U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

www.reuters.com

(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Looks like a major power play headed our way... Keep an eye out. Or two...

[edit on 19-5-2010 by Americanist]

Looks more like a gun ban coming to the US.

A liberal end-run on the Second Amendment by claiming the UN made us do it.

Won't work no one will turn in guns under orders of the UN and many would shoot anyone from the UN that tried to take them.

reply to post by ANNED


Yep, this is it. They are coming after our guns. So many people made a run on guns last year that I am sure they can't wait to get rid of em. Ammo in my area doubled in price, so we got a reloading bench.

actually the way I read it

it's not a change of stance at all
it's just throwing the monkey
on somebody else's back with
the single nation veto clause.

They know it won't pass cuz
some terrorist regime in the UN
will veto it outright. It's
passing the buck however
noble it might appear.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
actually the way I read it

it's not a change of stance at all
it's just throwing the monkey
on somebody else's back with
the single nation veto clause.

They know it won't pass cuz
some terrorist regime in the UN
will veto it outright. It's
passing the buck however
noble it might appear.

Your take is plausible; however, you never know what the price tag is for regimes these days.

reply to post by Americanist


Well there's two sides to this.

A) No other country in the world (at least that's a member of the UN) has the amount of firearm possession leeway and legal freedom for citizens to own and use guns as the US does. So this does impact the US citizen the most.

Countries like Britain, Australia, China or France make it harder to own a gun than it is to keep pet lions.

B) This would mean countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Georgia (i.e. Western lackeys) would be considerably halted in updating their armed forces with 90% Western-supplied hardware, which I am 100% in favour of, as the last thing we need are more destablizing and potent forces within the Middle East.

[edit on 19/5/10 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Americanist

 

Well there's two sides to this.

A) No other country in the world (at least that's a member of the UN) has the amount of firearm possession leeway and legal freedom for citizens to own and use guns as the US does. So this does impact the US citizen the most.

Countries like Britain, Australia, China or France make it harder to own a gun than it is to keep pet lions.

B) This would mean countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Georgia (i.e. Western lackeys) would be considerably halted in updating their armed forces with 90% Western-supplied hardware, which I am 100% in favour of, as the last thing we need are more destablizing and potent forces within the Middle East.

[edit on 19/5/10 by The Godfather of Conspira]

I'd hope to agree with you, but there are way too many AK's and arm dealers in this World to pick up the slack. I'm sure you realize the inherent problem.