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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 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."

Well... I don't give a gak if they think it's undiplomatic. I don't want anything like this under the purview of the UN.

If we truly believe that this is what we need to do... then let OUR government regulate it. Period.

 whembly wrote:
If we truly believe that this is what we need to do... then let OUR government regulate it. Period.

The resolution is pretty much a bunch of countries signing a paper and saying "we agree to regulate our international arms trade." The UN will be regulating nothing.

 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.

You do know many of our weapons are actually made overseas with just the US company rollmark?

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If we truly believe that this is what we need to do... then let OUR government regulate it. Period.

The resolution is pretty much a bunch of countries signing a paper and saying "we agree to regulate our international arms trade." The UN will be regulating nothing.

It's more than that... if this thing passes, regulation would go through the roof in order to track all of this.

Doesn't matter... it's DoA in the Senate.

 whembly wrote:

If we truly believe that this is what we need to do... then let OUR government regulate it. Period.

It's a hell of a lot more, hum, well seen (and consequence free) to violate a country's sovereignty when you have the backing of a large part of the international community.

 Spacemanvic wrote:


You do know many of our weapons are actually made overseas with just the US company rollmark?

I see we've moved the goal post from "they want to repeal the second amendment" to "they want to stop us from making guns overseas."

You'd think the pro-gun crowd would actually embrace the later, since then companies would move manufacturing to the US, since we're one of the largest consumer markets for fire arms. I always assumed the pro-gun crowd and the pro-Made in the USA crowd had a lot of overlap. Guess that was wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It's more than that... if this thing passes, regulation would go through the roof in order to track all of this.

Doesn't matter... it's DoA in the Senate.

Read the first part of my post. These resolutions always go the same way. Everyone agrees to do something and then at best only makes token actions to the effect of the agreement. Even if we signed it nothing would happen in a practical sense. It would just make us look more friendly and less like douches to the international community (which does actually kind of matter, assuming we don't want to be an island surrounded by a world that could care less for us). I.E. It tells the world we share their concerns.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If we truly believe that this is what we need to do... then let OUR government regulate it. Period.

It's a hell of a lot more, hum, well seen (and consequence free) to violate a country's sovereignty when you have the backing of a large part of the international community.

We'll...yeah, sure.

But the US? Not anything soon.

The overall point I was trying to make is that if we feel something like this is truly important, you don't necessarily need to involve the UN. Just do it.

For instance, we could feel that we're spitting out too much CO2... we can unilateraly implement regulations to cut CO2 emissions w/o signing some fancy UN documents.

But for appearance's sake? Nah... that's actually bad policy. Just look at the Anti-Landmine treaty that we refuse to sign. Did our "diplomatic face" get smacked? Nope.

 whembly wrote:


But for appearance's sake? Nah... that's actually bad policy. Just look at the Anti-Landmine treaty that we refuse to sign. Did our "diplomatic face" get smacked? Nope.

When you're uncooperative with the world, it's only a matter of time before you're seen as, uncooperative. Losing diplomatic face doesn't come in the form of "you suck" statements which I figured everyone would have learned from the Manning debacle.

Token efforts to appear friendly don't really cost us anything, especially when any fears of UN resolutions with punch line quality enforcement provisions (in this case one sentence that basically says "we will enforce the laws we agree to pass under this resolution") are only opposed by paranoid nonsense.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:


You do know many of our weapons are actually made overseas with just the US company rollmark?

I see we've moved the goal post from "they want to repeal the second amendment" to "they want to stop us from making guns overseas."

You'd think the pro-gun crowd would actually embrace the later, since then companies would move manufacturing to the US, since we're one of the largest consumer markets for fire arms. I always assumed the pro-gun crowd and the pro-Made in the USA crowd had a lot of overlap. Guess that was wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It's more than that... if this thing passes, regulation would go through the roof in order to track all of this.

Doesn't matter... it's DoA in the Senate.

Read the first part of my post. These resolutions always go the same way. Everyone agrees to do something and then at best only makes token actions to the effect of the agreement. Even if we signed it nothing would happen in a practical sense. It would just make us look more friendly and less like douches to the international community (which does actually kind of matter, assuming we don't want to be an island surrounded by a world that could care less for us). I.E. It tells the world we share their concerns.

The US can already unilaterally limit firearms from overseas. Obama via executive action just expanded that.
One of the main fears is that this creates a registration system and other similar lines and that the adminstration will claim it is just following the treaty.

The US can already unilaterally limit firearms from overseas. Obama via executive action just expanded that.

So... We're going to do what the Resolution calls for anyway? Gee, we might as well just sign the silly thing and tell the world "We share your concerns and are committed to cooperating with the international community and to prove we mean it we've already taken the first steps."

One of the main fears is that this creates a registration system and other similar lines and that the adminstration will claim it is just following the treaty.

By doing something the treaty doesn't bind it to do? If Sandy Hook didn't get tougher gun regs passed, a UN resolution that doesn't even address domestic gun laws isn't going to do it. It's absurdist fear mongering.

"Obama is wants to pass a UN resolution so he can take our guns away and repeal the second amendment but he's an idiot because it'll be dead on arrival in congress."

That's what this 'fear' amounts to. Paranoid 'Obama wants to take our guns away' mixed with "haha look how stupid the president is." People complain about how Obama makes the US look weak when really its stupid self affirming conspiracy in the face of a contrary reality that makes America look weak.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 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.

You do know many of our weapons are actually made overseas with just the US company rollmark?

Great! We might finally have some middle-class job creation by onshoring weapon manufacturing!

 LordofHats wrote:

The US can already unilaterally limit firearms from overseas. Obama via executive action just expanded that.

So... We're going to do what the Resolution calls for anyway? Gee, we might as well just sign the silly thing and tell the world "We share your concerns and are committed to cooperating with the international community and to prove we mean it we've already taken the first steps."

One of the main fears is that this creates a registration system and other similar lines and that the adminstration will claim it is just following the treaty.

By doing something the treaty doesn't bind it to do? If Sandy Hook didn't get tougher gun regs passed, a UN resolution that doesn't even address domestic gun laws isn't going to do it. It's absurdist fear mongering.

"Obama is wants to pass a UN resolution so he can take our guns away and repeal the second amendment but he's an idiot because it'll be dead on arrival in congress."

That's what this 'fear' amounts to. Paranoid 'Obama wants to take our guns away' mixed with "haha look how stupid the president is." People complain about how Obama makes the US look weak when really its stupid self affirming conspiracy in the face of a contrary reality that makes America look weak.

On the surface... I agree with your point.

But, I don't agree that it'll buy us any good will, if at all, if we don't sign it.

In any case, it's DoA these days... I can't imagine the Senate ratifying this in the future.

 LordofHats wrote:

The US can already unilaterally limit firearms from overseas. Obama via executive action just expanded that.

So... We're going to do what the Resolution calls for anyway? Gee, we might as well just sign the silly thing and tell the world "We share your concerns and are committed to cooperating with the international community and to prove we mean it we've already taken the first steps."

One of the main fears is that this creates a registration system and other similar lines and that the adminstration will claim it is just following the treaty.

By doing something the treaty doesn't bind it to do? If Sandy Hook didn't get tougher gun regs passed, a UN resolution that doesn't even address domestic gun laws isn't going to do it. It's absurdist fear mongering.

"Obama is wants to pass a UN resolution so he can take our guns away and repeal the second amendment but he's an idiot because it'll be dead on arrival in congress."

That's what this 'fear' amounts to. Paranoid 'Obama wants to take our guns away' mixed with "haha look how stupid the president is." People complain about how Obama makes the US look weak when really its stupid self affirming conspiracy in the face of a contrary reality that makes America look weak.

He can use the color of the law under the treaty to enforce executive regulations.
You say he can't well, he can't unilaterally push back whole sections of the ACA by a year, but he did.

If we already do it we don't need to sign a treaty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 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.

You do know many of our weapons are actually made overseas with just the US company rollmark?

Great! We might finally have some middle-class job creation by onshoring weapon manufacturing!

I'm not averse to that actually. Glock.

On the surface... I agree with your point.

But, I don't agree that it'll buy us any good will, if at all, if we don't sign it.

In any case, it's DoA these days... I can't imagine the Senate ratifying this in the future.

Oh it won't pass but I doubt Kerry signing it has anything to do with that. Kerry is signing it because it is Obama maintaining his diplomatic clout. Like him or not, he is more popular overseas than Bush was. Kerry signing this helps him maintain that since he is more directly connected to international affairs than Congress.

I.E. Kerry's actions will create the response "Well the American Congress is about as useful as ever old boy but at least the President is giving us his ear."

If we already do it we don't need to sign a treaty.

Even though it would be a little more than a gesture to present a cooperative image?

Actually he's less popular then Bush was, but don't let that stop you...

 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.

My Mosin Nagants! NOOOOOOOOO

Hey guys, what's goin' on in this thread?

Oh.

Oh, I see...

Yeah, have a good day, I'll be going now.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Hey guys, what's goin' on in this thread?

Oh.

Oh, I see...

Yeah, have a good day, I'll be going now.

Nah... don't do that... your participation would help further fuel the topics to complete my Dakka OT Bingo card.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:


You do know many of our weapons are actually made overseas with just the US company rollmark?

I see we've moved the goal post from "they want to repeal the second amendment" to "they want to stop us from making guns overseas."

You'd think the pro-gun crowd would actually embrace the later, since then companies would move manufacturing to the US, since we're one of the largest consumer markets for fire arms. I always assumed the pro-gun crowd and the pro-Made in the USA crowd had a lot of overlap. Guess that was wrong.

The problem is, you need a working understanding of the firearms industry as well as the firearms community, both of which you demonstrably lack.

It's not about stopping us from making guns overseas, (really pathetic attempt at obfuscation on your part btw). Nor is it about repealing the Second Amendment (again, another sophomoric attempt).

This whole UN bs is a round-about attempt at gun registration on not just nation states, but on private gun ownership. And, historically speaking, registration has always led to confiscation.

It's not about stopping us from making guns overseas, (really pathetic attempt at obfuscation on your part btw). Nor is it about repealing the Second Amendment (again, another sophomoric attempt).

You're the one who brought up how many gun are manufacture overseas, and you're the one talking about how this resolution, which has no binding provisions, will hamper domestic gun owners, the exact opposite of what the document actually says. I'm not just addressing you specifically but rather you and others who might be reading the thread and not commenting because these are the things being said about the resolution. I tend to do that. Sorry I don't make it clear.

Though I must point out;

This whole UN bs is a round-about attempt at gun registration on not just nation states, but on private gun ownership. And, historically speaking, registration has always led to confiscation.

You call my mentioning of repealing the second amendment obfuscation of the issue and then go one talking about how this resolution (still non-binding in any practical sense) will lead to the government confiscating our guns. I am not obfuscating. I'm stating outright that you are claiming that this resolution (which again, is a non-binding piece of paper with no real enforcement provisions) will lead to the repeal of the second amendment, if not in the law than in practice. You're just obfuscating that fact by talking in ambiguous 'they're probably gonna take our guns away' statements. That's why I bring it up. Because at the end of the day "gov'ment gonna take our guns away!" is what this silliness boils down to.

I'd posit that the problem is, you need a working understanding of politics and the international community, which you demonstrably lack (not that I'm an expert mind you. This topic tends to be covered in entry level political science courses).

Tinfoil hats all around!

 MrMoustaffa 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.

My Mosin Nagants! NOOOOOOOOO

Sorry MrMoustaffa... your Mosin Nagants would be regulated with this treaty... similar to Canada's healthcare

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 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.''.

Look guys, somebody got it.

Now I have to go fight mandatory allergy labeling laws because the government is going to force me to make shirts for my cat saying that they may contain cat dander.

 MrMoustaffa 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.

My Mosin Nagants! NOOOOOOOOO

H&R Shotguns, Springfield, Winchester, Browning, Springfield Armory...are just some firearms makers whose guns are made in part or whole overseas. Some use foreign parts and assembled in the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

It's not about stopping us from making guns overseas, (really pathetic attempt at obfuscation on your part btw). Nor is it about repealing the Second Amendment (again, another sophomoric attempt).

You're the one who brought up how many gun are manufacture overseas, and you're the one talking about how this resolution, which has no binding provisions, will hamper domestic gun owners, the exact opposite of what the document actually says. I'm not just addressing you specifically but rather you and others who might be reading the thread and not commenting because these are the things being said about the resolution. I tend to do that. Sorry I don't make it clear.

Though I must point out;

This whole UN bs is a round-about attempt at gun registration on not just nation states, but on private gun ownership. And, historically speaking, registration has always led to confiscation.

You call my mentioning of repealing the second amendment obfuscation of the issue and then go one talking about how this resolution (still non-binding in any practical sense) will lead to the government confiscating our guns. I am not obfuscating. I'm stating outright that you are claiming that this resolution (which again, is a non-binding piece of paper with no real enforcement provisions) will lead to the repeal of the second amendment, if not in the law than in practice. You're just obfuscating that fact by talking in ambiguous 'they're probably gonna take our guns away' statements. That's why I bring it up. Because at the end of the day "gov'ment gonna take our guns away!" is what this silliness boils down to.

I'd posit that the problem is, you need a working understanding of politics and the international community, which you demonstrably lack (not that I'm an expert mind you. This topic tends to be covered in entry level political science courses).

There you go again.

No, they wouldnt repeal the Second Amendment, they would regulate it out of existence. As is being done right now in California. Is it really hard for you to comprehend?

 Spacemanvic wrote:


There you go again.

No, they wouldnt repeal the Second Amendment, they would regulate it out of existence. As is being done right now in California. Is it really hard for you to comprehend?

Key part of that is "if not in the law than in practice." Which is essentially (EDIT: okay yeah, not exactly) what you've said right there. I don't think my comprehension is the problem. You can't paint your 'they're gonna take our guns away' paranoia with whatever words you like. At the end of the day it is what it is, and it's silly. Such a thing can't happen without political will, and if Sandy Hook didn't produce that, a UN resolution that doesn't even do what you say it does, won't.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 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."

Well... I don't give a gak if they think it's undiplomatic. I don't want anything like this under the purview of the UN.

If we truly believe that this is what we need to do... then let OUR government regulate it. Period.

What is your proposal for the way the US government will impose a mutually agreed treaty on the other 200+ members of the UN?

This makes an interesting second ammendment side story. There's the whole right of way thing the city is using, but the guy says other signs are up in the area that don't get touched.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/25/hidden-camera-catches-culprit-taking-man-second-amendment-sign/

I used to go out with a girl from Somers.

 Ouze wrote:
I used to go out with a girl from Somers.

Was her name Suzanne?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 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."

Well... I don't give a gak if they think it's undiplomatic. I don't want anything like this under the purview of the UN.

If we truly believe that this is what we need to do... then let OUR government regulate it. Period.

What is your proposal for the way the US government will impose a mutually agreed treaty on the other 200+ members of the UN?

Uh... we do it all the time with some things... like high end electronic / equipment.