U.N arms treaty

[Topaz]

Canada has not sign and countries are wondering why like some Canadains and the answer is...the Canadian gun lobby. They say the Tories could take a hit from gun supporters, in the next election, if they sign. I think it could go either way if they don't. The US has sign and they have a huge gun lobby but its intersting to see some group in Canada have the power over Harper. http://metronews.ca/news/canada/812347/gun-lobby-warns-ottawa-on-un-arms-treaty/

[waldo]

signed by 113 nation states, including the U.S. in recent days..... but not Canada!

THE ARMS TRADE TREATY

On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly adopted the landmark Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The treaty will foster peace and security by putting a stop to destabilizing arms flows to conflict regions. It will prevent human rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied with arms. And it will help keep warlords, pirates, and gangs from acquiring these deadly tools.

oh Canada, what say you? Why haven't you signed the treaty?

There is a potential link between signing on to the treaty and Canada's now-abolished long gun registry

how worldly of you, oh great statesman Baird!

.

[waldo]

oh my! Harper Conservatives side with..... Syria, Iran, North Korea against the UN Arms Trade Treaty! Just one more example of Harper Conservatives isolating Canada on the world stage. Canada - the only NATO country that has not signed the treaty!

We don't want to see the NDP and Liberals try to bring in through the back door a long gun registry that will only hurt law-abiding hunters and farmers. This is what the Liberals and the NDP want to do next election, and I can ensure you we won't let them get away with it.”

.

[Shady]

Yep, we really need to sign that, cause everyone knows one of the biggest problem's in the world is Canadian guns.

Hey U.N. Stay the eff outta our business.

[waldo]

Yep, we really need to sign that, cause everyone knows one of the biggest problem's in the world is Canadian guns.

Hey U.N. Stay the eff outta our business.

Clearly, you've read the treaty!!! Ya ya, Shady... rogue nations of the world unite!

Just so we can see the intricate workings of your intellectual prowess, in regards this treaty, just what business are you speaking to when you emphatically state the "UN stay the eff outta" it? What business are you referring to?

[Shady]

Clearly, you've read the treaty!!! Ya ya, Shady... rogue nations of the world unite!

Just so we can see the intricate workings of your intellectual prowess, in regards this treaty, just what business are you speaking to when you emphatically state the "UN stay the eff outta" it? What business are you referring to?

Our business in my post refers to what we as a nation feel or don't feel like doing.

[waldo]

Our business in my post refers to what we as a nation feel or don't feel like doing.

failShady - it's a treaty that nations are free to sign... or not. There's no UN intrusion into some manner of "business" you're unprepared to even raise/speak to! Do you have any particular concerns with the treaty or are you just... being Shady? I expect you'd be keen to reinforce the Harper Conservative alignment with lil' Kim, with Assad... to reinforce your preference for yet another Harper Conservative point of isolating Canada on the world stage... for embracing rogue nation status! C'mon Shady, let's hear your best - shout it loud & proud!

[GostHacked]

I see this as a good thing. Not a fan of Harper, but even less a fan of the UN.

[Shady]

failShady - it's a treaty that nations are free to sign... or not. There's no UN intrusion into some manner of "business" you're unprepared to even raise/speak to! Do you have any particular concerns with the treaty or are you just... being Shady? I expect you'd be keen to reinforce the Harper Conservative alignment with lil' Kim, with Assad... to reinforce your preference for yet another Harper Conservative point of isolating Canada on the world stage... for embracing rogue nation status! C'mon Shady, let's hear your best - shout it loud & proud!

We don't need to sign meaningless UN proclaimations. We just don't. We can decide ourselves what we'd like to do or not do regarding certtain issues. It's much ado about nothing.

[waldo]

I see this as a good thing. Not a fan of Harper, but even less a fan of the UN.

standard UN rant that doesn't recognize the complete extent of what the UN is engaged in.

[waldo]

We don't need to sign meaningless UN proclaimations. We just don't. We can decide ourselves what we'd like to do or not do regarding certtain issues. It's much ado about nothing.

what's your beef with it, Shady? You're barking a lot but not actually saying anything? Per norm!

[GostHacked]

standard UN rant that doesn't recognize the complete extent of what the UN is engaged in.

A one liner is a rant? What would you classify your posts as then?

[waldo]

A one liner is a rant? What would you classify your posts as then?

no - in this case, you simply refined your past extensive railings against the UN. Are you saying you've never been critical of the UN in past MLW threads/posts? Are you saying your "one liner" is just some innocuous comment you're offering without any foundation, without any supporting substantiation? As I said, the typical UN ranters have some beef with an isolated facet of the UN, typically security council decisions/vetos related to foreign interventions/wars... to which they attach their exclusive focus while ignoring the brazillion other areas the UN is engaged in.

[Shady]

what's your beef with it, Shady? You're barking a lot but not actually saying anything? Per norm!

It's non-essential and non-binding anyways. We should review and participate in UN proclaimations on a case by case basis. It doesn't have to be all or nothing like you suggest, or would like it to be.

[GostHacked]

no - in this case, you simply refined your past extensive railings against the UN. Are you saying you've never been critical of the UN in past MLW threads/posts? Are you saying your "one liner" is just some innocuous comment you're offering without any foundation, without any supporting substantiation? As I said, the typical UN ranters have some beef with an isolated facet of the UN, typically security council decisions/vetos related to foreign interventions/wars... to which they attach their exclusive focus while ignoring the brazillion other areas the UN is engaged in.

You really think signing this small arms treaty is going to solve the issue of small arms?

[waldo]

You really think signing this small arms treaty is going to solve the issue of small arms?

have you read it? Can you pre-suppose on why all NATO nations (other than Canada) have signed it? Can you pre-suppose on why over a hundred nations have signed it? Can you pre-suppose on why nations like North Korea, Syria, Iran... and Canada... have not signed it?

Edited October 5, 2013 by waldo

[GostHacked]

have you read it? Can you pre-suppose on why all NATO nations (other than Canada) have signed it? Can you pre-suppose on why over a hundred nations have signed it? Can you pre-suppose on why nations like North Korea, Syria, Iran... and Canada... have not signed it?

Do you really think this treaty will solve the issue related to small arms trafficking?

[Shady]

Do you really think this treaty will solve the issue related to small arms trafficking?

He knows it doesn't. It's purely symbolism over substance. I wouldn't want Canada to be confined to anything, just in case circumstances changed in the future. I'd want flexibility. It's logical and reasonable, at least to anyone that isn't a die-hard United Nations fanboy.

[waldo]

He knows it doesn't. It's purely symbolism over substance. I wouldn't want Canada to be confined to anything, just in case circumstances changed in the future. I'd want flexibility. It's logical and reasonable, at least to anyone that isn't a die-hard United Nations fanboy.

you're all bark & no substance! You still haven't said what your concerns are..... how would Canada be, as you say, "confined"... what, as you say, "flexibility" would be lost? Just how are Harper and lil' Kim so aligned over a refusal to sign the treaty?

just admit you haven't even bothered to read the treaty!

[GostHacked]

He knows it doesn't. It's purely symbolism over substance. I wouldn't want Canada to be confined to anything, just in case circumstances changed in the future. I'd want flexibility. It's logical and reasonable, at least to anyone that isn't a die-hard United Nations fanboy.

Countries are being sold out to the UN and control/power is being centralized there. A little here and little there, and next thing you know you have no more sovereignty. Globalization has a hand in this.

[Shady]

you're all bark & no substance! You still haven't said what your concerns are..... how would Canada be, as you say, "confined"... what, as you say, "flexibility" would be lost? Just how are Harper and lil' Kim so aligned over a refusal to sign the treaty?

just admit you haven't even bothered to read the treaty!

Like I've said, WE as a country can decide how we want to deal with gun imports and exports. There really isn't anything else to discuss.

[eyeball]

...if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an 'end user' and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration.

What if you bought a Lamborghini?

Oh the humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

Edited October 5, 2013 by eyeball

[scribblet]

Do you really think this treaty will solve the issue related to small arms trafficking?

No it won't, because criminals have always been able to get around laws. It will do nothing to nothing to stop the usual despots and so on from getting their hands on arms. Note that Russia and China major arms dealers, abstained from voting.

After some reading I now believe that the actual threat is in fact another ‘Gun Registry’ as this treaty wants signatories to track all information including value and destination of all imported and exported guns. Considering that the Canadian gov’t campaigned and followed through on eliminating the hated gun registry, it’s no surprise that they would not want to sign on to another boondoggle.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf

The United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty - would require nations to create and maintain a “national control list” to track “all conventional weapons.” (See Article V and Article II.)

and

Article 12 Record keeping states that

“[e]ach State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms…that are transferred to its territory as the final destination.” These records would include, but not be limited to “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2(1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users…”

There really is nothing in the treaty that actually gives the U.N. the power to enforce compliance so one wonders what the point of it all is really

[AlienB]

Imo it is a waste of time to regulate anything. Controlling damgerous substances does make sene if it endangers the general public however.

Nothing is wrong with guns. This only let the police state be armed bs is just that bs.

Power to the people. The right to bear arms is centuries old...

Why should I have to depend on a government that treats me as a second class citizen or has 0 interest in defending my interests to protect me?

Why should I be limited in what I can buy and whom, it is nonsense.

The NAzI's used gun controlt to disempower opposition to corrupt rule.

We need to educate people on protecting their rights not accepting the dominant party's rules.

There are lots of guns out there.. cars kill more people than guns do, so why isn't there a global cars treaty?

Or what about businesses marketing to sell unhealthy foods leading to strokes and heart attacks.. where is the fast food treaty?

This is just stupid people crying about guns because they want to be pussies and let the bad guys control everyone.

Sadly government time and time again prooves itself to be corrupt and untrustworthy, acting in the minority interest and ignoring human rights abuses, it is great the Canadian government recognizes why you don't only let government have gun...

that and the fact it will raise the cost of import which Canada buys a lot of imported weapon a few millions worth atleast each year. could cost canada $500,000 or more and provide the treaty registry people intelligence on canadian gun owners.

its just pointless.

why are they trying to regulate firearms?

They just want to force everyone to be complaicent with a gun to their head with no means of resistance totally nazi.

some of the so called rebells and terrorists around the world have valid ground and are faced with corrupt and oppressive and alien governments which ignore those groups means of enjoyment of life. they just want to rule and subject dominate territory without regard for minoritie...

then now you want to insure that the oppression is facilitated, total nonsense.

Edited October 6, 2013 by AlienB

[scribblet]

You really think signing this small arms treaty is going to solve the issue of small arms?

Nope, and besides there's no mechanism to enforce the treaty.

Funny enough though, the portions relating to rules surrounding import and export of firearms in the UN treaty are allready in place in the U.S. They have banned the import of firearms and ammo from Russia and China, limited the import of firearms with higher cap mags (as such, companies like Glock, Sig Sauer etc opened plants in the United States) and with some firearms that they export for civilian use they require an end user agreement, in other words, a registry and assurance that the end user will not pass along or sell said firearm.

Really, the prospect of a new back-door registry for new imports is the killer. The conservatives won't be in power for ever so when the Liberals eventually get back in, they surely will use it to bring back the dreaded registry.