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

[Universal Mind]

We've got some serious stuff going on. Something which furthers the insanity is that this is not much of a mainstream news story. It got some mention on Fox News and debate footage on C-Span, but stuff like what a Louisiana swamp duck hunter thinks of gay people seems to be a bigger deal to most of the country. None of the extreme moves by our government have been huge news lately. What percentage of the country even knows what the National Defense Authorization Acts is? https://www.aclu.org/indefinite-dete...horization-act Our government senses weakness, and lots of people at high levels of it are attacking the country they are supposed to be governing. HOORAY - 53-46 vote U.N. small arms treaty (No votes from Texas ..., Today | Alternative "The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power." The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Xei]

Have you actually read the treaty?

[Universal Mind]

Yes. Did I miss something? Full Text Draft U.N. Arms Trade Treaty | The Truth About Guns

[Rozollo]

The Second Amendment says a lot more than "WE GET GUNS!" It says a well regulated milita has the right to keep and bear arms for the sake of a free state. First, well-regulated milita does not mean every single person gets a gun. Jefferson detailed what it was, and it was like white, male landowners only. Second, and most important, that was written when we had muskets. The time it takes to reload ONE musket, you could clear out a mall of human beings. A lot of gun nuts like to say that we need guns to protect us from the US Government. 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.

[Universal Mind]

The Second Amendment says a lot more than "WE GET GUNS!" It says a well regulated milita has the right to keep and bear arms for the sake of a free state. First, well-regulated milita does not mean every single person gets a gun. Jefferson detailed what it was, and it was like white, male landowners only. Second, and most important, that was written when we had muskets. The time it takes to reload ONE musket, you could clear out a mall of human beings. A lot of gun nuts like to say that we need guns to protect us from the US Government. 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. It does not say that only militias can have guns. It mentions militias as a rationale for why guns are allowed for everybody. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The word used there is "people," not "militias." A militia can be just one person any way. Also, the word "arms" is used, not "muskets." The founders were geniuses. They of course knew that guns would be advanced. Are you familiar with the struggle the U.S. government had against North Vietnam, Iraqi insurgents, and the Taliban? Guerilla warfare is a mother fucker. If the U.S. government were to go totalitarian, they would be up against about 100 million Americans with guns. Imagine how long and bloody that would be. That fact works as a deterrent. Plus, we at least deserve a chance at defending ourselves. Don't try to take it away from us. Also, most of the military would be on our side. A huge chunk of cops would too. So you support gun prohibition. How has drug prohibition been going? Did the government finally get the drugs off the streets? No, they didn't. Similarly, criminals are going to have guns. With that being the case, don't try to take my guns. My parents' house was broken into a while back. My dad stopped the two burglars with a gun and held them until the police showed up. My mother and sister were in the house! With gun prohibition, my dad would not have had a gun, but the burglars would have. Is that really how you want things to work? Also, what do you think of the United Nations having gun ownership authority over U.S. citizens? Do you not see something extremely warped about that?

[Rozollo]

First: "All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790 It does not say that only militias can have guns. It mentions militias as a rationale for why guns are allowed for everybody. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The word used there is "people," not "militias." A militia can be just one person any way. Also, the word "arms" is used, not "muskets." The founders were geniuses. They of course knew that guns would be advanced. Are you familiar with the struggle the U.S. government had against North Vietnam, Iraqi insurgents, and the Taliban? Guerilla warfare is a mother fucker. If the U.S. government were to go totalitarian, they would be up against about 100 million Americans with guns. Imagine how long and bloody that would be. That fact works as a deterrent. Plus, we at least deserve a chance at defending ourselves. Don't try to take it away from us. Also, most of the military would be on our side. A huge chunk of cops would too. So you support gun prohibition. How has drug prohibition been going? Did the government finally get the drugs off the streets? No, they didn't. Similarly, criminals are going to have guns. With that being the case, don't try to take my guns. My parents' house was broken into a while back. My dad stopped the two burglars with a gun and held them until the police showed up. My mother and sister were in the house! With gun prohibition, my dad would not have had a gun, but the burglars would have. Is that really how you want things to work? Also, what do you think of the United Nations having gun ownership authority over U.S. citizens? Do you not see something extremely warped about that? All that other stuff is paranoid crazy talk. If the government wanted to rule us, it'd happen very very fast. You compare other wars but you forget one thing: The US is MASSIVE. Check out this: OverlapMaps - Instantly compare any two places on Earth! Texas dwarfs Vietnam. It alone is the size of Iraq. That sounds like it'd make the government conquering us hard, right? Well, it makes communication even harder. We are politically diverse. Republicans don't 100% agree with other republicans. If the government turned on us, they'd just have to shut down power for about a month. Then, they'd conquer. In Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, they were united and close (and with Vietnam without Internet anyway). Also, the drug comparison shows a total lack of logic. No one is addicted to guns. You cannot conceal a kilo of guns anywhere. That's the difference.

[Universal Mind]

First: "All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790 I'll just take your word for it that Jefferson said that. It's not from the Constitution, and it says nothing about Constitutional rights. All that other stuff is paranoid crazy talk. If the government wanted to rule us, it'd happen very very fast. You compare other wars but you forget one thing: The US is MASSIVE. Check out this: OverlapMaps - Instantly compare any two places on Earth! Texas dwarfs Vietnam. It alone is the size of Iraq. That sounds like it'd make the government conquering us hard, right? Well, it makes communication even harder. We are politically diverse. Republicans don't 100% agree with other republicans. If the government turned on us, they'd just have to shut down power for about a month. Then, they'd conquer. In Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, they were united and close (and with Vietnam without Internet anyway). Also, the drug comparison shows a total lack of logic. No one is addicted to guns. You cannot conceal a kilo of guns anywhere. That's the difference. Some governments have quickly changed to totalitarian, but that was when the people made crazy decisions and also couldn't fight back. I don't think it will happen in the U.S., but it could happen anywhere. It's a matter of how brainwashed and how defenseless the people are. It happened in Italy, Spain, Germany, and Russia. It happened very quickly too. That was because so many of the people welcomed the changes that made the government too powerful and had been pushing for the changes and because the people had strict gun control before the governments tried to take over all the way. It is not paranoid to say that history can repeat itself. It is ignorant to say that it doesn't. None of what you are saying about guerilla warfare happened in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Korea. Those were/are long and rough wars, and the two most recent ones drove up our national debt big time. A war between the U.S. government and most of the rest of the country would be a many times bigger clusterfuck than any of those. And like I said, most of the military would be on the people's side any way. I don't think we will get to that point, but things have happened in recent times that have pushed us in the direction of it, and I know that we are not above the possibility of it. That is reason for concern. If you don't believe me, study what went on in Spain, Italy, Germany, China, and Russia in the 1910's through the 1940's. This stuff is real. I just think there are enough Americans who will wake up fast enough to make sure we don't go totalitarian if we ever get close enough to that point. That doesn't mean I am completely certain of it.

[AURON]

Banning guns is the obvious answer. Look at how effectively banning alcohol and drugs worked.

[Universal Mind]

[Alric]

That is totally untrue. This law doesn't effect gun rights of US citizens in any way. All it does is help regulate over seas gun trading in an attempt to stop illegal weapons from being funneled into war zones and used in places like Rwanda and others where genocide is going on. We should be supporting this treaty as it will save thousands of lives world wide. The people trying to stop this are just pushing gun propaganda to scare people so they will get votes. There is nothing in it at all that would harm gun owners in the US in any way, shape or form. The idea that it goes against the 2nd amendment is just bullshit. The treaty is aimed at stopping people from smuggling guns into third world nations where genocide is going on. It has nothing to do with you or me owning guns.

[Xei]

Yes. Did I miss something? Full Text Draft U.N. Arms Trade Treaty | The Truth About Guns It seems more like a case of imagining something. Which passage infringes upon the Second Amendment? What do you object to in the preamble? The treaty states in its introduction that its aims include, Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms; Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems; Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms; It's about stopping illegal international arms trading. Not legal international arms trading or domestic arms trading. Do you support illegal arms trading or something? Do you think illegal foreign arms deals are somehow necessary for upholding Second Amendment?

[Universal Mind]

Xei, let's start with what you quoted. Who would decide what is legal international arms trade? The United Nations would. The U.N. would be able to decide what guns can be sold from other countries to distributors in the United States (and other countries). The U.N. would also have a registry of gun owners in the United States, which means we would be required to fill out some papers so we can be okay with the U.N. if we own the guns they allow. Requiring Americans to have U.N. gun registry and to not be able to buy imported guns goes against "... shall not be infringed." What happens when the U.N. says no guns at all are permitted for import or export? Do we have to obey that? You can forget it. Our Constitution and the laws that exist within its boundaries are what count here. What happens when we have that nonsense and Congress decides to make the manufacture of guns in the U.S. illegal? Then Congress could say, "Hey, we didn't ban owning guns. We banned the manufacture of guns." What then? New guns would be effectively illegal in the United States. That can't happen. It is interesting that the treaty's list of reasons for owning guns does not include self-defense. They have some reason for not acknowledging that purpose. Hmmm... Ha ha, Alric, I knew which side you would be on.

[Alric]

Not a surprise that you just ignored my post as well. The treaty doesn't say any of the stuff you claim it does. It doesn't require citizens to register guns. Also the treaty clearly says it is up to each country is to decide what they will allow to be imported or exported, not the UN. The treaty just asks that there be records for importing and exporting which is already the law in the US. So the UN can't say guns will not be allowed to be exported or imported under this treaty. Basically, everything you said is wrong.

[Xei]

Xei, let's start with what you quoted. Who would decide what is legal international arms trade? Urm... the international community? That's... what international law is? You seem rather confused. The USA is obviously not the arbiter of international law, it is a single nation. The rest of the world could randomly decide amongst themselves tomorrow to ban all international arms trading. The USA couldn't do anything about it and nor would it have any right to, obviously. None of its rights would be infringed, none of its laws would even be affected. And of course such a hypothetical situation isn't even going to happen because it's entirely imaginary and ridiculous. If the USA was one of the countries trying to make all arms dealing against international law, then maybe you'd have something to kick up a fuss about, but as it is not doing so in this treaty or anywhere else and has shown zero intention of doing so, you're essentially protesting against something entirely imaginary. The treaty is about illegal international arms trading. Illegal international arms trading is - get this - against international law. Clamping down on it has nothing to do with your Second Amendment. The U.N. would also have a registry of gun owners in the United States, which means we would be required to fill out some papers so we can be okay with the U.N. if we own the guns they allow. Source? What happens when the U.N. says no guns at all are permitted for import or export? Do we have to obey that? You can forget it. Our Constitution and the laws that exist within its boundaries are what count here. What, you're going to import and export things to yourselves? You're at perfect liberty to do so, I guess? International trade doesn't stay within US borders (obviously...) and isn't under sole US jurisdiction. Alric's right, you seem to have gotten all of your information from nonsense, scaremongering sources, and that's why you ignored his post with a transparent and immature deflection.

[Universal Mind]

Not a surprise that you just ignored my post as well. The treaty doesn't say any of the stuff you claim it does. It doesn't require citizens to register guns. Also the treaty clearly says it is up to each country is to decide what they will allow to be imported or exported, not the UN. The treaty just asks that there be records for importing and exporting which is already the law in the US. So the UN can't say guns will not be allowed to be exported or imported under this treaty. Basically, everything you said is wrong. That is not true. I did address the points in your last post, and I explained my position on them. The U.N. would have the authority to decide what guns could be imported into the U.S. The language Xei quoted involving countries making their own laws is about what countries can do with gun trade within their borders. "Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;" The treaty involves the U.N. being in charge of what guns can be traded internationally. You are just being flat out dishonest. Urm... the international community? That's... what international law is? You seem rather confused. The USA is obviously not the arbiter of international law, it is a single nation. The rest of the world could randomly decide amongst themselves tomorrow to ban all international arms trading. The USA couldn't do anything about it and nor would it have any right to, obviously. None of its rights would be infringed, none of its laws would even be affected. And of course such a hypothetical situation isn't even going to happen because it's entirely imaginary and ridiculous. If the USA was one of the countries trying to make all arms dealing against international law, then maybe you'd have something to kick up a fuss about, but as it is not doing so in this treaty or anywhere else and has shown zero intention of doing so, you're essentially protesting against something entirely imaginary. The treaty is about illegal international arms trading. Illegal international arms trading is - get this - against international law. Clamping down on it has nothing to do with your Second Amendment. Source? What, you're going to import and export things to yourselves? You're at perfect liberty to do so, I guess? International trade doesn't stay within US borders (obviously...) and isn't under sole US jurisdiction. Alric's right, you seem to have gotten all of your information from nonsense, scaremongering sources, and that's why you ignored his post with a transparent and immature deflection. What I presented in my last post countered both of your bull shit claims. You two are on the same WTF team of nonsense and are making pretty much the same points, so for this thread, my points are for both of you. I do not recognize international law as being above my Constitution. The U.N. has no business telling the U.S. what guns can be imported here, but the treaty says they can. The treaty limits our trade liberty to within our borders. Read what you yourself quoted. It's out of the fucking question. The treaty also urges (which puts pressure on politicians) countries to have gun registries (which you know the U.N. would use their powers, connections, and pressures to get) and to expand existing domestic gun laws. We need to make sure we don't sign such a thing. Check out these sources: Kerry Blasted for Signing U.N. Arms Trade Treaty That Critics Say Creates De Facto Gun Registry | CNS News Gun registry 'scheme' among concerns over UN arms treaty | Fox News NRA-ILA | Obama Administration Signs United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Also see the videos I posted in post 1. I have given you sources. Don't ignore them.

[Alric]

We don't need any additional sources and videos. You posted the treaty, which we can just read. It doesn't say any of the stuff you claim it does. Right at the start it says this. 1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.” That is the only thing the treaty applies to, international trade. It has nothing at all to do with US citizens or stuff we do here in the US. It only applies to international trade. Also if you read what it says to do it clearly says that the country exporting is the one who decides if a weapon can be exported or not. It says the following. Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination. See it is the country exporting that determines if you can export or not. So the US sets up the system then decides on their own if it falls under the treaty or not. The UN isn't in control each individual country is. All the other stuff in the importing and exporting section basically says you have to keep track of what is going on and should cooperate with other countries that is exporting to you or importing your stuff. If you think I am wrong, go read the treaty. Where does it say anything about registering guns of civilians? It doesn't. It only mentions keeping track of guns being traded internationally. If your gun isn't being traded internationally it doesn't need to be recorded. Those are the laws we have now. You can not send weapons overseas without telling people you are. That is called smuggling. It is illegal under current US law to smuggle things in and out of the US. This law basically says all transfers overseas need to be recorded, ie not smuggled secretly into a country. You are totally wrong on this.

[Universal Mind]

Read the quote more carefully. Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination. Obviously there is a distinction between what is within the scope of the treaty and what a country decides is okay to trade from what is within the scope of the treaty. The U.N. would be deciding what can be traded. This measure also demands paper work with explanations concerning arms trade deals countries make. That puts pressure on countries to limit their options even further. The sources I posted links to can help you understand the treaty better.

[Universal Mind]

Article 11 Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively. 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. States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market. Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive. 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.

[Alric]

If you read the entire thing the 'scope' of the treaty fully allows each country to decide for it self what is allowed and what isn't. So that doesn't change anything, each country is allowed to decide if it will authorize the exporting and importing of weapons. The one exception is that it asks that people not send weapons to countries under UN embargoes. Which isn't really a big deal since we should be going along with those sort of things anyway. I like how you selectively highlighted stuff too. You have to read the entire thing in context. Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively. 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. States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market. Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive. 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. It clearly says that a country "may" keep records, and that they should still fit within their countries own laws and they only apply to the importing and exporting of weapons. None of that has anything to do with weapons that are not being shipping to or from overseas. There is no gun registration called for by this treaty. You are just wrong. Read it again if you have to.

[Universal Mind]

Keeping the records is mandatory. What goes in the records is partly optional. Notice that one of the things the records "may" contain is "authorized arms transfers." Who authorizes them? Countries that are not participating with all of the "may" stuff, such as "end users," will potentially be shunned and have less cooperative power at the U.N. That is an element of pressure that makes this problematic. Our leaders could use that pressure element to try to justify bad gun legislation in the U.S. In case you haven't noticed, I am not a fan of the U.N. We have a country and a Constitution here, and we do not need to be answering to other countries. Playing games with the relationship between our domestic laws and the U.N.'s laws is a terrible idea, and I am really suspicious about why this is happening with gun laws.

[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. 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.

[Universal Mind]

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. 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.

[DeletePlease]

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.

[Alric]

You are wrong on all points. Each country has full authority to authorize or not authorize any exports or imports. The only restrictions is that it says you will not trade in order to help commit genocide and war crimes, and you have to fulfill other obligations like following UN embargoes which UN countries should be doing anyway. There is nothing in the treaty that gives the UN any say other than that, it is fully in the hands of each country. To repeat the treaty DOES NOT restrict the type of weapons that can be imported or exported. It doesn't. There is absolutely nothing in that treaty that allows the UN to say ban handguns from being traded, or anything like that. Also, as I said over and over again the treaty doesn't apply to people within the US, it is all about international trade. If you are not trading internationally it has nothing to do with you. There is no pressure what so ever to make politicians change any laws. As I pointed out before, it is already against the law to smuggle weapons into and out of the US so we don't have to change in laws in that regard. Also the end user isn't talking about individual people and has nothing to do with registering the weapons. If a rifle is imported into a country and bought by a gun store then all the records would say is. "x number of rifles was bought from country A and sent to country B and sold to Gun Store C. Gun store C sold guns at their shop." That is sufficient, that is all they are talking about. The reason it says data may contain end users as appropriate is because some times such things are required. The treaty includes battle tanks and warships and attack helicopters. If you are selling attack helicopters then they do want to know who ends up with it. 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about you having attack helicopters that are fully armed. In fact owning such things are illegal in the US. You can't have military air craft with active weapon systems and live military grade ordinances with it. This treaty has nothing at all to do with registering guns in the US though. It doesn't put any pressure on the US to change any laws, and doesn't effect anyone at all unless they own an weapon importing/exporting business. In which such businesses are already regulated by the government, so the laws doesn't even change. The only thing this law changes in regards to the US is that it helps us coordinate and cooperate with other countries more efficent to help stop things from slipping through the cracks in regards to illegal weapon trading. The treaty is a good thing and is aimed at saving lives over sea in places where genocide is going on.

[Universal Mind]

You are just asserting that my points are incorrect, but you are not showing where the flaws in my interpretations supposedly are. Mere counterassertion does not qualify as counterargument. Article 11 Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively. 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. States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market. Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive. ARTICLE 12 ENFORCEMENT Also from the treaty: 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. Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination. 1. What do they mean by "conventional arms under the scope of this treaty" if they are also stating that countries must authorize export of weapons that are under the scope of this treaty? A distinction is made between what countries authorize and what is within the scope of the treaty. They are two different classifications, and one exists within the other. If you disagree, explain why. 2. What are end users, if not people? 3. How would the requirement for explanations of authorizations by countries not be a deterrent to exporting? 4. How would restrictions on exporting not cause politicians to tend to ban certain guns domestically if the guns are restricted by the U.N. from export? Concentrate especially on "conventional arms under the scope of this treaty." That means the U.N. gets to decide what weapons can be imported and exported. What do you think it means? This is key.