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

Originally Posted by Alric

I already said it was the country themselves that authorizes the transfers of arms. Also, like I pointed out several times, they are talking about international trade only. The records have nothing to do with with registering firearms belonging to any citizens in the US. It is is for overseas exporting and importing that you need records of what you are selling and buying overseas. Which is currently the law already in the US.

Are you reading my posts? The treaty makes a distinction between what a country authorizes and what weapons are within the scope of the treaty. Countries would have to authorize transfers of only weapons they are authorized to authorize. Because countries have to explain their authorizations (of weapons allowed by the U.N. for transfer), countries will have reason to hesitate on allowing gun trades. That is limitation on two levels.

Originally Posted by Alric

None of this has anything even remotely to do with any citizens owning guns and no one has to register them. This is 100% compatible with US laws and there is no reason we shouldn't be signing this treaty. All it would do is help communication between our countries and other countries so we can ensure smugglers are not slipping through the cracks. As in someone reports to the US authorities that they are shipping guns to country A but when they leave port they illegally smuggle them to country B where genocide is going on.

Why are you ignoring my points about that? I have already cleared this up. What are you doing? This treaty involves telling countries what weapons they are allowed to have imported to them and exported from them. That gives the U.N. power to decide what guns Americans can buy from foreign companies. Why are you not getting that? Also, the treaty coupled with the U.N. political climate would put pressure on American politicians to change U.S. laws because part of the treaty agreement would be to use American domestic gun laws to aid and support the carrying out of the treaty. It would put us in a position where a politician would be prone to banning all of the guns that are barred from export by the U.N. The treaty also puts pressure on U.S. politicians to keep records of "end users" of weapons. "End users" are the last people who bought the guns. That is a gun registry. The U.N. does not demand it with the treaty, but they urge it. Urge is a strong force in a political climate. This treaty is a horrible idea.

So, the simple and innocent picture you are trying to present is false. If you disagree with the specific points I have made, explain why. You have been ignoring them.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

They have drones, unparalleled air power, and manpower. Even if NYC united and revolted, the US Government could wipe the city out in hours. Personally, I'd rather remove the chances of public massacres.

This is one of the most ridiculous and unrealistic arguments ever made...

The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense only had 2000 active members in it's prime, many of the rank-and-file members being poor and uneducated folks from the slums, yet they were deemed the greatest threat to the internal security of the United States. Not because of their guns, but simply because they had the support of a fairly sizable segment of the nation. When it comes to guerrilla warfare, the amount of firepower always has been, and always will be, largely irrelevant outside of small skirmishes.

If the US was to declare war on the citizens as a whole, the government would collapse within weeks. Not only due to external forces - international outrage, trades deals slipping the wayside, market crashes, international attempts at intervention, etc - but members within the US government itself would defect within days, along with most US soldiers. Hell, the country wouldn't even be able to recover economically without the support of the nation's taxes.