Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-08-2011, 08:01 AM   #1 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
International Arms Treaty vs. the Second Amendment

Quote:
Op/Ed
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

Jun 7, 2011

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
  1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
  2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
  3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
  4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
  5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

[...]
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Larry Bell - The Bell Tells for You - Forbes

What do you make of this?

Is this about reducing international crime or is it international cooperation on domestic arms control?

Mind you, this article is an op-ed piece, but I'm wondering how this treaty actually works and how it's being sold. But in a general sense, what do you think?

I'm torn. I don't have an issue with reasonable arms control. However, this does strike me as a bit heavy-handed. It seems that this sort of thing should be handled domestically, rather than as an international treaty. At the same time, it would be of benefit to have nations on the same page with regard to how to handle arms regulations. I suppose I simply view the small arms trade as something rather unsavoury and that maybe it would be of benefit to have some kind of international regulatory agreement.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 09:17 AM   #2 (permalink)
zomgomgomgomgomgomg
 
telekinetic's Avatar
 
Location: Fauxenix, Azerona
I have yet to find an actual sourced reference better than an editorial article, and all searches for "Small Arms Treaty" lead to articles about it, rather than text of it. I call BS.
__________________
twisted no more
telekinetic is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 09:56 AM   #3 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Perhaps it's just underreported.

Quote:
Arms trade

A problem for the UN

The United Nations is confronted with lax controls on the arms trade in many places in the world. Think of peacekeeping, delivering food aid, improving public health, building safer cities, protecting refugees or fighting crime and terrorism. In all those activities we face armed violence, conflict and civil unrest that lead to violations of international law, abuses of the rights of children, civilian casualties, humanitarian crises and missed social and economic opportunities necessary for development – often fueled by irresponsible arms deals.

No global norms
Important areas of world trade are covered by rules that bind countries into agreed conduct. But they are not bound by rules when transfering weapons. An eclectic set of national and regional control measures on arms transfers exists, but the absence of such an international framework has unnecessarily obscured transparency and trust.

Responsibility
States remain primarily responsible for providing security and protecting their populations, keeping to the rule of law. They take decisions on arms exports, either by granting export licences to companies, traders and brokers, or by doing an internal assessment when government-owned weapons are involved – which generally do not require an export licence. That is why governments are expected to display responsibility in their decisions regarding arms transfers. It ensures that such transfers do not exacerbate conflict or lead to violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Within the UN, countries have started to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty. They aim towards concluding it in 2012.
United Nations Disarmament

Or maybe it's a non-issue. I don't know the status on this thing.

Maybe it's being pushed through all secret-like. The above is in reference to trade, not the host of other issues. And the op-ed said the terms are yet to be made public.

/two-steps-away-from-Tilted-Paranoia
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 06-08-2011 at 09:59 AM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:02 AM   #4 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Larry Bell - The Bell Tells for You - Forbes

What do you make of this?

Is this about reducing international crime or is it international cooperation on domestic arms control?

Mind you, this article is an op-ed piece, but I'm wondering how this treaty actually works and how it's being sold. But in a general sense, what do you think?

I'm torn. I don't have an issue with reasonable arms control. However, this does strike me as a bit heavy-handed. It seems that this sort of thing should be handled domestically, rather than as an international treaty. At the same time, it would be of benefit to have nations on the same page with regard to how to handle arms regulations. I suppose I simply view the small arms trade as something rather unsavoury and that maybe it would be of benefit to have some kind of international regulatory agreement.
This started out as a scare-mail last year and is resurfacing again.

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

So this guy in the column, without having seen even a draft of the treaty, claims a UN treaty to control the ILLEGAL trafficking of small arms:
.. will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Talk about jumping the gun.

Not to mention the fact that treaties cannot supersede the Constitution.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-08-2011 at 10:04 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:06 AM   #5 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Sunny South Florida
http://www.poa-iss.org/BMS4/Documents/A-RES-63-72.pdf

All political scare tactics.
There ARE people trying to take away your 2nd amendment rights, but this isn't it...
Hotmnkyluv is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:06 AM   #6 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Damn it, Forbes. WTF?

Now, I understand that treaties are secondary to the Constitution, but you have the argument that not everything going on the U.S. is constitutional. Does the actual U.N. thing have any chance of interfering with the Second Amendment? If so, how?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:12 AM   #7 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Damn it, Forbes. WTF?

Now, I understand that treaties are secondary to the Constitution, but you have the argument that not everything going on the U.S. is constitutional. Does the actual U.N. thing have any chance of interfering with the Second Amendment? If so, how?
I dont think so.

A US Supreme Court decision made clear that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.

According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty..."
Reid v. Covert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:13 AM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
Talk about jumping the gun.

Not to mention the fact that treaties cannot supersede the Constitution.
Not in the new America. Obama almost seemed proud he was following through with the UN resoultion to bomb Libya with out consulting with Congress.

The Constitution is just a small speedbump on the path to total gun control.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.
samcol is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:16 AM   #9 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol View Post
Not in the new America. Obama almost seemed proud he was following through with the UN resoultion to bomb Libya with out consulting with Congress.

The Constitution is just a small speedbump on the path to total gun control.
Obama did no more or less than Reagan did with Grenada or GHw Bush did with Panama....they resorted to the War Powers Act that gave then authority to act initially w/o Congressional approval.

There will be no total gun control in the US, but the fear mongering does make for great fundraising for the NRA
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:21 AM   #10 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol View Post
The Constitution is just a small speedbump on the path to total gun control.
Not that it really matters. America is already a police state, right?

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
I dont think so.

A US Supreme Court decision made clear that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.

According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty..."
Reid v. Covert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That seems sensible. But considering that there are the arguments that the Second Amendment is/has already been infringed, what's to say that some result of this treaty wouldn't do the same?

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
Obama did no more or less than Reagan did with Grenada or GHw Bush did with Panama....they resorted to the War Powers Act that gave then authority to act initially w/o Congressional approval.
And he and his administration didn't seem to lie too much about it. Though I guess only time will tell.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:23 AM   #11 (permalink)
zomgomgomgomgomgomg
 
telekinetic's Avatar
 
Location: Fauxenix, Azerona
__________________
twisted no more
telekinetic is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:27 AM   #12 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
....That seems sensible. But considering that there are the arguments that the Second Amendment is/has already been infringed, what's to say that some result of this treaty wouldn't do the same?
The other safeguard is that treaties require 2/3 vote in the Senate, not just a simple majority.

That certainly wont happen given the current make up of the Senate. In the future, only if the Senate has 67 hard core ultra left liberals, who, even then would be hard pressed to justify a treaty that goes beyond the current interpretation of the Second Amendment.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:38 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
The other safeguard is that treaties require 2/3 vote in the Senate, not just a simple majority.

That certainly wont happen given the current make up of the Senate. In the future, only if the Senate has 67 hard core ultra left liberals, who, even then would be hard pressed to justify a treaty that goes beyond the current interpretation of the Second Amendment.
I guess the point I was trying to get at with the Libya thing is that Obama may just enforce the treaty through the ATF, FBI, TSA w/o bothering with an actual treaty.

Sometimes I think the UN should worry more about the humanitarian tomahawk love bombs it drops all over the world.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Last edited by samcol; 06-08-2011 at 10:44 AM..
samcol is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:49 AM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
What do you make of this?


"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:54 AM   #15 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
from the viewpoint of the united nations, which has to address the carnage caused by the international small arms trade, it's hardly surprising that such actions would be underway. i have no specific information about the treaty itself however.

turns out not to exist. never mind.


if it exists and has provisions like those noted above, though, i would be fine with it.
nation-states are already de facto relics.
it's seemed to me for some time that the nra is more a chamber of commerce-type organization for the small arms manufacturing industries in the united states as a membership organization and that the interests of the former are protected by manipulating the latter in the direction of the black helicopter set.

but as an international traffic the consequences of which are simply overwhelming levels of carnage because so many of these weapons go to arm militias in war situations---something has to be done. the issue has only tangentially to do with nra claims about all these eminently sensible american sportspersons and their inalienable rights to imagine themselves safe from harm and free because they own gun commodities.

there is a conversation to be had about the international small arms trade and the ways in which seeing gun questions through that optic dissolves almost everything about the nra's merkin-politik.
i can muster a lot of data about the international small arms trade if it'd be helpful later.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 06-08-2011 at 10:56 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 05:46 PM   #16 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post

"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
It should be easy now.
Charlton Heston dead at 84 - Entertainment - Celebrities - TODAY.com

//one ticket to hell please.



If you really want to get into the mess of international arms handling, try carrying a gun on a private cruising boat. Just about anywhere outside of the USA, you have to give it to customs when entering the country and get it back on your way out.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 06-09-2011, 06:50 AM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003 View Post
//one ticket to hell please.
I will be in good company.



Quote:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. "
If you folks ever want to charge me with using talking points, this is the time. Others have said what I believe much better than I ever could. Good luck with this topic, but understand the idea of a UN arms treaty is meaningless.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-09-2011, 07:04 AM   #18 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Good luck with this topic, but understand the idea of a UN arms treaty is meaningless.
Yes, I suppose if the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention is any indication. (In addition to, to some extent, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-09-2011, 08:08 AM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Yes, I suppose if the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention is any indication. (In addition to, to some extent, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)
A UN treaty is only as good as the sum of the ability of members to enforce the treaty. The UN has no track record of independently enforcing any treaty they have ever made. Who would enforce a violation made by the US?

Another point, at risk of being told I am "flipping the script", but the question begs to be asked here.

Some here have called for giving arms to Libyan rebels, so on one hand guns are bad, on the other guns are needed for a worthy cause - who do you put in charge of when it is o.k. and when it is not for people to have guns?

Hell, Libya is even in the UN Human Right Council - how on earth do you think a person like me would give up my rights to such a comical organization? It won't happen. Any US politician who seriously entertains such an idea will be voted out of office.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-09-2011, 08:37 AM   #20 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
It's not only about enforcing the treaty; it's also about ratification and fulfillment. The U.S. is notorious for following treaties only as far as it's convenient to them.

As for the Libyan thing, the treaty is about the wider arms trade, regarding corruption and legal channels, etc. I don't think that governments who actively and publicly distribute arms are the target. I think the targets are illegitimate groups.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-09-2011, 09:09 AM   #21 (permalink)
Future Bureaucrat
 
KirStang's Avatar
 
Well, there's the whole fiasco with Medellin and the idea of a 'self-executing treaty' and the president's implied power to enter the USA in to a treaty through 'executive agreement' (which does not require senate ratification, but is subject to court challenge.) Although I doubt Obama can legally enter the US in to the International Arms Treaty without running afoul of the Constitution, he technically can enter in to an executive agreement to implement some form of small arms legislation (although implementation itself would probably be problematic).

I tend not to give much credibility to international law, for even though it purports to act in the ends of justice, it is more of a political tool to emphasize legitimacy, rather than a body of law that arises from the will of the people. In other words, International Law is subject to the Whims of the politically powerful parties (i.e. USA, China, UK, Germany).

Consequently, with Libya--who determines who is a 'good country' and who is a 'bad country?' It seems wholly political there. Not to mention, despite treaties--like in the UN charter--there is the right to let countries settle their own domestic affairs (but nevertheless bombing Libya) and I conclude that: Given it's political nature, International law is not a body of law fit to regulate domestic affairs of countries--that is, I'd rather see international law playing more of a role in commerce between countries, wars between countries and other things of an international nature, rather than sticking their finger in to countries' domestic affairs, as we see in Libya.

....I'll stop bullshitting now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieber Code on the laws of war
"Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God."
KirStang is offline  
 

Tags
amendment, arms, international, treaty


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:19 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360