View Single Post
Old March 26, 2013, 06:04 PM   #8
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 8,388
2ndSojurn -- you quote a "Wiki article on the treaty" without citing to it or linking to it. Fortunately, I guessed right. The article is at

My real problem is that you did the classic misdirection of quoting something out of context. The article actually reads, in part:
Perhaps the largest source of civil society opposition to the ATT has come from the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. In July 2012 ILA wrote that:

"Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the 'end user' of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an 'end user' and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S."
Advocates of the treaty say that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws.
(internal citations omitted).

The article was not making the assertion that proponents of the treaty were making a "bald-faced lie." The article was quoting the NRA's lobbying arm. That's a big difference.

We don't need to stoop to these sorts of tactics to make our point. That only weakens legitimate arguments against the treaty and against gun control. We have the facts and the Constitution on our side.
KyJim is offline  
Page generated in 0.03532 seconds with 7 queries