It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Donald Trump tells NRA gun lobby he's withdrawing from UN arms trade treaty

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I also thought it was interesting that Oliver North is no longer the President of the NRA.

Lots of stuff going on behind the scenes?

www.newyorker.com...
edit on 28-4-2019 by crappiekat because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Its not a suprise is it?, money to be made in death, Mr Trump loves money and wants a healthy economy , which is more important than who gets killed by any firearms sold, go capitalism. Making America Great 1 bullet at a time, feel proud when you are slain by a firearm made in the US, what better way to go.

Its almost upon us Verhoevens future




posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

To answer your question, they are largely ignored by an uniformed, but "educated", populace. Identity politics has ruined public discourse in large part. On Twitter I respond with much the same knowledge and wisdom that our forefathers drew from. The only responses received are ad hominem attacks, with zero substance regarding quality of idea. In my personal sphere of influence, I am able to make more meaningful connections and challenge fellow citizens to think with a wider perspective. One day at a time.



posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.


Ah, so according to you, like many other authoritarian gun grabbers, having the people of the U.S. with the right to own and bear arms equals to sponsoring terrorism and arm dealers worldwide...

Please learn to make a logical argument...



posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: crappiekat
I also thought it was interesting that Oliver North is no longer the President of the NRA.

Lots of stuff going on behind the scenes?

www.newyorker.com...


Yeah. Right when the king of covert arms deals, the orchestrator of the Iran Contra Affair, is forced to step away from his role at the NRA, because of corruption, Trump announces that the US won't bow to international treaties banning arms sales to terrorist states.





Ironic.



posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

Ah, so the US must intend to become a protector of arms dealers and sponsor of terrorism.

Got it.


Ah, so according to you, like many other authoritarian gun grabbers, having the people of the U.S. with the right to own and bear arms equals to sponsoring terrorism and arm dealers worldwide...

Please learn to make a logical argument...


The treaty places controls on the sales of all sorts of arms (not just guns), and that, only internationally. It does not limit the ownership of arms within the US or impinge on the 2nd Amendment.

Also, I thought all them 'gun grabbers' were hippies and greenies, now apparently you describe them as authoritarian. That is the way that the hippies traditionally view the government, armed forces and police, as armed dudes wielding the batons and guns of authority and oppression.

How do the unarmed and the peaceful, the anti-gun and anti-violence, become authoritarian?

Who should learn to make logical argument?



edit on 28/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That was a sweet deal. Illegally sell arms to Iran and use the proceeds to illegally finance a coup attempt in Central America.

Awesome.

Olly. American hero.

edit on 4/28/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Great news from Donald. The world needs far more arms to promote peace.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Russia, China, India, Iran, and Pakistan never signed, and Israel and the Ukraine never ratified it. The top arms manufacturing nations in the world aren't signatory to it so why in the blue, everloving hell should the USA handcuff itself by ratifying or even retaining their signature on it at this point? That type of self restrictive behavior makes zero sense outslde of Kumbaya horsecrap idealism that utterly fails to produce any benefits here in the real world.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

Russia, China, India, Iran, and Pakistan never signed, and Israel and the Ukraine never ratified it. The top arms manufacturing nations in the world aren't signatory to it so why in the blue, everloving hell should the USA handcuff itself by ratifying or even retaining their signature on it at this point? That type of self restrictive behavior makes zero sense outslde of Kumbaya horsecrap idealism that utterly fails to produce any benefits here in the real world.


Really?

World's largest arms exporters - Wikipedia

The arms manufacturers make a lot of money and they don't particularly worry if they are selling arms to the enemies of America because it is profitable.

If you don't choose to look, you can ignore the consequences, right?

They also pay their agents and supporters very well to turn a blind eye.

Figure it out.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

Russia, China, India, Iran, and Pakistan never signed, and Israel and the Ukraine never ratified it. The top arms manufacturing nations in the world aren't signatory to it so why in the blue, everloving hell should the USA handcuff itself by ratifying or even retaining their signature on it at this point? That type of self restrictive behavior makes zero sense outslde of Kumbaya horsecrap idealism that utterly fails to produce any benefits here in the real world.


Because the US styles itself as land of the free, leader of the free world and standing for democracy. The US had killed hundreds of millions arming warlords, terrorists and oppressive regimes in the last 60 years - those lives and countries would have been spared if profit wasn't put before people.

Example of how shortsighted the approach is:
In 1950s Egypt an Islamic cleric called Sayid Qutb was subjected to CIA torture where animal fat was smeared on him and starving dogs set upon him; during the ordeal he had a heart attack and nearly died. Following the experience he created Qutubism, Poliical/Radical Islam, Wahhabism and led the the mujahedeen. every Islamic terror group, 9/11 and the everlasting war on terror.
edit on 30-4-2019 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: tabularosa
Great news from Donald. The world needs far more arms to promote peace.




Fear is by far the biggest motivator of the human race.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Your point doesn't exactly refute my point.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

Your point doesn't exactly refute my point.


How can the US lead the world, if it actually follows what everyone else does?

My point is, that it is an issue of ethical and moral integrity.

The current situation is an analogue of saying "well, everyone is stealing, so I'll do it too". There is such a thing as taking the high ground, but America has just stepped down.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Your opinion only. The US is leading, you simply don't agree with the direction they're leading in. You claiming that arms trading isn't moral or ethical is essentially the equivalent of a pro-life individual claiming abortion isn't ethical or moral. The right to defend one's country is fundamental, therefore the right to provide weapons, at a cost, to a country for that purpose is also fundamental. I see no reason for the United States to cost ourselves money over some arbitrary and tenuous definition of "moral high ground."



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

Your opinion only. The US is leading, you simply don't agree with the direction they're leading in. You claiming that arms trading isn't moral or ethical is essentially the equivalent of a pro-life individual claiming abortion isn't ethical or moral. The right to defend one's country is fundamental, therefore the right to provide weapons, at a cost, to a country for that purpose is also fundamental. I see no reason for the United States to cost ourselves money over some arbitrary and tenuous definition of "moral high ground."


Paranoid or what? No one threatens the US, anyway, in the same way that the US doesn't threaten to militarily attack Russia. The consequence would be a catastrophic loss for both sides.

Also sales of arms to other countries do not defend the US. Considering the US support of groups & governments that came back and bit them (Bin Laden, Hussein, Vietnam, Korea & etc), selling arms to others is provably likely to be bad for the US and the opposite of defense.

Also, the moral high ground isn't arbitrary, it's an absolute.

edit on 30/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Also, the moral high ground isn't arbitrary, it's an absolute.


I'm sorry, but that's false. Morality is subjective. My morals and your morals may not be the same, but from each of our perspectives, we can claim the moral high ground. That is the very definition of arbitrary.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Please learn to make a logical argument...


Try it sometime, you might like it.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420

originally posted by: chr0naut

Also, the moral high ground isn't arbitrary, it's an absolute.


I'm sorry, but that's false. Morality is subjective. My morals and your morals may not be the same, but from each of our perspectives, we can claim the moral high ground. That is the very definition of arbitrary.


I disagree.

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article about Moral Relativism:

"Critics claim that relativists typically exaggerate the degree of diversity among cultures since superficial differences often mask underlying shared agreements. In fact, some say that there is a core set of universal values that any human culture must endorse if it is to flourish. Moral relativists are also accused of inconsistently claiming that there are no universal moral norms while appealing to a principle of tolerance as a universal norm. In the eyes of many critics, though, the most serious objection to moral relativism is that it implies the pernicious consequence that “anything goes”: slavery is just according to the norms of a slave society; sexist practices are right according to the values of a sexist culture. Without some sort of non-relative standard to appeal to, the critics argue, we have no basis for critical moral appraisals of our own culture’s conventions, or for judging one society to be better than another. Naturally, most moral relativists typically reject the assumption that such judgments require a non-relativistic foundation."

(Link to full article)



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thov420

originally posted by: chr0naut

Also, the moral high ground isn't arbitrary, it's an absolute.


I'm sorry, but that's false. Morality is subjective. My morals and your morals may not be the same, but from each of our perspectives, we can claim the moral high ground. That is the very definition of arbitrary.


I disagree.

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article about Moral Relativism:

"Critics claim that relativists typically exaggerate the degree of diversity among cultures since superficial differences often mask underlying shared agreements. In fact, some say that there is a core set of universal values that any human culture must endorse if it is to flourish. Moral relativists are also accused of inconsistently claiming that there are no universal moral norms while appealing to a principle of tolerance as a universal norm. In the eyes of many critics, though, the most serious objection to moral relativism is that it implies the pernicious consequence that “anything goes”: slavery is just according to the norms of a slave society; sexist practices are right according to the values of a sexist culture. Without some sort of non-relative standard to appeal to, the critics argue, we have no basis for critical moral appraisals of our own culture’s conventions, or for judging one society to be better than another. Naturally, most moral relativists typically reject the assumption that such judgments require a non-relativistic foundation."

(Link to full article)


"Assumption" and "claim" are two words we should not use when trying to define something as the definite or absolute truth, in any argument..

Don't you think it just makes the article biased based on the believes of the author? And since it could be biased according to his beliefs, it is relative as well..


Or not?
edit on 1-5-2019 by Malisa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join