It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Maxatoria
Probably if you purchase a gun from a store they record some details such as the serial number as i can remember reading that the ATF do check these stores and go counting guns and serial numbers, so in theory there will be no change for a person buying a gun as it will be the background paperwork to which its only the stores problem not the owner
and as for banning imported ammo then i smell an opportunity for someone to set themselves up and make a load of money supplying bespoke ammo
Originally posted by monkofmimir
would I be stating the obvious if I said this was very, very bad.
"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said. "We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
Here we go folks.
Economy first on agenda? No
Volatile geopolitical issues first on agenda? No
Saying yes to letting the UN intrude on our rights to obtain small arms and ammunition first on the agenda? Apparently so.
The small-arms control process has proceeded with a speed dictated by a politically driven desire to achieve rapid success and with a corresponding failure to devote serious attention to a complex issue that involves virtually every state in the world. Recasting arms control as a human rights issue has made negotiating a treaty easier by making it less serious. That is a problem, not a virtue.
Fifth, at times, the campaigners appear to believe that they know what they are talking about. In the most literal sense, this is untrue.
While the U.S. and some states regularly publish information on their exports of conventional arms, most states do not. Thus, the publicly available data are extremely unreliable--especially the data for dictatorial suppliers such as Russia and China and most of the world's importers. Furthermore, there are absolutely no regularly published, official statistics on, for example, Iran's supply of weapons to Hezbollah or Hamas. Campaigners rely on statistics published by Western governments, which minimize the responsibility of non-Western regimes, and on information provided by organizations such as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
SIPRI itself admits that "the only means of making assessments of the financial value of the arms trade is to rely on official data provided by governments and industry bodies. There are significant limitations on using official national data in this way." This is correct. Even SIPRI's data for U.S. exports are badly flawed and incomplete. For instance, SIPRI reports that the U.S. sold no conventional arms to Slovakia in 2006 or 2007,but the U.S. reported $10.57 million in sales for fiscal year (FY) 2007. The data for other nations are of even lower quality.
This is not a minor technical problem, but a fundamental barrier to negotiating a serious treaty because it affects even the most important conventional weapons. For example, the precise destination of the 33 T-72 tanks seized by pirates off Somalia in September 2008 remains publicly unknown.
If the world cannot determine where major weapons systems are headed, it has no chance of policing small arms. If the treaty were to cover-- as Control Arms demands--"small arms and light weapons, heavy weapons, military support equipment, components and parts, technology for making arms and 'dual use' items which have both civil and military applications," it would become even more impossibly broad because it would include almost every conceivable industrial item.
The low quality of the data is particularly troubling given that the world's dictatorships and terrorist groups rely on receiving arms from states that regularly conceal their trade. One analyst has summed up the situation by noting that China, in particular, is "the country of choice when you want to buy cheap and simple weapons, such as Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenades and artillery shells."
For example, in April 2008, a Chinese vessel making a delivery from Beijing sought to land more than 77 tons of small arms in South Africa for shipment to Zimbabwe. A Chinese spokeswoman defended the extensive arms trade between China and Zimbabwe as "normal" and "prudent and responsible." The shipment became known only because dockworkers in Durban, South Africa, refused to unload the cargo. It appears that the cargo was eventually delivered by way of Angola.
Originally posted by pjay2001
reply to post by Valhall
I guess you didn't read the whole article, including this:
An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.
"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.