|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 27, 2012, 08:46 AM | #101 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Luckily, there is zero chance this treaty gets ratified anytime soon. Even if you let the antis pick new Senators, it would still take them several elections to have the numbers necessary (assuming the Senators who signed the NRA letter remain true to their word - always a dangerous assumption when dealing with politicians). |
|
July 27, 2012, 04:59 PM | #102 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
CCRKBA is reporting that the United States has declined to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...164023876.html
|
July 27, 2012, 06:24 PM | #103 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,899
|
Confirmed by the AP/ABC News: "U.N. member states have failed to reach agreement on a new treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade."
|
July 28, 2012, 07:36 AM | #104 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Body: Clarkston, Washington. Soul: LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,591
|
Reading this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/s...aty/56546258/1 It seems they ended talks until after the election.
__________________
- Jon Disequilibrium facilitates accommodation. 9mm vs .45 ACP? The answer is .429 |
July 28, 2012, 08:49 AM | #105 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
They were unable to reach a concensus by the required deadline. Any of the draft treaties can still be offered in the General Assembly where they may be adopted by a 2/3 vote.
|
July 30, 2012, 11:59 AM | #106 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 30, 2012, 12:38 PM | #107 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Regarding Mexico's conclusions, that seems like a fair point to me. It looks like the current Administration's actions did contribute to an unsuccessful conclusion to the conference. Which makes me wonder why the current Administration bothered to reverse the policy of the previous Administration at all.
|
July 30, 2012, 02:21 PM | #108 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,899
|
Quote:
Whether an Administration voices official support or opposition to an arms trade treaty, the US government will not join in any treaty that substantially endangers "the estimated $70 billion of international trade in conventional weapons each year." |
|
September 21, 2012, 07:21 AM | #109 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 10, 2000
Location: WI
Posts: 1,395
|
Apparently this treaty was adopted a couple days ago.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/un...#ixzz271laZ0s9 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/dc3389.doc.htm
__________________
A plan is just a list of things that doesn't happen. |
September 21, 2012, 08:01 AM | #110 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
No, the treaty was not adopted. On September 7, the UN agreed to a "consensus document" - which is basically just a plan to keep talking about the treaty. I think the next meeting was scheduled in 2014.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|