Kerry signing UN Arms Trade Treaty tomorrow (9/25)

[Belmont31R]

Still requires the Senate to ratify.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...30924?irpc=932

[jwfuhrman]

And this Senate will be stupid enough to ratify it. What I gather from this is basically no more imported guns or ammo. That means the cheap imported Steel and Brass cases ammo will be no more. Along with 922r Compliant Weapons.

It could very well lead to attempts at confiscation and other bullshit here but I highly doubt it. The UN's casualties would be in the tens of thousands by the end of the first month.....

[Gutshot John]

And this Senate will be stupid enough to ratify it.

Ratification? You realize that this requires a 2/3rds majority.

[Belmont31R]

Ratification? You realize that this requires a 2/3rds majority.

I am more worried that Obama will try to enforce it in some roundabout way anyways.

[HackerF15E]

What I gather from this is basically no more imported guns or ammo. That means the cheap imported Steel and Brass cases ammo will be no more. Along with 922r Compliant Weapons.

Have you actually read the text of the treaty itself? What in that text leads you to that conclusion?

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/...08.pdf#page=21

The treaty is about illicit arms trade. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the very legal and tightly regulated US importation of foreign-made arms and ammunition.

[Ick]

At a minimum it seems to me that it has broad open-ended language not just on tanks, planes, etc... but the language on small arms... could be used by any number of parties to justify action within the United States to impede anything small arms related coming into, or out of the USA.

As we all know our constitution cannot be superseded by a treaty... but that is not what the globalist/State-ists would have you believe. Most people assume that a treaty restricting the right to keep and bear arms is binding within on our nation. Go figure. I would be willing to bet that if you did a poll even on the guys that are members here... a full 50% of the membership would assume that by "law" a treaty is superior in legal standing to our constitution. Well, assuming they didn't do a GOOGLE search before answering the poll.

The media would have a field day with this popular misunderstanding and our President would absolutely love yet another reason to justify executive orders "protecting our women and children" from evil guns.

Check out the treaty.... it uses all sorts of language like "reduce human suffering", "violation of international human law", "gender-based violence... or violence against women and children," etc.

It is sad, but true, if the UN wants it I am automatically skeptical.

Furthermore, this document seems to almost demand a new and more pervasive bureaucracy regarding small arms. Doesn't it seem to you like the language almost demands a national gun registry? When I read it that is what I thought it was saying. Certainly it provides a framework for the powers that be to SAY that it is now required. Is it? I don't like it one bit.

The ONLY part of the treaty I like is "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."

How is this treaty to be used? Is it so the UN can now demand action on the next Assad because his goons are killing women and children? How about the next time some idiot goes on a rampage in an elementary school within the USA. Do you think someone is going to use this newly ratified language to demand we do what is necessary to protect the children? After all, the only thing people want is background checks and reasonable gun restrictions. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I can't see how singing something that even hints at placing us under the authority of language like this is a good idea long-term.

[jwfuhrman]

Ratification? You realize that this requires a 2/3rds majority.

absolutely. I do have bachelor degrees in US History and Government......

With the Democraps having a powerful majority and Senators like John McCain and Lindsay Gram, I have no faith in this being blocked.

[Gutshot John]

absolutely. I do have bachelor degrees in US History and Government......

With the Democraps having a powerful majority and Senators like John McCain and Lindsay Gram, I have no faith in this being blocked.

Powerful majority? 53 (including independents)? Even assuming McCain/Graham vote for this...you still need 12 Republicans crossing party lines.

$10 will get you $20 it doesn't happen.

[Alaskapopo]

And this Senate will be stupid enough to ratify it. What I gather from this is basically no more imported guns or ammo. That means the cheap imported Steel and Brass cases ammo will be no more. Along with 922r Compliant Weapons.

It could very well lead to attempts at confiscation and other bullshit here but I highly doubt it. The UN's casualties would be in the tens of thousands by the end of the first month.....

I don't think so. This is the same senate that did not cave after New Town.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Powerful majority? 53 (including independents)? Even assuming McCain/Graham vote for this...you still need 12 Republicans crossing party lines.

$10 will get you $20 it doesn't happen.

Not all of those 53 Democrats are anti gun either. One of our senators is democrat and pro gun.