UN Gun Treaty

[Nemont]

I'm not interested in you resigning from posting Nemont.

This is the state department statement/press release that started people worrying in 2009 about Clinton and this administration's actions on the small arms treaty:

U.S. Support for the Arms Trade Treaty

Press Statement
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC

October 14, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms.


The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations. As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.


On a national basis, the United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the “gold standard” of export controls for arms transfers. On a bilateral basis, the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions. Multilaterally, we have consistently supported high international standards, and the Arms Trade Treaty initiative presents us with the opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes.
The above sounds like we already have in place a system that is just like what the treaty proposes to do on a world wide basis, yet we can still by guns and ammo.

The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons. We look forward to this negotiation as the continuation of the process that began in the UN with the 2008 UN Group of Governmental Experts on the ATT and continued with the 2009 UN Open-Ended Working Group on ATT.

Why do you live in fear of something without taking a single moment to get facts and learn what it is all about. For the record if this treaty truly threatened to take away or abridge my 2nd Amendment rights I would be shouting it from the roof tops. One can discuss whether it is appropriate to try and keep semi auto and fully auto weapons out of the hands of 12 year olds in countries that are prone to upheaval and violence or to try to keep tabs on how much weaponry is entering places like say, Syria. That is a valid discussion.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

The first three words, "conventional arms transfers". That does not exclude your or my firearms.

I like Wayne Lap. speech about what needs to be addressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OAUYDMqrA8

 

[Dinkshooter]

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm convinced.

Just sent my $ to the NRA to stop this madness!!!!!!

 

[Dinkshooter]

Or not

 

[sweetnectar]

This thread is still going on? Wayne Lap said it all.
The end.

 

[jabber]

1.) I support trying to reign in the proliferation of small arms to terrorist states and organizations. I would hope that most other people see the value in that.

:

Afraid I am going to have to ask you to please define "terrorist states and organizations". Seems like I remember fitting into the description of a terrorist as defined on a thread on MM.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Drug cartels, Al Quaida, PETA, etc.

They're trying to eliminate a hugely profitable industry and one that is fed by civil unrest in third world countries. I think that's noble. I don't think they'll be successful. Criminal, despots and terrorists will always find a way to get guns.

 

[rhomas]

When the ATT was first brought up in the UN, it was designed to curb arms sales to terrorists. When the first meetings for discussion were held, several countries that aren't friendly to the US, managed to insert the "International Control" clause, which includes provisions that would preclude importation of guns manufactured in one country from being sold to another. There was also discussion about what may be considered as an "assault weapon". John Bolton, who was the US delegate under Bush, released the information and basically told the UN to put it where the sun doesn't shine (albeit in a diplomatic manner). Hillary, rescinded Bolton's (Bush's) stance and agreed to represent the US on all of the treaty discussions, as well as in providing US input on the wording of the treaty. This action on part was obviously in response to her boss' direction, since that is the proper procedure for a Sec. of State. There have already been multiple discussions both by the UN, and the anti-gun groups in this country that COULD include semi-auto shotguns, rifles, and handguns, as well as pump shotguns and any gun with a thumbhole or adjustable stock. Even center fire rifles could be designated as "sniper" weapons, and fall into the category of guns that MIGHT be discussed at the upcoming meetings.

Under those POSSIBLE conditions, that means that your Benelli, Beretta, Browning, Winchester, Stoeger, Franchi, Howa, Sako, and most of the highly collectable European doubles could be considered fair game under the proposed treaty guidlines.

Yes, NO TREATY per se, has yet been drafted and agreed upon..........there are apparently rough drafts that will be considered, altered, or combined at the upcoming meetings. Let's look at a few of the countries that will be involved in the process, and then judge what the possible ramifications might be. China, Russia, Iran, France, Germany, England, are a few of the countries involved. How many recognize names of countries that have already restricted or banned handguns and many long guns in their homeland??????? How many recognize some of the countries that participate in dealing with or being countries that are involved in Iranian nuclear development, and how many of those named countries are in direct competition with American arms manufacturers. Just the discussion of such a treaty, and knowing that George Soros and Michael Bloomberg are two of the most vocal supporters of it, should be enough to strike fear in every legally armed American citizen. When we consider that the UN want's to establish and oversee activation and supervision of the proposed treaty, then that creates even more fear. I don't for one second believe that hunters and gun owners have enough faith in the UN, to put any trust or faith in that nefarious institution.

As for the other treaty mentioned that has never been agreed to by the US. The reason is that our Navy already rules the oceans and the international 200 mile limits would certainly create logistical problems that could hamper their role as peacekeepers, aid suppliers, and pirate curtailment.

When the basic principals of any UN treaty is analyzed, one can readily see that these are not in the best interest of our military, our manufacturers, or probably the most important, We The People!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ben Lamb]

I need to go stock up on primers, powder and Ar parts again. I made a mint in 2008 doing that.

 

[mtmiller]

Feeling bad about yourself? Read this thread and be relieved.

As was mentioned, "holy bat 'crap'"

 

[Papa-Zulu]

Rthomas is precisely correct in his concerns. Ben Lamb, you can make fun all you want. There was a concerted effort in the late 1990s by left-wing Democrats to "tag" gun powder and mandate primers that would expire and be useless during a certain time frame. It caused a run on primers. All you smug "non-believers" as to the threat of gun control/registration/confiscation need to remember what has happened in Great Britain, Australia and Canada.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Papa, if the treaty ever sees the light of day, and the President signs it, I'll join the chorus in opposition. I'll even organize a protest.

Until then, let's remain calm and vigilant, but also let's rely on the truth, rather than internet conspiracies and bloggers.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Rthomas is precisely correct in his concerns. Ben Lamb, you can make fun all you want. There was a concerted effort in the late 1990s by left-wing Democrats to "tag" gun powder and mandate primers that would expire and be useless during a certain time frame. It caused a run on primers. All you smug "non-believers" as to the threat of gun control/registration/confiscation need to remember what has happened in Great Britain, Australia and Canada.

I am pretty sure the term is "bat-shit crazy", why do some insist on describing Papa-Zulu as "bat-crap crazy"?

 

[shoots-straight]

....time for another sip shoots;

Ahhhh, the guy that's swallowing what he's being told about this BS, is the one drinking the giz! This is political posturing from the Tea Baggers. It's what they do best.

 

[rhomas]

I suppose that Jose "the all knowing" is the perfect linguist, also!!!! When Jose calls people names, the name should be worn as a badge of honor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing better than the pot calling the kettle black, huh??????????

 

[Tom]

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution states: "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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does...s_the_'Supreme_Law_of_the_Land'#ixzz21mbmRYH7

 

[smarandr]

I'm no constitutional scholar by any means, but doesn't that section simply mean that the constitution, federal laws, and treaties trump any laws that the state comes up with?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes, that's the Supremacy Clause.

It also does not change the fact that in order for a treaty to be considered law of the land, that it has to be ratified by 2/3's of the Senate.

 

[tjones]

What day was Hillary supposed to sign the treaty?

 

[rhomas]

Currently, there are 2/3rds who are opposed, but who knows what the outcome of the upcoming elections will be? Can we count on that same 2/3rds still being in office???????