Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fast and Furious was started by the Justice Department in 2007 and was in full swing in 2008. Remind us now who was making policy for the Justice Department in 2007 and 2008?
IF YOU HAVE MEMORY ISSUES, THE ATTORNY GENERAL WAS ALBERTO GONZALES AND HIS BOSS WAS GEORGE WALKER BUSH.
Show one court decision that has been overturned and legislators influenced by a UN treaty the US signed.
"...Fujii v. State,' in which the California District Court of Appeal declared the
Alien Land Law of that state unenforceable because of the adherence of the
United States to the United Nations Charter, although the statute was still
considered by the court to be in other respects constitutional."
So, decisions made by the UN assembly have been influencing domestic law for decades. Why should it not?
Also, the UN has stated that:
"Principle II (of the Nürnberg Principles) states that criminal liability exists under international law even if domestic law does not punish an act which is an international crime"
So it is silly to say that "we can ratify this treaty because it doesn't apply to us." If the US ratified the treaty, all its requirements would have to be enforced domestically or the country would face serious political embarrassment, and possibly international sanctions like trade embargos. Don't underestimate a national politician's desire to look good in the eyes of the international community.
Now, I'm not saying that a bunch of blue-helmets are going to come storming in to seize Grandpa's shotgun. That is clearly not a realistic scenario, if for no other reason it is militarily and logistically impossible. But (if memory serves me right) the panel responsible for the arms trade treaty has strongly suggested that records be kept of ownership of civilian arms - otherwise known as a gun registry, which many American gun owners are opposed to for a number of reasons. That's the primary reason why gun rights groups are suspicious of the treaty.
Very frightening how easily people swallow down NRA and right-wing propaganda. This Treaty would have ZERO effect on the 2nd Amendment. Did you even bother to read the document? "Private actors" are not subject to the treaty.
How embarrassing that the Yea votes sided with China, Russia, and France.
"Some 108 countries, led by Mexico, issued a joint statement on Monday saying "the overwhelming majority of (U.N.) Member States agree with us on the necessity and the urgency of adopting a strong Arms Trade Treaty. Our voice must be heard." Among that statement's supporters were major arms producers Britain and Germany. The other four top arms exporters - the United States, Russia, China and France - did not endorse it." What's at stake in U.N. arms trade treaty negotiations? | Reuters
I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn; would you be interested?
Fast and Furious was started by the Justice Department in 2007 and was in full swing in 2008. Remind us now who was making policy for the Justice Department in 2007 and 2008?
IF YOU HAVE MEMORY ISSUES, THE ATTORNY GENERAL WAS ALBERTO GONZALES AND HIS BOSS WAS GEORGE WALKER BUSH.
And then Obama and Emanuel came in and stopped it!!! Oh... no they didn't! In fact, they stonewalled the investigations.
Agent Terry was killed in December of 2010. So, you are presented with two scenarios. Either Obama and his administration knew about it and were complicit, or they were inept buffoons. Which was it?
I'll take that as a 'no'. You haven't read the treaty.
by what you usually write about firearms, I will take it that you dont really care that the UN treaty will limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
hell, you would probably herald it into place against the people.
I will take it that you dont really care that the UN treaty will limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
If you'd actually read the primary texts rather than rely upon the propaganda, you'd realize that the treaty does no such thing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen
If you actually read the whole document, it is primarily concerned with human rights violations, like those that occurred in Bosnia. The fact that the quote you cite contextualizes these procedures for disarmament as a way of preventing "return to armed violence" illustrates this clearly.
In fact, earlier in the report, the legal use of firearms is reaffirmed:
"8. In honouring the right to life, liberty and security of person, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the intentional lethal use of small arms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. State agents, including law enforcement officials, shall not use small arms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives."
Member States are rightfully charged with developing licensing procedures, which we already have in this country.
See you actually have to read things for yourself to find out what they actually say. The propaganda you guzzle down is a lot easier to consume, but if you do your own intellectual work whenever possible you'll be the better for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
hell, you would probably herald it into place against the people.
Must be strange to live in a fantasyland where reality is composed of one's own stupid assumptions. Speaking of, Steven has something to talk to you about:
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn; would you be interested?
Last edited by helenejen; 04-21-2013 at 10:15 AM..
"...the intentional lethal use of small arms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. State agents, including law enforcement officials, shall not use small arms..."
You may or may not be aware of this, but this statement pertains to the lawful lethal use of small arms by agents of the state, not by "civilians," for lack of a better term.
Here's the UN bureaucracy's position on the civilian possession of small arms for self defense
"The principle of self-defence has an important place in international human rights law,
but does not provide an independent, supervening right to small arms possession, nor does it
ameliorate the duty of States to use due diligence in regulating civilian possession."
I'm not going to go into what they think about civilian possession of small arms for the prevention of government tyranny
Furthermore, the UN explicitly states that article 51 of the UN charter does not apply to individual persons:
"Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to States acting in self-defence
against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of
self-defence for individual persons."
(UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Final Report Submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur: Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons , 27 July 2006, A/HRC/Sub.1/58/27)
What all this boils down to is that significant international pressure can be brought to bear upon a nation that does not regulate civilian small arms possession in a fashion which is consistent with what the General Assembly has agreed upon. Whether or not such regulation is in conflict with that nation's particular constitution is of secondary importance.
This is only logical, as rogue states and dictatorships of diverse descriptions could otherwise simply change their national constitution in order to justify their transgressions of ratified treaties.
Last edited by Norgy; 04-21-2013 at 01:14 PM..
Reason: Discovered I'd forgotten a point :)
And then Obama and Emanuel came in and stopped it!!! Oh... no they didn't! In fact, they stonewalled the investigations.
Agent Terry was killed in December of 2010. So, you are presented with two scenarios. Either Obama and his administration knew about it and were complicit, or they were inept buffoons. Which was it?
Rahm Emanule was never part of the Obama Administration and the Fast and Furious program was shut down by the Obama Administration. Now people like you need to accept and fess up to the fact that the Mexican drug cartels get most of their guns from the United States and that gun dealers in places like Texas or Arizona make tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from these cartels and gangs who are some of their best customers. How many Texns and other citizens of the SW make a good living being transporters and retail distributors of Mexican Cartel products like Coke, Meth and Mary Jane?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
