PDA

View Full Version : The US did not sign the International Arms Treaty


mikestesting
07-27-2012, 9:49 AM
http://www.thegunmag.com/ccrkba-credits-grassroots-for-u-s-decision-to-not-sign-arms-treaty/#.UBLCh16q10s.facebook

Legasat
07-27-2012, 10:16 AM
If they didn't, you can bet there was a politically advantageous reason...

njineermike
07-27-2012, 10:18 AM
If they didn't, you can bet there was a politically advantageous reason...

Yep. A buttload of voters who would toss them at the first opportunity for even considering this nonsense.

emcon5
07-27-2012, 10:21 AM
I saw that too. What I don't see is anyone else reporting it.

Rossi357
07-27-2012, 11:04 AM
If they didn't, you can bet there was a politically advantageous reason...

Everything politicians do is for political reasons.

Maltese Falcon
07-27-2012, 11:11 AM
The only viable industry we have left is arms to other countries.

I once told my wife, that the US is really, really good at making things that kill people and destroy things.

We're number one!

.

nick
07-27-2012, 11:13 AM
There's always tomorrow. No stupid, immoral, or disgusting idea ever died just because it's stupid, immoral, or disgusting.

POLICESTATE
07-27-2012, 11:15 AM
Weapons are not the only thing we're good at.

Practically every modern invention is us.

Phones
Lightbulbs
Electricity
Cars
Internet
Computers

and on and on

In fact I'd have to say, we've done far more to raise the standard of living than we have to destroy life.

The only viable industry we have left is arms to other countries.

I once told my wife, that the US is really, really good at making things that kill people and destroy.

We're number one!

.

Curley Red
07-27-2012, 11:15 AM
This can not be true, everyone has been telling me for months they would sign it and we would lose all our gun rights.

hornswaggled
07-27-2012, 11:18 AM
No way we would sign something being spearheaded by China, Russia, and Iran as a means to suppress resistance to their power.

AeroEngi
07-27-2012, 11:20 AM
Weapons are not the only thing we're good at.

Practically every modern invention is us.

Phones
Lightbulbs
Electricity
Cars
Internet
Computers

and on and on

In fact I'd have to say, we've done far more to raise the standard of living than we have to destroy life.

Agreed. Don't forget airplanes. I know our fighters jets are unmatched but our commercial aircraft are far ahead of the game too.

OleCuss
07-27-2012, 12:09 PM
This can not be true, everyone has been telling me for months they would sign it and we would lose all our gun rights.

If you believe that, you've not been paying attention.

Do you have any idea how many threads about how Obama was going to sign the treaty and that would be the end of freedom were locked by the moderators? Have you paid attention to all the times it has been explained that the scenario was quite unlikely?


If some time from now we discover that the treaty was killed by the US alone (extremely unlikely, BTW) it would likely be due to foreign policy issues rather than domestic firearms control issues.

If we'd acquiesed to the desires of the like of Russia, China, and Iran - they'd likely have been able to ship arms to Syria, the Palestinians, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and we'd have not been able to ship arms to Israel, the Syrian Free Army, the Colombian government, the government of South Sudan, etc.

Even Obama isn't that stupid. Plus, his buddies at GE would be very upset at our not being able to sell on the international markets.

mikestesting
07-27-2012, 12:19 PM
If you believe that, you've not been paying attention.

Do you have any idea how many threads about how Obama was going to sign the treaty and that would be the end of freedom were locked by the moderators? Have you paid attention to all the times it has been explained that the scenario was quite unlikely?


If some time from now we discover that the treaty was killed by the US alone (extremely unlikely, BTW) it would likely be due to foreign policy issues rather than domestic firearms control issues.

If we'd acquiesed to the desires of the like of Russia, China, and Iran - they'd likely have been able to ship arms to Syria, the Palestinians, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and we'd have not been able to ship arms to Israel, the Syrian Free Army, the Colombian government, the government of South Sudan, etc.

Even Obama isn't that stupid. Plus, his buddies at GE would be very upset at our not being able to sell on the international markets.

Troll +1 ; OleCuss 0

jsragman
07-27-2012, 12:27 PM
Aero: our commercial airplanes are NOT the cutting edge. Have you ever heard of Airbus? Boeing builds very good airplanes, I have flown most of them. Airbus has developed fly-by-wire technology, starting in the '80s. Boeing finally incorporated FBW in the 777 and the 787.

1BigPea
07-27-2012, 12:27 PM
This can not be true, everyone has been telling me for months they would sign it and we would lose all our gun rights.

If you believe that, you've not been paying attention.

Do you have any idea how many threads about how Obama was going to sign the treaty and that would be the end of freedom were locked by the moderators? Have you paid attention to all the times it has been explained that the scenario was quite unlikely?


If some time from now we discover that the treaty was killed by the US alone (extremely unlikely, BTW) it would likely be due to foreign policy issues rather than domestic firearms control issues.

If we'd acquiesed to the desires of the like of Russia, China, and Iran - they'd likely have been able to ship arms to Syria, the Palestinians, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and we'd have not been able to ship arms to Israel, the Syrian Free Army, the Colombian government, the government of South Sudan, etc.

Even Obama isn't that stupid. Plus, his buddies at GE would be very upset at our not being able to sell on the international markets.

OleCuss, your sarcasm radar is off. ;)

Coming from a 0bummer lover either way....

CDFingers
07-27-2012, 12:40 PM
Sweet.

Election year or not, this is just fine.

CDFingers

Cnynrat
07-27-2012, 12:45 PM
Aero: our commercial airplanes are NOT the cutting edge. Have you ever heard of Airbus? Boeing builds very good airplanes, I have flown most of them. Airbus has developed fly-by-wire technology, starting in the '80s. Boeing finally incorporated FBW in the 777 and the 787.

Well, we did develop FBW technology, we just didn't apply it to commercial aircraft before Airbus did. Historically, Boeing is a very conservative company from a technology perspective. From day 1 Airbus' strategy has been to position themselves as the technology leader vs. Boeing. That said, I'd put the 787 up against anything Airbus has in their portfolio.


Back on topic, I would not be surprised if the political calculation went like this: If we sign this treaty we will probably get a bunch of independent 2A supporters mad, and it will never pass the Senate anyway so it won't go anywhere anyway.

OleCuss
07-27-2012, 12:47 PM
OleCuss, your sarcasm radar is off. ;)

Coming from a 0bummer lover either way....

Thank you.

ptoguy2002
07-27-2012, 12:52 PM
Is there a second source verification of this?
Can't find it in any other news media.

HowardW56
07-27-2012, 12:53 PM
This can not be true, everyone has been telling me for months they would sign it and we would lose all our gun rights.

Continuous attention to every detail by NRA, SAF, various trade groups/manufacturers, and other groups coupled with political pressure made this Treaty a no go for the administration.

It was being watched too closely, and I'm sure there were provisions that may have made the CIA's participation in covert wars impossible.

phdo
07-27-2012, 12:57 PM
Weapons are not the only thing we're good at.

Practically every modern invention is us.

Phones
Lightbulbs
Electricity
Cars
Internet
Computers

and on and on

In fact I'd have to say, we've done far more to raise the standard of living than we have to destroy life.

I think the first car was invented by the Germans. Internet was primarily by an English nobleman.

Cnynrat
07-27-2012, 1:16 PM
Internet was primarily by an English nobleman.

So Al Gore is an English nobleman now? ;)

Maltese Falcon
07-27-2012, 1:30 PM
Hold your horses guys, I see no OTHER news organization confirming this, just the CCRKBA.

I even found a site that said Hillary can sign it and bypass the Senate.

BREAKING NEWS: Proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty Includes Small Arms

http://www.thegunmag.com/breaking-news-proposed-un-arms-trade-treaty-includes-small-arms/

.

OleCuss
07-27-2012, 1:35 PM
Hold your horses guys, I see no OTHER news organization confirming this, just the CCRKBA.

I even found a site that said Hillary can sign it and bypass the Senate.

BREAKING NEWS: Proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty Includes Small Arms

http://www.thegunmag.com/breaking-news-proposed-un-arms-trade-treaty-includes-small-arms/

.

Your point is well taken, I don't think the work day is over quite yet.

mikestesting
07-27-2012, 2:26 PM
Internet was primarily by an English nobleman.

The Internet was started as a collection and links of military networks, then included academic networks, then went public. All started here in the US. Even the protocols, TCP and IP were developed here in the US.

senorpeligro
07-27-2012, 2:49 PM
The Internet was started as a collection and links of military networks, then included academic networks, then went public. All started here in the US. Even the protocols, TCP and IP were developed here in the US.

Tim Berners Lee invented the World Wide Web. He's British. :p

Before things get weird HTTP is an application level protocol on top of TCP/IP. I actually remember the internet before WWW became the only game in town.

jwkincal
07-27-2012, 2:57 PM
"The internet" was started by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as a collaboration tool for industrial and academic contributors. What ever any other persons or organizations may have done afterwards to promote its becoming what it is today merely represent the natural evolution of the technology. "The internet" is a US creation. The automobile is not.

And the reason that the US did not (and will not) sign the treaty in question is that too much of our export income is at risk. Politically speaking the treaty's terms are not able to be applied within the US borders so it isn't a 2A consideration anyway. It won't be signed by the US (nor ratified by the Senate) because it is bad for US businesses.

kaligaran
07-27-2012, 3:12 PM
I think the first car was invented by the Germans.

Yeah, we can't really take credit for phones, computers or cars. But really it depends on your definition of them.

The first phone that was able to broadcast sounds and voice by electric waves was in the mid-1800s in Germany (there's debate about this). The first telephone switchboard came from Hungry.

There were steam powered vehicles in the 1600s in china. We made the first gasolene powered automobile though! :)

The mechanical calculator is from the 1600s in England then the first programmable computer (punch cards) came from France in the early 1800s.

1000stars
07-27-2012, 4:17 PM
The Biggest difference between U.S. and them is our GUNS !!!!

RT13
07-27-2012, 4:20 PM
Screw the UN. The US is their strong arm and we don't need them, but they need us. Without the USA, the UN is just greenpeace with blue helmets and guns.

Johnnykck
07-27-2012, 4:35 PM
If it is true that the U.S. did not sign the treaty it does not mean that it can not be signed at a later date. Lets say after Obummer wins the elections. I do not think he is stupid enough to sign the treaty so close to the election, it would cost him to many votes. This way he can tell every body that he stood up for 2nd amendment rights and then after the elections are over change his mind. My 2 cents.

WootSauce
07-27-2012, 4:41 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/states-fail-reach-global-arms-trade-treaty-16874375


No way we would sign something being spearheaded by China, Russia, and Iran as a means to suppress resistance to their power.

But the United States announced Friday morning that it needed more time to consider the proposed treaty and Russia and China then also asked for more time.

Russia has always been against it

Maltese Falcon
07-27-2012, 4:47 PM
Can this be even possible?


The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf) (VCLT), which was ratified by the US Senate in 1969 may be the loophole to allow Obama and Clinton to destroy the 2nd Amendment and enact international mandates on gun control in America after the treaty is signed by a member of the Obama administration (i.e. Clinton herself).

That signature alone will implement the ATT within the domestic US regardless of a formal rejection by the current Senate.
The VCLT views international treaties above the laws of sovereign nations wherein disputes are directed to an international tribunal as defined by the Charter of the United Nations (http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf).

Essentially, the UN will have the legal backing to force any nation that has signed a treaty to do their bidding; or face international mandates as recognized by the international community and not the individual laws or constitutions of independent countries.
In the final draft (http://iapcar.org/?p=970) of the ATT, the establishment of a UN sanctioned “national control system” will regulate:


Import and export of guns
Sale of small and light arms as based on relevance defined by the UN
Transfers of arms based on international agreements and obligations under the guise of protecting human rights, war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Convention of 1949, Article 3
Governmental permission prior to exportation of arms
Governmental record keeping of all arms transferred, imported, exported, and sold which is turned over to the Implementation Support Unit (ISU) annually

The ISU will be an internationally appointed supervision department that controls all records concerning arms trade who also can force governments to implement international amendments and mandates as is or could be decided at a UN General Assembly meeting regarding the ATT.

http://occupycorporatism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Screen-shot-2012-07-01-at-6.58.43-AM-300x194.png (http://occupycorporatism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Screen-shot-2012-07-01-at-6.58.43-AM.png)

A national enforcement department would be installed to prevent diversion from the ATT. However, this department would also readily assist individual implementation of the ATT should a country have trouble allocating their existing laws or regulations to the ATT.

The UN, under the ATT demands that all nations “offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis.
Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.”
To join the ATT, world leaders need only accept or sign the treaty. Once signed or accepted, the ATT must be implemented within 30 days to ensure “transfer competence” with regard to changes in governmental structure that may occur due to the ATT.

After the 30 day allotment, the UN expects the ATT to be in full control of all matters regarding arms control.
Nations, under the ATT, may take each other to a UN tribunal court to facilitate legal matters of dispute. That tribunal will interpret the ATT and negotiate between the parties.
In the end, the UN will govern the right of arms control, legal matters concerning arms control and the methods and means by which arms are allocated to individual nations.
Within the ATT, there is not one mention of the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans or even how the ATT may affect those rights.
In fact, the provisions of the ATT are in contrary to existing laws and if signed, would simply supersede laws in existence to conform to the international mandates proposed in the ATT.
The ultimate goal of disarming Americans in clearly noted in its silence and ambiguous tone toward the sovereignty of nations that allow by Constitutional right that their citizens bear protective arms.
The UN’s complete disarmament of the entire world begins with the simple stroke of a pen.
.

mikestesting
07-27-2012, 5:09 PM
Tim Berners Lee invented the World Wide Web. He's British. :p

Before things get weird HTTP is an application level protocol on top of TCP/IP. I actually remember the internet before WWW became the only game in town.

WWW is a part of the internet. It is not the internet. HTTP is an application layer protocol that merely runs at the application layer.

I'm an infrastructure network engineer with my CCNP. Been doing this for 10+ years. The Internet is the public network, with connectivity done by the TCP/IP stack. Many, MANY application layer protocols are run over it, one of them includes HTTP.

I don't care who invented the World Wide Web, because it's irrelevant to the topic of who invented the internet.

AJAX22
07-27-2012, 5:21 PM
Damn.. hill dog really is starting to look like emperor paplatine

Kruzr
07-27-2012, 7:20 PM
The reason we didn't sign was the provisions to record all transactions between governments including those we don't wish to disclose. It' in keeping with the Key Redlines which is the administration's official position.

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/

OleCuss
07-27-2012, 7:29 PM
Can this be even possible?


.

I don't think so.

IIRC, contrary to that blurb's information, we are not signatories to VCLT and it has not been ratified.

That does not mean Obama won't try to implement an unratified treaty. What's more, if you get another like Ginsburg on SCOTUS, then you may have SCOTUS acceding to the effective implementation of something like the arms treaty without a signature or ratification.

But understand, right now, because of the foreign and military policy implications not even Obama is likely to agree to respect that arms treaty without significant revision.

OleCuss
07-27-2012, 7:34 PM
From the article quoted above:



Maybe I'm reading to much into this, but this sounds to me like the Obama administration "reversed the Bush" decision, of course to look good in the eyes of the sheeple, then put a stipulation into it (that all 193 member states had to approve) to make it impossible to enact.

A lot like all of his other campaing promises and the blame he's laid at W's feet. Take a hard look at how the budget was made to look like Obama lowered it in his first year when in fact it's skyrocketed, but that's not what the sheeple believe.

The sheeple see the reversal of Evil W's policy, but in fact, it's now been made darn near impossible to rafity.

Maybe it's just me...

I do think that they are getting it wrong. IIRC (and I could be wrong), Bush agreed to negotiate the treaty but arranged for the provision that the treaty must be negotiated to a consensus.

The provision which says they have to reach a consensus was likely to be killer. There aren't too many things on which the UN can reach a consensus. And if you have someone in the White House who actually wants a reasonable arms policy and to defend the RKBA for its citizens, then by simply not agreeing to the final product the US can effectively veto the treaty.

It was an OK move by Bush, but I'm not a fan.

wjc
07-27-2012, 7:48 PM
The U.S. hasn't signed the U.N.Treaty...yet.

We have to remain vigilant!

Fellblade
07-28-2012, 1:11 AM
Aero: our commercial airplanes are NOT the cutting edge. Have you ever heard of Airbus? Boeing builds very good airplanes, I have flown most of them. Airbus has developed fly-by-wire technology, starting in the '80s. Boeing finally incorporated FBW in the 777 and the 787.

Airbus are dangerous. I hope I never fly in one. While I'm not a commercial pilot, I'm pretty sure my stick&rudder skills from light aircraft are better than those of most Airbus pilots who are too used to technology doing the work for them. Flight 447 should never have crashed, technology got in the way.

GOEX FFF
07-28-2012, 1:50 AM
I'm not counting any chickens until NRA gives word on this.

AeroEngi
07-28-2012, 2:13 AM
Aero: our commercial airplanes are NOT the cutting edge. Have you ever heard of Airbus? Boeing builds very good airplanes, I have flown most of them. Airbus has developed fly-by-wire technology, starting in the '80s. Boeing finally incorporated FBW in the 777 and the 787.

You do realize that the 777 started being designed and developed in the 80's right? That's about the same time that you say Airbus was using FBW on their airplanes so I wouldn't give Airbus that much credit for it. FBW was not developed by Airbus btw. It was being used on military aircraft far before the company ever existed.

You also state that our airplanes aren't cutting edge. I would have to disagree. The 777 was the first commercial airplane to incorporate composite materials in the majority of the airplane. Also, the 777-200LR holds the longest non stop flight record without refueling. I believe it covered a distance of about 9,380 nautical miles.

Remember that Jet Blue flight that had that stuck nose gear a few years back that ended up landing at lax? That was an Airbus A320 I believe. Never mind the fact that the nose gear was stuck, those poor passengers had to fly around over the Pacific ocean for hours just to burn off enough fuel to land because Airbus doesn't include fuel dump capabilities on their airplanes.

I know I'm forgetting some more info but I'll leave it at that.

Don't even get me started about the 787 lol. It's leaps and bounds ahead of any Airbus airplane out today but I'll leave the research to you if you're interested.

Remember, if it's not a Boeing, I'm not going. I don't work for Boeing btw.

Sorry this went really OT but I had to respond to this.




Airbus are dangerous. I hope I never fly in one. While I'm not a commercial pilot, I'm pretty sure my stick&rudder skills from light aircraft are better than those of most Airbus pilots who are too used to technology doing the work for them. Flight 447 should never have crashed, technology got in the way.

Well said!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

selfshrevident
07-28-2012, 2:15 AM
Not out of the woods yet-

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/un-fails-to-reach-deal-on-global-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-asks-for-more-time/

selfshrevident
07-28-2012, 2:25 AM
And also word from the NRA. Bottom line is that I guess it's over for now but the effort will never stop.

http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/grassroots-alerts/2012/vol-19,-no-30-07272012.aspx

press1280
07-28-2012, 3:19 AM
And also word from the NRA. Bottom line is that I guess it's over for now but the effort will never stop.

http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/grassroots-alerts/2012/vol-19,-no-30-07272012.aspx

Agree with this. That being said, even if it were signed, the treaty still(in theory) still can't override constitutional rights.

kemikalembalance
07-28-2012, 3:21 AM
Damn.. hill dog really is starting to look like emperor paplatine

:rofl2:

Intimid8tor
07-28-2012, 7:34 AM
If they didn't, you can bet there was a politically advantageous reason...

I would say so and post election that advantage might be gone so it could come back to haunt.