Does this mean the UN can come and get your weapons or is it limited to shipping? We have not read the bill, however, if we understand this Administration, it probably will involve seizure of guns of law abiding citizens and will prevent ANY transfer of guns.
Unfortunately, now we have to fight in the Senate which must approve the treaty. This is NOT good for Americans who own guns as the Senate just might vote for this!
Conservative Tom
|
| The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve the first-ever treaty to regulate the enormous global trade in conventional weapons, for the first time linking such sales to the human-rights records of the buyers. |
| The vote on the Arms Trade Treaty came after an attempt to achieve a consensus on the treaty among all 193 member states of the United Nations failed last week, with Iran, Syria and North Korea blocking it. Those three countries, often ostracized as pariahs, contended the treaty was full of deficiencies and had been structured to be unfair to them. |
| The treaty would require states exporting conventional weapons to develop criteria that would link exports to avoiding human rights abuses, terrorism and organized crime. It would also ban shipments if they were deemed harmful to women and children. Countries that join the treaty would have to report publicly on sales every year, exposing the process to levels of transparency that rights groups hope will severely limit illicit weapons deals. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/arms-trade-treaty-approved-at-un.html?emc=na&_r=0
"We have not read the bill, however, if we understand this Administration, it probably will involve seizure of guns of law abiding citizens and will prevent ANY transfer of guns."
ReplyDeleteIt is a treaty, not a bill. It has nothing to do with seizing guns of law abiding citizens. It aims to regulate sales of weapons to countries like Syria that violate human rights.
--David
First of all, yes, it is a treaty and until it was passed by the UN, it was a proposed treaty. Now it has to be approved by the Senate.
ReplyDeleteI have not read the treaty but there are others who have who assert that this is a way to get to weapons that we own.
I do not trust the Administration and since they voted for the Treaty in the UN and that they are trying very hard to get gun control here, it is only natural to think that the bill does not only refer to the sale of weapons in Syria. That is naive.
Anybody who says this is part of the Obama conspiracy to seize guns is delusional. It has nothing to do with seizing guns. It is about regulating weapons sales to countries that violate human rights. I only gave Syria as a prime example, since that is immediately at hand.
ReplyDelete--David
Well, I would rather be delusional than to ignore the obvious.
ReplyDeleteYou ARE ignoring the obvious. The treaty is solely about international arms sales between countries. How that can get interpreted to mean that somebody from the UN is somehow going to seize guns sold by people in the U.S. to other people in the U.S. is an illogical leap of epic proportion.
ReplyDelete--David
Here is what the Al Jezerra article says:The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons
ReplyDeletein any country, but it will require all countries to establish
national regulations to control the transfer of conventional
arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers.
Lets read: 1) It will Not control domestic USE of weapons. That means it cannot control police or an individual from USING a weapon.
2)However, it says that all nations must set up national regulations to CONTROL THE TRANSFER OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS, PARTS AND COMPONENTS AND to regulate arms brokers. How is a nation able to control the TRANSFER of conventional arms without gun control and even confiscation? Transfer is a very important word here.
David, do you just like to argue or do you really feel this way or are you trying to test me?
As a person who is skeptical about sources, it is surprising that you would rely on a source like Al Jezerra instead of just reading the treaty with your own eyes. Read the treaty. Here is what it prohibits…
ReplyDelete"A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party."
This OBVIOUSLY had nothing to do with guns sold domestically within any country. The treaty states this explicitly...
"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system"
-----------
As far as the Senate vote is concerned, why would you want to vote with Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea in defense of selling weapons into countries that violate human rights, while virtually the entire rest of the U.N. votes in favor? This treaty will be overwhelmingly ratified in the Senate.
--David
Incidentally, the United States already has enforcement against private contractors who internationally export weapons illegally. Here is one example…
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wral.com/news/local/story/11402096/
--David