Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Why is everyone pretending this thing has anything to do with domestic arms sales? Again, there is a right to bear arms, not a right to purchase arms. If a weapons dealer, particularly a foreign weapons dealer, will not sell you a firearm you have no recourse (outside of anti-discrimination laws in domestic cases), as you have no right to purchase.

True, but don't act like this will pass, especially since there is way to much money tied up in our own domestic arms industy.

dogma wrote:It amuses me that you're comparing this issue to the Iraq War. They're not even remotely similar. We aren't going to seize weapons from foreign manufacturers because out citizens want a certain type of pistol.

It amuses me that you assume that I was referring to the Iraq War...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:mid stream elections historically have not been a good indication of national trends.

I would normally agree, but with the increasing presence of the news media in our everyday lives, eveyr election is being played up beyond measure. 2006 was indicative of 2008, just as 2010 will be indicative of 2012. That will hold true at least for Congress, but maybe not the Presidential race.

ShumaGorath wrote:How many incumbent presidents were voted down over the lat 30 years?

Just two...one apiece, for those of you who didn't know.

Frazzled wrote:
Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:

No, it works regardless of American manufacturers because I made no statement about domestic sales. In fact I've specifically said that domestic sales are irrelevant to this matter except insofar as they are the result of prior, international sales, or direct deals with overseas dealers.

Frazzled wrote:
Those are just off the top of my head. Plus you have gobs of Eastern European manufacturers, Argentina, and Brazil. I'm pretty sure CZ and Croatia wouldlaugh at any international laws in this area. Thats pretty much everything but Glock, Sig prime, and Walther. So er, what were you aying again?

As I said, it depends on who signs the treaty, and how the treaty is constructed. You're arguing about what you believe to be likely, and I really don't care. I'm simply stating what's possible vis a vis US authority over international matters.

Frazzled wrote:
You mean where Republicans won two out of the last three elections and a Republican, running against Obama healthcare, is ahead in Massachusetts. thats like Bush winning Berkeley, its just crazy talk...

Are you talking about Presidential, or Gubernatorial elections?

Anyway, its not that ridiculous, not given the turnover that occurred in the last election cycle where Republicans lost 14 of 19 races involving incumbents, and failed to win a single open seat; with 11 of those seats being in traditionally Republican districts. In the Senate Republicans lost 2 races, and 3 open seats in recently Republican states.

The party in power at the state level loses favor in times perceived to be difficult (note Republican victories in the last cycle House races), we'll have to wait and see how everything shapes up. Anything else is based on invalid inference.

JEB_Stuart wrote:True, but don't act like this will pass, especially since there is way to much money tied up in our own domestic arms industy.

The whole point of my commentary in this thread has been that our influence isn't necessarily relevant. This can pass without our support, as it doesn't have to be run through the Security Council. And, considering the two primary reasons for passing this type of legislation are financial gains for foreign governments who depend on imported arms, and control over militant dissidents I see the outcome as being at least moderately likely (though probably not through the UN charter).

JEB_Stuart wrote:
It amuses me that you assume that I was referring to the Iraq War...

In recent history the only instances in which we have ignored UN resolutions have been those in which any effect has been tied to our submission to them. In this instance our submission is irrelevant.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:

No, it works regardless of American manufacturers because I made no statement about domestic sales. In fact I've specifically said that domestic sales are irrelevant to this matter except insofar as they are the result of prior, international sales, or direct deals with overseas dealers.

What the hell are you arguing? Are you arguing that an international treaty that the US hasn't signed still applies because international arms sellers won't sell in the US, but that somehow the massive plethora of US domestic manufacturers would also not sell firearms into their own domestic US market? What are you on about?

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:

No, it works regardless of American manufacturers because I made no statement about domestic sales. In fact I've specifically said that domestic sales are irrelevant to this matter except insofar as they are the result of prior, international sales, or direct deals with overseas dealers.

What the hell are you arguing? Are you arguing that an international treaty that the US hasn't signed still applies because international arms sellers won't sell in the US, but that somehow the massive plethora of US domestic manufacturers would also not sell firearms into their own domestic US market? What are you on about?

Any effect reducing the capacity of arms trade and sale within the borders of the U.S. indicates that the treaty is having an effect.

Where's Fateweaver? I need him to fulfill the second part of my signature.

Frazzled wrote:What the hell are you arguing? Are you arguing that an international treaty that the US hasn't signed still applies because international arms sellers won't sell in the US, but that somehow the massive plethora of US domestic manufacturers would also not sell firearms into their own domestic US market? What are you on about?

If the US does not sign the treaty, then the US is not bound by the treaty. However, any state which does sign the treaty is bound by the treaty. This includes and arms manufacturers/dealers located in those nations. As such, any restrictions on the import and export of arms involving those states still apply to people attempting to do business with arms manufacturers/dealers in those states.

I don't know why you think I'm even making a comment on the domestic arms market. I've said about 3 times now that its irrelevant to the conversation as it would be unaffected by any treaty, even one the US signed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Any effect reducing the capacity of arms trade and sale within the borders of the U.S. indicates that the treaty is having an effect.

Exactly. If its harder for US manufacturers to export their products (due to foreign import restrictions), then the treaty affects the US. If its harder for foreign companies to send their wears to the US (due to domestic export restrictions), then the treaty affects the US.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:

No, it works regardless of American manufacturers because I made no statement about domestic sales. In fact I've specifically said that domestic sales are irrelevant to this matter except insofar as they are the result of prior, international sales, or direct deals with overseas dealers.

What the hell are you arguing? Are you arguing that an international treaty that the US hasn't signed still applies because international arms sellers won't sell in the US, but that somehow the massive plethora of US domestic manufacturers would also not sell firearms into their own domestic US market? What are you on about?

Any effect reducing the capacity of arms trade and sale within the borders of the U.S. indicates that the treaty is having an effect.

but it wouldn't. It would just mean people buy more Springfields than Glocks. Domestic sales improvement for the WiN!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What the hell are you arguing? Are you arguing that an international treaty that the US hasn't signed still applies because international arms sellers won't sell in the US, but that somehow the massive plethora of US domestic manufacturers would also not sell firearms into their own domestic US market? What are you on about?

If the US does not sign the treaty, then the US is not bound by the treaty. However, any state which does sign the treaty is bound by the treaty. This includes and arms manufacturers/dealers located in those nations. As such, any restrictions on the import and export of arms involving those states still apply to people attempting to do business with arms manufacturers/dealers in those states.

I don't know why you think I'm even making a comment on the domestic arms market. I've said about 3 times now that its irrelevant to the conversation as it would be unaffected by any treaty, even one the US signed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Any effect reducing the capacity of arms trade and sale within the borders of the U.S. indicates that the treaty is having an effect.

Exactly. If its harder for US manufacturers to export their products (due to foreign import restrictions), then the treaty affects the US. If its harder for foreign companies to send their wears to the US (due to domestic export restrictions), then the treaty affects the US.

Its not irreleevant. the domestic US manufacturers generate the vast majority of domestic sales.

If you're talking international sales from domestic manufacturers-who cares? It has zilch to do with the original post.

Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Any effect reducing the capacity of arms trade and sale within the borders of the U.S. indicates that the treaty is having an effect.

Exactly. If its harder for US manufacturers to export their products (due to foreign import restrictions), then the treaty affects the US. If its harder for foreign companies to send their wears to the US (due to domestic export restrictions), then the treaty affects the US.

Its not irreleevant. the domestic US manufacturers generate the vast majority of domestic sales.

If you're talking international sales from domestic manufacturers-who cares? It has zilch to do with the original post.

Frazzled wrote:
Its not irreleevant. the domestic US manufacturers generate the vast majority of domestic sales.

Yes it is irrelevant, because this thread doesn't refer to anything which is about multinational arms control through the direct manipulation of domestic markets. A bunch of people got confused when they heard the words 'gun control' in front of some sinister music, and then started talking about how the UN could overrule US domestic law if it passed a gun control resolution. Obviously they cannot, but that's not what I've been discussing.

Apparently we've been talking past each other.

Frazzled wrote:
If you're talking international sales from domestic manufacturers-who cares? It has zilch to do with the original post.

I'm also talking about domestic sales from international manufacturers; particularly those international manufacturers who do not assemble in the United States (the sort of corporations which would be under foreign export restrictions). That's the manner in which a treaty to which we are not signatories can affect US affairs.

My filter that filters certain things, won't let me see the site,as it is unde the category of weapons, which is banned. from what i can see, any arms control treaty would be like, no cop killer bullets for the local populace, no automatic weapons, no bazookas. i'm all for the right to bear arms, but when will i need fully automatic weapons and RPGs to defend my house?

Maybe I'm watching a different video or reading a different article.

The article and video have nothing to do with RPG's and full autos isthatmycow. They are wanting the US to sign their treaty making it illegal for US citizens to own small arms, aka pistols and hunting rifles, NOT rpgs's (which to own legally you need to fill out a million forms and pay huge sums of money so beyond most peoples means anyway).

From what I'm seeing this treaty has more than just limiting illegal trade regarding guns. I'm seeing a treaty to make ALL handguns illegal. The only representative in the video who said anything about illegal arms trade having to be stopped was from NZ but the other spokespeople in the video have said, in a nutshell, they want the treaty to ban ALL weapons from the hands of US citizens, handguns included. I am hearing and reading that it's about more than banning illegal trade.

So yeah, it looks to me from the IANSA website and the article with video that it's not JUST assault rifles and RPG's that the treaty wants to ban, and whether or not you own guns or want to own guns is irrelevant. The rest of the world is trying to change or throw out our Constitutional rights.

Funny how the anti-gun people defend so heavily our right to freedom of speech (and that is more or less gone as you can't say anything that might offend someone so you better not say anything at all) but at the same time they say the 2nd amendment doesn't matter or doesn't apply. If I can't own guns then you can't say whatever the hell you want. Oh wait, you can't anyway so I guess we have already lost our 1st Amendment rights. I've experienced it on Dakka. I got a ban for speaking my mind. Thank God the mods are not anti-gun or I'd get banned for speaking about guns.

oh, well i can't see the article. its what i thought about it

lus... i gotta something to do with you, hang on... you'll see

mattyrm wrote:Back on topic, if i was a 19 year old man in America id be more worried about why i wasnt allowed a beer after my combat tour in Iraq, why i wasnt allowed to go to a bookies and put a bet on my favourite football team and why blue laws infringe on my basic choices in life than being able to have an assault rifle in my bedroom. But whatever floats your boat, as i said, i kinda like guns.. but.. i feel there are more important things to worry about.

It's significant for quite a few reasons, the largest of which may be its status as a guaranteed right by the constitution. There's also a general displeasure with encroaching government powers, and the feel of a need to make a stand against it.

I agree with you on the lack of attention being given to the dozens of other infringements against us that seem to go unnoticed (we're doing a great job at this "Land of the Free" thing, aren't we?), although I don't think that abandoning the defense of another right would do much to alleviate this.

ShumaGorath wrote:Right to privacy and fair trial have been under fire for years. I don't hear the same level of half slowed mewling there.

The U.S. Government: Hey there buddy! You know what, you should really give all of those dangerous looking guns to me. Sure there's that second amendment, but you might get hurt! That would be awful!

U.S. Conservatives: What! No way! I'm not giving up my freedoms; once one right is demolished no other right can be guaranteed safety. I'm tired of you always trying to control another aspect of our lives! You'll take our guns from our cold dead fingers!

The U.S. Government: Whoa! Okay, whatever you say. I wouldn't dare encroach on your rights... say, would you mind if I wiretapped your phone lines without a warrant? I know you've got the fourth amendment and all, but there might be terrorists out there! Aren't they scary?

U.S. Conservatives: Wow! Oh yeah, thanks for doing something about those guys! Hey, if you get a minute, do you think you could jail some flag burners?

metallifan wrote:In all honesty, I don't see what the big fuss is about.

When I was in the military, I loved my C7 and treated it well enough to make an Astartes green with jealousy. But did I care that I couldn't actually own one? Not at all. Sure, it would be neat, but it's not something I feel that a person -needs-. Long as I have food, water, a job, and shelter, I'm happy.

(...)

I guess I wouldn't completely understand without actually being American, but I just don't see what the big deal is (Other than the loss of money to both owners and gun shops due to not being allowed to legally own/sell restricted firearms)

It shouldn't be the duty of the county's citizens to justify why they wish to do something, it should be the duty of the government to justify why they are sending their police officers to stop the activity from being done (or punish those who have already done it). To use the hockey example below, I have absolutely no desire to play or watch ice hockey some time in my life; however, I could never condone a prohibition of it. Would you really accept the prohibition of anything that wasn't directly supporting your survival? That would be awfully... easy going, I guess.

Part of the reason that the US has such a negative light is because a lot of the world disregards it as a bully nation full of gun-touting Rednecks, which couldn't be farther from the truth. While I'm sure taking away a US citizen's right to bear arms is like telling a Canadian he can't watch any more hockey, it might be beneficial to the way the rest of the world views the country, and I think that's something to keep in mind.

I would say there's absolutely no reason to keep in mind at all. For any individual to avoid what makes them happy out of fear of being looked down upon by the prejudiced is cowardly; to then force others to do so as well is both cowardly and hugely immoral.

Just because people here can't own automatic weapons, doesn't mean we're miserable or feel that our rights are threatened.

When Mattyrm mentioned assault rifles it seemed like it may have been hyperbole, but now that you mention it I'm starting wonder if there isn't some sort of huge misunderstanding about American Gun control. Assault rifles among civilians are heavily regulated in the United States, requiring a special permit to have in any state, and being prohibited from some states completely (correct? I'm pretty sure on that, but not positive). Assault rifles being held by those with permits are responsible for very few (if any?) deaths in the United States, and even those held illegally don't do that much.

In my experience the front lines of the gun control debate is on handguns; several cities have banned the possession of handguns, and if I recall correctly at least one had the law struck down by a Supreme Court. Automatic weapons aren't a serious issue, mostly just brought up to score fear points for the left.

There's plenty of confusion regarding assault rifles here as well, thanks in a large part to the purposefully deceptive term "assault weapon" (used in an old bill prohibiting certain "military" styled options for semi-automatic weapons including - among other things - a bayonet mount) and to some weapons commonly known as assault rifles (such as AK-47s) being sold in the United States without the ability to fire automatically (thus, of course, making them no longer assault rifles).

George Spiggott wrote:

Dr. Ignatius Piazza via Lordhat wrote:Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty AND the Senate ratified the treaty, then the final check and balance to protect our liberty and sovereignty would lie in the hands of tens of millions of American gun owners.

This is always funny. What is it that makes you (him) think that you and your neighbours owning an assault rifle or even a 50 cal. machinegun or whatever is going to stop the most well funded and highly advanced military on earth doing exactly what it likes (on your lawn*) should it feel the need to do so.

The most well funded and highly advanced military on earth totally has that Iraq situation under control; occupying a nation 20 times as large and 12 times as populous should be no sweat.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The most well funded and highly advanced military on earth totally has that Iraq situation under control; occupying a nation 20 times as large and 12 times as populous should be no sweat.

Yep, a civil war will definitely keep the same rules of engagement as the one in the middle east and the war will definitely take place in all 50 states simultaneously. Still if you're a good shot with that hunting rifle it will definitely stop you being bombed by a gas weapon, or something equally hideous, no... wait...

In my experience the front lines of the gun control debate is on handguns; several cities have banned the possession of handguns, and if I recall correctly at least one had the law struck down by a Supreme Court. Automatic weapons aren't a serious issue, mostly just brought up to score fear points for the left.

There's plenty of confusion regarding assault rifles here as well, thanks in a large part to the purposefully deceptive term "assault weapon" (used in an old bill prohibiting certain "military" styled options for semi-automatic weapons including - among other things - a bayonet mount) and to some weapons commonly known as assault rifles (such as AK-47s) being sold in the United States without the ability to fire automatically (thus, of course, making them no longer assault rifles).

This. Anti-gun lobbyists like to cite any crime involving an AK or an AR or Uzi as a reason to make stricter gun laws when the actual truth is more people are killed each year by handguns than by assault rifles. It just looks more menacing to use the hyperbole "Assault rifles are dangerous and deadly therefore all guns are deadly so should not be allowed". If guns weren't dangerous and deadly than we wouldn't use them to hunt. Would be great if that was the only gun legislation that the anti-gun nuts wanted to pass. They just always try to slip in some provision making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get such things as .22 rifles or .308 rifles or shotguns or handguns.

Also, to compare the lack of a right for 18yo's to drink to an Amendment in the Constitution is just ludicrous. One is actually state-regulated (being 21 to drink IS NOT a federal law, it's state based). There are 19 States where you won't get into LEGAL trouble for being under 21 and drinking. In ALL states you have to be 21 to purchase but ONLY in 31 of those could you get fined for "consuming as a minor". Folks seem to forget drinking alcohol is a privilege, not a right. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Freedom of Speech, Freedom to bear arms, Freedom from oppression and tyranny are a Right.

If someone doesn't like my right to own 200 handguns (I don't but I could if I wanted) that is too bad. It's my right and I'm going to fight for it tooth and nail.

Fateweaver wrote:

In my experience the front lines of the gun control debate is on handguns; several cities have banned the possession of handguns, and if I recall correctly at least one had the law struck down by a Supreme Court. Automatic weapons aren't a serious issue, mostly just brought up to score fear points for the left.

There's plenty of confusion regarding assault rifles here as well, thanks in a large part to the purposefully deceptive term "assault weapon" (used in an old bill prohibiting certain "military" styled options for semi-automatic weapons including - among other things - a bayonet mount) and to some weapons commonly known as assault rifles (such as AK-47s) being sold in the United States without the ability to fire automatically (thus, of course, making them no longer assault rifles).

This. Anti-gun lobbyists like to cite any crime involving an AK or an AR or Uzi as a reason to make stricter gun laws when the actual truth is more people are killed each year by handguns than by assault rifles. It just looks more menacing to use the hyperbole "Assault rifles are dangerous and deadly therefore all guns are deadly so should not be allowed". If guns weren't dangerous and deadly than we wouldn't use them to hunt. Would be great if that was the only gun legislation that the anti-gun nuts wanted to pass. They just always try to slip in some provision making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get such things as .22 rifles or .308 rifles or shotguns or handguns.

Also, to compare the lack of a right for 18yo's to drink to an Amendment in the Constitution is just ludicrous. One is actually state-regulated (being 21 to drink IS NOT a federal law, it's state based). There are 19 States where you won't get into LEGAL trouble for being under 21 and drinking. In ALL states you have to be 21 to purchase but ONLY in 31 of those could you get fined for "consuming as a minor". Folks seem to forget drinking alcohol is a privilege, not a right. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Freedom of Speech, Freedom to bear arms, Freedom from oppression and tyranny are a Right.

If someone doesn't like my right to own 200 handguns (I don't but I could if I wanted) that is too bad. It's my right and I'm going to fight for it tooth and nail.

It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment,

It has to do with international crime.

Read the dang document not the nutbars commentary.

Here it is:
http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

Fateweaver wrote:

If someone doesn't like my right to own 200 handguns (I don't but I could if I wanted) that is too bad. It's my right and I'm going to fight for it tooth and nail.

And here I have to agree with Fate, though some of my opinions differ ,ultimately I too will defend my rights to own firearms.

George Spiggott wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:The most well funded and highly advanced military on earth totally has that Iraq situation under control; occupying a nation 20 times as large and 12 times as populous should be no sweat.

Yep, a civil war will definitely keep the same rules of engagement as the one in the middle east and the war will definitely take place in all 50 states simultaneously.

Are you implying that the modern US army will accept far greater civilian deaths among fellow Americans than in a foreign nation? Please. Even if that they would their tactics would only make the occupation more difficult for them. The idea that we could simply "get tough" (here or there) and occupy an infinite amount of countryside because of it is silly.

Of course a rebellion in only one state, comprised of four people, would fail but there's no reason to disclaim what should be readily obvious: a rebellion that is very small would fail. What is worth saying is that the U.S. Army's advanced weaponry do not come even close to making the invincible juggernaut people often think it is. It is well within the ability of a nation-wide rebellion to bring down the United States government, although for such a rebellion to occur would require quite a bit more public displeasure than we currently have, and would likely end in a lot of destruction by any measure.

A modern rebellion would not be anything like the Civil War, and trying another Sherman wouldn't work. Neither those in the armed forces nor those who would assist the government in maintaining order would tolerate it; there would also not be a relatively even split between states. State loyalty is far less than it used to be, and the huge changes in communication and transportation (not to mention the lack of a trigger issue as area-specific as slavery) mean things would be far more universal. It would be far more equivilent to one of the many wars we have has in which we attempted to occupy hostile ground, or to the various riots and terrorist attacks we've had.

efarrer wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

In my experience the front lines of the gun control debate is on handguns; several cities have banned the possession of handguns, and if I recall correctly at least one had the law struck down by a Supreme Court. Automatic weapons aren't a serious issue, mostly just brought up to score fear points for the left.

There's plenty of confusion regarding assault rifles here as well, thanks in a large part to the purposefully deceptive term "assault weapon" (used in an old bill prohibiting certain "military" styled options for semi-automatic weapons including - among other things - a bayonet mount) and to some weapons commonly known as assault rifles (such as AK-47s) being sold in the United States without the ability to fire automatically (thus, of course, making them no longer assault rifles).

This. Anti-gun lobbyists like to cite any crime involving an AK or an AR or Uzi as a reason to make stricter gun laws when the actual truth is more people are killed each year by handguns than by assault rifles. It just looks more menacing to use the hyperbole "Assault rifles are dangerous and deadly therefore all guns are deadly so should not be allowed". If guns weren't dangerous and deadly than we wouldn't use them to hunt. Would be great if that was the only gun legislation that the anti-gun nuts wanted to pass. They just always try to slip in some provision making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get such things as .22 rifles or .308 rifles or shotguns or handguns.

Also, to compare the lack of a right for 18yo's to drink to an Amendment in the Constitution is just ludicrous. One is actually state-regulated (being 21 to drink IS NOT a federal law, it's state based). There are 19 States where you won't get into LEGAL trouble for being under 21 and drinking. In ALL states you have to be 21 to purchase but ONLY in 31 of those could you get fined for "consuming as a minor". Folks seem to forget drinking alcohol is a privilege, not a right. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Freedom of Speech, Freedom to bear arms, Freedom from oppression and tyranny are a Right.

If someone doesn't like my right to own 200 handguns (I don't but I could if I wanted) that is too bad. It's my right and I'm going to fight for it tooth and nail.

It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment,

It has to do with international crime.

Read the dang document not the nutbars commentary.

Here it is:
http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

It is, once again another way for legislatures to have a say in gun laws. It is the same knee-jerk reaction to the apparent 95% of all guns going into mexico from the US argument.

Not to mention I find it VERY, VERY, VERY hypocritical of countries like the UK and Australia and Canada to tell us to NOT but into foreign affairs that we have no place butting into ONLY for them to turn around and do the same thing to us by saying "we think you should agree with our treaty cracking down on illegal weapons, even if it does infringe on the rights of your people Mr. President."

Who's butting in on who's affairs now?

If I was 100% certain that a treaty making certain activity related to gun trade and sales illegal without infringing on my rights I'd be all for it but it doesn't. It specifically targets handguns. Any Bill allowing handguns to be regulated in a treaty regulating illegal sales and trade of handguns (as shown in the video with China and Australia's leaders being "anti-any kind of gun" (and really, who the feth trades handguns illegally? It's AK's and AR's, not .38S&W's) is going to find a provision or 2 in it putting even MORE regulations on handguns owned in the US. Politicians on both sides like to do that. Write a Bill they know will get passed and include provisions, that on their own wouldn't but when made part of a larger Bill will because the Bill as a whole gets passed so the provisions that have nothing to do with the Bill are now made into law because of a loophole.

Fateweaver wrote:

It is, once again another way for legislatures to have a say in gun laws. It is the same knee-jerk reaction to the apparent 95% of all guns going into mexico from the US argument.

Not to mention I find it VERY, VERY, VERY hypocritical of countries like the UK and Australia and Canada to tell us to NOT but into foreign affairs that we have no place butting into ONLY for them to turn around and do the same thing to us by saying "we think you should agree with our treaty cracking down on illegal weapons, even if it does infringe on the rights of your people Mr. President."

Who's butting in on who's affairs now?

If I was 100% certain that a treaty making certain activity related to gun trade and sales illegal without infringing on my rights I'd be all for it but it doesn't. It specifically targets handguns. Any Bill allowing handguns to be regulated in a treaty regulating illegal sales and trade of handguns (as shown in the video with China and Australia's leaders being "anti-any kind of gun" (and really, who the feth trades handguns illegally? It's AK's and AR's, not .38S&W's) is going to find a provision or 2 in it putting even MORE regulations on handguns owned in the US. Politicians on both sides like to do that. Write a Bill they know will get passed and include provisions, that on their own wouldn't but when made part of a larger Bill will because the Bill as a whole gets passed so the provisions that have nothing to do with the Bill are now made into law because of a loophole.

Did you read it?

Can you even read?

And in answer to you question criminal gangs opererating in the Northen US are bringing us in Canada a constant supply of handguns.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Are you implying that the modern US army will accept far greater civilian deaths among fellow Americans than a foreign nation? Please. Even if that they would (they wouldn't) their tactics would only make the occupation more difficult for them. The idea that we could simply "get tough" (here or there) and occupy an infinite amount of countryside because of it is silly.

If you're armed you're a militia and you aren't civilians any more so it's a meaningless question. The answer is that militia casualties will be high and the 'rules of war' only apply to attacking citizens of foreign sovereign nations not to 'terrorists', which is what you'd be (even if you weren't).

I'm not arguing that that a civil war of any scale is probable, I'm arguing that the government would win (easily) and increasing the amount of firepower you own won't make you any safer.

Derp, Derp. I read it. It mentioned in several places regulating handguns as well.

Changing a law (or in this case a guaranteed right) just to make a few nutjobs too scared of their own goddamn shadow happy is infringing on the 2nd amendment.

Hmm.......let me get this straight? You are for something that will make it apparently harder for CRIMINALS to bring guns into your country that will also affect law abiding citizens in the US (and it will).

What part of "Criminal" do you not understand? Criminals don't care how how or what gun laws go into effect. The fact that you said "criminals are bringing them into the country" and not "law abiding citizens are bringing them into the country" shows me that both the US and the Canadian border patrols aren't doing their jobs, not that US citizens owning guns is the problem.

You fail to realize, being in a country where guns are illegal or heavily regulated, is that it doesn't affect your country (or UK or Japan or China or Australia) for that matter because only the military or very very select few people with a knock out good reason can have guns.

Again, small arms (aka hand guns) were mentioned as targets of illegal trade. It doesn't take a global treaty denying the US citizens of it's right to own handguns to stop or slow down the illicit activity in the first place. It takes the Canadian government and the US and UK and Japanese and Australian governments getting off their goddamn laurels and doing their jobs.

I did read the article and small arms were mentioned. Small armes =/= rpg's and uzi's and ak47's. Small arms are semi-auto pistols and revolvers. Perhaps you should learn to read.

Dr. Ignatius Pizza

Youare all getting worked up over an article written by a slice of Italian cuisine. Either that or it's a muppet.

JEEEEZ, what are they gonna do next? Take my knives from me?!!!

Knives can be dangerous.

Can't have Americans possessing anything dangerous.

The stupid might kill themselves or each other and thEN welfare would disappear.

Err, wait. That's actually a good thing.

BRING ON MORE DANGEROUS STUFF FOR THE STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Captain Shrike wrote:JEEEEZ, what are they gonna do next? Take my knives from me?!!!

You can have my spork when you prize it from my cold dead fingers!

George Spiggott wrote:If you're armed you're a militia and you aren't civilians any more so it's a meaningless question. The answer is that militia casualties will be high and the 'rules of war' only apply to attacking citizens of foreign sovereign nations not to 'terrorists', which is what you'd be (even if you weren't).

So now your plan is to "get tough" with only those you know beyond all reasonable doubt to be working against you? I'm not sure you understand guerrilla warfare. There is no dividing line, there is a long spectrum of loyalty and support to either faction (or to "any faction", as it would be unlikely for there to only be two) and it is exceedingly difficult to know where anyone can be placed on that line. What is this special treatment we have given the known members of the Vietcong? What is the special treatment we've given Taliban members and other insurgents in the Middle East? Do you plan to put them in a brass bull and cook them or something? Torture won't get you far, especially with the lack of centralized authority being faced. I really do want to know what inspired plan would allow the US government to control Iraq 10 times over, but only ever effect those who are truly your enemies; surely we should put them into place right now. UN be damned, we have a magic bullet.

I'm not arguing that that a civil war of any scale is probable,

Nor am I, as I don't think it's especially likely.

I'm arguing that the government would win (easily) and increasing the amount of firepower you own won't make you any safer.

But this has been disproved a dozen times. Once again, Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. These were all far easier conflicts than a civil war could easily be, and the U.S. Army still flounders during their occupation, again and again. Now imagine the public outcry to collateral damage is increased tenfold. The economic ability to support the occupation severely diminished. This isn't a pitched battle between Abrams and bearded men with shotguns.

Okay, I'm seeing a lot of freakouts in this thread. Just wanted to clear a few things up.
1) The US is a sovereign nation and is not going to change its domestic policies just to make foreign politicians happy. We don't tell Europeans how to run their countries, and they shouldn't tell us how to run ours.
2) The gun-owning population is too large and too powerful politically (NRA anyone?) to risk pissing off. To do so would be political suicide. The most left-wing politicians can do is talk about making tougher gun laws to keep their gun-hating voters happy
3) The US military WILL NOT, I say again NOT engage in military action against a justified overthrow of the government (justified meaning the government had violated the Constitution, and yes, banning the sale or ownership of private firearms is unconstitutional). The US armed forces swore to support and defend the Constitution, not the President. Therefore, if an administration that had so violated the Constitution was to order the military to put down a rebellion, the military would have no obligation to follow that order.

And before anyone says anything, yes, that is an AK-47 I have in my photo, and no, it is not fully automatic. It is no different than a semiautomatic hunting rifle in function. Its classification as an "assault rifle" is based purely on aesthetics.

Orkeosaurus wrote:But this has been disproved a dozen times. Once again, Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. These were all far easier conflicts than a civil war could easily be, and the U.S. Army still flounders during their occupation, again and again. Now imagine the public outcry to collateral damage is increased tenfold. The economic ability to support the occupation severely diminished. This isn't a pitched battle between Abrams and bearded men with shotguns.

You were telling me how your guns make you safer, no? It doesn't matter how difficult guerilla wars are it matters how much safer you are because you have a gun.

Nobody ever mentions the Boer war when discussing guerilla wars (the Boers were armed as a populace), how will having a gun(s) keep you out of the 'internment' camps? If you or your group resist you're an identifiable target and your rifle will not stop them, there's no reason to assume they'll be any less determined than you they have more resources and more manpower (the Federal government will by default in a (former?) democracy be the largest group) there are not only no rules but they make them up as they go along.

Did you read it?

Can you even read?

Reading and comprehension are not the same thing.