Chewing on the scenery...
 

The Banking clan will sign your treaty, Count Dooku.
Together with the Techno Union and the Trade Federation's droid army we'll have an army large enough to overwhelm the Jedi.

I'm sure the puppet masters will have something to say about it. As well as the arms makers.
It's just good business. The more illegal it is, the more you profit.

Thanks for noting this fact. This is the crux of the real opposition to the treaty: money. The US manufaturers of arms are the ones who are most frightened of the treaty simply because it will make it harder for them sell/export their wares. In an attempt to derail the treaty, they hav enlisted their long-time ally (and , in terms of contribution to, virtual 'employees/agents'), the NRA. By planting a spurious idea the treaty in some way affects domestic gun ownership (which it does not), they hope to hide the fact it is all about mega-arms bottom line and not really about the 2nd amendment. This is a cheap political trick, rather along the lines of when politicians or proponents of certain measures try to wrap their flawed ideas or measures in the Flag or haul out tired cliches and umbrella slogans (i.e., 'it's for the kids', 'you'll harm job creators', etc.

...


<O>

Before jumping on this topic, I took the time to read the treaty itself. Its not very long, as such things go.

The biggest gripe by the NRA folks had to do with draft language that required the US to garner, keep and maintain records on the "end user" if someone purchased a firearm that was imported - for 20 years.

That draft language has been stricken. The treaty now "encourages" signatories to make and keep such records for 10 years. However, it is no longer a REQUIREMENT.

(Specifically - see Article 12: Record Keeping)

As such, and because the treaty does not touch issues of internal production for domestic sale, the NRA objection is no longer viable or reasonable on that issue.

My concern is specific to Article 3, which in essence mandates an inventory system to account for every round expended outside one's national borders. I don't think that the Secretariat has any reason or right to that info.

Still - I do not see that as a reason to refuse to sign or ratify it.

If someone can point to a specific article that they take issue with, I will consider it. But read the thing first - don't just go off on "so in so group said this or that" about it.

For those interested in actually looking at the details - you may find it here:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

I agree with your thoughts here except for the section that I quoted.I can see a few logical reasons to want to know the ammo expended.

For two reasons one being the clean up of harmful chemicals found in certain ammo even lead in high amounts is bad (though many nations now use none lead bullets) but you still have 20,25 and 30mm depleted uranium rounds which are used by several nations.The additional logic would the clean up UXOs I have no doubt that a certain percentage of rounds that are designed to explode M203 rounds for example or RPG rounds do not explode and become a risk years after the conflict is over.

It also covers a possible loop hole of one nation bringing munitions some place under the guise of it being for their use when they could in fact simply supply the munitions to another party.Of course they could still do that and simply say that they expended it and that would really just be a white lie.

The only thing they will learn is that a war consumes a crap load of bullets and the larger more powerful forces have more ammo and better logistics the data would be of little use at exposing any useful information that would not already be obvious.

Haplo kindly provides the link:up:
So bubbles and Ducimus are taking the side of Iran, N.Korea and Syria on this issue...nice company to be keeping eh?:rotfl2:

That sort of thing happens when one argues something of which they have no real knowledge. Perhaps if Rush or Sean had, you know, something like footnotes, or rational explanations, or, dare we hope, facts?


<O>

I've read and heard enough about this treaty over the last several months to the point where discussing it at all makes my head hurt.

A couple videos if your bored:
Arms Trade Treaty Finalizes Draft
US to Sign Arms Trade Treaty
Obama's Signature ATT Ratification vs. US Constitution (RE-UPLOAD)

A general summation of the problem as I see it is

a.) will open doors that should not be opened and could be a problem down the road. Anti constitutionalists like Obama, Bloomberg, Fienstien, et al, work in increments. Chipping a bit away at a time until they get what they want. (The rhetoric level in that statement does not even come close to my level of anger, disgust, and distrust.)

b.) It's a backdoor to make people like Fienstien and Bloomberg happy in the pants. Not all firearms sold here are made domestically, and anything imported could be restricted heavily, numbers reduced, if not outright banned because of this treaty. The operative word here is "backdoor", and it's a door often sought by those who cannot be trusted.

This treaty is nothing new, and neither of the two previous presidents signed it. It's just Obama that wants to sign it, and that should tell you something. I DO NOT trust this government anymore - at all. Everything they do, and everything they say is suspect of every negative connotation i could possibly list. I don't even want to hear what this administration has to say anymore, because as far as i can tell, everything said is a lie anyway.

Those links will give you a headache. They did me.

Frankly, I dont understand this whole 6-4 month period of paranoia on that side
of the pond. What would it achieve for [insert name here] to disarm you guys?
Or strip you from your other rights?

Think about it. As many US members have stated here, they would not take it,
and many say much of the military would not take it either. Result? Possible civil war.
What would that achieve? US being very much undefended from outside threats.
What would prevent [insert country here] here from taking advantage of the situation?

Common sense. Use it.

On GT? :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Stop it! You are killing me. :haha::haha::haha:

Sorry. :oops:

*Gives Platapus CPR*
http://www.1songday.com/wp-content/u...ndowlicker.jpg

I guess you haven't been following the news much.


Though one could say it start's with guns, they are but one piece of the overall picture.

Which is why the government is trying to maintain status quo, while at the same time ratcheting up their over watch, and power over the citizens of this nation.

I think the only country that could manage that would be china, but i doubt they'll want to upset their best customer.



"common sense" has nothing to do with it.

As an aside, what really amazes me, is how much my own opinions have changed over the last 9 months, and how strong my convictions have become.

Sadly, even the term "common sense" is a loaded and politically charged term in the US nowadays.

I have now read the English version of this treaty, I read it in danish some month ago in a danish newspaper.

But I can't find anything related to what bubblehead wrote:
"giving yet more US Sovereignty away"

Or have I missed something ?

Markus

No, but, as usual, bubbles has jumped on a band wagon with out wheels...

<O>

Only the first time he linked to her, after that you can just sit back and enjoy them for what they are.:D