53 replies to this topic

[mav1234]

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)

[Davidson Deac II]

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.

[rippadonn]

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.

[PhillyB]

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.

[chris999]

A buddy of mine in the military was telling me that nobody wants to confront present day Americans on the ground because there are 1 1/2 guns per citizen as it stands now. The Canadians and now Russians are calling for us to not give up our guns.

Like I've said I don't own one but I sure as heck don't want anybody to give up theirs.

Very true.

From what I understand, China is one of the biggest supporters of America banning firearms.

Gee, I wonder why 1.2 billion of America's enemies would like to see us disarmed...





The quote by a Japanese general during WW2 is one of the most important reasons why we should never allow our firearms to be taken away. - "It would be impossible to invade America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

The US starts a war on average about every 2 years. We have killed millions of people since WW2, and we have lots of enemies who would love to see us disarmed.

[Davidson Deac II]

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.

[chris999]

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.

I do understand that China's economy (and the world) are linked to the American economy, but it would be foolish to completely rule out a military engagement with China (or more likely a proxy war between allies) due to the aggression that China is showing towards Japan, one of our strongest allies in the area.

As a former military intelligence, I think that you know that things are not all sunshine and rainbows in the Pacific right now. WW1 and WW2 were both started by countries being forced to declare war with each other due to treaties.

China has really been active In the South China Sea and South Pacific. Also, President Obama has been switching our global military strategy around some and we are going to be more active in the Pacific theater.

I dont like to be negative, but I am also not naive to the writing on the wall either. They were globally humiliated when they had to back down from our Navy near Taiwan in the 1990s. Since then, they have focused their military spending on programs that are meant to counter American military strategy. They have developed the super-fast sunfire missiles that are designed specifically to penetrate Navy missile defense (and also supplied Sunfires to Iran, whom they also buy their oil from), and they have developed weapons that are capable of shooting down our military satellites in orbit.

I also see the possibility of future tensions over resources in Africa as China is actively expanding their global interests.

TLDR version is that we are entering a new 'Cold War' with China as they are rapidly approaching and surpassing our economic power and global influence as a superpower in the next 15 or 20 years.

[Davidson Deac II]

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.

[chris999]

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.

Yes, I mean Sunburn.

In reality, I agree with you for now. I dont really think anything could happen within the next decade unless they attack Japan.

But the reality is that the world is changing right now. When big things happen, such as a "changing of the guard" at the superpower position, history shows that wars usually happen during these periods.

At the end of all of the global empires from Babylon to Rome to Germany.

For 50 years, there was kind of an equalibrium with the USSR, but after collapse in the 90s, unfortunately, even our beloved America immediately started expanding it's global power.

These are unstable times as the economy is wobbling, there is very hot political division, rising powers in the east again with a resurging Russia, and the giant China that is growing tired of submission to the Western banking empires (USA, UK, NATO).

Once again, I am rambling, but I promote the Teddy Roosevelt and Ron Paul doctrine of "Speak softly, but carry a big stick". I think that there are huge problems with all of this 'globalization'. It always seems like there are huge debts to be paid, and phantom gold that seems to have disappeared all over the world.

To get back on topic... Unfortunately, I see a time during my lifetime when we Americans may need to protect ourselves on our homeland, and it is really easy to take away rights, but a struggle to get them back. I dont see our politicians ever giving the 2nd Amendment back if they take it away... they see it as a threat to their power.