Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Explanation of the U.N. Arms Treaty

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 11:09:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I intend to clarify here the U.N. Arms Treaty and why it threatens the rights of gun owners. This is to silence the detractors here who think they backed me into a corner that I can't defend.

Below I will provide an analysis of the treaty:

The deceptive U.N. Arms Treaty is in the process of being signed and is being made out to look like an effort towards international peace, but really the UN is using a Trojan Horse like tactic that calls upon States to enact national legislation sufficient to meet the minimum goals outlined in the treaty "including gun registries, background checks, import/export controls and more for arms of all types, including small & conventional arms."

Another fact to keep in mind is that the people on board with this treaty and who are responsible for it's signing is Hilary Clinton and Obama, both of whom are extremely anti-gun and would love to ban guns.

The treaty states "Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty."

The treaty places no limit upon greater gun control efforts within individual nations and there is no expiration on the agreement.

The treaty on multiple occasions calls for States to establish "national control systems" to meet the requirements of the treaty. The sympathizers of this treaty might point out that it says "within national laws and regulations" and try to imply that it respects the 2nd Amendment, but they dont understand as a lawyer does the nuances of words and how leaving words out or appearing to affirm something it doesn't can change what it really says or allows, so when properly read in the context of the wording and history itself, it actually only invites new "regulations" where no "law" can be established.

These international goals will pressure changes to be made in the executive branches policies. Just look at the ATF who is trying to outlaw shotguns and who also placed greater reporting burdens on gun shops in the Southwest states as a response to Obama and Holders Fast & Furious conspiracy to demonize and outlaw gun ownership.

The first Principle in the preamble says "The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense." To the untrained eye this appears to protect individual rights, but actually it only recognizes the States rights to use arms to defend the "individual or collective." It does not recognize the inherent rights of individuals.

Now the U.N. lovers like to quote the text that recognizes "lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms"exclusively"for, inter alia," recreational," cultural," historical and"sporting activities"for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law."

Notice it says "exclusively for." It is telling you what is legitimate use and what isn't. It doesn't protect conventional arms for the purpose of self-defense. As Infowars rightly pointed out "the real purpose of arms ownership is a balance of power at the individual level in order to discourage tyranny at the State level. THAT is what the founding fathers intended."

U.N. lovers will say "but it says inter alia (among other things)!" So what, the State could just say "among other things, but not that thing." There's a reason why they left out self-defense in the text.

Now the treaty doesn't explicitly say "we want to take your guns away" because that would be stupid.

But here's some facts:

- These people want to ban guns.

- The treaty allows them to place heavy regulations on gun ownership, gun tracking, and gun registries.

- They have the means to take guns away. The ATF is alway stripping guns away from marijuana smokers.

That is why Alex Jones (who admittedly exaggerates) says the U.N. Treaty bans guns.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 11:39:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you have a link to the text of the proposed treaty?

I think individual gun rights in the US is of concern, but also, i would highlight that the intention of the treaty is for the powers that be reduce global light arms sales so they don't have to worry as much about threats to their power.

Many would agree that the world would be better off if many of the rouge groups did not have the ability to buy AK47's and light arms, which is probably true in many cases. On the other hand, it is just a ploy for the powers that be to keep power even in the case where the rouge group is on the right side of justice?

On a longer term note, I think we are getting to a point where small arms is going to be irrelevant when it comes to revolution. With monitoring and technology becoming more invasive in the name of security, there will be no chance to even commit warfare against "the man".
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 11:59:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 11:09:48 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The first Principle in the preamble says "The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense." To the untrained eye this appears to protect individual rights, but actually it only recognizes the States rights to use arms to defend the "individual or collective." It does not recognize the inherent rights of individuals.

Recognizing the rights of states isn't mutually exclusive with recognizing the rights of individuals. The treaty can, and does, recognize both.

Now the U.N. lovers like to quote the text that recognizes "lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms"exclusively"for, inter alia," recreational," cultural," historical and"sporting activities"for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law."

Notice it says "exclusively for." It is telling you what is legitimate use and what isn't. It doesn't protect conventional arms for the purpose of self-defense. As Infowars rightly pointed out "the real purpose of arms ownership is a balance of power at the individual level in order to discourage tyranny at the State level. THAT is what the founding fathers intended."

This is an example of something that you have refused to address. It states 'inter alia', which means 'among other things'. The list given is an example of legitimate uses, but it is not limited to what is listed. Essentially the treaty says that it recognizes ALL lawful private ownership and use, and gives a list of examples.

U.N. lovers will say "but it says inter alia (among other things)!" So what, the State could just say "among other things, but not that thing." There's a reason why they left out self-defense in the text.

No, that's not how law works, but thanks for finally addressing it. Any lawful use of guns is recognized. In a country where self-defense is legal, it is recognized.

If the US were to ban the use of guns for self defense, then yes, the treaty wouldn't recognize that as a legitimate use... but it wouldn't be the treaty's fault, it would be because of the new US law.

You can't just point to something and say 'hey, this doesn't ban guns, but you know, it could' while ignoring what it actually says.

Now the treaty doesn't explicitly say "we want to take your guns away" because that would be stupid.

But here's some facts:

- These people want to ban guns.

- The treaty allows them to place heavy regulations on gun ownership, gun tracking, and gun registries.

Ridiculous. The treaty talks about national control systems for regulating international trade in accordance with the purpose of the treaty, which is to keep arms out of the hands of terrorists and those who would commit crimes against humanity. Just because it says 'regulate' doesn't mean that it is talking about any type of regulation. Almost everything you take out of the text, you take out of context. Law doesn't work that way.

It's such a weak case. Everything in the treaty gives precedence to each country's law over the treaty. Everything is explicitly listed 'in regards to international exports', not private ownership.

You made a weak argument against 'inter alia'... now address the 'control systems' that apply to international exports.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 1:26:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Geo,
It basically sounds like your argument is that the government, OUR government, MAY decide to take away our guns. At best, this treaty applies pressure, but has no authority to outright ban them. Any threat to individual guns is purely a domestic, and ever-present, issue.

Again, the stated purpose of this treaty is to regulate the export of guns, which means international sales, and international regulations is what the U.N. is about.

Regarding the ability for the individual to acquire arms, at best, this would hinder any gun that is imported. If every gun owned by American citizens were manufactured in the U.S., there would be no effect on one's ability to acquire any gun they currently have the ability to acquire. If no guns are manufactured here, then this bill will likely create some domestic jobs, won't it?