• 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

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,050
Reaction score
33,368
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics | Fox News


UNITED NATIONS – A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations -- with Iran playing a key role -- could expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments -- and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.

International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.

Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not,” LaPierre said. “It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty,” he warned in an exclusive interview with FoxNews.com from the halls of the UN negotiating chambers.

Frankly I'm not sure how this will play out internationally, but treaties do not supercede the US Constitution here.
 
The Senate won't ratify any treaty that restricts American gun-ownership rights in any way.

so this is a big deal over nothing.
 
Between the small arms treaty, the law of the sea treaty, and the global conservation act, things aren't looking good for sovereignty.
 
Is there, like, a wingnut timer that reminds them to recirculate this bull**** story ever 12 months?
 
Is there, like, a wingnut timer that reminds them to recirculate this bull**** story ever 12 months?

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

Down and dirty is that the idea, its not even a treaty yet as it hasn't even been written let alone signed, is that it would affect only international arms trading, and that internal affairs dealing with arms are left unaffected. So basically its no threat whatsoever to anybody's gun, but it makes for great politics so its been spun up and twisted into something entirely different.
 
Ahh more hyper-ventilation by the American right....

At worst... Americans wont be allowed into countries... and I dont see a problem with that. We are not allowed into the US if we dont hand over private information beforehand to the American authorities... so why on earth should it be any different for Americans wanting to enter other countries?
 
The current UN treaty is about regulating arms trade from country to country nothing about regulating gun ownership in America.
 
Its little wonder our foreign policy is so garbage. The focus of the conference should be trying to manipulate the treaty to our advantage by creating rules that keep arms out of the hands of people who might use them against us. Instead, you get the usual tunnel-vision idiots who can't see beyond their own partisan domestic agendas.

The real question is what kind of deals can we hammer out with the Russians and Chinese. While obviously there is a certain rivalry, there is also mutual self interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of Islamic extremist groups. A good tactic would be to focus on keeping the arms trade between nation states as much as possible and limit the ability to re-transfer them to non-governmental entities. The old cold war strategy of arming dissidents had serious negative consequences and its overall a net positive in our current situation to stop the practice as much as possible.
 
Ahh more hyper-ventilation by the American right....

At worst... Americans wont be allowed into countries... and I dont see a problem with that. We are not allowed into the US if we dont hand over private information beforehand to the American authorities... so why on earth should it be any different for Americans wanting to enter other countries?

Why on Earth would any American WANT to enter any other country? Especially an American gun-owner, who will be left totally defenseless and at the mercy of the foreign population after doing so?
 
The Senate won't ratify any treaty that restricts American gun-ownership rights in any way.

so this is a big deal over nothing.

They infringed on gun owners rights when Clinton was president.
 
Why on Earth would any American WANT to enter any other country? Especially an American gun-owner, who will be left totally defenseless and at the mercy of the foreign population after doing so?

Aren't you leaving the United States? Why are you and where are you going?
 
Aren't you leaving the United States? Why are you and where are you going?

I am in the process of working out the details of a move to Pakistan. I just don't see anything left in this country for someone like me, Wiseone. After the healthcare decision, I don't really believe there's any part of the Real AMERICA left to try and save.

We had a family gathering this past Sunday and the concensus was that my Great-Grandfather would never have left Germany (in 1900) to come to the country that the US is today. He would be utterly disgusted by what this nation now is compared to what it was even just a century ago.
 
I am in the process of working out the details of a move to Pakistan. I just don't see anything left in this country for someone like me, Wiseone. After the healthcare decision, I don't really believe there's any part of the Real AMERICA left to try and save.

We had a family gathering this past Sunday and the concensus was that my Great-Grandfather would never have left Germany (in 1900) to come to the country that the US is today. He would be utterly disgusted by what this nation now is compared to what it was even just a century ago.

What exactly are you going to do in Pakistan if I may ask and why chose there?
 
Its little wonder our foreign policy is so garbage. The focus of the conference should be trying to manipulate the treaty to our advantage by creating rules that keep arms out of the hands of people who might use them against us. Instead, you get the usual tunnel-vision idiots who can't see beyond their own partisan domestic agendas.

The real question is what kind of deals can we hammer out with the Russians and Chinese. While obviously there is a certain rivalry, there is also mutual self interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of Islamic extremist groups. A good tactic would be to focus on keeping the arms trade between nation states as much as possible and limit the ability to re-transfer them to non-governmental entities. The old cold war strategy of arming dissidents had serious negative consequences and its overall a net positive in our current situation to stop the practice as much as possible.

Many firearms legally sold to individuals in the US are made in other countries. Implementing your suggestion would would infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060678666 said:
Many firearms legally sold to individuals in the US are made in other countries. Implementing your suggestion would would infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.

Nobody gives a **** about legitimate civilian firearms imports, this is about preventing people from giving stingers to the IRA or artillery rockets to Hezbollah.
 
Nobody gives a **** about legitimate civilian firearms imports, this is about preventing people from giving stingers to the IRA or artillery rockets to Hezbollah.

Or indeed to Robert Mugabe's would be overthrowers.
 
Or indeed to Robert Mugabe's would be overthrowers.

The person who most recently planned a coup to overthrow Mugabe was Mugabe himself in a ploy to justify his domestic crackdown.
 
The person who most recently planned a coup to overthrow Mugabe was Mugabe himself in a ploy to justify his domestic crackdown.

But any *would-be* genuine attempts at overthrowing him would be hampered if it was difficult to get the necessary weapons. Gadafi would have been a lot harder to get rid of if the Libyan population wasn't armed.
 
Last edited:
Nobody gives a **** about legitimate civilian firearms imports, this is about preventing people from giving stingers to the IRA or artillery rockets to Hezbollah.
Stinger missile systems and artillery aren't small arms, they are explosive ordnance. They therefore couldn't even be covered in a "small arms treaty" by any realistic application of logic.
 
UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics | Fox News




Frankly I'm not sure how this will play out internationally, but treaties do not supercede the US Constitution here.

From what I've read in the reports, the treaty is soley aimed at regulating international transfers of military weapons, to keep the trail oput in the open so, diversions don't happen. I think that's actually a very good idea to prevent - pirates, feudal lords, faction based war and drug cartels rom getting ahold of that kind fire power to terrorize people with. I cannot in any way see how this treaty would have any affect on the II Amendment. It doesn't invole us in that respect.
 
UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics | Fox News




Frankly I'm not sure how this will play out internationally, but treaties do not supercede the US Constitution here.
From Article VI of the US Constitution:

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

That said, doing anything to get rid of guns is political suicide.
 
From what I've read in the reports, the treaty is soley aimed at regulating international transfers of military weapons, to keep the trail oput in the open so, diversions don't happen. I think that's actually a very good idea to prevent - pirates, feudal lords, faction based war and drug cartels rom getting ahold of that kind fire power to terrorize people with. I cannot in any way see how this treaty would have any affect on the II Amendment. It doesn't invole us in that respect.

It does require massive record keeping and registration of ALL firearms, the hassle factor alone, never mind the fees involved, is rediculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom