Hasn't even been 24 hours and...

[Thunder71]

US Backs Arms Treaty:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSB ... 7?irpc=932


Tapatalk - Helping people post from bathrooms since 2009.

[unknown]

if passed, when would this take effect?

[Lunchbox]

Can't say I'm surprised, Obama made mention that he would like an Assault Weapons Ban and other gun control measures.

[whiteox]

Honestly, I wish they'd just pass the thing already so everybody can see it ain't gonna do **** to Americans' gun rights and we can move on to the next boogeyman.

[dtapper2]

Honestly, I wish they'd just pass the thing already so everybody can see it ain't gonna do **** to Americans' gun rights and we can move on to the next boogeyman.

This

[farmerj]

president and the ambassador can do all he wants to support or call for more debate.

It would take a majority of the US Senate to ratify the treaty to make it binding in the US.

And how many of THEM, would fully support this enough to risk their political career?


Now, limiting the arms sales to such groups as Al Qaida and ****, that's another store. And yeah, the Reagan Administration should have it's hands slapped for that stupid stunt.

[Thunder71]

Honestly, I wish they'd just pass the thing already so everybody can see it ain't gonna do **** to Americans' gun rights and we can move on to the next boogeyman.

I for one do understand what's it involves, my point was that he doesn't waste any time jumping back into it after he seals his re-election, I just felt it was in poor taste, and it didn't sit well with me.

[Heffay]

Honestly, I wish they'd just pass the thing already so everybody can see it ain't gonna do **** to Americans' gun rights and we can move on to the next boogeyman.

I for one do understand what's it involves, my point was that he doesn't waste any time jumping back into it after he seals his re-election, I just felt it was in poor taste, and it didn't sit well with me.

To be fair, the UN planned on doing this (discuss the issue more), and the US said they'd be agreeable to it, but their concerns (private arms ownership, sales, etc) still exist.

It's not at all in the camp of "Obama is getting the UN to take our guns", as it is frequently portrayed.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

[Snowgun]

I see this as a "I didn't speak up when they came for my neighbor" type of situation.

IPSC is a large, international action pistol sports association, and through involvement of many countries, the sporting and recreational use of firearms is promoted. It has done many things to promote gun ownership in various countries, demonstrating international interest.

This type of League of Nations control and restriction on international gun ownership may not affect us directly, but it isolates gun ownership to "the crazy Americans".

Once we are the last to have private gun ownership, don't you think our increasingly liberal/authoritarian politicians and constituents will wonder how they can bring us to a more "progressive" status?

Just look at how we are headed toward Europe in other aspects that were once uniquely American.

[EllisW]

The UN small arms treaty only affects international trade. Domestic trade is unaffected. If this is signed by the US (which it **** won't be) it will only affect imports (which is still kind of a big deal, but the BLUE HELMETS aren't going to come and confiscate all our firearms) and not sales, manufacturing, transporting or anything else within the boundaries of each country. Chill.

[mattxd]

The UN small arms treaty only affects international trade. Domestic trade is unaffected. If this is signed by the US (which it **** won't be) it will only affect imports (which is still kind of a big deal, but the BLUE HELMETS aren't going to come and confiscate all our firearms) and not sales, manufacturing, transporting or anything else within the boundaries of each country. Chill.

ya that's reassuring, cause the interstate commerce clause never got stretched to interfere with commerce in a state or even what grown on a farm for consumption on the farm. Not to mention we just had UN election inspectors observing our election.

[whiteox]

One of the primary missions of the U.N. is to prevent genocide. Yet, in the Balkans and in Rwanda, they just sat in their APC's with there D#@^ in their hands watching people murder each other.

That's the U.N. people think is capable of enforcing a treaty to take our guns? Texas just about arrested the blue helmets because they wanted to watch their elections!!

Yeah I guess that could happen IF such a treaty were ever being proposed, which it isn't. (this treaty deals with INTERNATIONAL trade.) It might make it more difficult to get a Saiga or the like.

[tt3]

Aren't GLOCK's imported? Taurus?

Hmm, so you're saying it'll be good for USA producers? Go KAHR.

[Heffay]

Aren't GLOCK's imported? Taurus?

Hmm, so you're saying it'll be good for USA producers? Go KAHR.

If say more like new Glock factory in Arizona.

I'm polishing my résumé!!

[Thunder71]

Well, Rock Island Armory is supposed to be building one here...