Kerry: US Will Sign UN Arms Treaty

[IlarMeilyr]

A. (from your own link, btw): The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

Here ya go..

Read it for yourself and learn something.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy Clause does NOT place a treaty on par with the Constitution. What it SAYS, basically, translates into the more limited proposition that that US laws (and US ratified treaties) trump any STATE laws on the same topic.

 

[g5000]

A. (from your own link, btw): The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

Here ya go..

Read it for yourself and learn something.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy Clause does NOT place a treaty on par with the Constitution. What it SAYS, basically, translates into the more limited proposition that that US laws (and US ratified treaties) trump any STATE laws on the same topic.

Mondo pointed out the ATT will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country. There is no provision in the treaty for that. None. Zip. Nada.

Apparently Shroom thought "teaching" us what the Constitution says about treaties somehow repudiated that statement.

This is what retards do. They cannot prove the treaty controls the domestic use of weapons in America, and so by saying a treaty is binding on us, this somehow magically means it does control the domestic use of weapons, even though there is no such provision in the treaty!

I'd laugh if it wasn't such incredibly retarded thinking which is affecting the lives of actual innocent people.

 

[hortysir]

The piss drinking idiots have swallowed what has been poured for them by the big defense contractors who stand to lose a lot of money over this treaty. Few, if any, have actually read the treaty. We know this because they have been making claims about it long before it was available. And during that time they convinced themselves what they "know" is true!

This is actual self-delusion. Willful delusion. Amazing to watch in action.

And the idiot lawmakers who drafted bills to block the treaty...guess who their biggest donors are to their campaigns?

That's right. Defense contractors in the line of fire.

What? I can't sell fighter jets or helicopters to terrorists or terror regimes? Tell the rubes it's the end of the Second Amendment! Waaaaaah!


Rubes who believe themselves to be right wingers are for the War on Terra, before they are against it.

G, you know I was right beside you in another thread de-bunking the supposed over-reach of the UN treaty.

Believe me when I say, I still am.
1) the language isn't there
2) the UN doesn't have the authority to override the COTUS

But, besides all that, the thing that really rubs my chaps is this
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure

Regardless of whether the treaty has any teeth, it's just pure narcissist ego to ignore the wishes of our representative government

The last I checked, 130 is a small minority of Congress.

True enough.
Unless it's 60 Senators and 70 Representatives

 

[hortysir]

Lets remember now, our Government has shown the capability to act outside the will of our representatives and their constituents. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

You're right.
For example when the recent gun control bill was voted down against the will of the majority of citizens and the Senate.

OMG

You're still clinging to that bullshit poll that's been shot down 9 ways to Sunday?

 

[g5000]

A parable:

A treaty is drawn up by the UN to ban sex toys and lingerie from being sold to overseas child porn makers.

A year before the treaty is available to the publice, a sex toy maker begins propagating a lie to friendly media outlets that the treaty will violate our First Amendment's right to free speech.

Retards begin parroting this lie, and before you know it, a Senator whose main campaign financiers are sex toy makers writes a bill to oppose the signing of the anti-child porn treaty, and the retards rejoice.

When it is pointed out to the retards there is no provision in the treaty which violates the First Amendment, one of the retards takes it upon himself to "teach" the proponents of the treaty about the Constitution. He quotes the section which says treaties are binding on us once we join them.

This is somehow supposed to be taken as proof the treaty violates the First Amendment. A textbook circular argument.

When asked, the retards continually fail to quote any part of the treaty to prove it violates the First Amendment. When handed a gift-wrapped link to the treaty, they instead continue to post links to news stories from third party sources instead of quoting from the treaty.

The only people on record as directly opposing this treaty are those countries known to be friendly to child porn makers...and the retards of America and their Congressional demagogues.

 

[g5000]

G, you know I was right beside you in another thread de-bunking the supposed over-reach of the UN treaty.

Believe me when I say, I still am.
1) the language isn't there
2) the UN doesn't have the authority to override the COTUS

But, besides all that, the thing that really rubs my chaps is this
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Regardless of whether the treaty has any teeth, it's just pure narcissist ego to ignore the wishes of our representative government

The last I checked, 130 is a small minority of Congress.

True enough.
Unless it's 60 Senators and 70 Representatives

Yep. It's a pretty sad day for America when there are that many idiots in Congress who haven't even read the treaty to check for themselves if it actually violates the Second Amendment.

Actually, it is more than sad. It is terrifying.

I guess they are too busy tweeting photos of their dicks to groupies to find time to read treaties.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

His comment is complementary to you is it?

I'm an American I am far better than garbage like you or him.

So you claim.

No claim just knowledge and birth right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody who makes a claim based on birth right supposed knowledge is not an American by value, I suspect. Nativistic and perhaps racist elements inflect your argument.

Being a true American has to be earned.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A. (from your own link, btw): The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

It is making treaties with other foreign nations, which they may only do "by and with advice and consent from the Senate," and "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." So says Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. So that is also irrelevant.

How do you liberals sit there and say "we aren't advocating infringement of a constitutional right" but then later on sit there and passively support such things? This kind of double standard is admittedly beyond any comprehension of mine.

Please provide evidence the ATT would infringe on the Second Amendment.

You see, SAYING it does and PROVING it does are two different things. Any retard can SAY it does. The more stupid of the retard clan just parrot what they have heard from others.

Repeating a bogus claim over and over again does not create truth.

I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for that evidence.


You have none.

You wait on things, but you don't seek them out. Stop being lazy and do your own damned research.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is meant to regulate the sale and possession of small arms, both within and without the nation. It supposedly prevents sale of arms to criminals and terrorists. That's funny.

This is all that is wrong with it.

http://api.ning.com/files/Algv1Uy5g...x5Ii6ka2eBEPf22xgknX2gacLIxq5vGy/UNATTDoc.pdf


“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

-Patrick Henry

 

[idb]

Lets remember now, our Government has shown the capability to act outside the will of our representatives and their constituents. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

You're right.
For example when the recent gun control bill was voted down against the will of the majority of citizens and the Senate.

OMG

You're still clinging to that bullshit poll that's been shot down 9 ways to Sunday?

Why yes...yes I am.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The poll was right, the reactionary BS is going to cause a horrible back lash in the near future.

 

[Saigon]

It is meant to regulate the sale and possession of small arms, both within and without the nation. It supposedly prevents sale of arms to criminals and terrorists. That's funny.

And of course it doesn't occur to you that because the members of the board personally make money by arming criminals and terrorists, this bill would lower their incomes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is meant to regulate the sale and possession of small arms, both within and without the nation. It supposedly prevents sale of arms to criminals and terrorists. That's funny.

And of course it doesn't occur to you that because the members of the board personally make money by arming criminals and terrorists, this bill would lower their incomes.

Wait what now? So, corporations will be at fault if we don't sign this treaty?

And you're convinced that's what it's supposed to do? Stop arming them? Well, I'm sure the criminals and terrorists will be horrified. I'm sure they'll stop what they're doing to submit to this almighty law the UN cooked up.

Newsflash you brain-dead buffoon:

They don't obey the law or UN treaties, nor will they ever. They will use alternative means. This won't stop gun crime.

 

[Saigon]

Templar -

So your point is that we should not try to stop gun grime, terror or the use of child soldiers?

I disagree. I think international partnership could go a long way to disarming various rebel groups around the world.It is not a panacea, but it us a part of the wider solution.

And yes, corporations which manufacture guns are largely to blame for selling guns to your enemies.

How strange it must be to live in a dreamworld where selling guns to Al Queda is considered a civil right. The NRA appreciates your support, bauble.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar -

So your point is that we should not try to stop gun grime, terror or the use of child soldiers?

I disagree. I think international partnership could go a long way to disarming various rebel groups around the world.It is not a panacea, but it us a part of the wider solution.

And yes, corporations which manufacture guns are largely to blame for selling guns to your enemies.

How strange it must be to live in a dreamworld where selling guns to Al Queda is considered a civil right. The NRA appreciates your support, bauble.

My point, if you can ever grasp it, Saigon, is that we are unable to stop gun crime, no matter how many laws or treaties are passed and signed. You don't seem to understand that criminals and terrorists work by their own set of rules. They don't give a damn! What you seem to want is to suppress the rights of others and willfully encourage violating written law by those you just happened to vote for. Ironically I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I believe in supporting terrorists or criminals. It's typical of liberals like you to make all these wild assumptions about those of whom you debate. I will not sacrifice the sovereignty of this nation for some sort of feeble international cooperative.

And what do child soldiers have to do with this? A lot of those folks have AK-47s supplied by the Russians as opposed to M-16's supplied by corporations here. Your argument is unfounded, and many of the points are fallacious. If you can, prove what you say is true.

That or you can remain as ignorant as you were before.

 

[Saigon]

Templar -

is that we are unable to stop gun crime, no matter how many laws or treaties are passed and signed

So that means we should not try to diminish it as much as possible - that is your case?

Dude, we may never rid the world of cancer, but look at the resources being put into protecting human life as best we can.

We could absolutely reduce the US murder rate by half within 10 years - except that would mean biting into the profits of some very large companies with very powerful friends. The problem in reducing the murder rate is less about logsitics than about will.

And what do child soldiers have to do with this? A lot of those folks have AK-47s supplied by the Russians as opposed to M-16's supplied by corporations here. Your argument is unfounded, and many of the points are fallacious. If you can, prove what you say is true.

The more the international trade in arms is reduced, the smaller and less powerful rebel groups will be. One outcome of that would be a reduction in the enforced conscription of child soldiers.

Yes, AK-47s are the terrorists weapon of choice, but don't think US arms are not out there too...

"The US is a virtual supermarket for terrorists and foreign governments seeking high-end military technology, including components that can be used to build nuclear weapons and equip militants fighting US and British troops, the American government has found."

America a weapons supermarket for terrorists, inquiry finds | World news | guardian.co.uk

What you have to keep in mind is that terrorists buy weapons from someone, usually a broker, who buys them from someone else. It's a supply chain. Should manufacturers limit their sales to legitimate organisations (ie. governments, police forces), then sales through brokers would become harder and more expensive for terrorists.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Templar -

is that we are unable to stop gun crime, no matter how many laws or treaties are passed and signed

So that means we should not try to diminish it as much as possible - that is your case?

Dude, we may never rid the world of cancer, but look at the resources being put into protecting human life as best we can.

We could absolutely reduce the US murder rate by half within 10 years - except that would mean biting into the profits of some very large companies with very powerful friends. The problem in reducing the murder rate is less about logsitics than about will.

And what do child soldiers have to do with this? A lot of those folks have AK-47s supplied by the Russians as opposed to M-16's supplied by corporations here. Your argument is unfounded, and many of the points are fallacious. If you can, prove what you say is true.

The more the international trade in arms is reduced, the smaller and less powerful rebel groups will be. One outcome of that would be a reduction in the enforced conscription of child soldiers.

Yes, AK-47s are the terrorists weapon of choice, but don't think US arms are not out there too...

"The US is a virtual supermarket for terrorists and foreign governments seeking high-end military technology, including components that can be used to build nuclear weapons and equip militants fighting US and British troops, the American government has found."

America a weapons supermarket for terrorists, inquiry finds | World news | guardian.co.uk

Why are the Brits wanting their gun ban repealed?

 

[idb]

Templar -

is that we are unable to stop gun crime, no matter how many laws or treaties are passed and signed

So that means we should not try to diminish it as much as possible - that is your case?

Dude, we may never rid the world of cancer, but look at the resources being put into protecting human life as best we can.

We could absolutely reduce the US murder rate by half within 10 years - except that would mean biting into the profits of some very large companies with very powerful friends. The problem in reducing the murder rate is less about logsitics than about will.

And what do child soldiers have to do with this? A lot of those folks have AK-47s supplied by the Russians as opposed to M-16's supplied by corporations here. Your argument is unfounded, and many of the points are fallacious. If you can, prove what you say is true.

The more the international trade in arms is reduced, the smaller and less powerful rebel groups will be. One outcome of that would be a reduction in the enforced conscription of child soldiers.

Yes, AK-47s are the terrorists weapon of choice, but don't think US arms are not out there too...

"The US is a virtual supermarket for terrorists and foreign governments seeking high-end military technology, including components that can be used to build nuclear weapons and equip militants fighting US and British troops, the American government has found."

America a weapons supermarket for terrorists, inquiry finds | World news | guardian.co.uk

Why are the Brits wanting their gun ban repealed?

All right I'll bite....link please.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar -



So that means we should not try to diminish it as much as possible - that is your case?

Dude, we may never rid the world of cancer, but look at the resources being put into protecting human life as best we can.

We could absolutely reduce the US murder rate by half within 10 years - except that would mean biting into the profits of some very large companies with very powerful friends. The problem in reducing the murder rate is less about logsitics than about will.




The more the international trade in arms is reduced, the smaller and less powerful rebel groups will be. One outcome of that would be a reduction in the enforced conscription of child soldiers.

Yes, AK-47s are the terrorists weapon of choice, but don't think US arms are not out there too...

"The US is a virtual supermarket for terrorists and foreign governments seeking high-end military technology, including components that can be used to build nuclear weapons and equip militants fighting US and British troops, the American government has found."

America a weapons supermarket for terrorists, inquiry finds | World news | guardian.co.uk

Why are the Brits wanting their gun ban repealed?

All right I'll bite....link please.

Telegraph new law competition: vote now - Telegraph

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back