If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   Secretary of State John Kerry to sign controversial UN arms treaty...even after the Senate said it would never ratify it. So, basically he's performing diplomatic masturbation   (realclear.com) divider line 190
    More: Asinine, arms trade treaty, combat aircraft, United Nations General Assembly  
•       •       •

732 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2013 at 10:37 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-25 12:54:22 PM

Bucky Katt: Three Crooked Squirrels: GOP-like behavior detected

and we're done.


..eh?
 
2013-09-25 01:04:46 PM

Lucky LaRue: The far-right would argue that Cruz is trying to save America from drowning in unaffordable debt and from becoming a nanny state where John Kerry is trying chip away at Constitutionally granted rights.  Both arguments are detached from reality and serve only as partisan entertainment whilst the people in power quietly work together to get shiat done.


You realize that you just place the blame for the entire gridlock in government solely on the far-right. Did you mean to do that? If so, thanks for finally agreeing with us that both sides are not the same, not even both fringes.
 
2013-09-25 01:05:40 PM

King Something: Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.


O-HO! Is funny because it's true! O-ho-ho-ho!

/and if you still don't think it's true, compare the GOP's behavior over the last five years or so to their behavior over the previous hundred
//specifically, compare which of those tow time periods has more examples of the GOP filibustering their own legislation just because the Democratic President has publicly stated that he approves of that legislation; voting to defund the teleprompter; or turning the raising of the debt ceiling from an ordinary and mundane procedure which passed with less fanfare and debate than the renaming of post offices into a major bargaining chip in order to get no less than 98% of what they want, in exchange for allowing the country to pay for spending that they themselves authorized


The GOP is close to the craziest they've ever been right now but they were getting crazier at a pretty steady rate before. They are at/approaching peak crazy right now because right now the furthest point into the future.

If they suddenly start making sense right after Obama leaves to go run ofa or whatever you might have a point.
 
2013-09-25 01:06:12 PM

Lucky LaRue: theknuckler_33: Cruz and the House radicals' theater may shut down our government

Uh.. no.  Cruz struck a deal with Reid.  He's up there because Reid gave him permission to go full derp and pretend to filibuster.  He's only there as long as Harry wants him there and, at the end of his rant, the bill will go to a simple majority vote and be rejected.


Uh, you're not keeping up. Cruz is pointlessly delaying a cloture vote. That vote will pass. Reid will then strip out the defunding provision of the CR, and since cloture has been invoked, the bill gets a simple majorityy vote. Cruz is trying to give the appearance that he is filibustering the vote because he knows this will happen, but it is not a filibuster or even a speech intended to gain support for defunding. It's nothing more than posturing to the Tea Party.
 
2013-09-25 01:12:06 PM
Not ratifying the UN treaty would allow liberals to say the Republicans are pro-genocide, so there's that.
 
2013-09-25 01:12:29 PM

sprawl15: dittybopper: Within minutes after the agreement was announced, individuals on the usenet group talk.politics.guns and other online message boards were talking about a boycott of Smith & Wesson.

Since the Principle of Usenet Exclusivity states that there can be no other discussion or planning anywhere else on the planet if a usenet group is discussing a topic, I see no problem with your logic.


Another datapoint:  Once Saf-T-Hammer purchased S&W and repudiated the agreement, the boycott ended.

Now ask yourself why, if it was other gun manufacturers driving the boycott, why would they voluntarily give up the increased market share they gained because of boycott of S&W?  I mean, they're motivated by money, right?  So if they got used to selling an extra 20% to cover the guns Smith & Wesson wasn't selling, why give that up?

Doesn't make sense, unless you see it for what it was:  A grassroots driven boycott.

Even NPR recognizes that the gun industry doesn't dictate to the NRA, the NRA dictates to the gun industry:

What is it you think has been overlooked about the - whatever you want to call it - the gun lobby, the gun industry, gun rights advocates, what did you discover?

PAUL BARRETT: It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.
 
2013-09-25 01:16:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: So because David Duke was a worse racist than Ron Paul is, Ron Paul can't be racist?


I don't personally think RONPAUL!!!1111!111111 is overtly racist. I do believe, however, he's more than willing to tolerate racist acts and behaviors because...FREEMARKETS!!!1!1!111!!!!111111!

In other words, RONPAUL!!!!1111!!!11!!!!11!! Supports institutionalized racism.
 
2013-09-25 01:18:04 PM

simplicimus: Not ratifying the UN treaty would allow liberals to say the Republicans are pro-genocide, so there's that.


Conservatives in America have always been pro-genocide.

See...(Puritans) (Indian Wars)
 
2013-09-25 01:19:11 PM
dittybopper:

you seem to be confused

1) I don't care about how many blogs you dig up
2) Even if I did care, it doesn't matter how many blogs you dig up, "some people anonymously said on the internet" isn't proof of anything other than "some people anonymously said on the internet."
3) And even if I decided to push forward anyway, you've a history of fleeing from a thread when people expose your ignorance

i mean it is neat and all that you discovered google but (tip from an old google pro, write this down) I don't think "a partisan group dictates the tone of the entire 'pro-gun' lobby's stance from 'grassroots' to manufacturers" is really the talking point you want to push

iat is kind of creepy
 
2013-09-25 01:19:36 PM

X-boxershorts: simplicimus: Not ratifying the UN treaty would allow liberals to say the Republicans are pro-genocide, so there's that.

Conservatives in America have always been pro-genocide.

See...(Puritans) (Indian Wars)


Israel...
 
2013-09-25 01:23:18 PM

Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.


You sound like you're in denial.
 
2013-09-25 01:26:19 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: UrukHaiGuyz: Come on SH, you know how the deal went down. The original goal and spirit of the law has been hindered, underfunded, delayed and subverted at every possible stage by Congressional Republicans and and conservative-leaning court. It's by no means perfect (or even awesome) legislation, but it's a step in the right direction, and does solve some real problems like pre-existing condition coverage, for instance

Mean a conservative leaning court that bent over backwards to keep ACA as the law of the land? And the only thing the Republicans can do is cut the funding for advertising the thing. Really the law has failed on its face. The President knows this but his ego is in his way.


It can't have failed yet, since it has yet to be fully implemented. Give it five years, and ask average Americans if they want to repeal it. Like it or not, it's here to stay. Just look at Medicare or SS for an example of how loathe people are to give up an entitlement (not a dirty word, btw!) that tangibly improves their living standard. And the court undercut the Medicaid expansion that would have left Republican governors less room to subvert the law as they have.
 
2013-09-25 01:27:40 PM
People who oppose the UN Arms Treaty:

Syria
Iran
North Korea
The GOP
 
2013-09-25 01:56:56 PM

sprawl15: dittybopper:

you seem to be confused

1) I don't care about how many blogs you dig up
2) Even if I did care, it doesn't matter how many blogs you dig up, "some people anonymously said on the internet" isn't proof of anything other than "some people anonymously said on the internet."
3) And even if I decided to push forward anyway, you've a history of fleeing from a thread when people expose your ignorance

i mean it is neat and all that you discovered google but (tip from an old google pro, write this down) I don't think "a partisan group dictates the tone of the entire 'pro-gun' lobby's stance from 'grassroots' to manufacturers" is really the talking point you want to push

iat is kind of creepy


Discovered Google?

I was one of the people posting in talk.politics.guns immediately after the agreement was announced.   I used to write a column about gun rights for an online publication back then, and I wrote column about it less than 5 days after the agreement was announced.  Here is that column:


I had planned to write about the GAO report pointing out the problems with the National Instant Gun Owner Registration scheme, but once again events have overtaken me. Unless you have been under a rock for the past few days, you have no doubt heard that Smith and Wesson has agreed to a set of conditions that will drop the lawsuits filed by several cities and other entities. While Smith and Wesson has been doing a lot of what the agreement asks for already (such as supplying trigger locks with all its guns, a policy since 1998), there are several provisions that make the agreement extremely onerous, and justify a call for a boycott of Smith and Wesson.

I was quite literally disgusted when I heard the news. I saw in my mind an image of Neville Chamberlain stepping off a plane, waving a piece of paper in the air, and proclaiming that his agreement with Adolf Hitler guaranteed "Peace in our time". We all know what a success that agreement was. Less than one year later, the World found itself embroiled in a bitter and bloody war. And this agreement is similar, for those who want to take away your right to keep and bear arms will not be satisified. This is just the first step down a long road. The gun banners have had a taste of victory, and will soon crave more.

First, Smith and Wesson has agreed that it will require its dealers to only sell at gun shows where ALL firearms transfers go through a NICS background check. That includes private transactions between non-dealers. Since when does the private sale of any article (including cars) require the approval of the FBI? It is none of their damned business. Intra-state firearms transactions between private individuals are, at best, a matter for the state. How does the federal government become involved, especially since it is limited by the Constitution to regulating trade between the states? This is a way to get a foot in that door, a way to make it easier to eventually require that all firearms transactions have government approval. That should scare you.

Smith and Wesson also agreed to restrict its First Amendment rights to free speech, in that it agrees not to market guns children and criminals. While I have never seen an advertisement from Smith and Wesson that was aimed specifically at criminals or children, it is, as they say about beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Does this mean that at some point in the future they will be limited to black and white ads with large warnings about the dangers of gun ownership, as happened to the tobacco industry? Also, given their long-standing relationship with law enforcement in this country, why in the World would they market guns to criminals?

Smith has also tossed away its competition customers. Part of the agreement states that all Smith and Wesson firearms will within a year not be readily operated by a child under 6 years old. On the face of it, that seems like a good idea. Except that it means a heavy trigger pull. This means that competition shooters will avoid their products. Why pay for a trigger job (that will most likely void the warranty) that adds to the cost of a new gun when you can buy a gun from a competitor with a better, lighter trigger pull? How will Jerry Miculek be able to duplicate his amazing feats of firing 8 shots in 1 second with a 15 pound trigger pull? Sure, since he works for S&W he'll have them tricked out in the custom shop. Do you have that option?

Another part of the agreement states that Smith and Wesson will incorporate so-called "Smart-Gun" technology in all its new firearms within 36 months. Three years. Think they can get it to work by then? I don't think so. A gun needs to go "bang" every time, all the time. Adding an additional layer of complexity is asking for trouble. Who will be responsible the first time that someone tries to use a "smart gun" and they die because it fails? Probably the manufacturer, although there would be a very good case against those who are suing the gun industry. After all, they blackmailed (and blackmail is the right word) Smith and Wesson into installing them. Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and all the rest better make sure they keep their lawyers on retainer.

Also, the agreement states that all Smith and Wesson dealers will only sell to those who have passed a safety course and can demonstrate that they can handle firearms safely. But who decides what is acceptable? What if the oversight commission that is overseeing the implementation and administration of the agreement decides in a couple of years to increase the requirements to beyond what the average, law-abiding gun owner can pass? What if they decide that only classes given by the state or federal government count, and those are held once a year on the other side of the state with a fee of $500? Is that reasonable? That could easily come to pass, since Smith and Wesson only has one seat on the commission, the states have one, the cities have two, and the BATF has one. They are essentially outnumbered.
I don't know all of the provisions of the agreement yet, but it appears that there are even more provisions that are just as bad. And you can rest assured that all the provisions only apply to firearms that Smith and Wesson sells to peons like you and I, and not to the guns sold to police departments. So what can you do about it? Put Smith and Wesson out of business with a boycott. And let them know that you are going to do it. You may wish to express your displeasure with a phone call to Smith and Wesson at (413) 781-8300 or a fax to (413) 731-8980. You could also send an e-mail to Ed Schultz, the CEO of Smith and Wesson. You may also wish to join me in signing a boycott petition here. An old-fashioned snail-mail to Ed Schultz might also be a good way to tell Smith and Wesson what you think.

Smith & Wesson
Ed Schultz, CEO & President
2100 Roosevelt Ave.
Springfield, MA 01102

The government is waving a big carrot at the gun manufacturers, by dropping the lawsuits. Let us show them that our stick, a boycott, is bigger. Smith and Wesson may be a lost cause, which is a shame considering its long and illustrious history as a manufacturer of quality firearms. However, just as Citibank and K-Mart learned that it is not a wise business decision to cross gun owners in this country, British owned Smith and Wesson needs a lesson in economics, namely that you don't screw your customers. And make no mistake, by breaking ranks with the rest of the industry, they ARE screwing you. It is time to screw back.


I've been posting online in gun threads in various forums for about 20 years now.  More, if you count BBS Fight-O-Net posts, going back  to the late 1980's.

I've never been employed by the gun industry, nor been compensated by them or the NRA*, or any other gun rights organization.   Hell, for the amount of work I put in for them solely on my own time and initiative, they *OWE* me.

Like I said, even that well-known right wing mouthpiece NPR understands the relationship between the gun owners, the NRA, and the gun manufacturers, something you don't seem to be able to comprehend.

*I was a member of the NRA for about 3 years in the mid-1990's.  I still have some of the magazines downstairs.  The hat I received is long gone.
 
2013-09-25 02:06:04 PM

heavymetal: John Kerry is signing this treaty that will make it harder for terrorists like in the Kenya Mall from aquiring guns.


That isn't what this treaty will accomplish.

It allows the recognized authority in one nation to complain another sending weapons over its borders.  So Obama can now get nastygrams from places like Syria, Libya, and Mexico.  Any state with an ongoing civil war can and will complain that someone else is responsible for their own mismanagement and incompetence, and now expect the UN to (not) do something about it.

It doesn't make it harder for belligerent nations to simply ignore the UN or launder those weapons through an arms dealer.  Our security commitments won't decrease and the selection on the black market wont change. If anything all it does is complicate our legal exports.

So what's happened is a man with no authority to sign something just did, to the embarrassment of everyone when we don't live up to these commitments.
If we even tried it would make us the worlds biggesthypocrite.
 
2013-09-25 02:12:58 PM

way south: So what's happened is a man with no authority to sign something just did, to the embarrassment of everyone when we don't live up to these commitments.
If we even tried it would make us the worlds biggesthypocrite.


Kerry does have the authority to sign the agreement. Who is this everyone that will be embarrassed? Why would we still be the world's biggest hypocrite if we followed the agreement?
 
2013-09-25 02:16:46 PM

highbrow45: Does it really count as controversial if the controversy is completely manufactured?


According to our sorry excuse for news media, yes.
 
2013-09-25 02:29:28 PM

dittybopper: I've been posting online in gun threads in various forums for about 20 years now.

sprawl15: I don't care about how many blogs you dig up

dittybopper: Like I said, even that well-known right wing mouthpiece NPR understands the relationship between the gun owners, the NRA, and the gun manufacturers, something you don't seem to be able to comprehend.


No, I don't seem to be able to comprehend your argument (via NPR) that the NRA is the sole deciding voice for both 'grassroots' and manufacturers' opinions as I am pretty sure there are pro-gun people and companies who do not jive with the NRA's positions, especially since you seem to have only been a member of the NRA for a short while back in the 90's and would probably consider yourself to be 'pro-gun'.

But I don't really want to comprehend that argument. It's a silly argument.
 
2013-09-25 02:35:40 PM

simplicimus: way south: So what's happened is a man with no authority to sign something just did, to the embarrassment of everyone when we don't live up to these commitments.
If we even tried it would make us the worlds biggesthypocrite.

Kerry does have the authority to sign the agreement. Who is this everyone that will be embarrassed? Why would we still be the world's biggest hypocrite if we followed the agreement?


Everyone that will be embarrassed are the Republican members of Congress who will have to go on record opposing a treaty based on conspiracy nutters.
 
2013-09-25 02:46:29 PM

simplicimus: way south: So what's happened is a man with no authority to sign something just did, to the embarrassment of everyone when we don't live up to these commitments.
If we even tried it would make us the worlds biggesthypocrite.

Kerry does have the authority to sign the agreement. Who is this everyone that will be embarrassed? Why would we still be the world's biggest hypocrite if we followed the agreement?


It won't be ratified and he knows it.  His signature is worthless.

We'd be a hypocrite because exporting arms (to allies, rebels, and anyone with the cash or a cause we agree with) has been one of our big things since before the world wars. We are doing so in Syria and a half a dozen other global hot spots right the fark as Kerry's ink is drying on that paper.

You don't find that embarrassing?

/Nevermind the fact that this nation only exists because of unwanted foreign influence in British affairs.
/Or that many of those UN members have a seat at the table because of our exports.
 
2013-09-25 02:52:58 PM

way south: That isn't what this treaty will accomplish.

It allows the recognized authority in one nation to complain another sending weapons over its borders.  So Obama can now get nastygrams from places like Syria, Libya, and Mexico.  Any state with an ongoing civil war can and will complain that someone else is responsible for their own mismanagement and incompetence, and now expect the UN to (not) do something about it.


Here's the official text. Please show me where it does what you say it does.
/What it really does? Help US exporters comply with a single international law.
//Obama is even trying to simplify the process.
 
2013-09-25 03:11:40 PM

way south: simplicimus: way south: So what's happened is a man with no authority to sign something just did, to the embarrassment of everyone when we don't live up to these commitments.
If we even tried it would make us the worlds biggesthypocrite.

Kerry does have the authority to sign the agreement. Who is this everyone that will be embarrassed? Why would we still be the world's biggest hypocrite if we followed the agreement?

It won't be ratified and he knows it.  His signature is worthless.

We'd be a hypocrite because exporting arms (to allies, rebels, and anyone with the cash or a cause we agree with) has been one of our big things since before the world wars. We are doing so in Syria and a half a dozen other global hot spots right the fark as Kerry's ink is drying on that paper.

You don't find that embarrassing?

/Nevermind the fact that this nation only exists because of unwanted foreign influence in British affairs.
/Or that many of those UN members have a seat at the table because of our exports.


How many of our exports are used to commit genocide by the recipients? That's what the resolution is about. If we are doing this, we are hypocrites and should be embarrassed, and I'm OK with this. Since I will soon be called an idiot by someone or another, let me finish with this: We should strive to be the nation we pretend to be.
 
2013-09-25 03:26:49 PM

HypnozombieX: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

Okay. So what?

I guess I should have asked you the same thing

Okay. So what?

You brought up the b-b-but Bush. Do you get tired of that? It's sort of a non-point. It's like something you reflexively spit up into the thread.

Translation: Dammit stop pointing out that we supported this exact thing under Bush and only every cry about it when the POTUS has a D next to their name. People might start noticing a pattern.


It's intellectually lazy. You can't talk about the policy on the merits, so you try to argue about the critic. Here, let me use a word more on your level: Derp.
 
2013-09-25 03:47:38 PM

sprawl15: No, I don't seem to be able to comprehend your argument (via NPR) that the NRA is the sole deciding voice for both 'grassroots' and manufacturers' opinions as I am pretty sure there are pro-gun people and companies who do not jive with the NRA's positions, especially since you seem to have only been a member of the NRA for a short while back in the 90's and would probably consider yourself to be 'pro-gun'.


Actually, in regards to the Smith & Wesson agreement, the NRA was lagging behind the grassroots call for a boycott.

They jumped on the bandwagon.

The boycott calls started almost immediately online by individuals, as I showed you.  I even showed you my column, published online on March 22nd, 2000 (but written a couple days before).   The NRA Weenersed on the agreement on Monday, March 20th, and even then didn't call for a boycott of Smith & Wesson, it merely condemned the agreement.

By that time, teh intarwebs had been buzzing for a couple days with gun owners vowing to kill Smith & Wesson with a boycott.

You just don't seem to grasp that as a group, gun owners like nothing more than knifing perceived traitors in the back.  Witness the shutting down of one of the biggest outdoor sporting goods shows in the country, the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show earlier this year.  When the company that organized it announced that there would be no AR-15's or other "black rifles" allowed at the show, a boycott was organized, and eventually the show had to be cancelled for lack of support.

Gun owner boycotts have little effect on businesses that aren't really gun related, like, say, Starbucks.  But they can be and are devastating to businesses who rely on the good graces of the gun buying public to stay in business, like firearms and accessory manufacturers.
 
2013-09-25 03:49:14 PM

dittybopper: The NRA Weenersed on the agreement on Monday, March 20th,


Heh, nice filter pwnage.
 
2013-09-25 04:00:10 PM

dittybopper: Actually, in regards to the Smith & Wesson agreement, the NRA was lagging behind the grassroots call for a boycott.


Do you just not understand that I'm responding to your actual posting rather than the magical land of wonder that exists within your head?

I mean, you keep posting nonsense like this:

dittybopper: You just don't seem to grasp that as a group, gun owners like nothing more than knifing perceived traitors in the back.

in response to "you know the argument you typed up before hitting 'add comment' does not actually make a whole lot of sense".
 
2013-09-25 04:13:04 PM
Yeah, I'm in the middle of debating this with my buddy, a gun owner like myself, but one who is VERY concerned.

First, I pointed out that it's hard to take anyone from the GOP serious when they talk about "wasting time". I got asked to address the 'actual' story, and why I thought it was OK for Obama to "circumvent the will of the American People".

I pointed out that it doesn't get ratified unless 2/3 of the Senate votes it in, which very much sounds like the "Will of the American People" to me.

He then went on to say that only 50 nations have to ratify it before it becomes policy, I countered WI the point that the article STILL states that only the countries who ratify it are bound by it, and if there was any way to state that differently, Fox would be all over it.

Unfortunately, I don't think he really read this through, which doesn't surprise me all that much. I also posted out that this has turned into a real life telling of 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf', and the shiat's getting really old at this point.

He DID have one good point to keep in mind: Apparently, the main writers behind this are the super genii who gave us the mess known as the Assault Weapons Ban, so at least we know it will be horribly written.
 
2013-09-25 04:32:31 PM

Mikey1969: He DID have one good point to keep in mind: Apparently, the main writers behind this are the super genii who gave us the mess known as the Assault Weapons Ban, so at least we know it will be horribly written.


I'm fairly certain that a Group of Governmental Experts from the following 28 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States convened in 2008 didn't write any US legislation in 1994, Mikey.

More to the point, I've already linked the text of the treaty, and - in spite of being written in diplomatese - it is not poorly written at all.
 
2013-09-25 04:42:56 PM

Mikey1969: I pointed out that it doesn't get ratified unless 2/3 of the Senate votes it in, which very much sounds like the "Will of the American People" to me.


That's true.   But remember that once the US signs it, the Senate can grant its approval to it at any time after.  So it ain't gonna get ratified tomorrow.  But 10 or 15 years from now?  Who knows?   Some treaties have languished in the Senate for decades.
 
2013-09-25 05:04:54 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Here's the official text. Please show me where it does what you say it does.


"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,"

...So what if the Sovereign decides it doesn't want us exporting to his unhappy subjects?

Arms control is legal where the states leader decides to make it legal. When we supply the resistance (directly or indirectly) they would have a justified complaint about our meddling.
That opinion is unlikely to change no matter how many pieces of paper we file with their customs agents. Saying that we have to file at the UN as well isn't exactly making our business, or meddling, an easier task.

simplicimus: How many of our exports are used to commit genocide by the recipients?


The question is: how likely is it the UN will intercede in transactions where weapons are being sold to murderous maniacs?
Did they stop Putin from selling missiles to Syria?
Did they stop Assad from legally getting chemical weapon components?
They seem to have missed out on preventing a number of wars and genocides until now, so I don't expect Kerry is helping them turn any new leaves.
Seems to me that this kind of agreement is going to constrain the US and our allies more than it is going to do anything about Russia, China, North Korea or any other dealers to rogue nations.

The people committing genocide will never want for guns or ammunition.
The people trying to arm the resistance, however, have a new piece of paperwork to fill out.

Gun control always works out that way.
 
2013-09-25 05:08:45 PM

LoneWolf343: The Stealth Hippopotamus: iaazathot: How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?" Please show your work. Derp doesn't count as evidence.

The President promised it would cut the average household's healthcare cost by 2500.00. It will not
The President promised to cover all Americans. It will not.


It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.
Since when did we accept one law for us and one law for them? I know it happens sometimes but since when did we just roll over and take it?

So, it's Obama's fault that the Republicans have done everything they could think of to sabotage the process?


Didn't he have a supermajority? I mean the ACA is better in a lot of ways (probably all) than what existed before, but I thought he had the votes for override any filibuster. Caving into the insurance companies to let them cash in didn't exactly look great either.
 
2013-09-25 05:25:07 PM

redmid17: Didn't he have a supermajority?


A super-majority of people that voted for the eventual bill? Yes. A super-majority of Democrats? No.
 
2013-09-25 05:29:50 PM

dittybopper: Mikey1969: I pointed out that it doesn't get ratified unless 2/3 of the Senate votes it in, which very much sounds like the "Will of the American People" to me.

That's true.   But remember that once the US signs it, the Senate can grant its approval to it at any time after.  So it ain't gonna get ratified tomorrow.  But 10 or 15 years from now?  Who knows?   Some treaties have languished in the Senate for decades.


I'm just not in panic mode like some people. Just like I didn't go out and buy 15,000 rounds of ammo when Obama got elected... Besides, 10 or 15 years from now gives us plenty of time to view the real world effects of such a treaty and determine if it's having a beneficial effect or not. My bigger concern is all of the people who keep trying to pass gun legislation based on their ignorance, such as the AWB and its focus on appearances.
 
2013-09-25 05:33:12 PM

Lando Lincoln: redmid17: Didn't he have a supermajority?

A super-majority of people that voted for the eventual bill? Yes. A super-majority of Democrats? No.


I need to stop drinking during lunch. I'm much more on the ball if I start with breakfast.
 
2013-09-25 05:35:34 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mikey1969: He DID have one good point to keep in mind: Apparently, the main writers behind this are the super genii who gave us the mess known as the Assault Weapons Ban, so at least we know it will be horribly written.

I'm fairly certain that a Group of Governmental Experts from the following 28 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States convened in 2008 didn't write any US legislation in 1994, Mikey.

More to the point, I've already linked the text of the treaty, and - in spite of being written in diplomatese - it is not poorly written at all.


You're right you know... People from the United States in 2008 could not POSSIBLY have been people in the United states in 1994.
 
2013-09-25 05:55:58 PM

redmid17: Lando Lincoln: redmid17: Didn't he have a supermajority?

A super-majority of people that voted for the eventual bill? Yes. A super-majority of Democrats? No.

I need to stop drinking during lunch. I'm much more on the ball if I start with breakfast.


Someone awesome said recently, "you can't drink all day long if you don't start early."
 
2013-09-25 06:11:03 PM
All it took to get rid of all our guns was to sign a treaty?

Why didn't someone tell Reagan? He could have made abortion illegal just by signing an agreement with whatever government he put in charge of Grenada.

Damn those short-sighted Republicans for not taking advantage of an obvious loophole.
 
2013-09-25 07:43:48 PM

way south: "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,"

...So what if the Sovereign decides it doesn't want us exporting to his unhappy subjects?


You mean complying with Federal and international law as it has stood since the time of the League of Nations?

Mikey1969: You're right you know... People from the United States in 2008 could not POSSIBLY have been people in the United states in 1994.


Do I really have to point out that none of the authors of the AWB was a member of the Group of Governmental Experts?
 
2013-09-25 09:01:24 PM

stuhayes2010: Is this the UN treaty gun nuts say is going to ban guns in the US?


On days that end in Y, the UN is the Strongly Worded Letter Gang that Can't Shoot Straight.  On the other days, the UN is the Evil Black Helicopter Agenda 21 Illuminati Bilderberg Group Trilateral Commission Fluoridation Conspiracy.  So guns will only be banned on days that don't end in Y.
 
2013-09-25 11:05:44 PM

Mikey1969: dittybopper: Mikey1969: I pointed out that it doesn't get ratified unless 2/3 of the Senate votes it in, which very much sounds like the "Will of the American People" to me.

That's true.   But remember that once the US signs it, the Senate can grant its approval to it at any time after.  So it ain't gonna get ratified tomorrow.  But 10 or 15 years from now?  Who knows?   Some treaties have languished in the Senate for decades.

I'm just not in panic mode like some people. Just like I didn't go out and buy 15,000 rounds of ammo when Obama got elected... Besides, 10 or 15 years from now gives us plenty of time to view the real world effects of such a treaty and determine if it's having a beneficial effect or not. My bigger concern is all of the people who keep trying to pass gun legislation based on their ignorance, such as the AWB and its focus on appearances.


Yeah, I'm not freaking out about it either.

It's more of a low-level long term concern.
 
Displayed 40 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report