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.
If Congress told him no then why doesn't he listen to Congress ?
Because the mechanism for COngress to tell him no is to vote against ratification, not send letters that are actually intended for the consumption of the mpouthbreathers back home.
Well, see, there you go. Again you've got your boxers in a twist over nothing. It'll get to the Senate, it'll get voted down, and we won't ratify it. Again signing a treaty doesn't make you a state party, it's a ratification that binds you to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
From an ABC News article:
[color=blue]The treaty will require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not control the domestic use of weapons in any country.
That seems to take care of the question of whether it will try to change how Americans own and carry guns in the U.S.
But then the article goes on to say:
It prohibits the transfer of conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
I'm not clear on how a gun can "promote" anything. That's usually done by people, either the ones holdiong the guns, or the ones controlling the ones who hold guns.
And as for the second bolded part... ANY gun, of any description, can be "used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals." Including the pellet gun my 14-year-old son used to nail a garden rabbit yesterday, that was eating my wife's home-grown veggies.
What, exactly, does this treaty say about such "weapons that can be used in attacks" etc.? That we can't import them from other countries? Or that we can't import them against embargos from other countries? Or.....?? What does it say, exactly?[/quote]
The TL;DR version of the treaty - states party have to create a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired by battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. A state party can't export the ammunition/munitions for those to another party that has arms embargoes against it, if it knows those items would be used to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes against civilians, war crimes, etc." So let's say there's a country out there...let's call it Tyria. Tyria is known to be in the midst of an uprising and the Tyrian government is brutally putting down that uprising and there have been multiple reports of entire cities being leveled, hospitals attacked, etc. It'd be a violation of the treaty if you sold the Tyrians cluster bombs for their air force.
So what's the national control system? Record keeping. You have to keep 10 years of records on the quantity, value, model/type, conventional arms actually transferred, who exported it, who imported it, how it was sent and what countries it trans-shipped through, and end users. So if I'm the US selling 10 F-16s to South Korea I note that 10 Lockheed F-16 Block 52s or x value were transferred to South Korea to be used by their air force. Tada.
I did not ask you to read some crystal ball. I asked you to back up your own post.
You wrote that "it demands that every nation create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders within its borders. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could prevent private individuals from purchasing ammunition for any weapons they do own."
Prove it.
Cite the provisions on the treaty that demands these things... or even hints at them,
I'll wait.
I quoted the article for you. You take as you want.
You know as well as I know the real intent is about gun control that is why Obama ignored congress.
Because the mechanism for COngress to tell him no is to vote against ratification, not send letters that are actually intended for the consumption of the mpouthbreathers back home.
Because the mechanism for COngress to tell him no is to vote against ratification, not send letters that are actually intended for the consumption of the mpouthbreathers back home.
That's the point though. Why bother signing it if you know it won't be ratified.
Is this some figurehead type of showing ?
Sign it but it really means nothing ?
This is Copenhagen all over again. He would have signed the treaty then, against the wishes of Congress, if it weren't for China blowing the hole thing sky high.
I'm not clear on how a gun can "promote" anything. That's usually done by people, either the ones holding the guns, or the ones controlling the ones who hold guns.
"they" refer to the transfers, not the guns. If a guerrilla organization has declared that its political intent is to shoot all members of a minority, wouldn't it be a good thing to have civilized nations agree not to arm that organization?
I quoted the article for you. You take as you want.
The article is BS. You're being had, buddy.
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.
