Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CatofWar

The Right to Shoot Tyrants, Not Deer

Recommended Posts

In response to your second bolding. Sure, it only refers to guns crossing borders yada yada. How would a country monitor private transactions, to include international, unless they had a database to reference serial numbers/owners names/ etc. Thats what it all boils down to, is how they would have to act to make sure the treaty was enforced. And I think you misunderstood me on the PA. I meant it as everyone (that voted for it) pushed it through with good intentions and high and mighty language, when the nuts and bolts of the law were scary indeed if you stepped back and gave it a good hard look.

To enforce the treaty, they would need to create a database of guns traded internationally - if they did any more than that, they would be exceeding the requirements of the treaty as I have read.

As to the PA thing I understand now - but the Republicans in the Senate are unlikely to ratify any treaty from the UN, let alone one on gun control (see recent disabilities stuff, heh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


If I'm correct the big fear is the President can sign a treaty and the United States would be bound by the laws of said treaty until it is brought before the Senate for ratification, pass of fail. The only problem is with Harry Reid as leader in the Senate, it would never be brought to the floor for a vote, so we would be bound by the treaty for however long it would take to bring it to a vote. Also, the big deal with the treaty is this. The UN says it's to stop international arms dealing. That's cool and all, except they would require signatory nations to maintain a database of all firearms inside their borders to control the flow of guns outside the country. Lots of bills are seemingly harmless, but can pose a real danger if you look into them ( See Patriot Act). The last thing many of us want is the UN, let alone our own government, have an inventory of addresses and firearms.

No treaty is valid until the Senate ratifies it by a 2/3 majority. The president, as chief of the executive branch can order the executive branch to follow some treaties, such as a treaty allowing inspection of nuclear weapons. He can't order the executive branch to impose elements of a treaty on the populace until the senate ratifies it. And even then, no treaty would supersede the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you really don't understand how little our government gives a shiat about the UN do you?

Let's wait for those executive orders coming down the pike before we discuss that. We'll see soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think you are correct about the details of this treaty at all - it sounds from everything that I am reading that it is basically making an international register of internationally traded arms, which seems like a very good idea to help cut down on illicit drug trafficking.

when all this popped up a few months ago or whenever it was i did hours of research digging up every article i could find on the alleged UN gun ban, because my facebook was exploding with every manner of outrage and indignance and i wanted to see if there was anything to it. all i could find was that international arms sales would be regulated by way of registries, with domestic sales never addressed.

i tried to be incredulous but then i realized the people on my facebook posting this stuff are literally (LITERALLY literally) convinced that obama is communist hitler bent on the destruction of the free world. the contortions people put themselves through to validate massive confirmation biases are truly fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am probably going to regret asking this, but why on earth would China give a crap if we disarmed our citizenry?

It isn't country boys with shotguns and ar15's that keep the chinese from invading, its the several thousand nukes along with our complete control of the seas. And of course, we are the biggest market for the crap they manufacture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by Sunfire, you mean the SSN-22 (Nato Code Name Sunburn), its a fairly old missile, although they might have upgraded it. But its not some new weapon that is going to change the nature of Naval Warfare, its just an antiship cruise missile, much like the Harpoon.

Btw, don't be to impressed with the speed of a antiship missile. Coming in faster tends to make a missile less accurate. The best antiship missiles tend to be subsonic, with a smaller radar signature, and a greater ability to manuver. That is why after the SSN 22, the russians developed the SSN-25, which is closer in design and ability to the Harpoon. Our navy people jokingly called it the Harpoonski. But its more of a threat to our ships than the Sunburn/Sunfire.

But what has that got do with the Chinese wanting us to ban country boys having guns? Red Dawn aside, the Chinese aren't really a threat to invade the West Coast, even if war broke out. They are a regional navy, with one experimental carrier, and not enough of a logistical infrastructure to operate a large fleet more than a few hundred miles from their own coast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×