Forum Thread

U.N. Global Gun Ban Treaty

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 18 1 2 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Any thoughts on the proposed signing of the U.N. Global Gun Ban Treaty by Sec. of State John Kerry to be followed by President Obama's signature soon after, and what this means/ does to the average American citizen in regards to the Second Amendment?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    This will probably have little effect on arms being sold, only the sources and price will change. As far as having an effect on conditions in the USA, no change,
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I understand that one of the requirements of the Treaty is to have a National Gun registry, which will set a off new/old debate gun control here in the U.S. also the Treaty affects small arms as well as military weapons, should there be a distinction between the two categories?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I was under the impression that such a treaty had to be approved by Congress. It would not make it thru congress, if required. If Congressional approval is not required then we will have a problem will occur with the only items being addressed by either house being legality of the treaty.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Your correct in that this treaty as well as all other treaties must be approved by the Senate, however early last month ,there was a vote to get this treaty out of a committee, which failed by the way, and there was a number of Senators both Democrats and some Independents (41), they fell 10 short, this can get interesting, especially in an off year election with many Democratic Senators seeking re-election.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    There's definitely a lot of conflicting information about this treaty. Rather than add my own thoughts, I've included comments from both sides of the discussion. If you want the truth about the gun treaty, a New York Times column from April 11 does a very good job:

    However, if you're part of the "tin foil hat" crowd, you'll appreciate the column that I got this morning from the Personal Liberty Digest:
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    More information about international arms sales is included about half way through the attached story, which I published in February:

    The video "second amendment rights gone wrong ", a little further down, is also worth watching.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    This is what happens when a Nation can no longer trust its leaders ,regardless of their political party's stance on the issues at hand, when distrust creeps into the conversation, all sense of an honest dialogue disappears, the President needs to come out and express exactly what this treaty entails as to how it may affect the U.S. Constitution, if at all.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Arizona --

    Thanks for sharing all the links, but especially your own. I know we've discussed just about every aspect of proposed gun safety legislation, both at the federal and state level, but it never ceases to amaze me how ignorant and ill informed the "gun cult" is on the issues and indeed the 2nd Amendment itself. When I say "gun cult" I am not referring to the many responsible gun owners who support common sense gun legislation, but rather to the fanatical minority that seem to have a Pavlovian response when someone even whispers gun legislation.

    While much of the discourse in the website has focused on the NRA, we should remember that they are just a front organization that used to be responsible until their leadership was hijacked by the gun and ammunition manufacturers. So I'll name just a few and their website links of the many gun manufacturers that bank roll the NRA:

    Smith and Wesson


    Glock Perfection

    DPMS Panther Arms
    Sig Sauer


    These gun manufacturers and others are companies that we need to look at when you say "follow the money."
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I forgot to provide this link:

    Violence Policy Center, April 2011: Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA

    We've covered this before in this website, but I thought I would highlight their report once again:

    "Who does the National Rifle Association represent? In its direct-mail solicitations and public statements, the NRA presents itself as the uncompromising voice of the American gun owner. But new research reveals that since 2005 the NRA has received millions of dollars from the gun industry. The means by which the industry helps fund the NRA vary: from million-dollar industry grants to a program that rounds up gun store customers’ purchases to the nearest dollar with the difference going to the NRA—including a contribution from a soon-to-be mass shooter buying ammunition. Corporate contributors to the NRA come from every sector of the firearms industry, including: manufacturers of handguns, rifles, shotguns, assault weapons, and high-capacity ammunition magazines; gun distributors and dealers; and, vendors of ammunition and other shooting-related products. And they come from outside the firearms industry—including Xe, the new name for the now-infamous Blackwater Worldwide."

    The topic is the Global Gun Ban Treaty. This is why that treaty will never be ratified by our won't even come close.

    Follow the money...
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I would like to know all of the nuanced matters that are proposed in this Treaty, such as how will this affect the 2nd Amendment if at all, also I would expect every weapon mfg. to donate and support the NRA, why wouldn't they? its their bread and butter! But when I read excerpts from the Treaty listed on the UN website, it says there must be a national gun registry, and also there isn't a specific section on the enforcement of this treaty, the Treaty itself is a difficult read, at least to me with my limited attention span, so maybe someone else can go the site and give another read on it.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    I reviewed the UN site myself to see if I could understand the treaty:

    I wonder how many of esteemed congressman are actually going to take the time to read it. If they do, people like Rand Paul are likely to focus on the section on "marking and tracing" in the Small Arms section , which seems to imply some type of registry:

    Marking and tracing

    If national law enforcement officials were able to trace small arms back to their last legitimate owner, who might then be held accountable, this would form an effective measure against illicit trade and diversion. For that purpose, it is essential that the weapon be marked upon production and import, and that appropriate records be kept. Existing stocks should also be marked. Although many weapons are marked upon production and import, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy.

    Even though Secretary of State John Kerry is "pretty darn excited about the prospect of the United States hopping on board", the Democratically controlled Senate voted 53/46 against it on June 3:

    To date, 65 countries have signed the treaty, but key exporting countries (like us) haven't signed it yet:
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I agree with the part of destroying obsolete weapons rather than reselling them to 3rd World although it would probably garner some more profits for certain Arms dealers, but it does seem as though the Treaty does require some type of registry, this is will prove troublesome in this country, only because of the many unregistered weapons both pistols and rifles, I also don't see this passing the senate any time soon. I also believe this issue will divide this Nation even more if and when it comes up for a vote.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Politifact had a discussion of the gun registry issue last year.

    Broun: U.N. treaty likely to lead to international gun registry

    PolitiFact rated Broun's statement false.

    "Article 2 states that each party "shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list" that would include battle tanks, attack helicopters and guns, among other things.

    "Even the most limited reading of the treaty suggests that, while it would not create an international registry of all guns, it seeks to create one of all imported guns," said Ted Bromund, a senior research fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

    "But no treaty language establishes a worldwide registry of individuals who own guns or dealers who sell to customers in their own countries.

    "In fact, the draft affirms the "sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems."

    Again, the treaty is not easy reading, and therefore people like Broun can exploit that fact to create fear about a gun registry.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I've read the first three resolutions and some member replies to the Treaty, and they all mention small arms and light weapons as being the leading cause of most of the gun violence in their respective countries, so they would address an ban on small arms and related munitions along with a registry as to where they were mfg. and sold to whom, also there was a reference to exportation and importation, small arms to me means handguns, and light weapons means rifles.