U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

[Guest thorn]

Do we have a smily that puckers (not the lips!)?

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters

[saintsfanbrian]

Slippery Slope - Slippery Slope

If you don't have them get them.

[G27]

I think there's about a 0% chance Obama could get 67 Senators to approve a treaty like this...

[saintsfanbrian]

It's for the good of the children....

Not to mention how much "pork" they can put into the bill that would be presented to sign the treaty. Healthcare anyone?

[mikegideon]

I think there's about a 0% chance Obama could get 67 Senators to approve a treaty like this...

Right. Has anybody read this thing? Not so sure Obama has much to do with it. Hillary is a card carrying anti. In other words, the '08 ellection could have gone a whole lot worse for us.

Edited May 19, 2010 by mikegideon

[Guest HvyMtl]

Interesting move, make it look like you are open to discussion, knowing any one can block it, and knowing someone will...

No real skin off our nose, makes the US appear more open than it was previously, and doesnt cost. Not a bad move...

[mikegideon]

Interesting move, make it look like you are open to discussion, knowing any one can block it, and knowing someone will...

No real skin off our nose, makes the US appear more open than it was previously, and doesnt cost. Not a bad move...

That's what i was thinking. Let hillary throw it on the table... with stipulations.

[Guest thorn]

Interesting move, make it look like you are open to discussion, knowing any one can block it, and knowing someone will...

No real skin off our nose, makes the US appear more open than it was previously, and doesnt cost. Not a bad move...

You must have a 1945 view of the UN. I do not. We already have ITAR; how tabling any move to open the talks about this is can be "interesting" is beyond me.

This is already news.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Um. You have no clue what my view of the UN is... Have you actually taken courses on it? Researched it? Took courses from, and had discussions, with officers in the UN? I have. Personally think it off its original base, and practically useless in 90% or more of the cases. The League of Nations was a better concept.

The thing is - it is a good diplomatic move, and really nothing more, as it would negatively impact the US economy too much to allow it actually go forth. This will enable the US to say "Hey, we discussed it, but (insert other country's name here) ended the discussion."

This way the US gets to look "flexible" instead of looking the bad guy. Again, not a bad move.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Um. You have no clue what my view of the UN is... Have you actually taken courses on it? Researched it? Took courses from, and had discussions, with officers in the UN? I have. Personally think it off its original base, and practically useless in 90% or more of the cases. The League of Nations was a better concept.

The thing is - it is a good diplomatic move, and really nothing more, as it would negatively impact the US economy too much to allow it actually go forth. This will enable the US to say "Hey, we discussed it, but (insert other country's name here) ended the discussion."

This way the US gets to look "flexible" instead of looking the bad guy. Again, not a bad move.

Did you take training through RAND Corp., Police Futurists, or something else? Not arguing, just wondering.

[Guest thorn]

Um. You have no clue what my view of the UN is... Have you actually taken courses on it? Researched it? Took courses from, and had discussions, with officers in the UN? I have. Personally think it off its original base, and practically useless in 90% or more of the cases. The League of Nations was a better concept.

The thing is - it is a good diplomatic move, and really nothing more, as it would negatively impact the US economy too much to allow it actually go forth. This will enable the US to say "Hey, we discussed it, but (insert other country's name here) ended the discussion."

This way the US gets to look "flexible" instead of looking the bad guy. Again, not a bad move.

"The League of Nations was a better concept." Well there you go then it must be in your thinking.

Conceited on my part? Maybe? But all others pale in comparison to us, the USA in all things considered. This is right there with the apologies that Obama and we continue to offer. Why do we need to look "flexible"?

[Mike.357]

this is another attempt to inch forward towards one world gov't. Tin foil hat and all I guess but I will never believe otherwise.

Stack arms deep and pile ammo high

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He can say what he wants and get the temporary response he wants. It probably

is a good move for someone like Obama. He can continue talking out of both sides of

his mouth. Hillary can continue looking for other angles while Obama plays the cards.

Never be ratified, unless November turns to the left.

[Guest HvyMtl]

It will never get to ratification. It will not get out of the UN discussion...

No, College, then law school is where I dealt with the UN learning. Again, mostly useless. You think a Senator, or House Rep is an ego blow politician, try discussing stuff with UN officers...who know they cannot be removed by election. Sigh.

The idea was to create a "world policeman" and global welfare. Improve the world's health and wealth, to the benefit of all, and prevent war, famine, disease, and improve education, etc. Has not really occurred...

Ask Bosnians, or Rawandans how effective the UN is on the "policeman" aspect... Ethiopians on famine, etc. etc...

Effectively, ANY of those countries "discussing" this, can veto it. This is what the US seems to be banking on. This way Obama can cater to the Libs, without losing the economic impact international arm sales have on the US economy.

[StPatrick]

Not to mention the impossibility of passing such a monstrosity through the Senate. 2/3 of the Senate will never vote for this mess. Any movements, discussions, or non-binding agreements towards this abomination is just procrasturbation.

It would certainly be preferable if our Dept. of State denounced any international treaty that circumscribed the rights of American citizens, sure. Sadly, we're all forced to pay attention to political theater, just in case.

[ftncityfatboy]

i personally want to thank Hillary Clinton for bridging the gap on my behalf. He knows so much better what's good for me than I do, obviously, my thinking that guns are a good thing is seriously flawed. I must repent....meacuppa....or how ever you spell it

[Guest SUNTZU]

i personally want to thank Hillary Clinton for bridging the gap on my behalf. He knows so much better what's good for me than I do, obviously, my thinking that guns are a good thing is seriously flawed. I must repent....meacuppa....or how ever you spell it

I like the way you called her a he. Seriously.

[aquaman67]

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

[mikegideon]

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

Some folks on here don't believe Snopes. Let's quote the NRA from today's email...

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=copy>Friday, May 28, 2010</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=copy>We continue to receive numerous inquiries regarding UN international treaties, and their impact on our Second Amendment rights. The latest rumor making its way around the Internet claims that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually signed a UN small arms treaty.

Contrary to this widely circulated e-mail, Hillary Clinton has not signed any small arms treaty. She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.

As we noted in an update from last November, the UN Arms Trade Treaty will be drafted between now and 2012, and even if signed, would not take effect in the U.S. until it was ratified by the Senate.

Please rest assured that, as we said in November, NRA will be actively involved in this process and will oppose any treaty that would attempt to impose limits on our Second Amendment rights. In the meantime, we urge gun owners to follow this issue in NRA's magazines and NRA-ILA's Grassroots Alerts. We also urge gun owners not to circulate misinformation on this issue.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[mikegideon]

He can say what he wants and get the temporary response he wants. It probably

is a good move for someone like Obama. He can continue talking out of both sides of

his mouth. Hillary can continue looking for other angles while Obama plays the cards.

Never be ratified, unless November turns to the left.

Obama continues to stay away from gun control. If he's pumping up the anti's, he's doing it behind closed doors. It's a losing proposition for him, and he knows it.

Not everybody on the left is a gun hating idiot. For the most part, we're still dealing with the SAME idiots that would be spewing this crap no matter who is in power.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Tin foil hats are vastly overrated in effectiveness. A much better hat can be constructed using multiple thin layers of mu-metal, lead, and stainless steel, with superconductive broadband active electromagnetic disruptor coils mounted over the temporal lobes.

Perhaps a danger exists from the gleeful cooperation of leftwing and rightwing idiots. Let Peter King pass terrorism "watch list" gun ban legislation, and then instruct DHS to put all 'wrong-thinking people' on the terrorist watchlist.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Lester Weevils

[mikegideon]

Tin foil hats are vastly overrated in effectiveness. A much better hat can be constructed using multiple thin layers of mu-metal, lead, and stainless steel, with superconductive broadband active electromagnetic disruptor coils mounted over the temporal lobes.

Perhaps a danger exists from the gleeful cooperation of leftwing and rightwing idiots. Let Peter King pass terrorism "watch list" gun ban legislation, and then instruct DHS to put all 'wrong-thinking people' on the terrorist watchlist.

Yep, we have plenty of nutballs distributed throughout society

Mu metal is much better, but also much tougher for your average Joe to mold it around his pointed head

[Guest HvyMtl]

Ok. How about Supreme Court decisions. Anyone place any "authority" or "belief" in those?

IF so, go read: GEOFROY V. RIGGS, 133 U. S. 258 :: Volume 133 :: 1890 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Pay particular attention to the bottom of page 133 U.S. 266 to the top of page 133 U.S. 267, where it says treaty power is limited by the Constitution - where the treaty power does not extend as far as to authorize what the Constitution denies...

In simple terms, a treaty cannot trump the Constitution. So says the SCOTUS... And FYI: The Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution, and therefore trump any treaty...

So, Clinton and Obama can sign a gun ban treaty, the Senate can Ratify it, and if it violated the Constitution, by default, it would NOT be enforceable within the U.S. - Checks and Balances, aint they grand?

Edited May 29, 2010 by HvyMtl

[leroy]

Ok. How about Supreme Court decisions. Anyone place any "authority" or "belief" in those?

IF so, go read: GEOFROY V. RIGGS, 133 U. S. 258 :: Volume 133 :: 1890 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Pay particular attention to the bottom of page 133 U.S. 266 to the top of page 133 U.S. 267, where it says treaty power is limited by the Constitution - where the treaty power does not extend as far as to authorize what the Constitution denies...

In simple terms, a treaty cannot trump the Constitution. So says the SCOTUS... And FYI: The Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution, and therefore trump any treaty...

So, Clinton and Obama can sign a gun ban treaty, the Senate can Ratify it, and if it violated the Constitution, by default, it would NOT be enforceable within the U.S. - Checks and Balances, aint they grand?

Amen brother!!!

Keep up the good work!

Kind regards,

Leroy

[Dolomite_supafly]

This is the guide for gun legislation put out by the UN:

http://www.undp.org/cpr/documents/sa_control/SALWGuide_Legislation.pdf

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs:

United Nations Disarmament -strengthening Peace and Security through Disarmament

It would be hard to believe that the UN would have a special division just for disarmament if that is not what they are wanting to do to the world. Their plans are laid out on the website.

Now we haven't signed anything but if we do, it is a very scary thought. At that point, I feel, the .gov could use the UN treaty as an excuse to take our guns. They will shift the blame away from themselves and towards the UN.

We are definitely headed for some rough times in our near future. Not just weapons related stuff but society as a whole. Too many people are getting too much for free when they shouldn't be while the working class are forced to support them. At some point the bill becomes too much for the working class to anymore and that is when society is going to start the inevitable downward spiral. Unless something is done to change this we are going to find ourselves, like many other countries, in a state of turmoil that will not easily be overcome. I told my son that he may see it in his lifetime but with all the recent financial as well as legislative activity I suspect it may happen in mine.

Another problem with society is there has been a shift in how laws are being used. They are no longer viewed as a means to better society or to keep people safe but as a means to generate revenue. 90% of the laws on the books need to be replealed then the 10% that are left need to be enforced.

Dolomite