That UN gun treaty thing
I don’t trust either side in this discussion, unfortunately, there is virtually no source material on the treaty that passed the United Nations General Assembly today. Apparently, we’re supposed to just trust our UN politicians that they would only act in our best interests. All I can find at this point is news reports and press releases. I know that the NRA tells us that it’s bad, but then, so do China, India, Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. According to the Washington Post, folks I mistrust on the other side who like it aren’t much more trustworthy;
U.S. officials and several nongovernmental organizations, including the American Bar Association, have argued that the treaty would have no impact on American gun rights.
Its specific language recognizes the “legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.”
On Tuesday, Secretary of State John F. Kerry welcomed the approval of the treaty, describing it as a “strong, effective and implementable” tool that can “strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade.”
Oh, yeah, Amnesty International likes it, too. So, given the folks who like the treaty (whom I’m sure haven’t read it either) don’t inspire confidence.
The UN’s website says;
According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, the treaty will not do any of the following: interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in Member States; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm States’ legitimate right to self-defence; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.
But the Washington Post says;
The treaty would require governments to establish a national record-keeping system to track the trade in conventional arms. They would also have to ensure that weapons are not illegally diverted to terrorist organizations or other armed groups. In addition, governments would conduct risk assessments to determine the likelihood that arms exports were being used to abuse human rights, particularly against women or children.
Either way, I’m pretty sure that we won’t be able to supply aid to any of our allies like Israel. The UN has sanctioned Israel more than 130 times since 1967. I’m pretty sure the UN would find a way to disarm them. Meanwhile, just like gun control inside the US, the treaty would be useless against criminal states like Syria and Iran, and those other countries I listed who abstained from voting or voted against the treaty. The only countries that would adhere to the mysterious treaty are the ones that always do – the US, the UK, Canada, etc….
Category: Guns, United Nations
UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.
A treaty that has untold number of pages, and the name of the Office says it all.
Right because the UN has been completely devoid of corruption and dishonesty to this point. We definitely want to agree to cede our power to legislate and prosecute our own citizenry to such an honest and morally righteous organization as the UN. There would be no political gamesmanship from the member nations that have contributed nothing to the world welfare except misery, those nations have been nothing but grateful, honest and forthright in their dealings at the UN since its’ inception.
One more thing, f$ck the UN…a more useless pile of bricks has seldom been constructed. Maybe some day we can get some folks who can pull their heads out of their 4 corner contacts long enough to see what’s real instead of what they desire to see.
Lets hope our senate does not ratify the treaty, that is our last line of defence.
First comment peeps. I’ve given up on humanity all together.
“Nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.” John Kerry
Well, that’s good enough for me. We have John Kerry’s assurances. Bwahahahahahahahahahah.
That’s it. I quit.
@6: Luckily, this only affects about half the country. Well, that’s the way the other half of the country will view this, until the UN gets around to messing with something they care about.
Riiiight. Not impinge on our rights. Like all good roads to hell, and slippery slopes, this starts out with good intentions. The usual Libtard talking points.
But once it’s enacted, look out for all the amendments, and changes, and other BS that would erode our rights clear down to nothing.
I still think those pretty blue helmets make FINE targets. Or have I said that before?
There are several versions of this saying, but I’ll put just one here, to align with the point Old Trooper made above @7.
First they came for the socialists
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there wasn’t anybody left to speak out for me.
–Martin Niemoller, 1955 (in reference to the political apathy of pre-WWII Germany.)
Exactly Pinto Nag!
Well, if China and Russia don’t like it, then I don’t like it, either, ’cause they don’t like what’s on in Norkland. 🙂 The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or something like that.
Just how is this supposed to be enforced, again? Who is going to enforce it? How is Kerry going to implement it? What’s next – authorizing the use of drone strikes against US citizens in the US?
This is most preposterous piece of crap to come out that useless tax-sucking organization in a long time. If those people don’t have anything better to do, then they need to disband and go home. I don’t think Ban-ki Moon’s words are having much of an effect on Norkland, so this is just more hogwash.
It won’t stop gun trafficking, it won’t stop weapons developers from marketing their goods to bad people, and it won’t stop warfare.
The UN could spend its time better by doing something about human trafficking, commonly called the flesh trade.
This is utter shit.
“recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.”
Note the omission of another use for one’s firearms.
Here is what is on snopes.
I wouldn’t fret too much folks. We all know that any treaty signed by the UN is utterly worthless, as are the half-assed sanctions they try to pass. Of particular note, the UN cannot encroach on American sovereignty.
I believe that deep down this is an attempt to prevent useful weapons (US) from being sent to Israel. My money is on the Israeli Army and Air Force
@12.
I can think of at least one Historical event.
Might even get re-enacted.
This UN pseudo gun grab should provide Congresscritters plenty of top cover for their pro-gay marriage legislation.
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once, the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard ’round the world.
– R. W. Emerson
@8: It’s funny you bring that up. It was announced that one of the things being added to this UN treaty is that anyone over age 55 can’t have a firearm. It seems that the grand poobah, himself, said that at that age, there are issues with cerebral faculties eroding to the point they can’t make good decisions with firearms. It’s rather ironic, because if we applied that same logic to holding political office, his dumbass would be thrown out, along with most world leaders and politicians in their home countries. I say that if they attempt to put that in, that we also make a Constitutional Amendment that states if you are over 55, you cannot hold elected office of any type.
Meh.
Blue helmets make good aim points.
@13: Spork, please don’t use snopes. Anyone can find the same information as the couple that runs snopes, since their “research” isn’t any different than what we do (they search the internet, the same as we do).
#21 OT – Except they’ve been caught obscuring facts on their website before, at least people here generally backcheck things, even if we’re ‘on the same side’.
The UN will have to excuse me if I seem distrustful of their motives. They don’t exactly have a good track record. I think the majority of their successful military efforts have been against what, the unarmed and children? A dangerously corrupt organization that if we had any sense, we’d have kicked out of New York years ago.
I sure don’t trust an orginization that has Pakistan and Libya on the Human Rights Council.
One could spend multiple lifetimes just reading the stories that pop up if “United Nations corruption” is googled. I suppose that the only good thing about the UN nowadays is that a foreign dignitary could walk the streets of NY drinking a 32 oz. soda with impunity.
How exactly do you think the UN is going to disarm Israel? Pass another sanction? Express their “deep concern”? Please.
#25 Israel was just forced to apologize to Turkey for legitimate defense of its coast. The corrupt UN will ignore dictators slaughtering their own people and focus the full weight of world attention on Israel’s legitimite use of weapons i.e. US aircraft to defend itself.