Printable View
I already explained why. Those things are not bans of specific weapons like you were saying, they are economic sanctions, and embargoes and blockades and things like that. There is no way the UN will put embargoes on the US because the US is a permanent member of the security council and can veto the embargo. There is pretty much no reason to worry as long as the US has the final say on if the embargo takes place or not, which we have.
A member nation of the U.N. security council can veto an embargo on itself? Where did you get that? I'm not saying you're incorrect, but do you have a source for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
There is something you are overlooking. Barack Obama is the president of the United States.
My major problem with the treaty would be a problem even if we never agree to it. It's a bad treaty with or without us, and I don't think we should support such a thing. Where we could really get hurt by joining it is by limitations on our export potential and how that could influence our politicians to enact bad domestic laws and also by the gun registry that is urged by the treaty. Gun registries invade privacy and discourage gun ownership.
That is what Russia did when the UN recently tried to pass a resolution saying they couldn't take over Crimea, Russia just said nope and vetoed it. That is the fundamental power of the people who are permanently on security council which is made up of the US, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom. I believe there is 15 members on the security council but 5 are permanent since those countries basically created the UN. The others don't get a veto and they rotate.
Voting System and Records for the United Nations Security Council
So the US would just veto anything that goes against them. So there is no danger of that. There is no gun registry mentioned in the treaty and the only thing they keep track are imports and exports. Also it doesn't effect our legit gun businesses as far as importing and exporting, it only effects illegal weapon dealers. If there are US arm dealers who are going into areas where genocide is taking place we should be shutting down their businesses. And there almost certainly are US people doing that.
I am not sure why you would want to promote illegal arms smuggling to help in the murder of innocent people. That is morally repugnant and there is no way we should be protecting businesses that does such things. This treaty is something that is needed in the world and something we should support all the way. It is aimed at stopping illegal smuggling of weapons to warlords who murder innocent people. It doesn't effect US citizens and private gun owners in any way what so ever.
What if Obama agrees with whatever it is? The language is so broad that the U.N. Security Council could ban specifically the importing of hand guns to the U.S. because we "breached the peace" or something. I don't trust that it would be vetoed. The Obama Administration would love that. Remember that we are talking about a president who has walked all over the Bill of Rights. I am talking about the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Amendments. He has backed policies that give the middle finger to all six of those amendments. We don't have a Constitutionalist for a president. We have somebody who is pushing as hard as he can toward a socialist police state.
The treaty does urge that countries keep records of things such as "end users," which are gun owners. A collection of those records would be a registry.
Also, there is the export inhibition issue I have described, especially because the treaty involves changing domestic laws to suit the treaty. I want to remind you that Obama and the U.N. both have extremist gun control agendas. This is another Obamacare style deception stunt.
Did you watch any of the Ambassador John Bolton video? He is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He explains the problems with the treaty.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal? - Forbes
"Others, such as former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, caution gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
"Don’t forget that an Illinois senator named Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. That was after he served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago which contributed large grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations."
ARTICLE 12
ENFORCEMENT
Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.
They can not ban specific weapons, there isn't anything to support that at all. You don't seem to understand what these things are, are basically acts of wars against countries. Economic sanctions and embargoes are a 'soft' kind of war because it doesn't directly kill people. However they can indirectly kill people and many people in like Iraq suffered and even died because of harsh UN sanctions placed on them before the war.
So what you are suggesting is the idea that Obama would allow the UN to go to war with US and he and the rest of the government is going to sit there and take it while the UN topples our government. There is no way in hell the UN is going to send troops or try to blockade the US and there is no way they are going to use soft war methods like embargoes to try to damage the US economy when we have a veto. Those fears you have are just not realistic at all. There is no rules that let the UN just ban some guns, they can't do that. They would have to use non-violant forms of war to physically block trade to the US and that just isn't going to happen.
The language is broad and vague enough to be used for something other than that, and you are not acknowledging the untrustworthy, anti-gun nature of the people we are dealing with.
Plus, what you posted only covers the clause about measures adopted by the U.N. Security Council. There are also the issues about gun export inhibitions, the clause about changing domestic laws to support the treaty, and records of end users.
Why are you not addressing any of the videos or articles I am posting?
Will you acknowledge the gun rights infringement agenda of the Obama Administration and the U.N.?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbko_zhfkmY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwro9jUf1C4
Notice the Sandy Hoax actors standing with Obama there.
More Obama anti-gun propaganda with Sandy Hoax actors present:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ04thDJE1M
Whatever legitimate arguments you may have with regard to the Sandy Hook tragedy, I guarantee you that calling it "Sandy Hoax" does you no favors.
It's good for a chuckle. Thank you for again addressing what really matters in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
This U.N. bull shit was one of the reasons for Sandy Hoax. Feinstein's gun control bill and the Connecticut gun grab were two other reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4d2g9XIFnE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAVnSIHryFo
I am ignoring the videos and stuff because they are not relevant to the discussion. I read the treaty my self so I don't need other people to tell me what is in it. That seems to be your problem. You are basing stuff not on what the treaty says but basing it on political rhetoric you heard in videos and stuff.
The treaty doesn't allow for the specific bans of weapons. It only allowed for the specific targeting of individual countries. The UN isn't going to declare war on all the countries on earth, or even most, or even half. So the idea that they will use the treaty to ban weapons every where is pretty silly. They only put a handful of embargoes and stuff in place and they are against the countries that really are committing genocide and war crimes at mass levels.
Also, like I pointed out several times, none of this stuff effects weapon exporters in the US. All the requirements they ask for is stuff that is already in the US laws. If you are shipping weapons across the US border and trading internationally you already have to tell the government what you are shipping and where it is going and that sort of thing. You do realize that the US isn't the only country in the world right? All this stuff basically brings the rest of the world up to the US standards as far as regulations go. Even one of your videos you posted said as much, that it wasn't about changing how the US does things but bringing people to our level.
So there isn't added paperwork on businesses or anything like that, all these laws are already in place in the US. Though they are not in place in other areas. This treaty basically brings everyone up to the same standards, and facilitates communications between countries. Which even benefits us since we can better communicate with others in case we do find people smuggling things in and out of our country.
Like I keep saying this treaty doesn't effect private gun owners at all.
The videos and articles are relevant because they explain the meaning and significance of the treaty and what the outcomes could be.
I have explained specifically how the treaty could result in problems with our export potential and changes in domestic laws that result from them, especially because the treaty agreement involves countries shaping their laws to accompany the treaty smoothly. I have also explained the shakiness of the language and the politicians who support it. The treaty does demand new paper work because it demands new information about why people are making the business deals they are making and how it's really okay, and the new paper work is very nosy and part of an international system. I have explained what is problematic about that. The treaty concerns illegal weapons, and I have explained what is ambiguous about that term and how the U.N. would be making the decisions on what qualifies and what doesn't. I have explained all of this. What you are saying does not counter my specific points. It just asserts that they are wrong. You need to explain logical and true direct counterarguments to those points. You haven't given them yet.
There are no illegal weapons under this treaty. I don't know where you keep getting this stuff from because it isn't in the treaty at all. There are no illegal weapons. There is nothing mentioning that any where in the treaty at all. See that is the problem, you keep bringing up things that are not mentioned in the treaty. How am I supposed to explain my reasoning? The reasoning is simple, it isn't in the treaty and you made it up.
What is illegal is selling weapons to people the UN has declared to be committing war crimes and genocide. The weapons are not illegal, and there is no references to any weapons being illegal. You keep mentioning they might ban certain kinds of weapons or something but there is no mention of that what so ever. All they do is mention groups that it is illegal to trade with and those are people committing war crimes and stuff.
That is why I am saying that can't do something like say, "You can no longer sell rifles to the US." That isn't how the treaty is set up. What they would have to do is say, "The US is a treat to the world so we are setting up an embargo to ban all trading with them." Which will get veto. Of course it will get veto, there is no way the US would accept that. You can't selectively ban some weapons, there is no reference to that what so ever. You can only put sanctions and embargoes on countries that is disrupting worldwide peace.
Also you keep acting like the UN is putting pressure on people, but they are not. The treaty says it recognizes the right of people to have weapons and private property and that they don't want to interfere with that. Then throughout the entire thing it mentions suggestions and specifically says the countries should follow their own laws. There is also no punishment and it says any country and stop enforcing the treaty at any time. There is pretty much no pressure at all. The treaty is pretty weak and is basically followed only by the good faith of anyone who signs it. There is no pressure put on anyone if we sign it.
I think you really need to read the entire treaty from start to finish, so you understand what it actually says.
You are still avoiding a lot of my major points. As for what the treaty says about illegal weapons, here you go:
The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:
- For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;
- To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;
Why the distinction?
There is pressure in the political climate of the U.N. any way, but the treaty urges keeping records of end users and demands explanations for exporting weapons shipments. The treaty also says that nations are agreeing to shape their domestic laws to assist the treaty. Of course that puts pressure on countries. It also gives excuses to snakes in the grass in office.
Like I said, there was no reference to illegal guns was there? You just copy and pasted it, proving I was right. There are no illegal guns in this treaty only illegal destinations for guns. We already went over that, the illegal destinations are people under sanctions and embargoes from the UN. So they can't restrict trade to the US unless they put an embargo on us which we would just veto.
Also you keep ignoring the fact that none of the requirements are anything new since the US already has arms trading laws on the book. You make it sound like it is legal to freely ship weapons in and out of the country. It isn't.
Here is an example of a form to export a fire arm.
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/downl...f-f-5320-9.pdf
Notice that it requires your name, address, number of weapons, types of weapons, barrel size and descriptions, serial number, where you are exporting to, your federal firearms Federal Firearms License(which is tracked), employment identification number, State Department License Number for the Specific Shipment ect. Notice how it is just an application and it needs to be checked out and may be denied.
Wait doesn't that sound familiar?
Look at that, all the stuff it asks for is already covered by current US laws. All that stuff your complaining about being an unneeded burden on exporters is stuff they are already required by law to do. It even has the end user listed, which would be the name and address of the consignee listed on that form. Like I said it doesn't change anything for people in the US. We already have laws for all this stuff.Quote:
Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
The application doesn't involve an explanation for why the deal needs to be made and how it isn't a problem. That's something the treaty introduces. Also, that is a U.S. federal application. The international law factor adds a problem. Answering to your own government is one thing. Answering to the United Nations is another. They have no business screwing with American companies over their gun exports. I recognize my government as a legitimate institution of law, but not the U.N.
You didn't counter my point about the distinction between "illicit trade in conventional arms" and "their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use." The second part is concerned with who buys the guns. What is the first part about? Also, what would stop the U.N. from using their broad and vague powers granted by the treaty to declare certain guns illegal?
You still have not countered my point about how the treaty involves changing domestic laws to suit the treaty. Export complication issues would affect gun manufacture laws in the U.S. That is a problem.
Make sure you answer my questions and counter my points if you still disagree with them. I am doing a lot of repeating because you are doing a lot of dodging.
http://www.rferl.org/content/un-arms.../25117736.html
According to Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, formal support from the United States gives the treaty the potential to change the very nature of the global arms trade.
"The United States already has a very robust set of standards and export controls," he says. "This treaty essentially internationalizes the U.S. system and lays down some prohibitions on the transfer of conventional weapons. And this treaty will require all states to establish export laws, to enforce those export laws, and to abide by a common set of standards."
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ed-feu...s-trade-treaty
Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Should Not Sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty:
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...s-trade-treaty
I didn't dodge anything, and I explained it all. You are just not listening to what I am saying.
Both of those thing you said are related to who you sell to. I am not sure what is so difficult about this. The UN can't declare certain weapons illegal because there is nothing at all in the treaty that allows it. It isn't there, there is nothing there. You made that all up. Show me where it implies they can do it. I keep asking you but you can't show me because it isn't there. You say it is vague enough allow it but there is nothing that vague in the treaty. You basically made up that idea and nothing in the treaty supports it.
Secondly, exporters don't have to report to the UN. Once again you just made that part up. It clearly says the exporters report to their own country and their own country authorizes the trades, which is what happens now. The only extra step is that our government then sends the report of the stuff they collect to other countries. That is it. There is no new laws or requirements for exporters, and the government isn't collecting any new information. The only change is that the government shares the information they get with others, that is it. So it doesn't effect exporters at all. They already have to do all this. That is the current law, nothing changes for them.
You are pretending I am not counting your argument but that is because you are just ignoring what I am saying and dodging the issue. The fact that we don't have to change any laws because we already have all those laws on the books pretty much destroys your entire argument. You don't have a leg to stand on. Your idea that laws will be changed has been utterly refuted.
What is hilarious is that you just posted a quote agreeing with me. That quote from Daryl Kimball basically that it doesn't change our laws at all because they are already on the books and it just helps other countries implement laws similar to the US already has. Like I said so many times, it pretty much doesn't effect us at all, and it definitely doesn't effect private gun owners.
It does really matter. The way an argument is presented can be just as important as the argument itself. Never mind the fact that it isn't funny whatsoever. It makes you look childish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Alric, the countries that are involved in the treaty answer to the U.N. in regard to what they are doing in accordance with the treaty. I asked why there is a distinction between the parts I separated with a big red "and." You keep ignoring the fact that the language of the treaty is broad and shaky, among the other things you are ignoring.
You are worthless in this thread. Some "anarchist" you are. If you were for real, you would have major issues with the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty and the United Nations itself. The only thing you are commenting on is ME. That is pathetic. It is extremely bizarre that you have not taken issue with Alric on a single point. Either discuss the issues or go do something with yourself. Ha ha, "anarchist." What a crock of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I didn't ignore any points you made, I addressed them all. Those things are not talking about illegal weapons but weapons being illegally traded or stolen. The treaty isn't shaky at all and is a pretty simple and straight forward treaty. There is nothing at all shady about it. It is only broad in that it allows a great deal of freedom for the countries to implement things as they see fit.
I am not sure why but you are taking the fact that they are giving them a lot of freedom and flexibly to choose how to implement it, as if it was some sneaky way of tricking people or something. The reason it says stuff like, You "may" do this or that and that things should fall in line with your countries own existing laws, is because they are leaving it open to people to decide for them self how to do it.
The treaty isn't oppressive in any way at all, it is an extremely laxed treaty with a lot of room for people to decide things for them self. There is no enforcement and you can leave at all time you want, and each country can pick and choose which things they want to enforce. That isn't some oppressive treaty that is forcing people to do stuff, it is the exact opposite. If anything the treaty will probably not mean much because it lacks any sort of real bite. It is a flimsy treaty that basically relies on the good faith of everyone involved to try and improve things.
It is nothing like the evil oppressive treaty you are trying to make it out to be.
I don't have major issues with the treaty. I said it will likely not be a serious piece of legislation, useless in effect, much like the UN in general. If I am wrong, so be it. It's hard to become riled up over something you think isn't of any significance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Furthermore, it is not necessary for there to be a relationship between being an anarchist and having a vitriolic hatred for the UN or this treaty. Their priorities may lie elsewhere.
I explained why I do so, but let me reiterate in clearer terms. You post your ideas under the tent of libertarianism, but you are also a very poor communicator for those ideas. I want you to stop poisoning our tradition and ideology with garbage like "Sandy Hoax" and overly provocative/sensationalist rhetoric.Quote:
The only thing you are commenting on is ME. That is pathetic.
I haven't given his posts any time to read in detail, though from a quick look he seems to think this treaty isn't a big deal either.Quote:
It is extremely bizarre that you have not taken issue with Alric on a single point. Either discuss the issues or go do something with yourself. Ha ha, "anarchist." What a crock of shit.
By the way, I am pro-liberty before I am anti-state. I'm not worried about being considered an anarchist.
If you were really an anarchist, you would be against the treaty on general principle. You would also have said negative things about the existence of the U.N. by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
That's bull shit, and you're opposing the person who is expressing problems with big goverment. You have yet to do that in this thread. You used to claim that you think governments should not exist. The issue of this thread involves not only our government, but other governments our government would have to answer to. And all you want to talk about is me personally? You are in no position to address the clarity of my arguments because you haven't even shown that you understand what my arguments are or even the big issue they concern. As for poisoning the image of libertarianism, you need to quit claiming that you are a libertarian while saying you are an anarchist. We are not anarchists. We are minarchists, and we are Constitutionalists. Stop trying to make us look like a bunch of moronic 15 years olds with punk rock hair styles. That is not to say that you have been doing that in this thread. You won't even address the issues in this thread. If you have been reading it, you know what the issues are by now. Address their logic, or else stop whining. If you think my points are illogical, counter them. You will be showing your true colors even more if you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
You addressed the significance of the treaty. What do you think of the logic of the principles of the treaty? What do you think of the United Nations? What do you think of gun control? What is your opinion these days of the existence of governments? Tell us all about it. Show us your passion. Go off about your beliefs. Come on, here's a good opportunity for you to tell us about the evils of governments and controls, anarchist. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
StephL, you just poked your face in here. What is your analysis of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty? If you disagree with my points, explain why. Although I disagree with Alric, at least he has been debating the issues with me. Nobody else has.
Alric, of course it's a trick. Has the Obama Administration not pulled enough of those? "If you like your plan, you can keep it." The rest of your points are just counter assertions and not counterarguments.
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...s-trade-treaty
Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Should Not Sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
By Theodore R. Bromund, Ph.D.
The U.S. has announced that it will sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as soon as it is satisfactorily translated into all official U.N. languages. This could happen as early as August 28, when the Russian-language translation is scheduled to be completed. It is more likely to happen on September 25 at a high-profile signing ceremony currently being planned at the U.N.
Once the U.S. signs the treaty, and even without the advice and consent of the Senate, the U.S. will consider itself obliged not to violate the treaty’s object and purpose. The top 10 reasons why the U.S. should avoid putting itself in this dangerous position by not signing the ATT are:
1. A broken red line. In October 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. supported negotiation of the ATT only by “the rule of consensus decision-making.”[1] In the U.N., “consensus” means “unanimity.” But after negotiations failed to achieve consensus, the ATT was adopted with U.S. support in April 2013 by a majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. The U.S. thus broke its own red line. To protect its national interests, the U.S. often participates in negotiations only if they are conducted on the basis of consensus. The U.S.-backed turn to the majority-rule General Assembly reinforces a damaging precedent that will be cited in the future against the U.S.
2. A rushed and short-circuited review. The treaty became available on April 2. On April 5, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman stated that the U.S. review process for it would take “months, at a minimum.”[2] But on May 15, a mere six weeks later, while that review was ongoing, he announced that the U.S. would sign the ATT. Thus, the U.S. review was extremely rapid and effectively cut short before it was concluded.
3. An “ambiguous” treaty. On April 5, Countryman rightly described the ATT as “ambiguous.” The treaty defines none of its terms or defines them only by reference to other undefined terms. The treaty is a conveyor belt that will pull along its signatories—including, potentially, the U.S.—as the meanings of its terms are defined.
4. Amendments by majority rule. The treaty can be amended by a three-quarters majority vote. These amendments are binding only on nations that accept them, but the amended treaty will be used to pressure the U.S. to comply in practice with amendments it refused to accept in principle. This makes the ambiguity of the treaty more dangerous.
5. Bad for the U.S. arms export process. This process is governed by Presidential Decision Directive 34, issued by President Bill Clinton in 1995. The essence of the U.S. process is that it considers a broad range of criteria as a whole. The treaty, on the other hand, contains many prohibitions and assessment criteria that make it more akin to a checklist that must be met item by item. Over time, this checklist will become only more restrictive, further hampering the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.
6. Bad for the Second Amendment. The treaty does not exclude lawfully owned civilian firearms and contains only a weak preambular reference to civilian ownership. It creates a “responsibility” to prevent the “diversion” of firearms to the illicit trade, sets out national record-keeping on the identity of end users—i.e., individual owners—of imported firearms as a best practice, and offers justifications for imposing new administrative burdens on significant firearms imports into and exports out of the U.S. market. As the treaty is interpreted and amended, both the U.N. agencies that explicitly promote gun control and the many nations that wanted the ATT to impose even tighter domestic restrictions will pull and pressure the U.S. toward imposing further regulations.
7. Bad for the Reagan Doctrine. The treaty raises significant legal barriers against arming the opponents of totalitarian regimes. This practice is known as the Reagan Doctrine, but it has been a bipartisan instrument of U.S. foreign policy since 1945. Since the treaty will not, in practice, prevent totalitarian regimes from arming terrorists and other dictators, it offers the U.S. nothing except tighter controls on the world’s democracies.
8. Bad for export control reform. The current U.S. system of export controls is responsible but also baroquely complex. Reforms are under way to improve the U.S. system. These reforms would place tighter controls on fewer items, especially sensitive ones. But the campaign for the ATT seeks to expand the number of items covered by the treaty both through the treaty’s amendment procedure and by taking advantage of its ambiguity. The conflict between these aims can be postponed but not evaded, and the clash between them is not likely to be good for the U.S. system.
9. Bad for U.S. sovereignty. The standards at the heart of the ATT—which are based on international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and a knowledge test—are vague and readily subject to redefinition. The treaty as a whole is, as its supporters openly acknowledge, intended to create international norms that will restrain the conduct of the U.S. both by shaping the operation of the policy process and by establishing a pretended customary international law standard that will influence the deliberations of U.S. courts. This is bad for the ability of the U.S. to govern itself under the Constitution.
10. It will not work. The ATT nominally seeks to control the illicit international trade in arms. This makes as much sense as trying to control crime by outlawing it. Terrorists and dictators around the world are regularly armed directly by, or with the tacit acquiescence of, members of the U.N., frequently in violation of U.N. Security Council arms embargoes. The treaty was negotiated by the same nations that are responsible for these violations. Another serious problem is that many nations are unable or unwilling to control their own borders, secure their own stockpiles, or even keep members of their armed forces and police departments from selling their firearms. The treaty will not transform these incompetent nations into well-governed and law-abiding ones.
The U.S. Should Not Sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
The ATT is already intermingled with other U.N. institutions, several of which the U.S. has long been skeptical about on Second Amendment grounds, including the Programme of Action on Small Arms and the International Small Arms Control Standards. As a recent statement by the U.N. Secretary General put it, the U.N. sees a “synergistic relationship” between the ATT and these other institutions and expects the ATT “to lend strong impetus” to their implementation.[3] The coming years are likely to see an incremental, interpretive convergence between the ATT and these institutions in ways that will be difficult to monitor, much less control.
The U.S. decision to support negotiation of the ATT in principle was unwise. The U.S. decision to vote for the ATT in the U.N. General Assembly was even more unwise. Placing the signature of the U.S. on the ATT would be the most unwise act of all.
The UN is an institution that doesn't particularly bother or even interest me right now. I've said previously that it is largely ineffective, and I expect this treaty to be the same. Like I said, if I'm wrong, so be it. I'll change my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
And just to clarify your misconceptions: an anarchist does not need to immediately oppose certain laws or institutions. In the long term they might, but not necessarily the short term.
I understand your argument perfectly. You're worried about firearm trade restrictions on the U.S. and worried about the possibility of gun registries. I don't think either are likely to happen and a gun registry is currently illegal anyway.Quote:
That's bull shit, and you're opposing the person who is expressing problems with big goverment. You have yet to do that in this thread. You used to claim that you think governments should not exist. The issue of this thread involves not only our government, but other governments our government would have to answer to. And all you want to talk about is me personally? You are in no position to address the clarity of my arguments because you haven't even shown that you understand what my arguments are or even the big issue they concern.
I'm surprised to see that you still haven't come to the conclusion that libertarians can be both minarchists and anarchists. I don't see many people claiming that these days, and I'm more involved with libertarians IRL now more than ever. I was at a Students for Liberty conference back in November, a libertarian student organization, and nearly everybody I talked to considered themselves anarchists.Quote:
As for poisoning the image of libertarianism, you need to quit claiming that you are a libertarian while saying you are an anarchist. We are not anarchists. We are minarchists, and we are Constitutionalists. Stop trying to make us look like a bunch of moronic 15 years olds with punk rock hair styles. That is not to say that you have been doing that in this thread. You won't even address the issues in this thread. If you have been reading it, you know what the issues are by now. Address their logic, or else stop whining. If you think my points are illogical, counter them. You will be showing your true colors even more if you do.
But none of that has to do with how you poison our image by using terms like Sandy Hoax. I won't even comment here on how conspiracy theories are wildly anti-libertarian. I think I've done so in the past.
Well no, I addressed the relative insignificance of the treaty, though I did say that it was vague with regard to defining what an "end user" is. If that vagueness is exploited, you will see me become a little more interested in this treaty. The principles of this treaty seem genuine. I agree with the idea that weapons should not reach those who will do bad things with them. Whether this treaty will effectively do that is not certain, and probably not true anyway.Quote:
You addressed the significance of the treaty. What do you think of the logic of the principles of the treaty? What do you think of the United Nations? What do you think of gun control? What is your opinion these days of the existence of governments? Tell us all about it. Show us your passion. Go off about your beliefs. Come on, here's a good opportunity for you to tell us about the evils of governments and controls, anarchist. :roll:
The U.N. does have international laws, and sometimes they do enforce them. They are really selective with it, but they do. They have committed violence in the name of enforcing their laws. Are you all right with that? Should the United Nations exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
So, you are okay with laws, but just not later? :?
You don't think this treaty could affect U.S. laws in the future? Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
The Google defintion of "libertarianism":Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism
ˌlibərˈte(ə)rēəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: libertarianism
1.
an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
The Libertarian Party is minarchist.
Conspiracy theories are anti-libertarian? What about theories concerning conspiracies that did in fact happen? Many of them are declassified now. You should learn about them. Sandy Hoax has not been declassified because it just happened, but it was a hoax. Anybody with average or above intelligence who has really researched it knows that. It is not a libertarian belief. It is just a fact.
You seem pretty indifferent to governments and their rules. What I boldfaced shows clearly that you are not really an anarchist. Why have you been claiming to be one?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
You seem to think that the UN is like like super government. As if they were different levels, state government, federal government then international government which is like bigger and more powerful than everyone else. Except that isn't what the UN is at all. The UN is like a forum where governments express them self and talk to each other. It really has no power what so ever. The only power it has is what everyone agrees to willingly, and since a lot of countries don't agree on how things should be done, things rarely get done.
It is kind of silly to think the UN is trying to steal everyone's guns when it can't even get rid of things like nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or stop petty war lords in third world nations. Look at how many times the UN condemns the actions of Israel and they never been able to get them to listen. Why? Because the US likes Israel.
Blueline knows that even if this treaty passes nothing will change in the US, and that the UN has no ability to pressure the US to do anything. So he isn't worried. He is absolutely right too. This treaty doesn't allow for any of the things you suggested and even if it did it can't force anyone to do anything, it can't even pressure anyone to do anything. In fact it openly states it doesn't want to pressure anyone to do anything.