Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/7/2010 2:31:41 PM EDT
If this is a dupe, sorry, but I don't care. It needs to be out there.

I was reading my latest Vin Suprynowicz article in SGN when I came across this little gem. It talked about how a treaty will be adopted by the UN to register all firearms, destroy all ammo surplus, and "Many Other Restrictions." It went on to say that on Oct 30th 2009 the UN members voted in favor of the Arms Trade Treaty and the U.S. voted in favor.

Has the Senate already voted on this or do they wait until the final draft which is expected by July 2011 before they give it their blessings? If that's the case, "Fo" time is significantly closer than most people think! I'm pretty damn sure that our Democratic Senators *WILL* vote for this, and have a sneaking suspicion that the Republicans will go along with it just like the pussies always do and I don't even think that the Republican gains they'll be making this time around will matter one bit. They'll probably vote for it anyway or at the very least not have enough votes to be able to stop it. My co-worker said something about "Those Blue Dog Democrats would never let that happen!" My reply was that those "Blue Dog Democrats" went in lock step for the Stimulus package *AND* Healthcare, so why wouldn't they go for this too?

So what say the ARFCom hivemind? Are we screwed? Should I stock up in anticipation that I get to put holes in blue helmets?

Or just lighten up Francis?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:33:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
If this is a dupe, sorry, but I don't care. It needs to be out there.


For some dupes, this is appropriate. But for megadupes, not so much...

Lighten up...
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:35:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
Should I stock up in anticipation that I get to put holes in blue helmets?


Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:37:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SlightlySkewed:
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
Should I stock up in anticipation that I get to put holes in blue helmets?


Whoops....ban hammer incoming.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:37:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:41:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By WhirlyGirl45:
Originally Posted By SlightlySkewed:
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
Should I stock up in anticipation that I get to put holes in blue helmets?


Whoops....ban hammer incoming.



For what?

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:43:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GNRNR:
Originally Posted By WhirlyGirl45:
Originally Posted By SlightlySkewed:
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
Should I stock up in anticipation that I get to put holes in blue helmets?


Whoops....ban hammer incoming.



For what?

Yes, for what. Fuck the UN.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:46:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lootie23:

Originally Posted By GNRNR:
Originally Posted By WhirlyGirl45:
Originally Posted By SlightlySkewed:
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
Should I stock up in anticipation that I get to put holes in blue helmets?


Whoops....ban hammer incoming.



For what?

Yes, for what. Fuck the UN.



i concur
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:00:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:12:31 PM EDT
You have.................Ahhhhhhh Nevermind
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:27:11 PM EDT
This is the first time I've heard this on the internet...Ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:49:41 PM EDT
The UN already has been buying and destroying surplus ammo. They have already taken positions against the private ownerships of arms.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:53:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
If this is a dupe, sorry, but I don't care. It needs to be out there.

I was reading my latest Vin Suprynowicz article in SGN when I came across this little gem. It talked about how a treaty will be adopted by the UN to register all firearms, destroy all ammo surplus, and "Many Other Restrictions." It went on to say that on Oct 30th 2009 the UN members voted in favor of the Arms Trade Treaty and the U.S. voted in favor.

Has the Senate already voted on this or do they wait until the final draft which is expected by July 2011 before they give it their blessings? If that's the case, "Fo" time is significantly closer than most people think! I'm pretty damn sure that our Democratic Senators *WILL* vote for this, and have a sneaking suspicion that the Republicans will go along with it just like the pussies always do and I don't even think that the Republican gains they'll be making this time around will matter one bit. They'll probably vote for it anyway or at the very least not have enough votes to be able to stop it. My co-worker said something about "Those Blue Dog Democrats would never let that happen!" My reply was that those "Blue Dog Democrats" went in lock step for the Stimulus package *AND* Healthcare, so why wouldn't they go for this too?

So what say the ARFCom hivemind? Are we screwed? Should I stock up in anticipation that I get to put holes in blue helmets?

Or just lighten up Francis?




You're not making us gun owners sound like fucking nut-jobs are you?

Lighten up Francis.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:54:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Grey_Man:
This is the first time I've heard this on the internet...Ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!


Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:54:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Snopes is right on this one. US arms controls are held up as the model for much of the proposed UN resolution. US requires serial numbers, and import marks, and all import and export of arms must be approved. Much of that is not true in other nations.

In this regard, the UN resolution is hoping to make the rest of the worlds gun laws more like ours, atleast on the import/export end. The US has the model for effective import/export controls of arms....
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:11:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Treaties cannot undo the second amendment.

The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case
  • <nobr>Reid v. Covert,</nobr> the <nobr>U.S. Supreme</nobr> Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the <nobr>U.S. Senate.</nobr> (Furthermore, the <nobr>U.S. Congress</nobr> cannot be "bypassed" in any such treaty process, as all treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate.)

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:15:25 PM EDT
OP, badge number and agency please
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:16:47 PM EDT
I think my avatar sums up my position on this fairly nicely.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:19:30 PM EDT
super duper double looper.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:19:33 PM EDT
Blue helmets is not the same as people wearing blue helmets, but this is no court of law. In before the ban hammer swingeth.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:22:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By California_Kid:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp


I hope you know that snopes has been outed. They are about as trust worthy as Janet Reno.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2307857/posts

Just one example...
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:22:23 PM EDT
If you read Vin in SGN, it's always a couple months behind current events, at the very least.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:24:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By California_Kid:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp


I hope you know that snopes has been outed. They are about as trust worthy as Janet Reno.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2307857/posts

Just one example...


The political affiliation of the Snopes' founders does not affect the veracity of their statements. The claims on that page are backed up. If you want to refute those claims, do so. Arguing that the claims are false because the founders are liberals is a classic ad hominem fallacy and is illogical.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:26:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:28:42 PM EDT
IBTL...
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:33:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 6:44:35 PM EDT by thatguywiththeak]
I'm not reading through the whole thread as there is sure to be a lot of BS in it. This sort of thing falls squarely in my academic field (one of them at least). The straight truth of the matter is there is no convention on trade in small arms. That is what it will likely be reffered to as if it ever comes about. When I say it doesn't exist though, I mean that literally. There is no text(AFAIK) yet to even critique. There may or may not be some drafts that exist, created by various individual nations, but none have been made public as far as I'm aware as no one likes to show all their cards at the start of a hand. The Bush administration was oppossed to the idea. It disagreed on ideological and practical grounds, however the Obama adminstration and Clinton Department of State have reversed this position and expressed desire to come up with some hard (as it can be) international law regarding small arms trade. Publicly though, I dont think it has firmly stated what it wants to see. What I have seen is just mostly intangible BS. More grand standing designed to increase the fervor of the circle jerk for the Obama adminstration in the international politcal world.

From the perspective of the individual gun owner in the US, this is not something to worry about yet, if at all. Even if it gets drafted, agreed upon and signed, it has to be ratified, and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The Obama admin is going to have to carefully toe the line if it wants the US to be an observant signatory power(in other words for the treaty to mean anything with regard to the US and its nationals). Although I'm not convinced that is neccessarily what they are after. The biggest danger posed by this little "treaty to be" is to foriegn individuals who live in countries without protections on RKBA, and to a lesser extent the arms industry, both at home and abroad. Worst case senario is loosing the ability to buy cool forieng made shit like ps90s, the various parts kits, and cheap surplus ammo. Its hard to come up with a realistic analysis of the risk, as not much is being said (other than by NGOs and IGOs) on what the treaty may look like, at least publicly.


Edited/proofread for clarity and spelling. Ya that was pretty bad. I really have to start re-reading what I write. My points still remain valid though.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:34:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Storm6436:
I think my avatar sums up my position on this fairly nicely.


+1
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:40:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Storm6436:
I think my avatar sums up my position on this fairly nicely.


You won't get the chance to shoot blue helemts. That is unless you plan on taking a trip to South America or better yet, Sub-Saharan Africa. Like I said earlier if this treaty negatively impacts you as an American it won't be because or .gov agreed to it, but rather because foriegn .gov's agreed to it, and decided to shit on an industry that actually makes them money/is solvent.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:41:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thatguywiththeak:
I'm not reading through the whole thread as there is sure to be a lot of BS in it. This sort of thing falls squarely in my academic field (one of them at least). The straight truth of the matter is there is no convention on trade in small arms; that will likely be what it is referred to as if it ever comes about. When I say it doesn't exist though, I mean that literally. There is no text AFAIK yet to even critique. There may or may not be some drafts that exist created by various individual nations, but none that have been made public as far as I'm aware as no one likes to show all their cards at the start of a hand. The Bush admin was oppossed to the idea, as it disagreed on ideological and practical grounds, however the Obama admin and Clinton DOS have reversed this position and expressed desire to come up with hard(as it can be) some international law regarding small arms trade. Plublicly though, I dont think it has firmly stated what it wants to see, just intangible BS designed to increase the international circle jerk for the Obama admin.

From the perspective of the individual gun owner in the US, this is not something to worry about yet if at all. Even if it gets drafted, agreed upon and signed, it has to be ratified, and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The Obama admin is going to have to carefully toe the line if it wants the US to be an observant signatory power, althoughI'm not convinced that is neccessarily what they are after. The biggest danger posed by this little treaty to be is to foriegn individuals who live in countries without protections on RKBA, and to a lesser extent the arms industry, both at home and abroad. Worst case senario that we are looking at is loosing the ability to buy cool forieng made shit like ps90s, the various parts kits, and cheap surplus ammo. Even then its hard to come up with a realistic analysis of the risk, as not much is being said (other than by NGOs) on what the treaty may look like, at least publicly.


How many of our Supreme Court justices disagreed with Heller?

BTW, the breath you just took falls under the EPA jurisdiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:43:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By California_Kid:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp


I hope you know that snopes has been outed. They are about as trust worthy as Janet Reno.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2307857/posts

Just one example...


I didn't read snopes, but regardless of their credibility, scroll down and read my post. That is the "straight dope", one arfcommer to another. There is literally nothing to be worried about yet, as there is a good chance this is grand standing, with regard to the position reversal.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:46:50 PM EDT
Its already causing issue w/ ammunition importation etc so i hear
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:47:31 PM EDT
Should we be popping the tops off of our PMAGs, reinforcing the ammo fort, or building additional tinfoil hats?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:49:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 5:50:25 PM EDT by thatguywiththeak]
Originally Posted By Angelshare1:
Originally Posted By thatguywiththeak:
I'm not reading through the whole thread as there is sure to be a lot of BS in it. This sort of thing falls squarely in my academic field (one of them at least). The straight truth of the matter is there is no convention on trade in small arms; that will likely be what it is referred to as if it ever comes about. When I say it doesn't exist though, I mean that literally. There is no text AFAIK yet to even critique. There may or may not be some drafts that exist created by various individual nations, but none that have been made public as far as I'm aware as no one likes to show all their cards at the start of a hand. The Bush admin was oppossed to the idea, as it disagreed on ideological and practical grounds, however the Obama admin and Clinton DOS have reversed this position and expressed desire to come up with hard(as it can be) some international law regarding small arms trade. Plublicly though, I dont think it has firmly stated what it wants to see, just intangible BS designed to increase the international circle jerk for the Obama admin.

From the perspective of the individual gun owner in the US, this is not something to worry about yet if at all. Even if it gets drafted, agreed upon and signed, it has to be ratified, and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The Obama admin is going to have to carefully toe the line if it wants the US to be an observant signatory power, althoughI'm not convinced that is neccessarily what they are after. The biggest danger posed by this little treaty to be is to foriegn individuals who live in countries without protections on RKBA, and to a lesser extent the arms industry, both at home and abroad. Worst case senario that we are looking at is loosing the ability to buy cool forieng made shit like ps90s, the various parts kits, and cheap surplus ammo. Even then its hard to come up with a realistic analysis of the risk, as not much is being said (other than by NGOs) on what the treaty may look like, at least publicly.


How many of our Supreme Court justices disagreed with Heller?

BTW, the breath you just took falls under the EPA jurisdiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency


Doesn't really matter at this point. Heller exists and stare decisis comes into play more and more the longer it stands as good law and is built upon, both by the SC and lower courts. I'm not here to get into a legal arguement with you though. My point was that any agreement that may come into play has to go through all the hoops. Each one with the power to say no mas and invalidate it, at least with regards to the US's participation. By the time something like that reached the SC, Heller would likely have stood for at least a decade or two.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:51:06 PM EDT
If you are really interested in this, look here: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/Html/SALW-PoA-ISS_intro.shtml

The official UN web site
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:52:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 6:05:46 PM EDT by thatguywiththeak]
Originally Posted By SIG-shooter:
Its already causing issue w/ ammunition importation etc so i hear


It literally doesnt exist yet . AFAIK the problems lately with ammunition importation have been caused by issues with foriegn demand, and the enforcement of existing national arms trade law regarding surplus ammo (see South Africa). I have heard rumors about it being more difficult to get ITAR shit done with the state dept since the admin change as a little guy, but like i just said it rumors. I dont do ITAR stuff, importation/export permits, or end user statements ect.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:54:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By scragman:
Should we be popping the tops off of our PMAGs, reinforcing the ammo fort, or building additional tinfoil hats?


NO, you literally have years, if not a decade plus before this could begin to affect you personally if at all. Its hard to say it even would if it is made in valid international law.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:01:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1387Delta:
If you are really interested in this, look here: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/Html/SALW-PoA-ISS_intro.shtml

The official UN web site


The report provide in the link gives some good insight on where they are politcally with an agreement(politcally nowhere/the begining) and what the UN as and independent IGO is looking for. Take it, esp the findings/recomendations, with a grain of salt though. Like most of the reports/recommendations produced by the UN they tend to be filled with overly optomistic/ idealist BS though. What actually comes about is usually far more toned down as nation states are usually reluctant to give up their power, esp as it relates to anything to do with the military (in this case the arms industry).
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:02:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By California_Kid:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp


I hope you know that snopes has been outed. They are about as trust worthy as Janet Reno.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2307857/posts

Just one example...


That doesn't change the fact that the US Constitution trumps treaties and that POTUS cannot unilatrerally enter into a treaty. Ever hear of the separation of powers?

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:06:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thatguywiththeak:
I'm not reading through the whole thread as there is sure to be a lot of BS in it. This sort of thing falls squarely in my academic field (one of them at least). The straight truth of the matter is there is no convention on trade in small arms; that will likely be what it is referred to as if it ever comes about. When I say it doesn't exist though, I mean that literally. There is no text AFAIK yet to even critique. There may or may not be some drafts that exist created by various individual nations, but none that have been made public as far as I'm aware as no one likes to show all their cards at the start of a hand. The Bush admin was oppossed to the idea, as it disagreed on ideological and practical grounds, however the Obama admin and Clinton DOS have reversed this position and expressed desire to come up with hard(as it can be) some international law regarding small arms trade. Plublicly though, I dont think it has firmly stated what it wants to see, just intangible BS designed to increase the international circle jerk for the Obama admin.

From the perspective of the individual gun owner in the US, this is not something to worry about yet if at all. Even if it gets drafted, agreed upon and signed, it has to be ratified, and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The Obama admin is going to have to carefully toe the line if it wants the US to be an observant signatory power, althoughI'm not convinced that is neccessarily what they are after. The biggest danger posed by this little treaty to be is to foriegn individuals who live in countries without protections on RKBA, and to a lesser extent the arms industry, both at home and abroad. Worst case senario that we are looking at is loosing the ability to buy cool forieng made shit like ps90s, the various parts kits, and cheap surplus ammo. Even then its hard to come up with a realistic analysis of the risk, as not much is being said (other than by NGOs) on what the treaty may look like, at least publicly.


Wish you had better writting skills....not saying you're not smart, it's just hard to follow. Your example of a worst case scenario is wrong. The 1989 Import ban already restricts importation of many "cool" guns.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:08:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thebomber:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By California_Kid:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp


I hope you know that snopes has been outed. They are about as trust worthy as Janet Reno.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2307857/posts

Just one example...


That doesn't change the fact that the US Constitution trumps treaties and that POTUS cannot unilatrerally enter into a treaty. Ever hear of the separation of powers?



How dare you bring reason, logic, or actual knowledge of the way things are done into a GD thread. I was just assured a minute ago that SCOTUS would break with stare decisis and overide Heller a minute ago, after the poster conviently overlooked ratification and the fact that the treaty hasn't been writen yet.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:16:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 6:36:31 PM EDT by thatguywiththeak]
Originally Posted By thebomber:
Originally Posted By thatguywiththeak:
I'm not reading through the whole thread as there is sure to be a lot of BS in it. This sort of thing falls squarely in my academic field (one of them at least). The straight truth of the matter is there is no convention on trade in small arms; that will likely be what it is referred to as if it ever comes about. When I say it doesn't exist though, I mean that literally. There is no text AFAIK yet to even critique. There may or may not be some drafts that exist created by various individual nations, but none that have been made public as far as I'm aware as no one likes to show all their cards at the start of a hand. The Bush admin was oppossed to the idea, as it disagreed on ideological and practical grounds, however the Obama admin and Clinton DOS have reversed this position and expressed desire to come up with hard(as it can be) some international law regarding small arms trade. Plublicly though, I dont think it has firmly stated what it wants to see, just intangible BS designed to increase the international circle jerk for the Obama admin.

From the perspective of the individual gun owner in the US, this is not something to worry about yet if at all. Even if it gets drafted, agreed upon and signed, it has to be ratified, and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The Obama admin is going to have to carefully toe the line if it wants the US to be an observant signatory power, althoughI'm not convinced that is neccessarily what they are after. The biggest danger posed by this little treaty to be is to foriegn individuals who live in countries without protections on RKBA, and to a lesser extent the arms industry, both at home and abroad. Worst case senario that we are looking at is loosing the ability to buy cool forieng made shit like ps90s, the various parts kits, and cheap surplus ammo. Even then its hard to come up with a realistic analysis of the risk, as not much is being said (other than by NGOs) on what the treaty may look like, at least publicly.


Wish you had better writting skills....not saying you're not smart, it's just hard to follow. Your example of a worst case scenario is wrong. The 1989 Import ban already restricts importation of many "cool" guns.


Please, let me know what's hard to follow, and I will gladly clarify. I simply whipped up that to give some of the "chicken littles" that post here a bit better insight into what is actually occuring. I would however, contend that my worst case senario is not wrong. I'm familiar with the 89 ban, but I'm not basing my assesment on what I know of US law. I don't think US law will be the problem. Rather restrictions on trade by foriegn governments agaisnt foriegn arms producers will be the issue. There are also many cool things that are still imported, many of which aren't considered arms in this country, that could pontentially be restricted for exportation by foriegn governments.

ETA:Yes, I know my spelling sucks and I tend to use run on sentences. I don't get paid to write here so not much proof reading occurs.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:20:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thatguywiththeak:
Originally Posted By thebomber:
Originally Posted By thatguywiththeak:
I'm not reading through the whole thread as there is sure to be a lot of BS in it. This sort of thing falls squarely in my academic field (one of them at least). The straight truth of the matter is there is no convention on trade in small arms; that will likely be what it is referred to as if it ever comes about. When I say it doesn't exist though, I mean that literally. There is no text AFAIK yet to even critique. There may or may not be some drafts that exist created by various individual nations, but none that have been made public as far as I'm aware as no one likes to show all their cards at the start of a hand. The Bush admin was oppossed to the idea, as it disagreed on ideological and practical grounds, however the Obama admin and Clinton DOS have reversed this position and expressed desire to come up with hard(as it can be) some international law regarding small arms trade. Plublicly though, I dont think it has firmly stated what it wants to see, just intangible BS designed to increase the international circle jerk for the Obama admin.

From the perspective of the individual gun owner in the US, this is not something to worry about yet if at all. Even if it gets drafted, agreed upon and signed, it has to be ratified, and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The Obama admin is going to have to carefully toe the line if it wants the US to be an observant signatory power, althoughI'm not convinced that is neccessarily what they are after. The biggest danger posed by this little treaty to be is to foriegn individuals who live in countries without protections on RKBA, and to a lesser extent the arms industry, both at home and abroad. Worst case senario that we are looking at is loosing the ability to buy cool forieng made shit like ps90s, the various parts kits, and cheap surplus ammo. Even then its hard to come up with a realistic analysis of the risk, as not much is being said (other than by NGOs) on what the treaty may look like, at least publicly.


Wish you had better writting skills....not saying you're not smart, it's just hard to follow. Your example of a worst case scenario is wrong. The 1989 Import ban already restricts importation of many "cool" guns.


Please, let me know what's hard to follow, and I will gladly clarify. I simply whipped up that to give some the "chicken littles" that post here a bit better insight into what is actually occuring. I would however, contend that my worst case senario is not wrong. I'm familiar with the 89 ban, but I'm not basing my assesment on what I know of US law. I don't think US law will be the problem. Rather restrictions on trade by foriegn governments agaisnt foriegn arms producers will be the issue. There are also many cool things that are still imported, many of which aren't considered arms in this country, that could pontentially be restricted for exportation by foriegn governments.


Actually I am tracking and to be fair you are obviously a bright and well informed person. My point is as long as we have a free market, folks weill find a way to bring products that are in demand to the US. Having domestic production of "cool" guns iis actually beneficial as domestic production removes the EO option.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:28:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By WhirlyGirl45:
Originally Posted By SlightlySkewed:
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
Should I stock up in anticipation that I get to put holes in blue helmets?


Whoops....ban hammer incoming.



Oh Christ, I make a dichotomous distinction between the two camps of people that I've seen on this very site more than a thousand times and get the "Oh Snap, you're getting banned" treatment.

That said, I think I'll be fine. I'm not advocating shooting anyone.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:29:54 PM EDT
Holy shit...this fucking thread. Again.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:33:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 6:46:03 PM EDT by thatguywiththeak]
Originally Posted By thebomber:
Originally Posted By thatguywiththeak:
Originally Posted By thebomber:
Originally Posted By thatguywiththeak:
I'm not reading through the whole thread as there is sure to be a lot of BS in it. This sort of thing falls squarely in my academic field (one of them at least). The straight truth of the matter is there is no convention on trade in small arms; that will likely be what it is referred to as if it ever comes about. When I say it doesn't exist though, I mean that literally. There is no text AFAIK yet to even critique. There may or may not be some drafts that exist created by various individual nations, but none that have been made public as far as I'm aware as no one likes to show all their cards at the start of a hand. The Bush admin was oppossed to the idea, as it disagreed on ideological and practical grounds, however the Obama admin and Clinton DOS have reversed this position and expressed desire to come up with hard(as it can be) some international law regarding small arms trade. Plublicly though, I dont think it has firmly stated what it wants to see, just intangible BS designed to increase the international circle jerk for the Obama admin.

From the perspective of the individual gun owner in the US, this is not something to worry about yet if at all. Even if it gets drafted, agreed upon and signed, it has to be ratified, and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The Obama admin is going to have to carefully toe the line if it wants the US to be an observant signatory power, althoughI'm not convinced that is neccessarily what they are after. The biggest danger posed by this little treaty to be is to foriegn individuals who live in countries without protections on RKBA, and to a lesser extent the arms industry, both at home and abroad. Worst case senario that we are looking at is loosing the ability to buy cool forieng made shit like ps90s, the various parts kits, and cheap surplus ammo. Even then its hard to come up with a realistic analysis of the risk, as not much is being said (other than by NGOs) on what the treaty may look like, at least publicly.


Wish you had better writting skills....not saying you're not smart, it's just hard to follow. Your example of a worst case scenario is wrong. The 1989 Import ban already restricts importation of many "cool" guns.


Please, let me know what's hard to follow, and I will gladly clarify. I simply whipped up that to give some the "chicken littles" that post here a bit better insight into what is actually occuring. I would however, contend that my worst case senario is not wrong. I'm familiar with the 89 ban, but I'm not basing my assesment on what I know of US law. I don't think US law will be the problem. Rather restrictions on trade by foriegn governments agaisnt foriegn arms producers will be the issue. There are also many cool things that are still imported, many of which aren't considered arms in this country, that could pontentially be restricted for exportation by foriegn governments.


Actually I am tracking and to be fair you are obviously a bright and well informed person. My point is as long as we have a free market, folks weill find a way to bring products that are in demand to the US. Having domestic production of "cool" guns iis actually beneficial as domestic production removes the EO option.



No, I just re-read the post and you were correct. That was pretty bad. I should be doing much beter as far as proof reading for clarity even in personal/fun stuff as it makes for better professional habits. I think we are really on the same page though. It may not neccessarily be a bad thing to move "cool" gun production to the US, other than possible issues with price. Regardless, in this country we don't have much to worry about.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:39:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 6:40:46 PM EDT by Stegadeth]
Dear OP,

When you say things like, "I don't care if this is a dupe," the message you send is not positive. I have only been on this site since the Spring and I have seen this same thread probably once a week on average. Someone gets an email with it or finds it on some useless site that doesn't do any fact checking and thinks, "Oh my heck! Every gun owner should beware! I have to tell arfcom this stuff right now!"

If you care enough about us to warn us, please care enough about us not to bring up what has become the dupe of all dupes. You're a member, use that search! Thanks!
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 7:54:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
If this is a dupe, sorry, but I don't care. It needs to be out there.

I was reading my latest Vin Suprynowicz article in SGN when I came across this little gem. It talked about how a treaty will be adopted by the UN to register all firearms, destroy all ammo surplus, and "Many Other Restrictions." It went on to say that on Oct 30th 2009 the UN members voted in favor of the Arms Trade Treaty and the U.S. voted in favor.

Has the Senate already voted on this or do they wait until the final draft which is expected by July 2011 before they give it their blessings? If that's the case, "Fo" time is significantly closer than most people think! I'm pretty damn sure that our Democratic Senators *WILL* vote for this, and have a sneaking suspicion that the Republicans will go along with it just like the pussies always do and I don't even think that the Republican gains they'll be making this time around will matter one bit. They'll probably vote for it anyway or at the very least not have enough votes to be able to stop it. My co-worker said something about "Those Blue Dog Democrats would never let that happen!" My reply was that those "Blue Dog Democrats" went in lock step for the Stimulus package *AND* Healthcare, so why wouldn't they go for this too?

So what say the ARFCom hivemind? Are we screwed? Should I stock up in anticipation that I get to put holes in blue helmets?

Or just lighten up Francis?


Strong language for the people who put a muslim into congress, and not to mention franken.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 7:57:51 PM EDT
Really?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:00:57 PM EDT
The Programme of Action to Combat the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons has no potential to impact your guns. It is a treaty that is meant to keep member states from selling weapons to other member states or non-state actors in conflict zones.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:02:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
Originally Posted By WhirlyGirl45:
Originally Posted By SlightlySkewed:
Originally Posted By Turboguy1:
Should I stock up in anticipation that I get to put holes in blue helmets?


Whoops....ban hammer incoming.



Oh Christ, I make a dichotomous distinction between the two camps of people that I've seen on this very site more than a thousand times and get the "Oh Snap, you're getting banned" treatment.

That said, I think I'll be fine. I'm not advocating shooting anyone.


Even if you were, BFD, fuck the UN.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:02:54 PM EDT
Wut?

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top