U.S. Reverses Stance on Treaty to Regulate Arms Trade

[Alpha]

This treaty has been in the works for at least a decade.
The major issue as far as the Second Amendment goes is that the proposed treaty would require signatory countries to register and record in a central data base. The ownership of private weapons and ammunition.
I fail to see how my safe full of currently legal firearms poses any threat to world peace. I really have no plan to ship them south in support of a Junta, or east to support Jihad, or north to support the drug trade in Chicago.

Even if every country on the planet were to sign on to this treaty, does anyone really believe that any of the signatory nations would refrain from supplying their "Favorite Causes" , be it a nation or a rebellion?

This is nothing but an attempt by governments to disarm their populace .

The UN is a waste and has been since its inception. The concept was grand, the execution failed. (or did it?)

Edit:
for a look at the dis-ingenuous thoughts and concepts that the UN is based upon, read a bit about the Potsdam conference. Winston knew his government (as lead by him) was done, hence, his dream of his own death. Harry and Joe were playing " Got ya" games. (It depends on what is, is, right?)

Believe it or not, we are all SCREWED. I don't mind going down myself, the fact that my children are screwed and knowing that I can not stop it , really pisses me off.

[Tiger]

I found another article on this topic and thought I would share it to be objective;

Summary of the eRumor:
This is a forwarded email that says that the Obama Administration is supporting talks at the United Nations on a treaty that would regulate arms sales. The email includes an article from Reuters and warns that this would affect Second Amendment rights and eventually result in a ban of all firearms in the United States.

The Truth:
The report of The U.S. support for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty from Reuters is true and was published October 14, 2009.

Different versions of this eRumor are circulating the internet and some have been found to have added comments edited into the body of the article to make it appear as if those comments were that of Reuters. Click for original article.

The Institute for Legislative Action of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA-ILA) has been engaged at the United Nations for the past fourteen years in response to such initiatives involving the regulation of small arms. In a November 25, 2009 press release, the Institute said that this treaty has not yet been drafted, is still under discussion and in the early stages of negotiations.

Therefore, the allegations that this treaty would result in a ban of all firearms in the United States, a violation of U.S. Second Amendment rights, are unproven at this time.

The NRA-ILA release said that in most cases, a small group of nations along with a large number of Non-Governmental Organizations have had "agendas for the elimination of private ownership of firearms disguised as calls for international arms control to stem the flow of illicit military weapons." The Institute also said that this move by the Obama Administration, which is a U-turn from the stance of President George W. Bush, comes as no surprise.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/ ... Treaty.htm

[Space]

Indeed!

[Tiger]

Alright Space, help me out here. I know you suggested that this is just right wing drivel, and I was willing to accept that. But, I saw this video;



I thought to myself "No, this can't be." So, I checked it out. First, I went to Forbes for the article they mentioned;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... -the-deal/

Then, I went looking for Department of State Publication 7277, September 1961. Guess where I found it? The senate.gov web site. Look under Selected Documents and click on Freedom from War, State Department Publication 7277 (1961);

http://www.senate.gov/reference/referen ... ns_vrd.htm

I'm sure I missing something. This is just a parody web site of the actual U.S. Department of State, right? And, I'm not kidding. This can't be real.

[Alpha]

Tiger
I actually took the time to read what is purported to be the actual proposed treaty. To me it appears to be so loosely written that it can mean what ever the powers that be say it means .
Perhaps most disconcerting is that it is no longer necessary for our Senate to ratify a treaty. Once it is signed by the Secretary of State it is valid until the Senate votes to reject it or it is nullified by a future President. This comes from something called the Vienna Conference or protocol, can't remember which.

I am so tired of politicians stating that they won't do anything to diminish our hunting or sporting rights. That is NOT what the 2nd amendment is about.

[Space]

Tiger, from that same article, "U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Internal Security and Nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, has stated that the Obama administration does not support regulation of ammunition, but only wants to make it more difficult to “conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms”. In addition, a press release issued by the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs says that “The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small and light weapons."

Seems the UN Office on Disarmament Affairs is the most knowledgeable on what they want, so either they are lying straight out to us, which would be easily seen from the text of the treaty, or our representatives are giving us the scare tactic. But our reps would never do that to us, would they?

I would encourage everyone interested to the original document, particularly Appendix A on the very last page which clearly states the intent and scope of the proposed treaty. http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ ... 120307.pdf

[Tiger]

S!~ Alpha, Space,

Thank you both for the input. My tendency to buy into conspiracy theories had me wanting an objective viewpoint. Ironically, I was seeking that viewpoint on the day that the U.N. Small Arms Treaty was to be signed. I am happy to report that an agreement was not reached, however. Here's the NRA article I received via e-mail yesterday (I'm a life member, BTW);

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/artic ... reaty.aspx