Is the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) really a second amendment issue?

Consider the source; many of those making that claim insist that Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery.

Even if it did mean creating a gun registry, how does keeping records of who has guns in any way infringe on anyone’s right to have a gun? Start worrying about it when the treaty actually says that everyone’s gun must be taken away. That’s the one worth fighting.

Honestly, how do people fall for this crap every single time?

@glacial “Start worrying about it when the treaty actually says that everyone’s gun must be taken away. That’s the one worth fighting.”.Its not going to be much of a fight if every gun owned by those lawfully allowed to is on the books. We have seen in recent decades, that just because something is written into law to protect rights, is by no means any real protection. The powers that be can and will do anything they want whenever they choose. Just ask anyone who is a studied native American about all those treaties they bought into.

This treaty deals with international trade in weapons. Trade in almost everything else is regulated by international agreements and it is odd that trade in weapons isn’t. Those who say it may lead to gun confiscation in the US don’t know what the UN is and haven’t read the treaty.

@woodcutter Mmkay. When was the last time the US government actually went out and took anyone’s guns away? When was the last time they stated that they wanted to? This is just more NRA-inspired fear mongering. Don’t you ever get tired of being manipulated?

@glacial Your premise is ridiculous in that just because they haven’t done that before, it is a precedent that will not be broken someday? Each new regulation becomes the perfect jumping off platform for the next stage. No one is or had ever suggested they (firearms) will be physically rounded up. They are concerned of the incremental nature of this to get to the means to the end. If you hate guns and those who have them then its easy to understand why we disagree.

PS There is a world out there people, it isn’t all America.

@woodcutter I don’t hate guns or the people who have them. I happen to love a lot of people who have guns. Hell, I’ve fired guns. I just don’t understand the weird, weird paranoia of people who are desperately afraid of having them be taken out of their hands, despite the utter lack of evidence that it will ever happen, or that there is even a motive for anyone to make it happen. It would be funny if it weren’t so scary.

“Hell, I’ve fired guns”

Was it one of the kind with the shoulder thingy that goes up?

So, @woodcutter , when are they going to take away our cars? That would keep us from fleeing nearly as effectively when they crack down,so you should be just as opposed to registering vehicles. And phones (cellular or landline) are also registered, and taking out communications hinders organized resistance, so where is your outrage there?

It seems like the gun control is a straw man,especially since there was no raging like this when Republicans suggested thesame tthings back when they were in power. This is simply about anything non-Conservatives wanting being inherently bad. I’ll wager that if Obama supported breathing, many of these people would asphyxiate themselves.

@jerv I kind of like you here, really, but that^^ has to be one of the most inept things you have posted ever. Cars? You mean those things we operate on public highways on a privilege? Those cars? There are tons of laws that make doing bad things with cars illegal and yet people still break those laws. And phones? Not even remotely comparable on any level. No where in the Bill of Rights do we find anything dealing with these. Now if you want to reeeeeeeaaally stretch things way out of shape to make a case then I suppose you have made a valid point. This seems a bit on the hysterical side to be even replied to, so I’m attempting to humor you now. I will give you a GA to total of “3”

You ok?

Back on track guys….

Is the UN treaty really a second amendment issue?

@rojo Sorry if you didn’t get the hint; no, I don’t believe it is. If national registration and limited clip capacity were good ideas when they were proposed decades ago, you would think that the same people would continue to hold that position. As they have done a 180, I think the controversy over this UN treaty is more about spite and contrariness than about the second amendment.

@woodcutter You said it yourself when you wrote, “The powers that be can and will do anything they want whenever they choose.”. Gun registration is irrelevant; if the government wants to take our guns, they will, and not even the Constitution can stop them. Therefore, the fact that they haven’t can be taken as a sign that they do not want to.

@jerv I got it, just that you and woodcutter were going off into your own little world.

aaaand there you go again.

Not at all. It has nothing to do with guns in the USA. It is aimed at preventing arms dealers from selling weapons for the purpose of genocide or war crimes.

Thank you @ETpro for getting us back on track.

^^ Thanks for posting a great question.

@jerv “Gun registration is irrelevant; if the government wants to take our guns, they will, and not even the Constitution can stop them.”

So we should just cooperate and voluntarily register because they could just kill us all with a nuclear bomb? That seems a bit limp wristed. You give an inch be prepared to give a mile. That’s how it goes no matter what the issue. No registration- no confiscations. The US would be expected to have universal registration and that data turned over to the intl. body. The UN is a corrupt as hell regime unto itself. It should come as no surprise there be resistance to them being involved in our domestic affairs not to mention usurping our constitutional rights. It’s a sovereignty issue. Yeah trust the UN, the org that has a sculpture of a Colt Python with its barrel tied in a knot right out in front of the building. Oh sure they are all about gun rights.

@woodcutter The UN doesn’t rule the US, or any nation other than failed states that its member nations provide a peacekeeping force for. It has no army. There really are not a bunch of black helicopters soaring out of the top of it each evening.

@ETpro The US govt will be charged with all the enforcement. We will all be in. In the end, does it really matter who’s doing it? Three countries didn’t join and there were 23 abstentions. That seems to me that this whole arms control scheme had quite a few huge holes in it and besides, who here really believes that if someone wants a proxy war they aren’t going to slip some hardware to their guys? What would be the repercussions? Here is one: when it becomes common knowledge that it is taking place, the whole thing will fold up like a Walmart lawn chair. And things will be business as usual. Like Russia is going to behave.You are right, the UN isn’t going to be able to do squat to the violators.

@woodcutter That was essentially my point. Are we seriously living in fear of the UN? THey are as dangerous as a doornail. They can’t even come to a consensus on whether we should tie our shoes or trip over our own shoelaces.

Maybe the treaty will impede the flow of some arms to bad actors. Arguing that because a law isn’t 100% effective, we might just as well forget it is ridiculous. We have a law against murder, bank robbery and car theft. Should we strike those laws from the books because they are not 100% effective at curtaining those crimes?

@rojo You may think I am off in my own little world, but that is merely because you don’t see things from the same perspective as @woodcutter and I do, so you are getting replies that seem like non sequitors simply because they are not the simple yes/no answers you expected, and get into what others feel the treaty is really about and get into, and the reasons for some opposing it.
Next time you want a yes/no answer without discussion relevant to the topic at hand, let me know. Otherwise, I will discuss the issue!

Has anyone really looked at the treaty at all? The senate will not ratify and the reasoning there is, there is not complete consensus from all countries. Ignoring the obvious violation to the US constitution, this treaty puts the US on the same level as dictatorships with bad human rights records. It allows the bad players to continue doing what they have been all along while hobbling the US in its diplomatic missions such as providing arms and logistical support to allies like Israel, S.Korea, and Taiwan if they ask for it. This treaty would force rules that the UN will be unaccountable to the American people.

@jerv Well, thank you DR. Sigmund Freud for that unsolicited analysis. Now could you diagnose me in English this time? Who said anything about yes or no answers? How can you know what I was expecting? Again you make no sense. Use a dialogue that makes sense please. You don’t impress anyone but yourself by this rambling, mmmkay? Please stay on topic. We will “get you” better.

@woodcutter Please define the “obvious violation to the US constitution”.

@woodcutter Considering that our actual record on human rights is spotty at best, I don’t think we really deserve any special treatment just because we are the US. Of course, we are free to refuse to ratify the treaty, just as we have refused with many others.
As for lack of accountability, that also implies that the US government is not accountable to the people or governments of the individual states. Unless that is actually true, the UN is accountable to the American people.

@glacial There is already a federal law that prohibits any kind of gun registry but because the BATFE has been systematically rounding up form 4473’s from FFL’s and keeping them, they have done it as a back door gun registry. This is bad. It is rogue agency behavior at its worst. If you have even read the treaty it will show there has to be accountability for it to even be effective. This means a registration scheme. Again, bad. Registration only makes governments feel safe. They do not have any such mechanism to make us any safer. This clearly is in violation of the 2nd amendment. This is the main deal killer for this treaty as well as the fact there are too many countries who are not on board. It is unfair to make the US accountable for their diplomatic affairs and others get to ignore it. It becomes a treaty written in sand.

@jerv The UN will be accountable to the American people whenever they “feel” like it. Thats not good enough. It is not special treatment to expect every other player to also play by the same rules. When has that ever been the case? If equal treatment is to be considered somehow privileged then we have somehow lost the meaning of the word.

To use a “big” word like you like to use, we will examine “concencus” (sp). It has not been reached among all nations. The treaty will not be ratified.

A better explanation of why this is DOA. There was a request to specifically note, in plain text in the treaty draft, to specifically exempt privately owned firearms. Thats all it would have taken. No they would not do that, keeping in mind the main push was for weapons of warfare like attack helicopters, missiles, and such. The UN shot itself in the foot here, because they would not withdraw the privately owned guns clause. http://moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=080c3c25-f7ff-4ba2-b32a-f5fcb6e507c8

There is a clickable file to download of the original senate document should y’all really want to know.

@woodcutter You’ve said that the treaty would violate “a federal law”, though I don’t know which federal law that is. You haven’t explained how it is “a violation to the US constitution”.

@glacial The drafters of the treaty would not exempt commonly owned guns that are protected by our second amendment for regulation. That is code for (they will be effected). In treaty lingo unless there is specific wording to the fact, then there is no wording and can be interpreted any way a governing body chooses, and still be legal. There are some of us that view this non specific wording as a future loophole, and when we are proven to be right, it will be too late to do anything. This is why things need to be made clear on the front end of any binding agreement. Those of us with a few years behind them all know how the UN general assembly has felt about gun ownership for decades. They make no bones about that.

and did I mention that cute little statue out in public view in front of the place? I’m sure I did.

http://www.theforeignreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Non-violence-NY-AlanEnglish-620x350.jpg

@woodcutter So it isn’t “a violation to the US constitution”. That’s what I thought.

@woodcutter I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you realize the implications. Simply put, anything a UN member nation puts into their Constitution, no matter how egregious, is sacrosanct. You are smart enough to realize the problem with that, so I won’t bore you by detailing possible abuses. So, unless we get special treatment, a bad precedent could be set. Of course, giving the impression that the UN is either irrelevant or a slave to then US is problematic as well.

@jerv So what Sens. Moran, Baucus and Inhofe say is just B.S?

@woodcutter Yes, that is quite often the case lately.

Gun Registration is bad, bottom line. @ETpro That is the deal breaker. That, and China and Russia among the two biggest arms makers and exporters aren’t in, it sort of makes the treaty moot doesn’t it?

@woodcutter Actually, it was the USA, Iran, North Korea and Syria that refused to sign.

Also There were 23 abstentions Which for all intent and purpose is the same thing. Guess who they were.

@ETpro Not that there is anything wrong with being lumped in with Iran and North Korea, mind you. W didn’t really mean it when he called them part of the Axis of Evil :p

@woodcutter the main recipients of US foreign aid?

@rojo Here are a few. You tell me if they get US support. Russia, China, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia.

But wait…there’s more: Belarus, Burma, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe.

Thus, what the U.N. vote amounts to is the tacit rejection of the treaty by most of the world’s most irresponsible arms exporters and anti-American dictatorships, who collectively amount to half of the world’s population

And us. Hmmmmmmmmmm?

Interesting. After all the US did sign on. Do you have a link that has the US being irresponsible here? Every time I see rebels or other countries with military hardware not produced by them it sure looks like communist block stuff.

unless….you count Israel as a bad player in the world, some do. The US sells them some of our excellent accoutrements

@woodcutter You forgot the Reagan years already?

What about the Reagan years?

This treaty is stupid. The very countries who are involved in moving the majority of illicit arms in the world are not on board so OK, we got a treaty, big deal. The next time the UN wants a new treaty there will be no consensus meaning it will get “phony passed” by the security council and it will be a useless treaty- on paper only. Russia and China will always get a free pass. Whatever. If that’s what makes you feel better. These victims of aggression the UN claims to want to protect are no more safe than before….but there is a treaty now.

@woodcutter I don’t know if you ever heard of the Iran-Contra affair. It was all over the news a few years ago.

Ya I heard of it but that was then. The US just signed a supposedly fake meaningless treaty this week.This so called treaty the way it is now wouldn’t have stopped a thing like Iran Contra really.

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. You are correct that it’s a hollow gesture that probably won’t have any practical effect, but that is what politics and PR is all about.

Let’s see, it’s a hollow treaty that has no teeth but if we sign it the world will end, black helicopters will swoop out of the UN roof and confiscate all our guns, and it totally negates the US Constitution. What can I add to logic like that?

@ETpro That Jesus will come down and take all the Muslims to heaven?

@ETpro Please…stop doing that. You have too much academia behind you to think stuff like that. Sorry, but not one person here has said anything like it. That is called projection in psych circles. Unfortunately the tactic works sometimes but remember, this this Fluther and it won’t sail when thinking rational people look at it.