The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 14, 2010, 03:09 PM   #1
cohoskip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2007
Location: Chimacum, WA
Posts: 401
Obama's agenda on gun control

Note the URL had a quite different text than posted - thus I edited it to reflect the actual story - GEM


http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
__________________
To err is human, to forgive divine
Neither is Marine Corps policy...

NRA Life Member
cohoskip is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 03:16 PM   #2
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
JAMBOG

Oh dear, not this e-mail again.

"Wed, Oct 14 2009"
johnbt is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 03:17 PM   #3
ADB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
Oh for ****'s sake, do people really believe this nonsense?

Please, everyone do a little research on the difference between buying a gun and the INTERNATIONAL ARMS TRADE. This has NO EFFECT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, nor will it ever. You cannot use the State Department to "bypass Congress." To believe this, you have to know absolutely nothing about how the US government or international law works.
ADB is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 03:24 PM   #4
Sefner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
And this is why we can't have nice things.
Sefner is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 03:28 PM   #5
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbt
Oh dear, not this e-mail again.

"Wed, Oct 14 2009"
Exactly.

It's perhaps worth pointing out that only the first two paragraphs of the above post actually come from the referenced article.

The rest is the usual inaccurate, inflammatory, fear-mongering... um, cowpats.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 03:28 PM   #6
HvyMtl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: Nashvegas, TN
Posts: 228
LOL

LOL -

In before the lock...

Seriously, check things before posting. This way you do not look foolish.
__________________
Μολὼν λάβε
HvyMtl is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 03:32 PM   #7
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Hah, I'm going to bury my guns out in the woods right now! Then let see Obama try to find 'em!
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 03:35 PM   #8
Maromero
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Location: Outside the continental U
Posts: 752
I do not have the knowledge and expertise to write a rebuttal regarding the original post but, is there anyone in the forum who can write a short synopsis as to why the situation addressed is not plausible?
Maromero is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 03:38 PM   #9
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Quote:
is there anyone in the forum who can write a short synopsis as to why the situation addressed is not plausible?
The U.S. Constitution 2nd ammendment makes it not plausible.

Here are more detailed rebuttals:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...ghlight=treaty
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=406294
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards

Last edited by stargazer65; April 14, 2010 at 03:47 PM.
stargazer65 is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 03:53 PM   #10
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,803
As Mike Irwin wrote when he closed yet another of these threads:
Quote:
It's pretty damned sad that people read this and can't see, right off the bat, that the entire premise flies in the face of US Constitutional Law.
Yah...

It's a pity that some people don't put the same effort into understanding the Constitution that they put into spreading this kind of garbage.

It would surely save the mods a spot of bother...
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 04:36 PM   #11
SundownRider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 508
In before the lock! Wheeeee!
__________________
" Of every One-Hundred men, Ten shouldn't even be there, Eighty are nothing but targets, Nine are real fighters... We are lucky to have them...They make the battle. Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior... and He will bring the others back."
- Heraclitus (circa 500 BC)
SundownRider is offline  
Old April 14, 2010, 04:39 PM   #12
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,519
I think the next person that posts this without a check gets banned. Or misrepresents a story - no more chances.

And the rest of you, just PM us or notify us.

Closed with extreme prejudice.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08825 seconds with 9 queries