• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
    Results 26 to 50 of 112
    Like Tree5Likes

    Thread: U.S. Senate voted 53 to 46 to Defend the Second Amendment

    1. #26
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      You have to read the entire thing, if you did you would know what they are talking about. They clearly lay out what "conventional arms under the scope of this treaty" consist of.

      A. Covered Items

      - 1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

      - a. Battle Tanks

      - b. Armored combat vehicles

      - c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

      - d. Combat aircraft

      - e. Attack helicopters

      - f. Warships

      - g. Missiles and missile launchers

      - h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

      They are not talking about any arms that doesn't fall under those terms. So everything in the treaty is related to what was listed. Notice that they are not saying anything at all about what is allowed to be imported or exported, they are only defining what conventional arms are. It is up to each country individually to decide what to allow and what to authorize.

      End users are military groups in this context. Notice how most of the weapons listed are military hardware? That is the reason it says it 'may' list end users. In the case of small arms sold legally they don't care who the end user it. They care about the military groups that are buying tanks and stuff, in those cases they want to know who is getting them so they can prevent genocide.

      Records doesn't mean registration. Like I said repeatedly we are talking about importing and exporting weapons, which means they want records of who sold what weapons to what companies when they sell and buy stuff overseas. Those are the type of records they are talking about and the law already says you have to do that. They are talking about records that would let people know who large arms companies are selling to in other countries so they know they are not selling them to warlords who are out committing war crimes. It has nothing to do with people sitting around in the US buying stuff at a gun shop.

      None of this is a deterrent to exporting or importing to places legally. You already have to get permission from the US government before shipping weapons across the boarder. That is the law today. This is entirely on the government side, with the government taking those reports and sharing them with other countries, so they can follow the weapons overseas and track if anyone is smuggling major shipments of illegal weapons into war zones and places like that. There is no new burdens on US companies since they already have to report that stuff on their end.

      There is no restrictions on exporting except to countries under UN embargo. Your argument really doesn't make any sense on number 4. Why would the US ban rifles used in the US because there is a UN weapons embargo on Somalia? The two are not related in any way what so ever. No politician has ever said, "We need to stop genocide in Somalia so lets ban pistols in the US." That position makes no sense. This treaty in no way what so ever puts a ban on any sort of weapons. There is nothing to suggest such at thing at all.

      The UN can not determine what is allowed to be traded at all. All it can do is say "Country X is a war zone, there is a high risk of genocide, please don't sell military weapons to them." That is the extent of their power. And they are asking countries to look over their records to check for smugglers. In less developed countries they might need to pass laws to bring their local laws up to par with the rest of the world but the US already has these laws on the books. The US wouldn't need to pass any new laws but countries with a high degree of weapon smuggling might need to. On our end, the problem is we can't confirm where weapons go. So if someone leaves the US and they say they are going to Brazil we can't confirm that, with this treaty does is it allows us to contact Brazil and we can confirm that such weapons did indeed go to Brazil, if they didn't then it sends up a red flag and we know the company that lied is illegally selling weapons. That helps law enforcement track them down and we can bust them.

      This treaty has nothing at all to do with private gun owners.
      Last edited by Alric; 03-15-2014 at 08:01 AM.

    2. #27
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Did you notice that h is "small arms and light weapons?" That includes the guns every day Americans use, and it is not limited to guns for militaries. The U.N. gets to define which of them are "conventional." From that pool of weapons, countries authorize exporting and have to fill out paper work that includes explanations for why they are authorizing them.

      End users are people. The treaty does not define the term as being limited to military groups. Keeping records of the end users is "urged." Passing laws to facilitate obedience to the treaty is "urged."

      As I have explained, there is no way this wouldn't affect gun access and rights of American civilians.

      Look at this:

      Dangers of U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Begin to Surface






      If you like your insurance policy, you can keep it.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    3. #28
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046




      Article 3

      Prohibited Transfers

      A. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.


      Do you see how easy it would be for the U.N. to suddenly adopt another measure that would make specific importations to the U.S. illegal? It's that simple.
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-15-2014 at 09:35 AM.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    4. #29
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      Wrong! Try again. Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations deals with war. That means for example the UN could pass a resolution saying we shouldn't sell weapons to Russia because they invaded Crimea. Arms Embargoes are included as punishment against countries that are engaged in war and genocide. They can not just say guns are illegal. That isn't in the treaty. The treaty doesn't allow the UN to ban weapons in any way what so ever. It can only do things like put embargoes on countries, and they are not going to embargo the US since we would obviously veto it. Not that the UN would ever want to try set up embargoes against the US.

      The UN doesn't define what is conventional, all weapons are conventional if they fall on that list. There is no ban on any of those weapons in that list. There is nothing in this treaty that could ban weapons on that list. There is no possible way for this treaty to harm private gun owners in the US. There is absolutely no pressure on law makers to harm private gun owners in the US. This treaty has absolutely nothing at all to do with private gun owners in the US.

      The only reason this is at all controversial is because republicans want to rile people up and spreading false information about it. There is nothing in this treaty that even remotely effects private gun owners. You are being paranoid. Please read the entire treaty from start to finish. It doesn't say any of the stuff you think it does. It is about stopping arms smuggling into war zones and areas of extreme conflict and places where genocide is going on.

      You know when people say, "How come the UN doesn't do anything to stop genocide in the world?" Well here is the reason, and that reason is you. People like you tell the UN they can not stop genocide and you run around telling congressmen to reject treaties aimed at stopping genocide and war. So that is what morons in congress do, and US being a huge country with a lot of influence makes the world a little more shitty for everyone else once again.

      This treaty doesn't have anything to do with private gun owners. It doesn't effect them in any way at all.

    5. #30
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Article 3

      Prohibited Transfers

      A. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.


      The U.N. could very easily "adopt a measure" and say that it pertains to war.


      It's all Republicans who have a problem with this treaty? No, it's also Libertarians and anybody else who values the Bill of Rights and understands the need for gun rights and self-defense.

      Quote Originally Posted by Alric View Post
      The UN doesn't define what is conventional
      Exactly. Do you want to wait for them to do it after the U.S. has officially accepted the treaty?
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-15-2014 at 10:11 AM.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    6. #31
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      They list what are conventional weapons. That is the full list. There isn't anything else, there isn't any specific weapons or anything like that. The word is just a term for normal weapons of war. Also the UN charter is already written. You can check everything it says in Chapter VII. There is nothing sneaky or shading going on at all and they can't just add something new later. They can't just adopt a measure and say it is related to war. They would have to changed the entire founding charter of the UN. That isn't going to happen.

      Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't be a part of the UN in any way what so ever because the mere fact of being in the UN puts us at risk of being their slaves because they could just randomly pass any law at any moment or some time in the future. Your argument isn't at all rational.

      People who have a problem with the treaty are just people who lack reading comprehension skills. It has nothing at all to do with private gun owners. Nothing at all. It can't effect us. There is no risk at all. As a libertarian who is a strong supporter of the bill of right I am telling you that there is no risk what so ever.

    7. #32
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      No, this treaty is especially bad, though the U.N. does suck in general. Please cool it with the creative writing exercises. I showed you several provisions, and what they say is obvious. It seems like I need to keep posting them for you because they are going right past you.

      The weapons the treaty pertains to are subject to interpretation. Have you ever discussed "assault weapons" with anybody? The specific definitions of weapons are hazy, they overlap, and they are often debated. The U.N. would decide what qualifies under the treaty, and they would have the power to declare that certain weapons cannot be imported into the United States. Also, the U.N. Security Council would be able to "adopt a measure" and say it's because of what if in a war and oh my the children, and then importing hand guns or something into the United States is no longer allowed. That could happen, and I have shown you what the U.N.'s agenda is with gun control. I don't trust this thing for three seconds.

      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    8. #33
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      No you are totally wrong. There is no interpretation. Everything you generally think of as weapons fall under the treaty, and nothing that falls under the treaty is banned. The only stuff that doesn't fall under the treaty are things like nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. Since the treaty doesn't ban anything, there is no risk of anything being banned. Everything that is a conventional weapon, all guns, fall under the treaty. As simple as that. However, nothing is banned by the treaty and stuff that doesn't fall under the treaty are irrelevant since they don't fall under the treaty and have nothing to do with this topic.

      Show me where it says this stuff your claiming. It doesn't. The UN has no power what so ever to ban specific weapons, you pulled that out of your ass. It can only set up things like embargo that is it. There no way for them to ban specific weapons in any way what so ever under this treaty.

      As I said before, they also can't just change the UN founding charter on rules for embargoes, which we have already been following since the creation of the UN over 50 years now. This treaty doesn't allow for the UN to just adopt a measure and change anything. You are living a paranoid fantasy. None of the stuff you claim is even remotely true. The UN can't do any of the stuff you think it can. None of it is in the treaty at all.

      The treaty is about imports and exports on an international level. It does not effect private gun owners in any way what so ever. It can't effect them. There is no possible way the treaty could ban guns in the US. Even if the US got kicked out of the UN and then we had embargoes set against us the treaty wouldn't stop US gun manufactures from just selling guns to citizen, but that entire idea is silly any way because if we got kicked out of the UN we obviously wouldn't be following all the UN treaties.

      I am not sure what is so hard to understand about this, it is all there in black and white for you to read at any time. The treaty is about import and export and only has limitations set against countries that commit genocide and war crimes, and doesn't say anything at all about specific weapons or private owners.

    9. #34
      high mileage oneironaut Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Stickie King Populated Wall Referrer Silver 10000 Hall Points Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      Sageous's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2011
      LD Count
      40 + Yrs' Worth
      Gender
      Location
      Here & Now
      Posts
      5,031
      Likes
      7154
      For what it's worth, the term "conventional weapons" does include everything non-nuclear, non-biological, or non-chemical, from handguns to aircraft carriers.

      Also for what it's worth: Isn't the very premise of this conversation sort of moot? The single defining element of the UN, since its inception, has been its complete inability to do anything at all, including exercising any real power or international respect. Does anybody really think that a UN treaty would ever alter the domestic policy of any country, much less one as powerful as the US?

      I'm not arguing because, frankly, there is no point; this subject is right up there with abortion in the unresolvable issues dept. But I figured it worth mentioning these two things anyway.

    10. #35
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Sageous, I don't trust the scum at the U.N. to agree with you or Wikipedia. Conventional weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Key word: "generally." I also don't trust our politicians not to use this treaty as an excuse for unconstitutional shenanigans. This is the Obama Administration we're talking about.

      Alric, look very closely this time:

      Article 3

      Prohibited Transfers

      A. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.


      That gives the U.N. Security Council power to adopt a measure and tell us certain weapons cannot be imported here. There is no way around that. Would you like to argue that Barack Obama and his administration are trustworthy and have not already enacted unconstitutional policies? They want the world wide gun ban just like so many others at the U.N. Did you see the videos I posted about the U.N.'s gun prohibition agenda? We can't give these people even an inch on this. They will abuse it.

      Didn't you used to be a Libertarian? What happened?
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    11. #36
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      No it doesn't. Try reading that sentence again. You are misreading what it says and jumping to conclusions. It says that a country shall not authorize transfer of weapons if it violates the obligations we already have in cases of things like UN embargoes and blockades. That is what is Chapter VII of the charter talks about, and that is why it specifically mentions embargoes. The UN can not just adopt a measure and ban certain weapons. They can not do that, that isn't listed under what they can do.

      The UN isn't going to put an embargo on the US and they sure the hell are not going to put a blockade on the US. The US would veto a blockade and even if we were kicked out of the UN our navy would easily crush a blockade. Not to mention there is no fucking way the UN could blockade the entire US, our country is way to big. That is the only way they can stop trade to the US, is with sanctions such as embargoes or military blockades. That is not going to happen and that isn't even what you think might happen.

      There is nothing in this treaty that allows them to restrict weapons in any other way. There is nothing in it that allows them to ban weapons of citizens in any way at all. You think the US is going to allow the UN to ban our army from having weapons? That is retarded. They would have to block all weapons from the US and the point is to stop military from getting weapons illegally.

      The only way this would apply to us is if the US was kicked out of the UN, they put an embargo on us and other countries were trying to supply our military with illegal weapons. That is an absurd scenario. The US is not going to get embargoed, we can vote it if it does happen, and even if we got kicked out we make our own weapons so it wouldn't even matter.

      So I repeat, there is nothing in it what so ever, that allows them to ban specific weapons, or limit weapons in any way. The only limits are in references to military actions and sanctions placed on a country, which is never going to happen to us.

      Also I am a libertarian and I am a strong gun supporter. You are just being crazy. This treaty doesn't say what you think it says. It is a treaty on international weapons trading, and stops illegal smuggling. It has absolutely nothing to do with private gun owners in the US.

    12. #37
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      The treaty does not only pertain to military weapons, and it does not specify already adopted measures. You are making stuff up. The treaty has several warped clauses we should not agree to or trust, and the one I quoted in my last post says that the U.N. Security Council can adopt a measure and make it binding on parties to the treaty. That means they can declare specific weapons "illicit" and make them barred from import into the United States. Chapter VII is broad and vague enough for a loop hole to be found. This is the U.N. during the Obama presidency. I can't believe you are so trusting.

      Besides, why do you trust the U.N. not to impose an embargo (although Chapter VII is broader than that) on the U.S. when they have a global gun ban agenda and Obama is president of the U.S. and would love such a thing? Has Obama not been shady enough for you? By the way, what do you think of Obama? Tell me all about it.






      The bottom line is that the treaty makes the every day guns American civilians use subject to international regulation. It does. I have posted the simple language repeatedly to show that. The treaty makes the every day guns American civilians use subject to international regulation. It is completely out of the question.


      If you like your insurance policy, you can keep it.


      You are not a Libertarian. You are a U.N. loving and trusting promoter of international weapons laws. The idea that the government would do anything shady to promote stricter gun control has been completely out of your zone of consideration for weeks. You don't acknowledge the reality of false flags, and you don't acknowledge even the possibility that the government would have trolls posting disinfo and smear comments in internet forums. You don't even acknowledge that the Obama Administration or the United Nations has a gun ban agenda, though they both do. You seem to be very much a Republocrat, IF you are actually being honest about what you believe.
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-16-2014 at 03:52 AM.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    13. #38
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Why do you think posting YouTube videos with provocative, often hyberbolic titles is effective in bolstering your argument, UM?
      Last edited by BLUELINE976; 03-16-2014 at 03:36 AM.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    14. #39
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      Why do you think posting YouTube videos with provocative, often hyberbolic titles is effective in bolstering your argument, UM?
      Uh, the idea is for people to watch them and learn different perspectives and arguments concerning what is absolutely insane about the treaty. Have you actually watched any of the videos?

      Why the #$%* is that the only thing you have said in this thread? Since you're here now, what do you think of the treaty, government-hating anarchist?

      I am having deja vu. You have a weird habit of being silent in threads about government intrusion until you find some little thing about something I have said or posted to criticize. That's a bizarre set of priorities. How much of an anti-statist are you, really? Tell us about it.

      The thread is about the treaty, not me. Say something intelligent.
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-16-2014 at 03:43 AM.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    15. #40
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      You just copied and pasted the part about embargoes, how could you not have seen it?

      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      A. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.
      That is what Chapter VII of the UN charter is all about. It is says the security council may call for things like blockades, economic sanctions and embargoes on countries that disrupt world wide peace.

      There is nothing in this treaty that says the UN can make new rules later on and you have to follow them, you are totally wrong on that. Also it doesn't allow the ban of specific weapons. You are wrong on that as well. Those things are no where in the treaty. When it says adopt a measure it isn't talking about new laws, hence the reason they say measures "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations". Which means that if they put in place an embargo you are supposed to follow it. The embargo is a measure that the UN is adopting. They are not new laws but sanctions the UN places on specific countries for violating peace. There is no reference to new laws any where at all, and none of the stuff in the charter allows for the ban of specific weapons world wide.

      Also there are no illicit weapons as a kind of weapon. They can not declare a kind of weapon illicit and ban it. It doesn't say that any where at all. An illicit weapon is any weapon that is brought into a country illegally, ie smuggled into a country. The treaty doesn't make any distinction what so ever in the kinds of weapon, it just lists what they consider a conventional weapon and everything else are not weapons in their mind and so the treaty doesn't effect them what so ever. Nuclear weapons and chemical weapons fall under different specific treaties. They can not ban any weapons with this treaty.

      Lastly I am most definitely a libertarian. I don't really like Obama, and I think the UN can be pretty corrupt at times. I never said false flags can't happen, and I know some have happened in the past in some countries. However, I also have well developed critical thinking skills and I know that if you let your own personal biases go unnoticed it will influence your thinking in negative ways. I am an honest person, so I am not going to lie to myself or anyone else, I want the truth. No matter what that truth might be, I think it is always better to know the truth than to not know it.

      That is why I can look at something like this objectively and tell what it says and what it doesn't say. I am extremely pro gun, and I can say with full confidence that this bill does not effect private gun owners in the US in any way what so ever. Further more it couldn't harm private gun owners in the US. there is nothing in the treaty that would allow such a thing. I am not saying it because I support Obama and I am not saying it because I support the UN, because I don't like either of them. I am saying it because it is true.
      Last edited by Alric; 03-16-2014 at 03:54 AM.

    16. #41
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      Uh, the idea is for people to watch them and learn different perspectives and arguments concerning what is absolutely insane about the treaty. Have you actually watched any of the videos?
      I haven't. I've just often found that titles like those can be greatly exaggerated and not quite in line with the reality of a situation.

      Why the #$%* is that the only thing you have said in this thread? Since you're here now, what do you think of the treaty, government-hating anarchist?
      Because I've had neither the time or interest. I might skim through it and post some thoughts soon.

      I am having deja vu. You have a weird habit of being silent in threads about government intrusion until you find some little thing about something I have said or posted to criticize. That's a bizarre set of priorities. How much of an anti-statist are you, really? Tell us about it.
      Sometimes I care about the way a point of view is being portrayed more than the actual discussion. So if you find me nitpicking your posts it's because your ideas might be close to my own, just not argued as effectively as I think they could be.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    17. #42
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Alric...

      Well, at least you acknowledge that false flags have happened in other countries. Can you explain why you don't acknowledge that they have happened in the United States and that there are declassified documents which prove it?

      The treaty language does say that the U.N. Security Council can adopt measures and hold all parties to the treaty to the measures. It does not specify that the measures have to have already been adopted prior to the formation of the Treaty. It doesn't! With such loose terms and such a shaky rule, we would be out of our minds to enter that treaty. If you really were a Libertarian, you would acknowledge Obama's and the U.N.'s gun control agenda and see why this shaky language treaty is an insane idea.

      "It is says the security council may call for things like blockades, economic sanctions and embargoes on countries that disrupt world wide peace." - Alric

      Things like that. Imagine the possibilities. Even if it were specifically embargoes, strictly defined, why would the gun control obsessed U.N., working with the Obama Administration, not use one on us. We are dealing with vague language and a gun control agenda. It would be foolish to agree to such a thing.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...n-to-block-it/

      It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

      In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.


      Now think about this major possibility, especially considering the extreme gun control agendas of the Obama Administration and the U.N. The U.N. could declare that the U.S. has violated an arms embargo, promoted war crimes (How many foreign leaders have accused us of that?), or promoted crimes against humanity. That's all it would take! Then suddenly we have the U.N. telling us we can't export or import certain weapons. That affects U.S. civilian access to imported guns and military access to imported guns. Why do you claim that such a thing couldn't happen? If you want to keep claiming that the treaty provision concerning measures adopted by the U.N. Security Council only applies to measures that have already been adopted, explain why that is not stated in the provision.

      Don't lose track of the other problems, such as the political pressure to change domestic gun laws because of export potential and the tendency of exporters not to do business because of the paper work, strict requirement for explanations, and other bureacratic B.S. that would demotivate our exporters and our importers.





      Prison Planet.com » Ex Obama Secret Service Exposes Gun Control Agenda

      Playing games with THAT plus ambiguous language about banning gun imports would be profoundly stupid, for people who honestly value gun rights.

      The treaty is also a terrible idea for the other reasons I have discussed.

      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      So if you find me nitpicking your posts it's because your ideas might be close to my own, just not argued as effectively as I think they could be.
      Jump in when ready. This is a huge issue.
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-16-2014 at 04:47 AM.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    18. #43
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      You are suffering from a paranoia. If you think Obama would secretly work with the UN to put an embargo on the US, then I am not sure what to say. You are no longer in touch with reality. A country putting an embargo on itself would destabilize the country and likely cause a collapse. Why would Obama basically commit political suicide and ruin the chances of democrats ever winning any election ever again? Such a thing wouldn't be a secret, it would be open to everyone to see. Since the US has veto on all such things. If the US got hit by an embargo or blockade and they didn't veto it, then the person in charge would be fired on the spot and replaced by someone who would.

      None of the stuff you are saying is even remotely plausible.

      The second thing is that Obama really isn't that anti gun. He hasn't really done anything anti gun. His background check reforms wasn't gun control. If you own a gun you probably know that buying a gun from stores already require a background check. Those are the current laws in place. The background check reforms only made it so that background checks were also required at gun shows, and made it so background checks worked more efficiently. It wasn't anything like the tight gun restrictions people pretended it was. You are neck deep in bullshit propaganda and I don't think you are able to see reality anymore.

      There isn't any vague language in the treaty, you are just reading into things that are not there. There is absolutely nothing that supports the idea that the UN can pass later laws that ban gun. Nothing. It says you have to follow embargoes and sanctions and that sort of thing. That is it. There is no possible way to ban specific guns world wide with this treaty. It is impossible with how the treaty is written.

      Also there is no punishments for breaking this treaty. The UN can not place sanctions on the US for ignoring the treaty. That just isn't in there. The treaty is basically a good faith measure, that you sign it and fulfill it to the best of your ability in good faith because you want to stop genocide. The UN can't just ban guns in the US because we violated an embargo. There is nothing in that treaty to support that at all. You basically just made that up.

      Also, I have no idea where you are getting this shit from. It clearly says that you are not supposed to trade if the UN puts people under embargoes and blockades or if they commit war crimes or genocide. That is it. Those are the only restrictions in that entire treaty. You can trade with everyone else all you want. The point is to stop genocide so it says you will not trade with people who commit genocide. Seems pretty simple and straight forward to me. None of these restrictions you are bringing up appear in the treaty at all, and do not exist.

      It is impossible for the UN to ban guns using this treaty. It is impossible. They can not. At worst all they could do is put an embargo or blockade on the US and that isn't going to happen because the US would just veto it. The US is a permanent member of the security council and can veto those things. There is no danger what so ever to gun rights in the US. The treaty doesn't effect private gun owners in any way at all.

      How many times do I need to explain it? This treaty only applies to international trade and blocks smuggling to areas of armed conflict and genocide. It doesn't effect anyone here at all.

      The only US citizen who could possibly be harmed by this treaty are people who own business that illegally sells arms to warlords in places like Somalia and those people are not only criminals but they are the scum of the earth. Why are you so insistent on protecting arm smugglers who sell weapons to warlords who rape, kill and commit genocide against people in their countries? This treaty doesn't hurt any private gun owners at all.
      Last edited by Alric; 03-16-2014 at 05:19 AM.

    19. #44
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      After a cursory glance, the treaty doesn't seem like some groundbreaking new attack on our national sovereignty or gun rights. Section 6 of the Preamble pretty clearly states the tone of the treaty with regard to intranational firearms commerce. Furthermore, if this treaty provided a real legal basis to sidestep the Second Amendment, I would absolutely expect to see more attention given to it. I've seen very little outside of a few Reason articles (if you and I are restricting ourselves to libertarian circles).

      There are a few issues with it, such as the use of the term "end users" in Article 11 which is quite vague. Most would probably expect that to mean members of militant groups or the militant groups themselves, but as I said, it's vague. So before you try to critique my credentials as you have done with Alric, realize that I do recognize the potential issues with this treaty.

      Whatever the future implications of this treaty may be on domestic arms sales, I doubt they are as catastrophic as you believe they will be, UM. It's a UN treaty, so as with most things coming out of the UN, I expect this treaty to be largely useless and a non-issue. Maybe I'm just more optimistic than you are.

      And if some future president wanted to ban guns in the U.S. using this treaty as a basis, well, they legally wouldn't be able to.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    20. #45
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Alric...

      Come on, "Libertarian." Why do you trust Obama so much? Why do you assume that he wants the best for the United States? Obama signed the continuation of the Patriot Act and the NDAA (which allows the government to indefinitely detain and kill U.S. citizens without a trial), backs the NSA's PRISM program, and is droning the shit out of innocents in the Middle East (which of course gives terrorism incentive). You trust him not to work with the U.N. to achieve a ban on imported guns to the U.S.? I don't think you are really that naive. Tell the truth.

      You, a supposed Libertarian, think that Obama's gun control measures are no big deal? Then it's official. You are lying about your political affiliation.

      Your side of this argument comes down to trusting (or not caring about the control agendas of) the Obama Administration and the U.N., despite their contempt for the U.S. Constitution and their gun control agenda. I do have a problem with what is going on, and I don't trust the U.N. or the Obama Administration. We should not agree to a treaty that gives the U.N. such an easy way to ban gun imports to the United States. That is what they would LOVE to do.



      If you ever really were a Libertarian, you should come back and join us again.


      BLUELINE, you know that the liberal news media doesn't want this to be a big story. It has been big on Fox News and other non-liberal outlets. We are not debating whether the U.N. would be able to tell U.S. citizens that they can't own guns. The very realistic worry is that the U.N. could use their broad language to ban imports of certain types of guns to the United States, that American politicians would have a major excuse plus major pressure to demand a gun registry for U.S. citizens, and that inhibitions would be put on exporters because they would have to explain all of their business deals.
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-16-2014 at 05:36 AM.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    21. #46
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      If you have a specific issue with my post, please quote the relevant parts and reply to them directly.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    22. #47
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      If you have a specific issue with my post, please quote the relevant parts and reply to them directly.
      I responded to your entire post. I think you agree with me on the vagueness of the language and the potential for bans on imports, though you think U.N. decisions are less relevant than I think they are.

      How well do you think the Second Amendment has been followed in recent times? Do you think the Obama Administration values the Second Amendment?

      What do you think of U.S. involvement with the U.N.? Should there even be a U.N.?
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-16-2014 at 06:06 AM.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    23. #48
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      It has nothing to do with trust. Like I said the treaty doesn't allow a gun ban, and there is nothing in it to support what you think. Also treaties don't override US constitution so you can't ban guns in the US with a treaty anyway. Though that is a moot point since this treaty doesn't ban guns and can't be used to ban guns. There is nothing in it to allow such a thing.

      It doesn't matter how evil you think the UN is, or how evil you think Obama is, that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The UN could want to eat children and that doesn't change the fact that nothing in this treaty effects private gun owners. None of the things you suggested can happen with regards to this specific treaty. So there is no reason to worry, it can't happen.

      They might want to pass some future treaty later but that is a future treaty. This one doesn't do anything you think it does though. It just stops smugglers from selling guns to warlords who are committing genocide.

    24. #49
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      This is Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter:

      Charter of the United Nations: Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Agression


      Article 39

      The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

      Article 40

      In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

      Article 41

      The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

      Article 42

      Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


      That is vague and very open to possibility. Now let's go down memory lane...

      Article 3 (U.N. Arms Trade Treaty)

      Prohibited Transfers

      A. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.


      Now put all of that together. A party would not be able to authorize shipment of guns to the United States if the U.N. has adopted a measure against the United States because the U.N. has decided that the U.S. is a threat to the peace, has breached the peace, or has engaged in an act of aggression. That's all it would take. Why do you claim to trust this?
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    25. #50
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      I replied to your post before you edited it. I thought that unlettered tirade was directed at me, not Alric.

      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind
      BLUELINE, you know that the liberal news media doesn't want this to be a big story. It has been big on Fox News and other non-liberal outlets.
      Do they actually think it's a big story? I don't watch any of the big-name media outlets, especially not Fox or MSNBC. That's why I restricted the reaction to libertarian circles, since that's where I'd expect most of the outcry to come from should this treaty actually be substantial. Mainline conservative outlets like the Heritage Foundation had some articles, but it's rare that I trust their analyses. They're especially poor on immigration issues, but I digress.

      We are not debating whether the U.N. would be able to tell U.S. citizens that they can't own guns. The very realistic worry is that the U.N. could use their broad language to ban imports of certain types of guns to the United States, that American politicians would have a major excuse plus major pressure to demand a gun registry for U.S. citizens, and that inhibitions would be put on exporters because they would have to explain all of their business deals.
      I'm not sure what sort of traction a ban on gun imports to the U.S. would get. Worrying? Sure. Is it actually plausible? I don't know.

      A gun registry is probably not likely, unless registry prohibition is repealed.

      Exporters having to explain their business deals might be an issue.

      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind
      How well do you think the Second Amendment has been followed in recent times?
      I'll put it this way: it could be worse. Our ability to legally carry and maintain guns is not directly under attack, but there are a lot of dumb laws in place.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 4
      Last Post: 06-05-2008, 11:53 AM
    2. Hezbollah Guaranteed By U.s. 2nd Amendment
      By Leo Volont in forum Extended Discussion
      Replies: 24
      Last Post: 09-08-2006, 12:18 AM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •