• 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

ludahai said:
Haven't we already learned that isolationism is not an option?
Click to expand...

You may have learned a lesson to that effect, but I most certainly have not.
 
The opinion of the American Bar Association on the Arms Trade Treaty is summed up by these three statements.

A. The Second Amendment Does Not Apply to Most Weapons Addressed by the Arms Trade Treaty.

B. The Second Amendment Does Not Apply to Exports.

C. Import Restrictions are Constitutionally Valid.

And reaches this conclusion -

If the United States signs and ratifies the ATT, in its most recent iteration in the President’s text of 26 July 2012, the United States retains the discretion to regulate the flow of weapons into and out of the United States in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf
 
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...


The NRA and gun owners are concerned with the sloppy way this particular piece of............................................................legislation is written. It leaves things too open to interpretation, too many loopholes, too many ambiguious phrases.

Quite frankly in my opinion, the UN can go to hell.
 
Rainman05 said:
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...
Click to expand...

Is there any particular part of the treaty you take issue with or is this just boilerplate "UN IS BAD"
 
ludahai said:
You need a refresher course in 20th century history.
Click to expand...

I disagree. In fact, I believe that Wilson getting the US involved in WWI (thus ending US Isolationism) was one of the worst decisions the US has made in its history.
 
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...

Which is very ironic since the good ol' USofA was key to the foundation of the UN, without the US there would be no UN. ;)
 
ChezC3 said:
The NRA and gun owners are concerned with the sloppy way this particular piece of............................................................legislation is written. It leaves things too open to interpretation, too many loopholes, too many ambiguious phrases.

Quite frankly in my opinion, the UN can go to hell.
Click to expand...

Could you please cite one? Actually, the US has been instrumental in tightening up some of the previously ambiguous language of the proposed treaty.
 
Tigger said:
I disagree. In fact, I believe that Wilson getting the US involved in WWI (thus ending US Isolationism) was one of the worst decisions the US has made in its history.
Click to expand...

The U.S. has not been isolationist through its history. It had been involved in the Mediterranean, elsewhere in the Americas and in the Western Pacific far before Wilson entered the White House.

And isolationism in the modern world is simply not an option.
 
ludahai said:
Could you please cite one? Actually, the US has been instrumental in tightening up some of the previously ambiguous language of the proposed treaty.
Click to expand...

Truth be told, right now, no. Not that I won't, I can't. Haven't read the legislation. I just know if Obama wants it, the NRA don't, I'm gonna stick on the side of the good guys. I pay them membership dues for a reason.
 
Tigger said:
I disagree. In fact, I believe that Wilson getting the US involved in WWI (thus ending US Isolationism) was one of the worst decisions the US has made in its history.
Click to expand...

Again a history refresher course-
We never really were isolationist since the very beginning of our nation. I suppose a lack of service could be a reasonable excuse to not be familiar with the Service Branch's hymns- the Marines have a line in their commemorating one of their and our fledgling nation's first military actions on far off shores... "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..." in 1801 we fought Barbary Pirates in the then far off Med.

Once the Industrial Revolution took firm hold in our nation we was up and popping. Our nation grew to be a world leader BEFORE 1917. We needed overseas markets to do so. You forget we kicked in Japan's door in 1853 when Commodore Perry demanding trade and treaties. Or 1898 when we took over the crumbling Spanish Empire in the Pacific.

Our form of Capitalism demands over seas involvement in order to flourish. Without overseas markets our nation would be at best a New World Regional power. That requires military presence/ action around the world. From the days of President Jefferson to these trying times we have meddled and fought across the globe. The issue and the myth of Isolationism came to a head as the 'Conservatives' split over losing money if England and France defaulted on their war loans and a German win stripped market share away from us now that we had just made it to the top of the Capitalist heap. Throw in a Evangelical President to drag Christianity into democracy- one reason I like to not keep the social conservative drumbeat of 'we were founded with Christian roots/base' going- we had the perfect mix of money grubbing AND a religious fig leaf to cover!

Citing 'no foreign entanglements' sounded all Founding Father like, howsomeever we already held an overseas empire AND had fought on distant shores by the time Wilson took Office.
 
ludahai said:
The U.S. has not been isolationist through its history. It had been involved in the Mediterranean, elsewhere in the Americas and in the Western Pacific far before Wilson entered the White House.

And isolationism in the modern world is simply not an option.
Click to expand...

I didn't see your post, didn't mean to step on your toes!
 
ChezC3 said:
Truth be told, right now, no. Not that I won't, I can't. Haven't read the legislation. I just know if Obama wants it, the NRA don't, I'm gonna stick on the side of the good guys. I pay them membership dues for a reason.
Click to expand...

You pay the NRA to think for you?
 
ludahai said:
And isolationism in the modern world is simply not an option.
Click to expand...

Then this "modern world" has no value, along with the human race that created it.
 
ludahai said:
No worries... you added in more detail than I did...
Click to expand...

Allow me to bump again. I am a member of the NRA and I believe the Treaty has ZERO bearing on domestic sales or private firearm ownership. In this case I see the NRA as a mouthpiece for the Arms Industry not the private citizen. The treaty is very clear on where it ends. There is no slippery slope, no camel's nose in the tent. The problem with that argument some always drag into these dicussions is only total lawlessness is the answer as ANY law, rule, or regulation can be decried as the first step on a slippery slope, etc... :roll:

Anywho, nice to meet you...
 
ChezC3 said:
Truth be told, right now, no. Not that I won't, I can't. Haven't read the legislation. I just know if Obama wants it, the NRA don't, I'm gonna stick on the side of the good guys. I pay them membership dues for a reason.
Click to expand...

It's rare to see someone so readily admit they don't know what the **** they're talking about, and that they have such a blind partisan bias that they are against something purely because a Democrat is for it.

ChezC3 said:
Eh, no...
Click to expand...

You just declared that you've done exactly that regarding this treaty.
 
ludahai said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, the UN just has this labelled as a "disarmament" treaty, and you're going to tell me that this is not the intention?!?

How gullible do you think people are??
 
ludahai said:
Then read the proposed treaty and think for yourself rather than let the NRA think for you.
Click to expand...


I have been a member of the NRA for 18 years. We have a relationship built on trust. I trust they are going to do what advances themselves, and what advances themselves serves me. I don't allow the NRA to think for me, I do trust them however to hold a position which will best serve my interests as it regards owning firearms.

This is twice now that you've been provocative, so to you I say good day!
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
It's rare to see someone so readily admit they don't know what the **** they're talking about, and that they have such a blind partisan bias that they are against something purely because a Democrat is for it.



You just declared that you've done exactly that regarding this treaty.
Click to expand...

Honesty. I'll admit does come a premium nowadays, I try to employ it whenever I can. I've no partisan bias. I've watched the steady, methodic measures Obama has taken to strip us of our Rights so I know that when it comes to anything having to do with guns, his position is a bad position.

I've done no such thing. It is called delegating. The NRA is far more knowledgable on the matter and as I stated to the other, rather uncouth gentleman -- we have a relationship built on trust.

Since you seem rather unseemly yourself, to you I also say good day!
 
ChezC3 said:
I have been a member of the NRA for 18 years. We have a relationship built on trust. I trust they are going to do what advances themselves, and what advances themselves serves me. I don't allow the NRA to think for me, I do trust them however to hold a position which will best serve my interests as it regards owning firearms.

This is twice now that you've been provocative, so to you I say good day!
Click to expand...

And this is the third time you have shown a lack of willingness to think for yourself. Read the treaty, then get back to me.
 
ludahai said:
Then read the proposed treaty and think for yourself rather than let the NRA think for you.
Click to expand...

I think what he was saying is most people do not have the time to read these documents as these things happen and absolutely no clout to do anything about them personally. Claiming that he pays the NRA to think for him is ****ing weak. People buy in to to the NRA as a go between that actually does have contact with our law makers. I have membership with NFIB as well. I don't have time as a business owner to track and stay on top of every piece of legislation that may affect my business AND operate my business. So let's drop the "OMG you pay someone else to think for you!" alarmist BS. Put some pants on and get something slightly more involved than working at McDonalds and you may find organizations like this are pretty handy. Not all of us have the free time to chase down every issue. BTW neither does the President. He has cabinet members for a reason. It's called delegating responsiblity. It's something busy people do.

Given all that, I'm looking for a link to the actual treaty so that I can read it later and can't seem to find one. Anyone got a link? PDF would be great. I'd like to see what it really says in the final form.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom