UN reopens talks on NRA-opposed Arms Treaty :

XLTer

Hero Member
Sep 26, 2012
634
303
Western Pa.
Detector(s) used
Whites XLT
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Negotiators will reconvene this week to try to hammer out a landmark U.N. treaty designed to regulate the multibillion-dollar global arms trade amid objections from a bipartisan group of legislators and the most powerful gun-rights lobbying group in the U.S.

Governmental representatives will meet in New York starting Monday to try to reach consensus on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers.

The draft treaty under consideration does not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they would violate arms embargoes or if they would promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists, organized crime or for corrupt practices.

Many countries, including the United States, control arms exports, but there has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.

Hopes of reaching agreement on what would be a landmark treaty were dashed last July when the United States said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord — then Russia and China also asked for a delay.

The National Rifle Association has portrayed the treaty as a threat to gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The politically controversial issue of gun regulations has re-emerged since a gunman opened fire on Dec. 14 at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., killing 20 children and six educators.

Last July, the NRA's CEO Wayne LaPierre told the U.N. that "the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms." He added that "any treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership in its scope will be met with the NRA's greatest force of opposition."

On Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the treaty, which states the proposal "places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality" and represents a national security threat.

"As the greatest defender of liberty and freedom in the world – and we have been for the last 236 years – why would we ever sit down with bad actors and let them decide what our policy will be going forward? [It is a] bad, bad idea. It doesn’t make sense," Kelly said at a press conference Thursday.

An identical companion resolution was introduced last week by Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, according to Kelly's office.

Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement Friday that the United States looks forward to working with other countries to reach consensus on an Arms Trade Treaty "that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability" by helping to stem the illicit flow of weapons across borders.

He stressed that the U.S. will not support a treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the right of Americans under the Constitution to bear firearms, or a treaty that would impose new requirements on the U.S. domestic trade in firearms and U.S. exporters.

"The United States could only be party to an Arms Trade Treaty that addresses international transfers of conventional arms solely," Kerry said.

Kerry said that while the international arms trade affects every country, more than 100 nations don't have a system for controlling international arms transfers.

"We support a treaty that will bring all countries closer to existing international best practices, which we already observe, while preserving national decisions to transfer conventional arms responsibly," he said.

Kerry said that means responsible nations should have control systems that reduce the risk that conventional arms transfers will be used "to carry out the world's worst crimes, including those involving terrorism, and serious human rights violations."

Amnesty International's Deputy Executive Director Frank Jannuzi said President Barack Obama "must not be cowed or intimidated by the U.S. gun lobby and the NRA."

Jannuzi added: "The unfettered trade of conventional arms has contributed to the deaths of more than 500,000, the displacement of millions, widespread rape and the recruitment and exploitation of children as soldiers. The global arms trade must be regulated, and the United States — the world's largest exporter — should lead the way."

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he is confident that the U.N.'s 193 member states will overcome their differences during the upcoming negotiations and muster the political will to reach agreement on a treaty. The U.N. chief reiterated his support for a treaty that regulates international transfers of both weapons and ammunition and sets common standards for exporting states.

Kerry's statement made no mention of the key issue of ammunition.

Jannuzi said the draft treaty in July had a provision that would ban the export of ammunition in cases where a country decided that the export of weapons was prohibited.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Read more: UN reopens talks on NRA-opposed arms trade treaty | Fox News
 

First of all, this is the UN, a parking ticket avoiding bunch of self important and overpaid "dip"plomats.

I doubt they could do anything effective. Aside from UNESCO harassing us treasure hunters, that is.

Bottom line: If you're little like us, too bad. If you're a Big Boy, no sweat.

However, I think the US has a security interest in regulating arms sales to our enemies. Please bear in mind that M16s are not jet fighters or Hellfire missiles.

I don't know what the relationship of the State Dept vs our working the UN is though on such matters. Maybe someone can chime in on that.
 

We are supplying arms to Muslim Brotherhood, sworn enemy of USA, we were supplying arms to Mexican drug cartel that killed Mexican citizens as well as U.S. Border patrol agent, (Fast & Furious) this with approval of Obama administration...

You would think they would investigate there first, they are trying to investigate Fast and Furious, Obama and Holder are fighting that investigation tooth and nail, they do not want the truth to come out and doing everthing they can to see it doesn't come out and never sees the light of day......
 

I wish we would pull out of the un forthwith.
 

The U.N. is just a global effort to control all countries. A movement towards one world government. It is beyond me how anyone could support the U.N. I am with Bevo, I wish we would just pull out and govern ourselves. TH is right as well Fast and Furious needs to be fully brought to light. The Obama administration is really trying to keep the details secret.
 

We are supplying arms to Muslim Brotherhood, sworn enemy of USA, we were supplying arms to Mexican drug cartel that killed Mexican citizens as well as U.S. Border patrol agent, (Fast & Furious) this with approval of Obama administration...

You would think they would investigate there first, they are trying to investigate Fast and Furious, Obama and Holder are fighting that investigation tooth and nail, they do not want the truth to come out and doing everthing they can to see it doesn't come out and never sees the light of day......


At the risk of ending up a corpse: Wait a minute. Wrong planet.

I'm talking about the global arms sales market, $66 Billion in 2011, up from $31 Billion in 2009. The US sells 3/4 of the worldwide arms trade of roughly $85 Billion. That's a little more than we can "pack" into the Mexican drug cartels.

That's the one that they're talking about regulating, and it's going to take some finesse since, as President Obama says, "arms sales are an increasingly critical and cost-efficient arrow in its quiver to defend U.S. worldwide interests."

Such transfers reinforce diplomatic ties and promote long-term partnerships. They also are prized by Washington because they make it easier to fight side by side in places like Afghanistan and help allies do more for their own defense.

Not to mention contractors such as Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop and Raytheon Co expect regional demand for their products and services to help them offset Pentagon belt-tightening forced by U.S. deficit-trimming measures.

Maybe I'm not the one who should be worried about ending up a corpse, since I'm fine with it for the most part.


from: NewsDaily: Nations gather for final U.N. arms trade treaty negotiations
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry voiced conditional support for the treaty on Friday, saying Washington was "steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability.

But he did not promise U.S. support. He repeated that the United States - the world's No. 1 arms manufacturer - would not accept a treaty that imposed new limits on U.S. citizens' right to bear arms, a sensitive political issue in the United States.

The NRA has dismissed suggestions that a December U.S. school shooting massacre in Connecticut bolstered the case for a global arms pact. It has also warned that the treaty would undermine U.S. citizens' right to own guns, a position that supporters of the treaty say is false.
The American Bar Association, an attorneys' lobbying group, last month disputed the NRA position, saying in a paper that "ratification of the treaty would not infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

I think it's clear that the NRA doesn't want any restrictions worldwide. It's just a profit issue as I see it. Uganda doesn't have a Second Amendment, as far as I know.

Somehow the two issues are getting mixed up.
 

The U.N. is just a global effort to control all countries. A movement towards one world government. It is beyond me how anyone could support the U.N. I am with Bevo, I wish we would just pull out and govern ourselves. TH is right as well Fast and Furious needs to be fully brought to light. The Obama administration is really trying to keep the details secret.

No one is keeping us in the UN except us. We have total control over that.

If it wouldn't be working for us as a foreign policy tool, we'd dump it.

I can't see the Big Paranoia.
 

No one is keeping us in the UN except us. We have total control over that.

If it wouldn't be working for us as a foreign policy tool, we'd dump it.

I can't see the Big Paranoia.

We know.
 

No one is keeping us in the UN except us. We have total control over that.

If it wouldn't be working for us as a foreign policy tool, we'd dump it.

I can't see the Big Paranoia.

Just what current foreign policy is working again? Oh, maybe the one about Israel and the 1967 borders? Great plan...
 

At the risk of ending up a corpse: Wait a minute. Wrong planet.

I'm talking about the global arms sales market, $66 Billion in 2011, up from $31 Billion in 2009. The US sells 3/4 of the worldwide arms trade of roughly $85 Billion. That's a little more than we can "pack" into the Mexican drug cartels.

That's the one that they're talking about regulating, and it's going to take some finesse since, as President Obama says, "arms sales are an increasingly critical and cost-efficient arrow in its quiver to defend U.S. worldwide interests."

Such transfers reinforce diplomatic ties and promote long-term partnerships. They also are prized by Washington because they make it easier to fight side by side in places like Afghanistan and help allies do more for their own defense.

Not to mention contractors such as Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop and Raytheon Co expect regional demand for their products and services to help them offset Pentagon belt-tightening forced by U.S. deficit-trimming measures.

Maybe I'm not the one who should be worried about ending up a corpse, since I'm fine with it for the most part.


from: NewsDaily: Nations gather for final U.N. arms trade treaty negotiations
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry voiced conditional support for the treaty on Friday, saying Washington was "steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability.

But he did not promise U.S. support. He repeated that the United States - the world's No. 1 arms manufacturer - would not accept a treaty that imposed new limits on U.S. citizens' right to bear arms, a sensitive political issue in the United States.

The NRA has dismissed suggestions that a December U.S. school shooting massacre in Connecticut bolstered the case for a global arms pact. It has also warned that the treaty would undermine U.S. citizens' right to own guns, a position that supporters of the treaty say is false.
The American Bar Association, an attorneys' lobbying group, last month disputed the NRA position, saying in a paper that "ratification of the treaty would not infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

I think it's clear that the NRA doesn't want any restrictions worldwide. It's just a profit issue as I see it. Uganda doesn't have a Second Amendment, as far as I know.

Somehow the two issues are getting mixed up.

Please provide links to the ABA statements . I myself do not see the link between International Arms trade and US citizens 2nd Amendment , but if the NRA is concerned , then so am I until proven otherwise . Better to be safe than sorry .
 

I see a baby blue helmet holding a weapon in my neighborhood, it gets a bullet in it.

End of story.

I view an armed foreign military presence as an invasion and I will treat it as such.
 

I see a baby blue helmet holding a weapon in my neighborhood, it gets a bullet in it.

End of story.

I view an armed foreign military presence as an invasion and I will treat it as such.

That's why they want to disarm us...
Other motives in play here.
 

Dano, that 1st paragraph scares me. I know they're not delayed for a fact, look at the number; 300. Who else had a mighty 300 :icon_scratch: hmm, the Spartans, that's who. These 300 are already here on a covert mission to take over 2 states.

"The final group to depart Devon, comprised of around 300 men, were delayed in their transit to the US for 36 hours due to logistical complications caused by one of the largest storms in US history."
 

I see a baby blue helmet holding a weapon in my neighborhood, it gets a bullet in it.

End of story.

I view an armed foreign military presence as an invasion and I will treat it as such.

This is not the same as foreign troops training on US soil, that goes on all the time. Allies must work together or they are not allies, that is understood. But if someone decides that we need UN troops to monitor elections, control the public because for one reason or another the politicians feel like the local police or national guard can't do the job, then Katie bar the door, blood is going to flow. Armed blue hats on our soil for any other reason than training with US troops will be nothing but targets. It won't be pretty. I'm on the tail end of my life, if it happens in my life time, what have I got to loose. Actually there are a number of things worse than dying, of which blue hats on this soil with any kind of authority is one, and taking one or more out is worth dying for. However with my health the way it is, I doubt I'll live to see it happen, but I won't have to be here to know it will happen, because I know how many people just in my small area the feel exactly the same way that Critical and I feel, and if just 10% of those follow through, there will be a huge international incident and the proverbial fan will scatter you know what.
 

This is not the same as foreign troops training on US soil, that goes on all the time. Allies must work together or they are not allies, that is understood. But if someone decides that we need UN troops to monitor elections, control the public because for one reason or another the politicians feel like the local police or national guard can't do the job, then Katie bar the door, blood is going to flow. Armed blue hats on our soil for any other reason than training with US troops will be nothing but targets. It won't be pretty. I'm on the tail end of my life, if it happens in my life time, what have I got to loose. Actually there are a number of things worse than dying, of which blue hats on this soil with any kind of authority is one, and taking one or more out is worth dying for. However with my health the way it is, I doubt I'll live to see it happen, but I won't have to be here to know it will happen, because I know how many people just in my small area the feel exactly the same way that Critical and I feel, and if just 10% of those follow through, there will be a huge international incident and the proverbial fan will scatter you know what.

Any proposals for that to happen that you can point to?
 

Is Holder going to give a speech on how to control illegal arms trading? Who better than our no. 1 law enforcement officer?
Our leaders are pathetic! They should have the meeting in Frisco, then they could all walk around naked. Heaven forbid Feinstein joins in!
 

XLT, You know that they will not, cannot believe that the plans they carefully lay in secret could come out do you?

They will fight you, ridicule you and say you are libelous, perhaps they will even say you are being blasphemous or racist. Whatever it takes to silence us until the foul deed is complete.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top