And he goes for the 2nd amendment!

[Murky]

From what I read it's not in anyway directed at the 2nd amendment and they even make that a condition of signing it. The whole point is to cut down on the arms deals with drug lords and warlords in places like Mexico and Sudan.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I may have missed that point. I thought it was also designed to stop illegal arms trading in the states as well (Note: Illegal arms trading, not any arms trading, I'm aware of that, but I don't think our current gun laws are constititutional either.)

 

[Formaldehyde]

The 2nd Amendment was violated as soon as the US tried to stop Iran from getting nukes

Surely, the right to defend yourself doesn't apply to the victims of American and Israeli aggression?

 

[Andvare]

My only question is... who will fill the gap in trade in our place?

China... Russia... etc.

From the headline of the article:

a draft international treaty

And further down the article:

China, a major arms producer that has traditionally abstained, voted in favor.

Does no-one around here read anymore?


This is an attempt to regulate the global arms sales, not just the US arms sales, and not just hand weapons.
As the US arms trade is relatively well regulated already, this will probably benefit the US.

 

[kochman]

From the headline of the article:



And further down the article:



Does no-one around here read anymore?


This is an attempt to regulate the global arms sales, not just the US arms sales, and not just hand weapons.
As the US arms trade is relatively well regulated already, this will probably benefit the US.

Ummm, you explicitly trust China on this? They would sell every woman in the country to the Saudis if offered enough... but on this, they'll be cool... a place where they make tons of money.

I wish that were the case.

Like I said, it will just lead to more arms smugglers.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Surely, the right to defend yourself doesn't apply to the victims of American and Israeli aggression?

War kind of always opens up these cans of worms. Either its justified or its not. If it is, it is, and if it isn't, it isn't, regardless of who declares.

This may seem redundant, but it's really all I can say about it. America isn't going to invade Iraq and then "Give them the right to defend themselves" and Iraq isn't going to sacrifice that right even if America is justified (America was not justified BTW.)

The 2nd Amendment was violated as soon as the US tried to stop Iran from getting nukes

While I agree with you that its none of our doggone business, its because I think we shouldn't be involved in the affairs of other countries and that a country should be allowed to have such weapons for defensive purposes (They say they don't even want nukes, however.) Its not because of the 2nd amendment. Even if that amendment did apply to nukes (It doesn't, nukes aren't small arms) US constitutional rights really only apply to US citizens.

 

[El_Machinae]

According to you. I don't think that's true.

 

[Andvare]

Ummm, you explicitly trust China on this? They would sell every woman in the country to the Saudis if offered enough... but on this, they'll be cool... a place where they make tons of money.

I wish that were the case.

Like I said, it will just lead to more arms smugglers.

Yeah, you are right. Let us stop diplomacy completely.

I trust China as much as any government in the world. All nations foreign policies are the same, namely they are in it for themselves.
However, all play by the same rules. And China, specifically, cannot afford to piss of the western world as the government lives by giving its population an economic future, and that only happens as long as they can sell to the western world.
An illegal arms trade has the same chance of happening from a western firm, as from any other arms producer.
It's not like the CIA or the ATF have either been a part of, or purposely ignored, large scale illegal arms trade, right?

There is about the same chance that the Chinese government would break an agreement, that they have signed, that the US government would. Which is to say more than zero.

And, yes, of course it will lead to more gun smuggling, just like a ban on drugs leads to drug smuggling. Does that mean that we should stop criminalizing drugs?
If there are people willing to pay, there are people willing to break the law.

 

[kochman]

Yeah, you are right. Let us stop diplomacy completely.

There is a pretty big gap between stopping diplomacy realistically and approaching it from a realistic stand point.

I trust China as much as any government in the world.

That seems rather naive.

And China, specifically, cannot afford to piss of the western world as the government lives by giving its population an economic future, and that only happens as long as they can sell to the western world.

I think you might want to research this a bit better. They have the USA, at a minimum, by the balls... so they can basically, and do basically, blow us off. I don't blame them for it.

An illegal arms trade has the same chance of happening from a western firm, as from any other arms producer.

Illegally... However, China is fully in control of the arms industry, and therefore can ensure these things happen on a free basis on their end, at least... Whereas other nations would have to do it totally illegally.

It's not like the CIA or the ATF have either been a part of, or purposely ignored, large scale illegal arms trade, right?

Wait, wasn't that conducted without Obama's knowledge? So, it was basically illegal... or he knew and let it go...

There is about the same chance that the Chinese government would break an agreement, that they have signed, that the US government would. Which is to say more than zero.

China is closer to 1 than the US in a scale of 0 to 1.

And, yes, of course it will lead to more gun smuggling, just like a ban on drugs leads to drug smuggling. Does that mean that we should stop criminalizing drugs?
If there are people willing to pay, there are people willing to break the law.

In my opinion, yes, we should stop criminalizing drugs...

Anyhow, domestic policy (drugs) is totally different from a largely unenforceable and almost completely non-binding treaty... so why bother with this treaty?
Or will the UN raid us when we break it, about two minutes after signing?

So, why do we want to sign? Give away sovereignty?

 

[Leonel]

Even if he was, it's called an Amendment. It would take, what a 2/3rd vote by Congress?

 

[say1988]

I think you might want to research this a bit better. They have the USA, at a minimum, by the balls... so they can basically, and do basically, blow us off. I don't blame them for it.

How?
There are plenty of places for cheap labour, sure it would hurt some companies with resources invested there, but nothing crippling. And the Chinese have tons of resources invested overseas.
They hold 7.5% of US debt. And their share is shrinking. If they dumped it, it may raise interest rates slightly, but there are still plenty of people lining up to buy it.
The Chinese economy is pretty much entirely dependent on exporting to the West. The loss of US, Canada, EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia as export markets would devastate the Chinese economy. There simply aren't enough people out there with enough money to keep up demand for their goods.

Yes, China could do a lot of damage to the US, but it would be suicide.

 

[Chiteng]

Actually no. If a treaty is agreed to with the UN. It will have the force of law.
Just like any amendment. Completely by passing the 2nd amendment.
Further, there is some question that such a treaty could be abrogated by the USA.

I am sure most of you know that, and simply are pretending that it wont matter.
Under this idiot Prez, yes it WILL matter.

Plus it is indicative of the honesty of the various respondents.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

^Poe's law???

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yeah if Mexico can't handle all the guns we trade them it is clearly because they can't handle this level of freedom.

Maybe we should export some freedom-proof kevlar to them

Actually no. If a treaty is agreed to with the UN. It will have the force of law.
Just like any amendment. Completely by passing the 2nd amendment.
Further, there is some question that such a treaty could be abrogated by the USA.

I am sure most of you know that, and simply are pretending that it wont matter.
Under this idiot Prez, yes it WILL matter.

Plus it is indicative of the honesty of the various respondents.

I didn't give two sh*ts what Right-wing bubble "media" said before the epic collapse of "unskewing", and I don't give a damn now. You get by with your other distortions because they don't get put to a hard-and-fast test, but I'm even cockier about ignoring you now.

Channeling Maddow for a second: They're not coming for your guns, so shut up.

 

[Camikaze]

US constitutional rights really only apply to US citizens.

I thought they were inalienable?

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Before anyone thinks these exports are used to defend the Rugged Individual from the Evil Government, note that freedom fighters don't use american guns. They're too damn expensive. They prefer AKs.

These exports go to the oppressive governments, who can actually afford the things.

In that case, why do people who support exporting high tech guns hate freedom?

 

[say1988]

US constitutional rights really only apply to US citizens.

Actually, no. It only applies to the US government and the governments of the states.

And the Constitution generally provides non-citizens under an American government equal rights protections (with the obvious exceptions of rights restricted to citizens, such as the right to run for office) and it does not afford protections for American citizens in other jurisdictions except for actions by an American government.

 

[Chiteng]

Maybe we should export some freedom-proof kevlar to them



I didn't give two sh*ts what Right-wing bubble "media" said before the epic collapse of "unskewing", and I don't give a damn now. You get by with your other distortions because they don't get put to a hard-and-fast test, but I'm even cockier about ignoring you now.

Channeling Maddow for a second: They're not coming for your guns, so shut up.

How amusing =) I cant possibly have my own opinion =) It has to be someone elses opinion =)

Also why should I care what your opinion is?

If only you did ignore me =) It wont hurt my feelings =)

 

[GhostWriter16]

I thought they were inalienable?

I actually think some of them are wrong. Like the eminent domain part of the 5th. Eminient domain should be abolished altogether and government should not be allowed to compel people to make purchases.

That said, I'd argue that yeah, they kind of are. But it still doesn't apply to nukes.

Actually, no. It only applies to the US government and the governments of the states.

And the Constitution generally provides non-citizens under an American government equal rights protections (with the obvious exceptions of rights restricted to citizens, such as the right to run for office) and it does not afford protections for American citizens in other jurisdictions except for actions by an American government.

While I'm not disagreeing with this, I don't think the government of Iran was really the intended recipient of those rights. This doubled with the fact that a nuke is not a small arm, I don't think that's a right we have to protect.

I still don't think its our job to stop them, however.

 

[ace99]

Obama's coming to take your guns and your bibles and probably your house and then throw your family out into the street and force your children to work in the fields picking cotton.

U scared bro?