U.S. Senate Stands with NRA in Strongly Opposing U.N Gun Control Efforts

25% of the US Senate?

Sorry Mike, had a liberal moment and minimized the support of the constitution with "new" math.

Sorry Mike, had a liberal moment and minimized the support of the constitution with "new" math.

And with silly insults like that, you've proven that we don't deserve any constitutional rights... Have you even read the Arms Trade Treaty or its history?

Yes - thank you NRA for keeping the rights of people on America's terrorist watch list to purchase guns intact!

Yes - thank you NRA for keeping the rights of people on America's terrorist watch list to purchase guns intact!

As the people on the terrorist watch list have neither been charged with nor convicted of a crime, I'm really okay with that.

Though, for the record, can you name any other things in the Bill of Rights that you'd be willing to have suspended based upon little more than rumor and suspicion? Say, free speech? Protection from self incrimination? Illegal search and seizure?

dvargr are you really foolish enough to think that anything done by the UN, is going to curtail terrorist access to weapons?

Every time someone tries to buy a gun in the U.S., the background checks include the terror watch list. When there is a match, the information is shared with the FBI case agent who is leading the terrorism investigation, according to a counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the process.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/28/fbi-247-people-terro-watch-list-bought-guns-2010/#ixzz1Sv1DApZ9

Anything else, or can everyone shut up about the stupid list now?

Uhhh, no.

From your link in #1.4:

(Under Objectives)

Reaffirms that the legal nature of an Arms Trade Treaty needs to be maintained, particularly since the proposed ATT is, all in all, a codification of already existing obligations under international law in regards of international arms transfers and the Forum is dedicated to promote the timelyadvancement of international legal regulation of arms issues;

Urges governments to embrace the idea that when arms are procured to exercise legitimate selfdefence, the procurements made through international transfers cannot imply that fundamental rules for peaceful co-existence be breached;

Draws attention to the need of establishing greater transparency on international arms transfers, both on a global, regional and national level, while recalling that Parliaments are particularly well suited to assure democratic accountability – and transparency – of the practices relating to suchtransfers; and,

Am I missing something here?

And let's be reminded that this is not the actual text of the treaty.

And this document isn't the actual ATT...interesting how we can make assumptions on what the ATT says based on the mission statement of the working group. Of course, the actual name of the treaty should say it all.

Oh and here is from the actual ATT about regulating domestic transfers

Your link doesn't work. Got another?

See here's the issue. The international trading is already reguleted and enforced. So yes the treaty is talking about private ownership

Is it already enforced? Who is regulating it? That's quite a leap to conclusions you're making.

While I realize that we're on the same side in this particular debate, I'd recommend not trying to conflate a single issue with many other egregious ones. While the Right's stance on birth control is atrocious and children being harmed by undetonated landmines is pretty heinous, I don't know they are part of this debate and adding them into the list I think is more distracting than helpful.

I'm not familiar with this Erik Prince person; can you point out what he's selling overseas?

Xi and blackwater...Prince is no Prince...he's an arms merchant and mercenary.

LordFluffy . it doesn't have to go against the amendment since in essence it goes against the entire Constitution.

Truett, unless you produce the exact verbage that demonstrates that, quoted from the treaty itself, I'm going to have to assume you are making up.

Put up or stop fearmongering.

Very simple to anyone who reads and understands....it would be putting just a little part of our right to govern our own nation under the control of another governing body....

Quote.

It.

Very simple to anyone who reads and understands....it would be putting just a little part of our right to govern our own nation under the control of another governing body....

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Sorry boss, treaties are in the Constitution.

It specifies international transfers in the first line.

Control of international transfers of small arms and light weapons (SALW), are at the centre of the global agenda for combating the proliferation of such arms.

Try again.

ALL the other clauses mention international arms trade, except that one. So you're willing to conclude that the real meaning of the treaty is that one clause? This whole document makes no mention of controlling the possession of weapons by citizens. It just talks about trade.

All transfer types. Those three words seem pretty clear to me

Yes. I understand the phrase the first time you quoted it.

What you failed to do, apparently, was read any other words. See, the "Stresses" portion is part of a longer statement; a sentence, if you will.

And the next two clauses:

Demands the unconditional observance of the “Child Soldiers Protocol” while designing criteria for international arms transfers, meaning as a minimum that no such transfers may be allowed to,from or via countries which violate that protocol;

Also demands that due regard be taken to the Security Council Resolution 1325, meaning among other that no international arms transfers should be allowed to, from or via countries where sexual violence is used as a means to conduct warfare;

...just as clearly stress which transfers they are speaking about curtailing.

No where in this mission statement, which is still not the treaty itself, does a suggestion about transfer of arms within a nation of civilians come up.

Your singling out of a single phrase does not counteract that, not matter how many times you repeat it, put in bold time or make it a blinking marquee.

Got anything else or are you just going to go all broken record on a point that has now been countered?

This document is about private possesion in reference to trading weapons. If you go to trade your weapon with your uncle is it not in your sole possesion until the trade is complete?

That's not the type of "trade" this document is talking about. It's talking about "trade" as in economic trade (the buying and selling of goods), not "trade" as in swapping items...

It's talking about "trade" as in economic trade (the buying and selling of goods), not "trade" as in swapping items...

Where do you think firearms come from? Is there a gun god that delivers them to some individual and, after that, they are just "traded"? Most guns are purchased from manufacturers, importers and dealers who could be interfered with by something like this. It may or may not trump the Constitution but I do know that there are anti gunners out there (some in positions of power) who would love to have the chance to find out. There's no need at all to take a chance and give them that opportunity. If the US refuses to join in that treaty, it will remove completely any chance, however remote, of it being used as an excuse to disarm us. Internationally, it will make no difference whatsoever to the overseas casualty rate whether the US is signatory or not.

...who could be interfered with by something like this.

How? I've seen not one shred of evidence to support this, save maybe if they are selling arms to other countries.

There's no need at all to take a chance and give them that opportunity.

So you're okay selling guns to terrorists and warlords? When there is no evidence whatsoever that this will effect domestic gun trade in any way?

If the US refuses to join in that treaty, it will remove completely any chance, however remote, of it being used as an excuse to disarm us.

If we join such a treaty, there is no chance of it either. If you can demonstrate otherwise, go for it.

Where do you think firearms come from? Is there a gun god that delivers them to some individual and, after that, they are just "traded"? Most guns are purchased from manufacturers, importers and dealers who could be interfered with by something like this.

So it's alright for the US to allow gun manufacturers to sell their wares to our enemies? Should Iran and North Korea have the latest American gun tech? What about Pakistan, the drug cartels and al-Qaeda? Would you like to see our best weapons used against our troops? Allowing the sale of our guns to enemies and terrorist organizations means that we will some day be looking down the barrel at our own firearms. Is the profit worth it?

It may or may not trump the Constitution but I do know that there are anti gunners out there (some in positions of power) who would love to have the chance to find out. There's no need at all to take a chance and give them that opportunity.

Then don't give them the chance. This treaty, which hasn't really been finalized yet, is hardly an opportunity to save us from "anti-gun nuts".

If the US refuses to join in that treaty, it will remove completely any chance, however remote, of it being used as an excuse to disarm us.

If the US government decided to take over and disarm the populace, do you really think that pop gun you've got in your closet is going to save you? Hell, all they have to do is convince your neighbor that you're a threat, and they will sell you down the road. And the government can take over, legally just by finding a tragic event to declare martial law. Then it's all downhill from there.

Internationally, it will make no difference whatsoever to the overseas casualty rate whether the US is signatory or not.

Are you sure about that? Do you think the insurgents wouldn't have made a difference if they had boxes of American rifles instead of whatever they could get off the black market? I don't think so. What about all other types of ordinance, explosives and the like? I guess that wouldn't have made a difference either... /sarcasm

If we join such a treaty, there is no chance of it either. If you can demonstrate otherwise, go for it.

You're the one who wants the treaty passed, you have the responsibility of demonstrating conclusively that it won't. We don't want any action taken at all so we don't have to prove anything. As far as selling guns to terrorists and warlords, the illegal trade will continue no matter what we do or do not do. In any case what happens at the other end of the world isn't our problem. We are not and do not wish to be citizens of the world. For those who do wwish to be citizens of the world, I would suggest relocation to Geneva. I hear that they are into that type of international meddling.

You're the one who wants the treaty passed, you have the responsibility of demonstrating conclusively that it won't.

I never said I wanted the treaty passed.

What I said was that if anyone was going to assert that the treaty was going to infringe on gun rights to prove it with a quote from the treaty.

Wanna guess what no one has been able to do?

As I've said before, I'm a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I think a number of laws we have now are stupid and there are quite a few things we could do to make our laws regarding firearms considerably more rational without harming the second amendment (things like removing bans on short barrelled rifles; I can have a .22 pistol and a .22 rifle that use the same action, but if I put the stock on the pistol, it's a felony? Senseless.)

However, I dislike red herrings and non-issues being drummed up as the next thing the "gun grabbers" are going to do to supposedly take away our guns. There are enough problems in the world without inventing new ones, and the real problems are bad enough without people pumping hyperbole into the mix.

You provided the original assertion. Either support it or admit you can't.

There are a few other points I should probably respond to:

We don't want any action taken at all so we don't have to prove anything.

If you're going to insist that such action would somehow infringe the Constitutional rights of Americans, you do have to prove it if you expect it to believed. Unless, you know, you don't care about what's true or what's false.

We are not and do not wish to be citizens of the world.

Isolationism is foolish as is unchecked globalism. We must be Americans first, but the rest of the world effects us and our actions effect the rest of the world. Pretending it doesn't exist when it suits us is base and evil.

We are not an island. And islands don't get to be isolationist anymore either.

As far as selling guns to terrorists and warlords, the illegal trade will continue no matter what we do or do not do.

Of course it will. However, if we actually put some effort into not making a profit off of that trade, then we do some good and cease to profit from the suffering of others.

Again, unless you just think you can dump arms on the rest of the world for profit and then not eventually have that come back to bite you in the butt.

Bottom line: No treaty we enter into supersedes the Constitution, including it's Amendments, which includes the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment.

So please, actually focus on something that is happening and does matter rather than chasing phantoms.

I never said I wanted the treaty passed.

Good, then come out in favor of not passing it.

If you're going to insist that such action would somehow infringe the Constitutional rights of Americans, you do have to prove it if you expect it to believed.

I never insisted that it would, I said that it might. If that is even a faint possibility, you don't take even the slightest chance that it could happen; particularly when it's so easy to avoid. Just don't accept the treaty. It's not necessary for our welfare anyway.

Bottom line: No treaty we enter into supersedes the Constitution, including it's Amendments, which includes the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment.

There is an argument that says that this is not true and that treaties do supersede the Constitution. The best way to avoid problems about that (and long court cases that might be lost before an unsympathetic Supreme Court) is to never let that case come to court at all. You do that by not letting the treaty become effective. This is called being proactive. Kill the devil as an infant and you don't have to fight him when he grows up.

However, if we actually put some effort into not making a profit off of that trade, then we do some good and cease to profit from the suffering of others.

Doing good is not something that matters in either international politics or business, nor should it. It's a dog eat dog world and we'd better be the big dogs.

TTGA:

Good, then come out in favor of not passing it.

I'll reserve judgement until, I don't know... the treaty is actually written? The terms are known?

Or I could just go with whatever crystal ball you guys are using. Crystal something, anyway....

I never insisted that it would, I said that it might.

But you have failed to demonstrate any reason to support that suspicion.

I asked for proof. No one has given me any.

There is an argument that says that this is not true and that treaties do supersede the Constitution.

Cite precedent or you're making it up.

Kill the devil as an infant and you don't have to fight him when he grows up.

Strike at devil's that don't exist and you end up in a mental ward.

Doing good is not something that matters in either international politics or business, nor should it.

And with that statement, I fail to see why I should listen to any opinion you have on international politics. Ever.

Azerith:

I read it just fine and understand it....

Apparently not, as you seem to think this treaty has anything to do with domestic arms sales.

See this has to do with a separate part of the treaty.

A)What you linked is not a treaty, but a mission statement and

B)those are in the same sentence as the portion you quoted, despite the funky paragraph breaks that make it look otherwise; they establish context for one another.

This mission statement only applies to international arms trade.

What type?

Arms. I thought you understood that already.

...you can see the exact verbage of the treaty and you will find what you just quoted isn't so different from what is actually on the treaty itself.

That's nice, but I don't do other people's homework.

Quote the portion that says it will curtail 2nd Amendment rights in America, either explicitly or through reasonable and straightforward interpretation. Either that or admit you can't.

Each of these is a specific point in the treaty itself to explain fully what the treaty wishes to accomplish...

But they are not mutually exclusive.

Your "counter" was little more than a poor attempt to mislead.

Oooh. I am truly wounded. However shall I recover?

You've got nothing. You're lost in the woods and you call me a heretic for suggesting we read the whole map.

Quote the portion of the actual treaty, if you can.

So yes it is talking about the economic trade, selling, and transfer of firearms

International, not domestic.

LordFluffy,

It's like rushing a brick wall over and over again isn't it. unthinking, unmoving, just there to be an obstacle in the service of the ones that built it.

I'll reserve judgement until, I don't know... the treaty is actually written? The terms are known?

You forgot ratified. After it's ratified and the firestorm starts in the courts saying that it's about domestic after all, you'll then decide that it was a bad idea and spend the next thirty years fighting it out in the courts. Stop the barest possibility of that by rejecting the treaty now. Don't allow the anti gun lawyers in Washington to have the slightest bit of traction.

Quote the portion that says it will curtail 2nd Amendment rights in America, either explicitly or through reasonable and straightforward interpretation.

Show me the part that says clearly and explicitly that it won't allow guns to be removed from civilians under any circumstances. Something so explicit that it can't possibly be twisted by some Washington lawyer in order to bring it to court as a way around the Second Amendment. Since the entire purpose of the treaty is to remove guns from the hands of civilians who might become terrorists or rebels, they couldn't possibly put a statement like that into it; it would defeat their purpose. Without such an explicit statement, the treaty is unacceptable no matter what else it says or whether we approve of it's purpose or not; not because it says anything specific but because it is ambiguous enough to allow those lawyers to have their chance in court.

You forgot ratified.

No I didn't, actually. See, there's a period between written and ratified where complaining does good if there's anything to actually complain about.

But there's not yet, so I'll hold off either way.

Show me the part that says clearly and explicitly that it won't allow guns to be removed from civilians under any circumstances.

You first.

>Show me the part that says clearly and explicitly that it won't allow guns to be removed from civilians under any circumstances.

You first.

No. It will simply be opposed all out until the top comment is proven to be 100% and irrevocably accurate. Until then there will be forever 34 votes in the senate in opposition. Not only not removed from civilians but no additional hurdles in the buying of new guns and ammo foreign and domestically made by said American civilians. Bottom line is that until our concerns/demands are met, you have 0 chance of getting your treaty ratified.

No.

Yes.

Look, the assertion is that this will somehow change the rights of Americans. I've asked proof be brought forth. None has.

Precedent has suggested that treaties don't supersede the Constitution.

I've been asked to prove the counter, but as that is the harder of the two and requires greater knowledge of the subject, I fail to see why I should put forth the effort when the easier point to be proven has not been demonstrated.

And yes, there is 0 chance that a treaty which curtailed the rights of US Citizens to purchase firearms would get ratified. But as there is also 0 proof that such a treaty exists or ever will exist, there is also 0 reason to get up in arms about it.

I'm tired of people who jump at every rumor like it's the herald of Ragnarock. Either present facts or admit that no such facts exist.

So is there one person who can demonstrate their claim that his treaty will curtail any 2nd Amendment rights from the treaty itself or not?

Fluffy,

You keep missing the point. We want no action taken whatsoever, therefore we have to prove absolutely nothing. You want action taken (treaty accepted and ratified) and that means that the burden of proof is on you. You must show: 1. That the treaty will accomplish something of value of which we approve. 2. That it will not actually or potentially interfere with the Second Amendment in any way whatsoever and that there are absolute safeguards in place in case anyone wishes to attempt to make it so.

And yes, there is 0 chance that a treaty which curtailed the rights of US Citizens to purchase firearms would get ratified.

That's because we are totally willing to attack upon the slightest suspicion and there are 50 US Senators who have admitted that they know quite well that we will do so.

We want no action taken whatsoever, therefore we have to prove absolutely nothing.

Opposing an international agreement that seeks to do a good thing because you are afraid that maybe, even though you can't produce text that demonstrates that it might much less will, somehow will effect trade of domestic firearms in some unnamed way is silly at best, selfish more likely.

You want action taken (treaty accepted and ratified)...

No. I want people to stop trying to stir crap up about things which they have no real knowledge of. I want people to stop spreading misinformation, going ballistic over supposition and using a rumor as a talking point.

The burden of proof falls on those who have made an assertion. Those who assert that this treaty, were we to ratify it, would be an "end run around the 2nd Amendment" have yet to demonstrate in any practical way how that would come about.

The burden of proof falls on them to back up their claim, a thing that not a single one has yet to do.

That's because we are totally willing to attack upon the slightest suspicion...

Throwing a hissy fit over shadows is nothing to be proud of.

...there are 50 US Senators who have admitted that they know quite well that we will do so.

No there aren't. There are 50 Senators who have said they will not support it if it does curtail second amendment rights.

...they will oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms ownership.

They said they would oppose such legislation, not that any such legislation exists.

You've got nothing. I'm tired of talking to you. I'll respond one more time then leave this exchange.

Opposing an international agreement that seeks to do a good thing

Your turn, show me some proof that it seeks to do anything good and is not just another way for politicians to accumulate power.

In order for it to be my turn, you'd have had to take yours. And you still haven't.

Walk easy.

But it is your side that is trying to persuade the nation to accept and pass a treaty. It is on you to meet our each and every concern and objection and prove to our satisfaction there are no real concerns. The simple reality is that you will meet our each and every concern on our terms or we will simply refuse to pass the treaty until you do. We owe you nothing in this debate. You will satisfy each and every one of our questions and concerns on our terms or will simply not allow it to pass until you do and as it is a treaty we only need 34 votes in the senate to back our demands. So, you first or we block passage.

So, you first or we block passage.

Okay... so you got me. I will, in fact, respond once more. Because this is rich.

Unless you're in Congress, there is "we" to which you belong that will or will not ratify this treaty. You're a blogger at a computer apparently talking completely out of your butt about the ramifications of a treaty that doesn't seem to actually exist.

Furthermore, my side is the side of the population that acts on facts, not that thing they heard from that guy one time. It's the side that is for reason and rational response. If you wish to explicitly divorce yourself from that crowd, feel free, as you have already done so implicitly.

Lastly, I don't know that I want the treaty passed. Outside of a statement of intent to not sell arms people who use children soldiers or consider rape to be all in a day of soldiering, I have no idea what is actually in it. But more importantly, neither do any of you.

I'm neither for or against it. Those who are against it bewilder me, because as has been demonstrated, not a one of them actually knows what is in it. Neither does Glenn Beck. Neither does the head of the NRA.

All we know is it's a great rallying point for the Right Wing, as they need to perpetuate the idea that the current administration is trying to disarm Americans, and finding no actual efforts to do so feels the need to invent one.

I don't have to answer anything. I don't have to prove anything to you. I do not have to respond to your every anything.

You don't like the treaty. But you don't know what's in it, can't quote it and refuse to even try to be the least bit rational or reasonable about it.

None of you, not one, has managed to produce a shred of evidence that there is a single cause for alarm. All you've done is repeat the same tired, debunked talking points over and over again and when asked for the basis on which you build your outrage, your response has been "No, you."

Cornhusker, you and everyone who is freaking out about this have only proven one thing: You'll apparently believe anything.

Good day to the lot of you.

PS:

Azerith:

No, the thing you quoted that was from the "Stresses" bit, was in fact the mission statement, not the treaty.

Further more, the transfer of domestic arms usually occurs as part of a sale. Your point implying otherwise is ridiculous.

Lastly, from the "E" document you keep mentioning:

Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms
and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on
private ownership, exclusively within their territory...

This is the part where they emphasize that this has nothing to do with the laws of the respective signing nations about selling guns within their borders.

This is a treaty about international sales only.

Azerith

Very well stated!