U.N. passes global arms control treaty

Looks like the U.N. globalists got what they want:

The U.N. General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved the first U.N. treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar international arms trade. The resolution adopting the landmark treaty was approved by a vote of 154 to 3 with 23 abstentions. The 193-member world body voted after Iran, North Korea and Syria blocked its adoption by consensus at a negotiating conference last Thursday. The three countries voted "no" on the resolution. The National Rifle Association had portrayed the draft treaty as a threat to gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and has lobbied to defeat the proposal at the U.N.

My next question is whether or not the U.S. is a signatory, the article implicates that we have passed legislation blocking such measures domestically...

The NRA last week praised the Senate's passage of an amendment to the Democratic budget proposal that would prevent the U.S. from entering into the treaty.

But will that amendment be on the final product when it is passed?

Hopes of reaching agreement on what would be a landmark treaty were dashed last July when the U.S. said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord — a move quickly backed by Russia and China. In December, the U.N. General Assembly decided to hold a final conference and set Thursday as the deadline for reaching agreement. There has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime. "It's important for each and every country in the world that we have a regulation of the international arms trade," Germany's U.N. Ambassador Peter Wittig told the AP. "There are still some divergencies of views, but I trust we can overcome them."

I have read many articles about this move by the U.N., and truth be told, I believe the media has barely scratched the surface of this, and what it could mean to our freedoms. Does anyone out there have a decent read on this?

reply to post by madmac5150


I can't really comment without reading the treaty.
Can we have some links to the body of the text of the treaty?
I'd like to read and understand some of the more important parts.

To me this is a good thing, I know my US brothers and sisters disagree but it will help stop illegal arms trading and less chance arms ending up in the wrong hands.
Flame away

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by madmac5150

 

I can't really comment without reading the treaty.
Can we have some links to the body of the text of the treaty?
I'd like to read and understand some of the more important parts.

This is what I found, I really hope there are a few attorneys as members that could review this and give a good wag on what is coming...

www.un.org...

reply to post by boymonkey74

stop illegal arms trading

Man that is funny, thanks I needed that.
Please tell me more about how treaties and laws will stop illegal activities.

That reminds me of how they are voting on a bill today, here in Connecticut, to ban more features on a gun and to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Oh and also to add new fees and other useless crap, to "save the children". Don't misunderstand me, they are not going to take the mags, they just want you to only put 10 rounds in them.

But people like you give me hope, because it will be "law" criminals will not carry more than 10 rounds, millions of children will be saved!

They should pass laws like this in Chicago!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

stop illegal arms trading

Man that is funny, thanks I needed that.
Please tell me more about how treaties and laws will stop illegal activities.

That reminds me of how they are voting on a bill today, here in Connecticut, to ban more features on a gun and to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Oh and also to add new fees and other useless crap, to "save the children". Don't misunderstand me, they are not going to take the mags, they just want you to only put 10 rounds in them.

But people like you give me hope, because it will be "law" criminals will not carry more than 10 rounds, millions of children will be saved!

They should pass laws like this in Chicago!!!!!!!!!

Chicago already has such laws, that is why it is such a safe city!

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

stop illegal arms trading

Man that is funny, thanks I needed that.
Please tell me more about how treaties and laws will stop illegal activities.

That reminds me of how they are voting on a bill today, here in Connecticut, to ban more features on a gun and to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Oh and also to add new fees and other useless crap, to "save the children". Don't misunderstand me, they are not going to take the mags, they just want you to only put 10 rounds in them.

But people like you give me hope, because it will be "law" criminals will not carry more than 10 rounds, millions of children will be saved!

They should pass laws like this in Chicago!!!!!!!!!

Why has no one ever thought of this before? All we have to do is make bad things illegal. Drugs; guns; rabid animals; bullies; rhino poachers; Obama haters.... GOD, I'm coming to the light! I finally see why man is so sinful! Not enough laws against bad things!

The UN can agree to all the treaties they want.

But it still has to be approved by a 2/3 vote by the Senate.

And even then, it will just be one more law. Seems to me that everything is illegal these days. I probably break 8 laws before I even get to work in the morning.

Originally posted by watchitburn
The UN can agree to all the treaties they want.

But it still has to be approved by a 2/3 vote by the Senate.

And even then, it will just be one more law. Seems to me that everything is illegal these days. I probably break 8 laws before I even get to work in the morning.

Even if Senate traitors pass it with 2/3 vote...

Marbury vs. Madison: All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void
Reid vs. Covert: The Constitution supersedes international treaties

I don't know about anyone else, but I am so very very fed up with the control freaks on this planet!!

As far as I see, it is about international gun trade, not local one.

Countries simply agreed about more control and regulations over international arms trade.

Nothing too bad...

It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:
-be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes -against humanity;
-facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender-based violence, violent crime or organized crime;
-violate United Nations Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes;
-be diverted from its stated recipient;
-adversely affect regional security; or
seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development.

This simply lets UN permit international arms transfers, import/export of the guns, so that the guns would not end up in the hands of terrorists or somebody with wrong intentions.

Here we go you all jump about "not gonna take my guns" this is more about the arms trade, to regulate it so no shady deals are done and all international arms deal are transparent so we do not sell stuff to say North Korea.


www.bbc.co.uk...


Read the last bit...

In the US, the biggest pro-gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association, has vowed to fight against ratification of the treaty by the Senate, although the UN says the treaty does nothing to interfere with domestic firearms legislation.

So the UN are not coming for your guns it is about international trade...

Its got a lot of loopholes and no real teeth and matches laws the US already has for arms sales but, I suppose it may help in some situations. It also does not cover ammunition. Its you typical feel good UN treaty that does not do much.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Like providing weapons to the Al-Qaeda insurgency in Syria and Libya? Or helping Israel develop nukes? Or selling chemical weapons to Iraq?

The UN is useless, it's a pit for tax dollars. The less it is involved in anything the better.

I believe we need to kick the UN and NATO out of the United States and let them preach some place else. If we kick them out of the United States do you think they would come up with these stop "GLOBAL TREATEIES"

Arms control has run amock in Russia, Syria, France ect, During the gulf war I seen so many different countries weapons were they should not of been, Russian weapons from tanks, BMPS, Helocopters and Jets, French supplied Anti tank Mines, Anti Personnel Mines and Syria supplies Ammo, such as RPGS, Motars.

So the question is does the UN really do any good?

reply to post by 19KTankCommander


I think they do...


Food aid.
Aid to refugees
Peacekeeping in 16 warzones
Making sure elections are fair.
Reproductive Health and Population Management.
War crime prosecutions
Fighting AIDS.
Trying to stop child soldiers, helped ban landmines.

Hey it isn't perfect but without them how many wars would have happened? they have stepped in and helped near warring sides sit down and sort stuff out.

reply to post by boymonkey74


The key is I think they do, but besides the UK and the United States how many other contries help out with disasaters and aide, personally I think we do much and need these contires to grow up and deal with there own problems I am tired of being the worlds poilce, doctor,lawyer, banker, farmer, food store, buidler, sex educator. Enough is enough the UN is out of control, they let counties get away with geniside and they think sancations will stop them from doing evil.

UN is outdated, sure would like to see what happens to the world if the United States and the UK close there boarders and kick all foriengers out and don't help anyone with anything.

Just tired of trying to be the good buy what about you?

reply to post by 19KTankCommander


Part of me agrees with you but many countries do their best to help and provide support not just the UK and the US, If you look at some of the countries the UN are helping a hundred years ago they were living in the stone age still and to help them develop we must continue to help them.

Sanctions...hhhm tricky one but do we want to send more of our troops over instead? can we just leave them to kill each other off? what If a war spills over to another country etc? These are the reasons for the UN arms treaty to make sure no company will sell to dictators or warlords.

The USA and the UK have been world leaders (we handed the reigns over to you after ww2 we knew how hard it is to police the world) and If we did just say right lets close off our borders kick all the jonny foreigners out both our countrys would suffer more on the world stage and just make more enemys.

I don't have the answer at all but It must be hard to try and control 192 different views when each one is just trying to look after their own.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
To me this is a good thing, I know my US brothers and sisters disagree but it will help stop illegal arms trading and less chance arms ending up in the wrong hands.
Flame away

That is just stupid.. Since when do criminals give a crap about Gun laws and where they get their hardware from?

reply to post by DarknStormy


Not to do with criminals really It is about the arms trade, arms companies selling arms to warlords who butcher their people etc, making sure If those companies do sell to them are held accountable.
Yes criminals will get guns If they want but do we want arms dealers to sell to people like Moktar Belmoktar? or Robert Mugabe?
This doesn't effect national laws at all.
The UN is not coming for your personal gun.

reply to post by boymonkey74


So they are targeting the likes of Syria, Iran, Nth Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, countries who don't lick their boots?