• 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

Wiseone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is there any language in the treaty that could be in any way a 'toe in the door' to messing with our sovereignty? I am not so sure considering what the UN is attempting with Agenda 22 for example.
 
j-mac said:
Is there any language in the treaty that could be in any way a 'toe in the door' to messing with our sovereignty? I am not so sure considering what the UN is attempting with Agenda 22 for example.
Click to expand...

No there isn't any language, the treaty specifically makes it the responsibility of the signatory to enforce its provisions. Also for the UN to do anything that messes with another nation's sovereignty requires the US to vote 'yes' at the security council where it has veto powers, in other words if the UN wished to place an embargo on the US for exactly it would require the US to vote for an embargo against itself. That will never happen.

What is Agenda 22, sounds like a conspiracy theory.
 
Wiseone said:
No there isn't any language, the treaty specifically makes it the responsibility of the signatory to enforce its provisions. Also for the UN to do anything that messes with another nation's sovereignty requires the US to vote 'yes' at the security council where it has veto powers, in other words if the UN wished to place an embargo on the US for exactly it would require the US to vote for an embargo against itself. That will never happen.

What is Agenda 22, sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Agenda 21 is glen becks paraniod book about the UN taking over. This is another topic that takes even more creditablity from the right wing.
 
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...

Consider this. The three votes against this treaty came from North Korea, Iran, and Syria. If the NRA opposes this treaty, does that technically put them in the same camp as the three nations who voted no?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Consider this. The three votes against this treaty came from North Korea, Iran, and Syria. If the NRA opposes this treaty, does that technically put them in the same camp as the three nations who voted no?
Click to expand...

I generally agree with the NRA, but on this treaty and on universal background checks, I am not.
 
ChezC3 said:
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!
Click to expand...

Cloaking your "argument" in a facade of calmness does not make your argument suddenly become rational.

You are admitting to delegating your own critical thinking ability. We know the NRA's position on the issue, and having read the treaty myself I can comment on how I believe them to be wrong. You, on the other hand, have no opinion. You are letting someone else decide it for you. So why are you in this thread? You have nothing to say, so why should anyone have anything to say to you?
 
j-mac said:
Is there any language in the treaty that could be in any way a 'toe in the door' to messing with our sovereignty? I am not so sure considering what the UN is attempting with Agenda 22 for example.
Click to expand...

It's right there in the preamble...

"...Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control
conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or
constitutional system, ... "

In other words; "What you do within your own borders is up to you."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom