Emperor to sign UN Arms Treaty while Congress in recess?
 

Reports are in that Emperor Obama plans to sign this absurd treaty, giving yet more US Sovereignty away to that bloated, ridiculous body known as the UN. The Emperor plans to do this while congress is in recess, of course.How can anyone be okay with this? Do they just not understand the implications? :/\\!!

Oh Christ.

Bubblehead, you might get a more constructive tone if you lay off the rhetoric. Yes, BO signing this Arms treaty is important, but your not gonna get people to listen with an open ear when the very first word of the post title is boilerplate rhetoric.

The NRA has been warning about this arms treaty for awhile, trying to drum up campaign funds against it. Unfortunately for me, I simply have no money to donate right now. BO signing it is a sure certaintly, but it still has to be ratified by the senate.

In before all the craziness!

I actually found it funny:
"Emperor O" :up:

I think that people, before they rush out with bombastic rhetorics, should read this treaty and what it's about.

This treaty has nothing to do with the domestic weapon laws in USA. It's about export of weapons from USA and other countries.

Until now there has been no, regulation what so ever about selling weapon worldwide.

Markus

That is written every time the topic is brought up, it doesn't stop the flow of pure nonsense though as the same rubbish will be posted again and again by people who havn't got the faintest idea what they are talking about.

Actually it could. The devils IS in the details, and our politics are strewn with "backdoor" styled legislation. Aside from that, this administration has lost all credibility. Personally I no longer care what it is, anything this administration tries to sign or pass, is automatically suspect, and should be fought against tooth and nail.

So if they try to pass laws for more guns and less restrictions Ducimus will be manning the barricades to fight against it:haha:

Too late. It started on post #1.

Yes, you're right, but I was refering to the craziness that comes after post number 1!

Well I suppose some might argue two additional posts that add nothing to the thread, are worthless and could possibly create some of the 'craziness'.

And right off the bat you show that you still haven't figured out that your extreme bias makes you a running joke here in GT. As Ducimus said, if you want to gain any respect here at all you might at least try to show some semblance of reason and logic, actually discuss a subject rather than just spout rhetoric.

Like you never do that. :O:

Besides, this thread is crazyness, nothing more. :yep:

You could just as well be talking to a wall instead. It would have the same effect. Let him be a running joke, I don't think alot of people here take him serious anyway.

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: