more clear some of the "small arms" language.
 
I completly agree Top. I think the NRA has long since past were they are doing gun owner a service, to worrying about political clout and power. I was once a member and if they were not an organization and an ex girlfriend I could have got a restraining order for them they called me daily, sent tons of mail etc begging for money. The NRA has jumped the shark.
MSgt said:
It doesn't. It's just another example of how the NRA is doing no gun owner any favors. Their obnoxious protests and stupid antics are going to eventually hurt my rights.
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Invisible said:
This treaty will not get of the right of someone to have a weapon. It will try to regulate the global arms trade. The Constitution trumps all treaties and on top of that, you have the right to have a gun, but you don't have the right to sell that gun to a warlord.
Click to expand...

As far as I know this treaty does not apply to non state actors (Hence Syria's objection*) and arguably it shouldn't as there are many places that would benefit from a rise in untraceable arms shipments (North Korea for one). We should be far more concerned about unchecked state power then we should about warlords.

*Just to clarify Syria, (according to Al Jazeera) , said that they were all for an arms treaty but against one that did not apply to non-state actors. Which as someone else said may be all the more reason to support it.
 
Last edited:
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, so let's get rid of our right to defend ourselves against those "terrorists and warlords". Since its not likely that they will disarm either way (except forcibly), so let's make sure that they have free reign. I mean gotta make sure that nobody except government can resist these evils.
Click to expand...

This treaty would not require you to give up your precious tank.

Or guns, for that matter.
 
Deuce said:
This treaty would not require you to give up your precious tank.

Or guns, for that matter.
Click to expand...

The UN believes that only states should have weapons... What this treaty does do is set up a framework for registration of weapons.

Before you confiscate you must register, it's important to know what you are up against.

Now, I don't have, or need, a tank... However, there are parts of the world where, perhaps, having a few tanks in your city might help to ward off some of those warlords you claim to want to stop.
 
BmanMcfly said:
The UN believes that only states should have weapons... What this treaty does do is set up a framework for registration of weapons.

Before you confiscate you must register, it's important to know what you are up against.

Now, I don't have, or need, a tank... However, there are parts of the world where, perhaps, having a few tanks in your city might help to ward off some of those warlords you claim to want to stop.
Click to expand...


Name such a city. One that is under such a threat and would be rendered unable to purchase military hardware under this treaty.
 
Tigger said:
The greatest concern among the gun owners I talk with, including myself; is that this is a stepping stone. Right now the UN wants to track and verify all international arms shipments from dealers and manufacturers. How long is it until the UN decides it would just be easier to track every firearm manufactured worldwide from cradle to grave? At that point there become serious Constitutional infringement concerns and questions.
Click to expand...

And those concerns are absolutely unwarranted as the UN doesn't have the power and authority to do this. The treaty, while not perfect, actually promotes many American values and is a good thing which we should all support.
 
BmanMcfly said:
The UN believes that only states should have weapons... What this treaty does do is set up a framework for registration of weapons.

Before you confiscate you must register, it's important to know what you are up against.

Now, I don't have, or need, a tank... However, there are parts of the world where, perhaps, having a few tanks in your city might help to ward off some of those warlords you claim to want to stop.
Click to expand...

It does NOT set up a framework for domestic registration of weapons. Only for registration of weapons imported/exported. This has no impact at all on domestic gun laws on any Member State.
 
j-mac said:
I can see it if the UN were to make more clear some of the "small arms" language.
Click to expand...

It means exactly what you think it means, small arms not at all different from what you can privately own in the United States. The difference is the scope of what the treaty covers, it does not cover domestic sales of weapons. What it does it set standards for control of international arm sales, everything from battle tanks to the glock pistol at your local store gun when its imported to the United States, these standards are designed to prevent the sale or transfer of weapons to the kind of people none of us have weapons. The United States, already having seen the need to know what kind of weapons are imported into its borders and where they are going, is already in compliance with this treaty.

What the treaty does then is give the United States and other nations a way to both act as an example to the rest of the world and to shame other nations who do not live up to the standards within the treaty. Its not a treaty that's going to radically change anything, after all we already do shame nations that allow weapons to fall into the hands of terrorist organizations for example.
 
Hey look, the UN trying to flex some muscles and be relevant in today's world.

Wow... it's like seeing a rare animal. A stupid and pathetic rare animal, but still... wow...
 
ludahai said:
And those concerns are absolutely unwarranted as the UN doesn't have the power and authority to do this. The treaty, while not perfect, actually promotes many American values and is a good thing which we should all support.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of the Useless Nations on ANY level. I never have been and never will be. I'm opposed to the very IDEA behind the creation of the organization. The fact that the UN has ANY power is too much in my mind. The UN will find almost as much success regulating the arms trade as it has solving the middle east peace issues.
 
Tigger said:
I am not a fan of the Useless Nations on ANY level. I never have been and never will be. I'm opposed to the very IDEA behind the creation of the organization. The fact that the UN has ANY power is too much in my mind. The UN will find almost as much success regulating the arms trade as it has solving the middle east peace issues.
Click to expand...

The United Nations actually does a lot of good around the world. I don't want a global government, at least not at this point. However, there needs to be a place for the nations of the world to have a forum to discuss the issues of the world. Collective security HAS been successful at maintaining the general peace. Furthermore, its specialized agencies have done a large amount of good around the world.
 
ludahai said:
The United Nations actually does a lot of good around the world. I don't want a global government, at least not at this point. However, there needs to be a place for the nations of the world to have a forum to discuss the issues of the world. Collective security HAS been successful at maintaining the general peace. Furthermore, its specialized agencies have done a large amount of good around the world.
Click to expand...

That's fine for the rest of the world. There is no reason for the United States to be part of this organization. Just as there is no reason for us to have ANY contact with any other nation.
 
Tigger said:
That's fine for the rest of the world. There is no reason for the United States to be part of this organization. Just as there is no reason for us to have ANY contact with any other nation.
Click to expand...

Haven't we already learned that isolationism is not an option?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom