noharleyyet
Well-known member
Ben
It's Monday here too.
It's Monday here too.
This is how close we came to having the UN Gun Ban Treaty approved in the Senate.
- Thread starter rhomas
- Start date
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Careful with the inflammatory hyperbole.
Nemont
Well-known member
Don't let facts get in the way of a good old fashion rant.
I bet you Stand with Wendy.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Stand. Yea that's a position I would support.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Belmont are you suggesting I don't understand senate ratification of international treaties? Or did you biother to read the esteemed Mr Bolton and Yoo's op Ed?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Belmont Nemont. You were auto corrected I5 style.
Nemont
Well-known member
Neither I was talking only about the accusation of inflammatory hyberbole
Nemont/ belmont
rhomas
Banned
The article quoted didn't come from the NRA, nor have I received any information from the NRA-ILA concerning this. It came to me in an e-mail from a United Nations Watch agency, and Judicial Watch. It didn't even reference the NRA in the article.
BTW, as a Life Member of the NRA, I'm thankful for their due diligence in keeping their members apprised of any and all attempts to circumvent both the First and the Second Amendments.
BTW, as a Life Member of the NRA, I'm thankful for their due diligence in keeping their members apprised of any and all attempts to circumvent both the First and the Second Amendments.
Nemont
Well-known member
What groups you decide to belong is 100% your right. Go look at the NRA-ILA website and it is nearly verbatim what you posted.
Can you show me how this treaty does anything you claim it would have or is it all just hypothetical or just hot air?
Like I said I didn't support this treaty but when the extremes come in and use the tin foil hat paranoid delusion argument it makes it more difficult for those of us who want to keep our guns and enjoy the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment.
Nemont
Can you show us where is says it will not regulate a purchase of a hunting rifle from Japan?
With all due respect, you are the one claiming that it is, so...show us.
You guys are the ones that said you read the whole treaty right?
You are saying the claim is false. Prove it.
And here is some info from a quick search:
This is how the U.N. presents it:
“The global trade in conventional weapons – from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns – remains poorly regulated. No set of internationally agreed standards exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use.
Many governments have voiced concern about the absence of globally agreed rules for all countries to guide their decisions on arms transfers. That is why they have started negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty.”
Basically, they would like to regulate the sale and international transfer of weapons, both large and small. They are doing this to prevent the sale of weapons to groups the international community does not feel should be receiving them. Proponents of the treaty claim experts monitoring the international arms trade have recorded more than 500 violations of U.N. arms embargoes in the past two decades. Of these, only two resulted in trials and convictions. One concerned a Dutch businessman selling components to produce mustard gas to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The other concerned two retired Chilean generals, plus seven others, for selling arms to Croatia in 1991.
The problem many have with this treaty is who decides what constitutes “appropriate use.” In many countries, there simply is no appropriate use for firearms and ammunition outside those issued to military and L.E. units. In many others firearms are tightly regulated, with only competition guns or perhaps some hunting models allowed.
The fear is the U.N. — especially with its long track record of failures — would meddle with the rights of American citizens and disrupt the American firearms industry. Many fear the Arms Trade Treaty would be a first step down a very dangerous road that could eventually lead to the disarming of American citizens and the destruction of the U.S. firearms industry. This is especially troubling when you consider the U.N. and the rest of the world give not one whit for the firearm rights of the American citizen.
Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/09/...arms-trade-treaty-means-to-you/#ixzz2iOxvMUuD
I'll wait for you to produce evidence that the claim is false.
And here is some info from a quick search:
This is how the U.N. presents it:
“The global trade in conventional weapons – from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns – remains poorly regulated. No set of internationally agreed standards exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use.
Many governments have voiced concern about the absence of globally agreed rules for all countries to guide their decisions on arms transfers. That is why they have started negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty.”
Basically, they would like to regulate the sale and international transfer of weapons, both large and small. They are doing this to prevent the sale of weapons to groups the international community does not feel should be receiving them. Proponents of the treaty claim experts monitoring the international arms trade have recorded more than 500 violations of U.N. arms embargoes in the past two decades. Of these, only two resulted in trials and convictions. One concerned a Dutch businessman selling components to produce mustard gas to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The other concerned two retired Chilean generals, plus seven others, for selling arms to Croatia in 1991.
The problem many have with this treaty is who decides what constitutes “appropriate use.” In many countries, there simply is no appropriate use for firearms and ammunition outside those issued to military and L.E. units. In many others firearms are tightly regulated, with only competition guns or perhaps some hunting models allowed.
The fear is the U.N. — especially with its long track record of failures — would meddle with the rights of American citizens and disrupt the American firearms industry. Many fear the Arms Trade Treaty would be a first step down a very dangerous road that could eventually lead to the disarming of American citizens and the destruction of the U.S. firearms industry. This is especially troubling when you consider the U.N. and the rest of the world give not one whit for the firearm rights of the American citizen.
Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/09/...arms-trade-treaty-means-to-you/#ixzz2iOxvMUuD
I'll wait for you to produce evidence that the claim is false.
You make a claim and then refuse to prove it when challenged. You, as the instigator of the claim, have an obligation to back up what you say otherwise you should be looked upon with suspicion as to your motives. If you can't do that, admit it and move on.
Back up your position with facts. Don't just say "you first."
What you posted about the UN relates to more than small arms and more towards conventional weapons. Where does it say anything about sporting arms or the trade of firearms between individuals and corporations making them?
Back up your position with facts. Don't just say "you first."
What you posted about the UN relates to more than small arms and more towards conventional weapons. Where does it say anything about sporting arms or the trade of firearms between individuals and corporations making them?
It doesn't say any specifics at all. Therefore, it puts the UN in control of specifics.
Therefore, my claim is true because the treaty does not say my claim is false.
Prove I'm wrong.
