• 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

apdst-
What bothers me about attempting to link the political systems that were generated in societies that never had much in the way of democracy, Individual Rights, or the concept of private ownership trumping International Agreements to our rather unique national history is those same folks are quick to cite American Exceptualism when it suits them.

Can you possibly understand how little sense that post makes?
 
You are misled. The General Assembly resolution which started the Internatonal Treaty process specifically states that it remains “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” ... that comprehensively rules out the scaremongering nonsense being spewed around the US gun community.
But if I wanted to buy European guns, or classic Russians or other makes there could be a problem. So no, things wouldn't be the same even provided you were correct. I am not going to support an "open" treaty that already starts in a ****ty position and can devolve from there.
 
Based on what examples?
Just the stuff I've seen on their main portal. They are for 1) Reducing current small arms supplies(what do YOU think that means?) 2) slowing the creation of new weapons 3) Tracking and much more. Just go to their portal and site search it in their own words.
 
LMR-
This has been debunked long ago. The UN's treaty goes into pretty good detail that it doesn't override any nation's internal laws. The USofA, nor any other country has to abandon it's current fire arms laws, what is the bone of contention is it will severely limit the arms sales, covert and with taxpayer funding to third world petty tyrants, who FYI seem to be excellent customers of the former arsenal of democracy.

Time to drop the BS 'defend our nation from the New World Oder blue helmets' crap. If all it takes is a few blue hats to gut our Constitution then all the loud mouths online spouting their 'blood of tyrants' stuff are all hat and no cattle.

Steady in the ranks, wait on it, don't poop yourself until you see the whites of their eyes....
It's an "open" treaty, they can later amend if they want to. As people have stated, it isn't complete yet. I don't give two ****s about what the U.N. wants, I know what we don't need to give up.
 
This isn't ****ing Nazi Germany,
Neither was Nazi Germany until a little self hating Jewish guy with a small man complex convinced them to give him authority, not ask questions, and took over.
 
Lets go to the root question: Why the hell would U.N. states want to interfere with civilian firearms importing? What possible gain does China or Iran or Russia or Israel or South Africa get from preventing you from getting buying a Glock or G3. Do you seriously think that they sit around all day thinking of ways to trivially annoy a few Americans while twirling their mustaches? These people aren't the Brady organization, every single major player on the international scene either buys and/or sell arms in quantity. The real goal of everyone at the conference will be to try and keep weapons in the hands of their friends and out of their enemies.
 
Lets go to the root question: Why the hell would U.N. states want to interfere with civilian firearms importing? What possible gain does China or Iran or Russia or Israel or South Africa get from preventing you from getting buying a Glock or G3.
We've all seen government's put agenda over gain, even our own. Think to the roots of gun control, if a country bans guns it is left up to it's people to accept or reject it, if a country relies on international opinion it becomes much easier, the larger and farther removed a governance the less accountable it is. This is a theory of course but think on it, it does make sense.
Do you seriously think that they sit around all day thinking of ways to trivially annoy a few Americans while twirling their mustaches?
No, but the U.N. while not a friend to America does have an agenda they want to see in action. The agenda is spelled out on their own web portal, and I do suggest that people check out some writings from assembly members.
These people aren't the Brady organization, every single major player on the international scene either buys and/or sell arms in quantity.
They do, but disbar their citizenry in many instances from being part of that by precluding them the right to private ownership.
The real goal of everyone at the conference will be to try and keep weapons in the hands of their friends and out of their enemies.
Couldn't disagree more.
 
Is it the NRA? Or is it fear mongers on the far right? Legitimate question, I stopped watching tv a long time ago because I got tired of hearing new and innovative ways on how we're all gon ****ing die every week.

Both. The NRA guy was on TV just last week spouting his paranoid dillusions. It's was halarious, yet embarassing. And it's also the more gullible paranoids on the right as you mentioned who take the hogwash and pass it on down the line.

It's just another part of creating this fictitious "Obama Demon."
 
Neither was Nazi Germany until a little self hating Jewish guy with a small man complex convinced them to give him authority, not ask questions, and took over.

So you've joined apdst is his fantasy world? Well good luck fighting the nazis man, but I'll spend my time focusing on real problems and not made up ones to feed my ego and sense of self importance.
 
You still haven't answered the root question. Why would China care about domestic gun control in foreign nations like the U.S.? China bans weapons in their own nation because they fear domestic unrest. The PRC government doesn't have any reason to care about what guns civilians in the U.S. buy because it has no impact upon them. The only group in China who does care is Norinco who makes quite a bit of money exporting weapons to the U.S. at cheap prices.

People really need to stop thinking of the U.N. as a shadowy cabal and more as a disorganized collection of greedy posturing children.
 
So you've joined apdst is his fantasy world? Well good luck fighting the nazis man, but I'll spend my time focusing on real problems and not made up ones to feed my ego and sense of self importance.

Wow! That's quite insulting. Is this just another example of a Liberal who has nothing but insults to add to the discussion?
 
your ad hom attack is also an insult.

Not an attack, just an observation.

As usual, the Obama deciples make accusations of paranoia in their response to disagreement with this treaty. Nothing new there.
 
Wow! That's quite insulting. Is this just another example of a Liberal who has nothing but insults to add to the discussion?

I added the source you asked for, but you never mentioned it again, didn't play into your fantasy I guess. But yes for you insults is generally all I got, you don't deserve respect as far as I'm concerned because you're a delusional self righteous egoist.
 
I added the source you asked for, but you never mentioned it again, didn't play into your fantasy I guess. But yes for you insults is generally all I got, you don't deserve respect as far as I'm concerned because you're a delusional self righteous egoist.

Color me surprised. :rofl
 
You are misled. The General Assembly resolution which started the Internatonal Treaty process specifically states that it remains “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” ... that comprehensively rules out the scaremongering nonsense being spewed around the US gun community.

One would think you would go ahead and post a link to confirm that for us...jus' sayin'.

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

You asked for it, you got it(again), but you keep ignoring it. What other reason other than it doesn't fit into your delusion?
 
snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

You asked for it, you got it(again), but you keep ignoring it. What other reason other than it doesn't fit into your delusion?

And...again...you said that the treaty hasn't even been written. Therefore, there's no way that you can fact check something that hasn't been written.
 
You are misled. The General Assembly resolution which started the Internatonal Treaty process specifically states that it remains “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” ... that comprehensively rules out the scaremongering nonsense being spewed around the US gun community.

And...again...you said that the treaty hasn't even been written. Therefore, there's no way that you can fact check something that hasn't been written.

There's more to that source than facts about the conference and treaty that may come out of it, you obviously didn't read it. But of course I don't expect you to listen to all that, because court decisions can be overturned, and even if it had to pass a vote in Congress its still possible it might, and even if the conference is about international arms trade they may chance their focus, and even if ****ing aliens from the 10th dimension might attack us so why aren't we building space lasers right now?

Get real dude, cut the fear mongering.
 
There's more to that source than facts about the conference and treaty that may come out of it, you obviously didn't read it. But of course I don't expect you to listen to all that, because court decisions can be overturned, and even if it had to pass a vote in Congress its still possible it might, and even if the conference is about international arms trade they may chance their focus, and even if ****ing aliens from the 10th dimension might attack us so why aren't we building space lasers right now?

Get real dude, cut the fear mongering.

So, you admit that the treaty hasn't been written and there's no way to prove that it won't affect our gun rights here in the states?
 
So, you admit that the treaty hasn't been written and there's no way to prove that it won't affect our gun rights here in the states?

Yup, but there's no way to prove its will affect them. What we have though is an abundance of evidence and reasons why it won't affect them, and literally no reasons or evidence to believe that it will. But you will insist on acting as if it will because there is no threat or potential threat too small to our freedom that it should be ignored, right?
 
The Libyans primarily used captured weapons from the Libyan military, not foreign imports. It also would have been easy to get a green-light for arms shipments given the positive international support. I admit that there are potential situations where it would be useful to supply arms to dissident groups, but its worth sacrificing that given the much higher number of groups we don't want to have weapons.

Gun ownership was widespread in the country anyway, well before the rebellion broke out. But surely in any case you must except that if the government has a monopoly on firearms then it is more difficult to overthrow?
 
sure but these reasons on this thread are baseless accusations

Discussing fictitious effects of the treaty in the U.S is obscene considering that its effect in the real world could mean leaving people defenseless against governments in other parts of the world that are bent on killing them. We're talking about 10s of thousands of human lives here.
 
Yup, but there's no way to prove its will affect them. What we have though is an abundance of evidence and reasons why it won't affect them, and literally no reasons or evidence to believe that it will. But you will insist on acting as if it will because there is no threat or potential threat too small to our freedom that it should be ignored, right?

How about we prevent any slippery slopes and just not ratify the treaty? It's called, "dilligence". A word that an Army officer should be very familiar with.

If I'm wrong, then no harm has been done. If you're wrong, it could be the beginning of tyranny. Are you willing to take that chance? I'm not.
 
Back
Top Bottom