Kerry signs U.N. arms treaty

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.

**Goliath**

dogma wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
The current Occupier of the White House is an ill fitting empty suit.

How can a suit be ill-fitting if it is empty?

Protip: when you can't make a logical argument, and even the pithy insults you resort to don't make any logical sense, you should take a time out.

**MrMoustaffa**

sebster wrote:
I don't think its particularly good policy for the executive to go about agreeing to treaties that it knows won't get ratified back home. That just makes government look weak, and unable to be dealt with.

But compared to the bundle of out and out political insanity that got unleashed in this thread, I think that's a fairly minor issue. Seriously, when any political thread can end up with at least one ultra-conservative nattering on about stuff like "useful idiots... being so easily swayed by communistic rhetoric" then anyone who thinks sensible political discourse is an important part of democracy, and decent governance an essential part of a successful country, needs to realise there is a major problem.

MrMoustaffa wrote:
This is a joke right?

When has ANYTHING the UN done actually meant something?

WHO program to vaccinate against polio.

Huh, learn something new every day I suppose

**whembly**

Guys... on the surface, this treaty seems honky-dory, feel good common sense.

The issue that some of us have is incrementalism... what's to say that the next treaty, act, or whathaveyou uses this treaty as justification or use it as a foothold... and does attempt to infringe on the 2nd amendment.

Perhaps more importantly... if this is such a concern, as the world's leading arms exporter, I'd rather the US Government determines how to regulate this... rather than the UN.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

If I were American, I would feel nervous. You refuse to sign this, you'll face the consequences: 10,000 African shock troops invading from Canada, the Philippine navy blockading the coast of New England, crack Pakistani paratroopers grabbing the Rockies and the mid-west (cutting the country in half)

Your 600 billion dollar defence budget won't save you. The millions of small arms floating around the country and the potential for a nationwide resistance on a major scale, won't save you. Nothing will save you.

Don't even think about deploying Weiner dogs to stave off the threat. Strategic drops of dog food over Texas will neutralise this.

On a more serious note, this is the kind of treaty, and the kind of nonsense, that will get airtime on American networks, and the sad thing is, some people in America will believe there is a threat to the country from the UN.

As somebody on this forum once said, if the USA enforced parking tickets on the UN building in New York, the UN would have collapsed a long time ago!

**chapgrimaldus**

Do I Not Like That, I have to say whether we sign it or not, our government has pissed everyone off and will continue to do so until they get gak slapped. Just pointing out sooner or later a country will get so pissed off at the USA that they attack, no one knows how that war will be, to say "you're screwed and nothing will save you," is arrogant on your part after all in war the first casualty is certainty of anything. Also I wouldn't be so confidant since the UK is one of the USA's biggest ally and a hell of a lot easier to invade, your butts will be on the line too.

Edit: Re read and found myself to be a half awake looney, disregard

**d-usa**

I don't think that we should pass another law making English the official language anywhere in the USA.

It is just a stepping stone and next they will outlaw foreign languages completely and I will go to prison for teaching my daughter German.

It's always step by step and inch by inch, and once English is the official language they will get to decide what accent and dialect is the "official" English and people will go to prison for trying to order a "pop" instead of a "soda".

**reds8n**

chapgrimaldus wrote:
Do I Not Like That, I have to say whether we sign it or not, our government has pissed everyone off and will continue to do so until they get gak slapped. Just pointing out sooner or later a country will get so pissed off at the USA that they attack, no one knows how that war will be, to say "you're screwed and nothing will save you," is arrogant on your part after all in war the first casualty is certainty of anything. Also I wouldn't be so confidant since the UK is one of the USA's biggest ally and a hell of a lot easier to invade, your butts will be on the line too.

I think you might need to reread what he said

The issue that some of us have is incrementalism... what's to say that the next treaty, act, or whathaveyou uses this treaty as justification or use it as a foothold.

Unless it's to do with women's bodies or health of course.

**Seaward**

I'm not overly worried about this, I'm just curious why the president continues to think tilting at windmills is an effective thing to do.

**chapgrimaldus**

I'm sorry d-usa but that line of thought is flawed, why on earth would we lock up people for teaching another language? For one, we need to know other languages for business and diplomacy with other countries. Only way that slippery slope would occur is if the USA cut all ties to the rest of the world. The "English only" laws apply to business owners and signs. The were designed to cut off services to illegal immigrants, but even in my "English only" state, this law is blatantly ignored so put your fears to rest at least on that subject

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
I don't think that we should pass another law making English the official language anywhere in the USA.

It is just a stepping stone and next they will outlaw foreign languages completely and I will go to prison for teaching my daughter German.

It's always step by step and inch by inch, and once English is the official language they will get to decide what accent and dialect is the "official" English and people will go to prison for trying to order a "pop" instead of a "soda".

Um... isn't English already the defacto official language in Federal Government?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

The issue that some of us have is incrementalism... what's to say that the next treaty, act, or whathaveyou uses this treaty as justification or use it as a foothold.

Unless it's to do with women's bodies or health of course.

Eh... apples and oranges...

But, yeah.

**Alfndrate**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I don't think that we should pass another law making English the official language anywhere in the USA.

It is just a stepping stone and next they will outlaw foreign languages completely and I will go to prison for teaching my daughter German.

It's always step by step and inch by inch, and once English is the official language they will get to decide what accent and dialect is the "official" English and people will go to prison for trying to order a "pop" instead of a "soda".

Um... isn't English already the defacto official language in Federal Government?

It's the de facto language of the nation because 80% of the population claim it as their mother tongue. If a politician only spoke German, but met all other requirements for office, they could still hold office. They might just need a translator. I'm sure the same thing could be said for a deaf politician that only spoke via ASL.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

chapgrimaldus wrote:
Do I Not Like That, I have to say whether we sign it or not, our government has pissed everyone off and will continue to do so until they get gak slapped. Just pointing out sooner or later a country will get so pissed off at the USA that they attack, no one knows how that war will be, to say "you're screwed and nothing will save you," is arrogant on your part after all in war the first casualty is certainty of anything. Also I wouldn't be so confidant since the UK is one of the USA's biggest ally and a hell of a lot easier to invade, your butts will be on the line too.

Edit: Re read and found myself to be a half awake looney, disregard

No bother.

The point I was trying to make is that I've seen American citizens on TV being interviewed, who were angry and worried at what the UN was going to do to the USA. As if the UN could ever send in the troops against America. Well it could, but they wouldn't last long! It would be like Stephen Hawking trying to beat Ursain Bolt in a 100 metre sprint! Stephen would not be using his electric wheelchair in case any smart -ass points that out

Even if the UK, Europe, and the Russkies united to attack America, it would still be a hard, uncertain road to victory. Now, if Canada and Vietnam attacked America...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I don't think that we should pass another law making English the official language anywhere in the USA.

It is just a stepping stone and next they will outlaw foreign languages completely and I will go to prison for teaching my daughter German.

It's always step by step and inch by inch, and once English is the official language they will get to decide what accent and dialect is the "official" English and people will go to prison for trying to order a "pop" instead of a "soda".

Um... isn't English already the defacto official language in Federal Government?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

The issue that some of us have is incrementalism... what's to say that the next treaty, act, or whathaveyou uses this treaty as justification or use it as a foothold.

Unless it's to do with women's bodies or health of course.

Eh... apples and oranges...

But, yeah.

English is the de facto language until demographics and the growing Hispanic population say otherwise!

**Easy E**

Wow, the usual OT suspects are mad that the Obama administration did something!

SHOCKED!

**Spacemanvic**

dogma wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:

The US is a republic sebster, NOT a democracy.....

The US is a democracy. You can argue that it didn't become one until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920 but claiming that it isn't one now, in the year 2013, is nonsense.

Spacemanvic wrote:
You didnt read the document, did you?

I read it, and also read this.

The most important bit:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
There will be no lowering of current international standards.
Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

But please, explain how the Arms Trade Treaty is a gross affront to rights of gun owners.

Spacemanvic wrote:
The current Occupier of the White House is an ill fitting empty suit.

How can a suit be ill-fitting if it is empty?

It was 4:30AM EST. That he's an empty suit still stands.

Anyway, that excerpt is NOT[u] from the actual treaty.

That said, since it is not in the four corners of the document, it has absolutely NO bearing on the UN treaty itself. Its provided as a sop to those ignorant or willing enough to believe it. That link could have promised you rainbows and unicorns, it still does not reflect the reality of the treaty. The treaty itself is written vaguely enough that it's import can and most likely will change as the need arises. This treaty is a progressive statists wet dream.

Here are some key excerpt, the document itself can be obtained http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ATT_text_%28As_adopted_by_the_GA%29-E.pdf:

his Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following
categories:
(a) Battle tanks;
(b) Armoured combat vehicles;
(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d) Combat aircraft;
A/CONF.217/2013/L.3
13-27217
4
(e) Attack helicopters;
(f) Warships;
(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h) Small arms and light weapons.

The small arms and light weapons include shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles, in addition to modern sport rifles.

This section touches upon firearms registration:

Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system,
including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the
broadest range of conventional arms. Nationa
l definitions of any of the categories
covered under Article 2 (1) (a)-(g) shall not co
ver less than the descriptions used in
the United Nations Register of Conventional
Arms at the time of entry into force of
this Treaty. For the category covered under Article 2 (1) (h), national definitions
shall not cover less than the descripti
ons used in relevant United Nations
instruments at the time of entry into force of this Treaty.
4. Each State Party, pursuant to its
national laws, shall provide its national
control list to the Secretariat, which shall
make it available to other States Parties.
States Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.
A/CONF.217/2013/L.3
5
13-27217
5. Each State Party shall take measures necessary to implement the provisions of
this Treaty and shall designate competent
national authorities in order to have an
effective and transparent national control system regulating the transfer of
conventional arms covered under Article 2
(1) and of items covered under Article 3
and Article 4.
6. Each State Party shall designate one or more national points of contact to
exchange information on matters related to
the implementation of this Treaty. Each
State Party shall notify the Secretariat, es
tablished under Article 18, of its national
point(s) of contact and keep the information updated.

Say you buy a Glock....

3. Each State Party is encouraged to incl
ude in those records: the quantity, value,
model/type, authorized international transf
ers of conventional arms covered under
Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually
transferred, details of exporting State(s),
importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment
State(s), and end users, as appropriate.
4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

This piece of "legislation" wont stop international sales. Countries like Russia dont keep adequate records to begin with, and state entities like the CIA traffic in arms regularly, to all sorts of illicit parties. This will only effect, as usually happens with gun control, the legal owner.

As to worrying about the UN:

**xole**

dogma wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:

The US is a republic sebster, NOT a democracy.....

The US is a democracy. You can argue that it didn't become one until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920 but claiming that it isn't one now, in the year 2013, is nonsense.

Technically, children and criminals still don't have the right to vote. And even then, you never really vote for the president.

**Easy E**

Is this just another version of "Obama and and the UN are coming to take your guns!" meme?

**DemetriDominov**

LordofHats wrote:
Why again should we ratify this?

Because when you're the largest arms manufacturer in the world, and the world is concerned about the proliferation of armaments, it's a little douchey to look at the world and give them the middle finger spewing some insanity about how they're trying to take our guns away which the UN resolution is clearly NOT intended to do. The resolution is about the international arms trade, not domestic ownership, and further it is about regulating a market that is not well regulated internationally which concerns some people.

I agree completely. Theres nothing in the treaty that says anything directly about domestic gun control. It bans the illicit trade of weapons on the Black Market and would benefit the entire world enormously instead of the US continuing to look like a selfish priviledged teenager.

**Spacemanvic**

Easy E wrote:
Is this just another version of "Obama and and the UN are coming to take your guns!" meme?

Nahhhhhh

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DemetriDominov wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Why again should we ratify this?

Because when you're the largest arms manufacturer in the world, and the world is concerned about the proliferation of armaments, it's a little douchey to look at the world and give them the middle finger spewing some insanity about how they're trying to take our guns away which the UN resolution is clearly NOT intended to do. The resolution is about the international arms trade, not domestic ownership, and further it is about regulating a market that is not well regulated internationally which concerns some people.

I agree completely. Theres nothing in the treaty that says anything directly about domestic gun control. It bans the illicit trade of weapons on the Black Market and would benefit the entire world enormously instead of the US continuing to look like a selfish priviledged teenager.

Are you freaking serious!?!? Read the damn thing.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ATT_text_%28As_adopted_by_the_GA%29-E.pdf

**Kilkrazy**

Relax, there is no need to be upset.

the UN Treaty wrote:Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Will never be ratified by the Senate...

No worries...

I give it 90% chance it will be ratified actually. After all its just "common sense" legislation, and the Senators never actually read what they are voting on any more.

Help us Obi SCOTUS, you're our only hope...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If I were American, I would feel nervous. You refuse to sign this, you'll face the consequences: 10,000 African shock troops invading from Canada, the Philippine navy blockading the coast of New England, crack Pakistani paratroopers grabbing the Rockies and the mid-west (cutting the country in half)

Your 600 billion dollar defence budget won't save you. The millions of small arms floating around the country and the potential for a nationwide resistance on a major scale, won't save you. Nothing will save you.

Don't even think about deploying Weiner dogs to stave off the threat. Strategic drops of dog food over Texas will neutralise this.

On a more serious note, this is the kind of treaty, and the kind of nonsense, that will get airtime on American networks, and the sad thing is, some people in America will believe there is a threat to the country from the UN.

As somebody on this forum once said, if the USA enforced parking tickets on the UN building in New York, the UN would have collapsed a long time ago!

I'm concerned that the Foreign Devils have foudn out about our secret weiner dog defense option...

**Spacemanvic**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Relax, there is no need to be upset.

the UN Treaty wrote:Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

And you totally ignore the importing of arms. A fair number of firearms are imported into this country.

**Frazzled**

Seaward wrote:
I'm not overly worried about this, I'm just curious why the president continues to think tilting at windmills is an effective thing to do.

Beats having to provide leadership to solve the real problems of the country.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Relax, there is no need to be upset.

the UN Treaty wrote:Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

You're doing it wrong. Don't read it, just imagine what it says, presuming always that President Obama hates America and everyone in it that is not a gay muslim abortion doctor terrorist, and extrapolate out the worst from there, you.... progressive statist.

**Kilkrazy**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spacemanvic wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Relax, there is no need to be upset.

the UN Treaty wrote:Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

And you totally ignore the importing of arms. A fair number of firearms are imported into this country.

You have plenty of domestic production and it would simply increase to fill the demand if imports were cut off. American knowhow will find a way to make equivalents of the AK47, the FN FiveseveN and so on if needs be.

Capitalism -- you may have heard of it.

The key point is that the 2nd Amendment is excepted, which makes the right wing argument an untrue thing.

**LordofHats**

Spacemanvic wrote:

Are you freaking serious!?!? Read the damn thing.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ATT_text_%28As_adopted_by_the_GA%29-E.pdf

I think you should read it.

Recalling

Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations which seeks to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources,

Underlining the need to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts,

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial interests of States in the international trade in conventional arms,

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

If you haven't figured out what the resolution is about 3/4 of the way down page 1, then you aren't reading it very well. Sitting here, screaming about how the UN and Kerry want to take our guns away is what makes America look weak because it tells the world Americans have difficulty reading.

**Kovnik Obama**

chapgrimaldus wrote:
I'm sorry d-usa but that line of thought is flawed, why on earth would we lock up people for teaching another language? For one, we need to know other languages for business and diplomacy with other countries. Only way that slippery slope would occur is if the USA cut all ties to the rest of the world. The "English only" laws apply to business owners and signs. The were designed to cut off services to illegal immigrants, but even in my "English only" state, this law is blatantly ignored so put your fears to rest at least on that subject

D-usa's post was (it seems) aimed at explaining why slippery-slope arguments are not proper arguments at all. A slippery-slope is, effectively, a warning against a potential outcome. Generally, the only statement necessary to defeat a slippery-slope argument is ''Ok, thanks, I'll be careful not to let that happen''. It's also a bad argumentative form because it tend to disguise a potentiality as a much more likely outcome, since you never bother to list all potential outcomes and give them probabilistic values.

''Yes, language laws could lead to an american fascist state where non-anglophones are hunted down and neutered in the street. But more likely, it would lead to much less dire circumstances.''.

**DemetriDominov**

Spacemanvic wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Relax, there is no need to be upset.

the UN Treaty wrote:Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

And you totally ignore the importing of arms. A fair number of firearms are imported into this country.

That's not denying your right to bear arms. You can still have them, you just can't buy them from Warlords in the Congo. I'm not sure what you're worried about either, many of the best weapons on earth are made right here in "Merica, which have been doing a fine job of making our own citizens warlords in themselves.

**whembly**

Let throw this out again...

What can't the US government themselves do it? We don't need the UN.

**Alfndrate**

DemetriDominov wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Relax, there is no need to be upset.

the UN Treaty wrote:Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

And you totally ignore the importing of arms. A fair number of firearms are imported into this country.

That's not denying your right to bear arms. You can still have them, you just can't buy them from Warlords in the Congo. I'm not sure what you're worried about either, many of the best weapons on earth are made right here in "Merica, which have been doing a fine job of making our own citizens warlords in themselves.

We haven't reached this level of ingenuity though:

It looks like America has been outdone yet again in the areas of math, science, and technology! Schools these days!

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:
Let throw this out again...

What can't the US government themselves do it? We don't need the UN.

The resolution will go the way most resolutions do. Everyone nods and agrees to save the world, proceeds to do nothing to that effect, shows up at the annual bi-weekly meeting twenty years later and look at each other and say "Well chaps we gave it a jolly good try. We'll just have to do better next time!" Rinse and repeat.

The problem is that when your country is a major manufacturer of weapons and other people in the world are afraid those weapons will go to bad places where they will be used to kill people and spark wars and conflicts that could eventually involve them, its very undiplomatic to scream nonsense and give them the proverbial screw you.

Nothing is going to change because the US signs a piece of paper saying it will do something when the paper contains no provision to make sure the US does that thing it said it would do. Business will go on as usual. It's just a lot nicer to tell the rest of the world "We share your concerns" than "These are our guns and you can't have them but that third world dictator can if he has the money."