U.N arms treaty

[waldo]

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

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

you clearly have no knowledge, or critical thinking capability in terms of how a UN treaty moves forward, if appropriate, into international law. This formative treaty is in its relative infancy... it will take, quite literally, years before it proceeds to law (if it gets there). During that period, normal transitive changes will occur; a key facet of that will be, of course, practicalities of deployment... and enforcement (as may be appropriate and/or agreed to by member countries).

[waldo]

What if you bought a Lamborghini?

Oh the humanity.

on nooooooooooos! Not a Lambo registry!

the horror, the horror

[waldo]

Note that Russia and China major arms dealers, abstained from voting.

note that the U.S., the world`s largest arm dealer, did not abstain from voting... did sign the treaty. Note that an abstain vote is not a vote against the treaty; it is said many of the countries that abstained did so because of concerns over wording... that the wording was not complete... needed clarification, refinement - or change.

in any case, Canada did not abstain... Canada provided a YES vote to adopt the treaty. Of course, as we now realize, that YES vote meant nothing as Canada has failed to follow-up with the required signatory attachment.

[waldo]

its just pointless.

pointless? Only if you consider attempts to lower the risk of the international transfer of conventional arms being used to support terrorism, to aid organized crime, to foment genocide, to be used in crimes against humanity, to facilitate war crimes..... only if you consider any/all of that to be... pointless!

[scribblet]

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.

I tend to agree somewhat....

Some additional info.

This guy orders "military grade" rifles from the United States: It’s non -restricted in Canada, because it's a bolt-action rifle and the round it shoots (.308 win) is also a very popular hunting round in Canada.......but the above rifle and round is also used by police and the military as a "sniper rifle"

http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/7529/Armalite-AR30-308-Win.aspx

Now this rifle from the same dealer Comes from Finland and is non-restricted in Canada, is a bolt-action, chambered in .308 but doesn't require an "end user agreement" from the Government of Finland to be sold to Canadians

http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/12480/Tikka-T3-Hunter-308-Win-Rifle-Left-Hand.aspx

Make sense? Of course not, anti-gun folk don't have a clue what they're talking about.......The difference between a "sniper rifle" and "gramp's moose gun"? About $100 black plastic stock and maybe a scary sounding name

And the American end user agreement:

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/licensing/documents/DSP_83.pdf

One thing that our gov’t must be considering is the sale of STRYKER light amoured vehicles in Canada. These or similar models are sold to many NATO countries so if Canada signed on to this treaty one of our largest employers in London, Ontario could be shut down.

London and area is struggling to survive the loss of auto manufacturing, and diesel locomotive building. The loss of the Stryker plant would be the death nell for that area.

Of course, this is all a moot point as the treaty doesn’t have much chance of passing in the U.S. as it needs 2/3rds support of the U.Senate, the same Senate that couldn't pass "gun control" with a 50% +1 vote.

[waldo]

One thing that our gov’t must be considering is the sale of STRYKER light amoured vehicles in Canada. These or similar models are sold to many NATO countries so if Canada signed on to this treaty one of our largest employers in London, Ontario could be shut down.

London and area is struggling to survive the loss of auto manufacturing, and diesel locomotive building. The loss of the Stryker plant would be the death nell for that area.

why not actually read the treaty! What a concept!!! What within the treaty is the basis for your ridiculous claim?

.

[waldo]

Of course, this is all a moot point as the treaty doesn’t have much chance of passing in the U.S. as it needs 2/3rds support of the U.Senate, the same Senate that couldn't pass "gun control" with a 50% +1 vote.

hey now! Great to see you have finally read enough to grasp the distinction between adopt, sign and ratify! Well done! Of course, the treaty only needs 50 countries to ratify it to bring it into effect. Having the U.S. on board as a signatory was always considered nothing more than symbolic... given the U.S. gun culture, who would, who could, expect the U.S. to ever be in a position to ratify it. To be expected, over these last 7 years leading up to the treaty being adopted, the U.S. gun lobby has been doing everything and anything to focus the treaty as a threat to the U.S. 2nd amendment. Notwithstanding the special clause put into the treaty just to focus on international trade... and away from any countries internal domestic laws, provisions, amendments, constitutionality, etc., the drum beat of the U.S. gun-machine remained steadfast - ever vigilant!

.

[Bonam]

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.

Umm... care to explain how the treaty will do any of these things? It's just another worthless UN piece of paper, ignored by anyone who finds it inconvenient. How are the nuclear armaments treaties working out? The chemical arms ones? The resolutions regarding peace in the middle east? Or even the climate initiatives? The UN is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

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

Yeah, the UN does some semi-decent work regarding health, poverty, etc. Big deal. There are thousands of charities and organizations that do that, with vastly lower overhead, and without the ridiculousness of the UN. Our time and money would be better spent with those, if it must be spent at all.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Bonam

[waldo]

Umm... care to explain how the treaty will do any of these things?

umm... care to properly quote and properly attribute words? You’re quoting a quote I provided as if the words were mine. In any case, they should be taken as objectives... goals... more in line with the treaty words, proper:

the treaty speaks to the general mechanics of implementation, prohibition criteria, review & authorization criteria, reporting facets, international cooperation aspects, compliance monitoring, dispute settlement, etc..

It's just another worthless UN piece of paper, ignored by anyone who finds it inconvenient.

Yeah, the UN does some semi-decent work regarding health, poverty, etc. Big deal. There are thousands of charities and organizations that do that, with vastly lower overhead, and without the ridiculousness of the UN. Our time and money would be better spent with those, if it must be spent at all.

your back-handed compliment to the UN notwithstanding, the treaty is only as good as the signatory countries make it. At a minimum, an enacted treaty, even on its own without regard to possible eventualities of reaching international law, presents an international standard reference to which your pre-supposed ignoring will measure against. If you, yourself, choose to ignore the significance of this... or the significance of the majority of nations working toward this treaty (and more)... then you may as well ignore the significance of the UN itself. Oh wait... you’re already there, anyways! As always, to you and anyone else posturing over your perceptions of a failed and worthless UN, don’t hesitate to step forward and speak to your alternative(s).

[scribblet]

Umm... care to explain how the treaty will do any of these things? It's just another worthless UN piece of paper, ignored by anyone who finds it inconvenient. How are the nuclear armaments treaties working out? The chemical arms ones? The resolutions regarding peace in the middle east? Or even the climate initiatives? The UN is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

...........

The treaty regulates all conventional arms within the categories of battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers and small arms and light weapons.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46005&Cr=arms+trade&Cr1=#.UlH4t9KbNgg

Why would anyone want to hurt Canadians working in these industries, and therefore our economy ?

If the United States, Russia and China (major arms dealers) are not in, what good is the treaty anyway?

Not that there's anything wrong with trying to curb arms and wars, but the U.N. is pretty useless and to many people it's a step towards the 'one word order' . Not to mention many people don't trust the U.N., and rightly so.

It's not clear on how this will keep weapons out of the hands of oppressive dictatorships. If I understand it correctly, the intention is to also stop revolutionaries/rebels from getting their hands on weapons. This of course would include the rebels or freedom fighters in Syria and elsewhere who want to overthrow a despotic regime.

Not sure that this treaty has much to do with controlling “illegal” weapons, and may have a lot to to do with the eventual banning of civilian ownership of all firearms, they maybe on to something here and not totally off the wall when they say it could lead to another registry.

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.)

Article 5

General Implementation

1. Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner, bearing in mind the principles referred to in this Treaty.

2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.

I wonder if this treaty would stop Pres. Obama from waiving the provision of federal law in order to provide military aide to terrorist groups (e.g. certain 'vetted' opposition groups in Syria)

[waldo]

One thing that our gov’t must be considering is the sale of STRYKER light amoured vehicles in Canada. These or similar models are sold to many NATO countries so if Canada signed on to this treaty one of our largest employers in London, Ontario could be shut down.

London and area is struggling to survive the loss of auto manufacturing, and diesel locomotive building. The loss of the Stryker plant would be the death nell for that area.

Why would anyone want to hurt Canadians working in these industries, and therefore our economy?

why not actually read the treaty! What a concept!!! What within the treaty is the basis for your ridiculous claims?

[waldo]

but the U.N. is pretty useless and to many people it's a step towards the 'one world order'.

yes, clearly, you interpret this UN treaty is nothing more than a "one world order" gun-grabbin effort to stifle your freedom!

[GostHacked]

yes, clearly, you interpret this UN treaty is nothing more than a "one world order" gun-grabbin effort to stifle your freedom!

The UN is trying to be the world governing body. That was one goal when the UN was created.

[waldo]

Not sure that this treaty has much to do with controlling “illegal” weapons, and may have a lot to to do with the eventual banning of civilian ownership of all firearms, they maybe on to something here and not totally off the wall when they say it could lead to another registry.

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

no - outside and distinctly separate from precisely defined international focused prohibitions, the treaty presents signatory countries with export assessment criteria to allow a treaty member party to evaluate its international export intent towards formally authorizing the international export intent. Equally, the treaty requires international importing countries provide information to assist international exporting countries with their export assessments. Equally, the treaty covers concerns over in-transit (flow-through) of international trade where countries are simply interim shipping points.

[waldo]

The UN is trying to be the world governing body. That was one goal when the UN was created.

"goal" citation request

[GostHacked]

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

After the League of Nations failed to prevent World War II (1939–1945), there was widespread recognition that humankind could not afford a third world war. Therefore, the United Nations was established to replace the flawed League of Nations in 1945 in order to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social, and humanitarian problems. The earliest concrete plan for a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt first coined the term 'United Nations' as a term to describe the Allied countries.[4] The term was first officially used on 1 January 1942, when 26 governments signed the Atlantic Charter, pledging to continue the war effort.[5] On 25 April 1945, the UN Conference on International Organization began in San Francisco, attended by 50 governments and a number of non-governmental organizations involved in drafting the United Nations Charter. The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon ratification of the Charter by the five then-permanent members of the Security Council—France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States—and by a majority of the other 46 signatories. The first meetings of the General Assembly, with 51 nations represented, and the Security Council, took place in Methodist Central Hall Westminster in London beginning 6 January 1946.[6]

UN General Assembly

UN Secretariate

UN International Court of Justice

UN Security Council

UN Economic and Social Council.

UN Trustee Council.

This is a world governing body. Actually to be more specific, this is THE world governing body.

[waldo]

This is a world governing body. Actually to be more specific, this is THE world governing body.

you were challenged to cite support your claim of a, as you stated, "world governing body goal"..... a "goal" you claimed as a part of the UN formation. Still waiting..... surely, if you can find your way to wiki... you can find your way to those formative UN documents. Still waiting.....

[Shady]

pointless? Only if you consider attempts to lower the risk of the international transfer of conventional arms being used to support terrorism, to aid organized crime, to foment genocide, to be used in crimes against humanity, to facilitate war crimes..... only if you consider any/all of that to be... pointless!

It's not going to do any of that.

[GostHacked]

It is a goal. The League of Nations was made to stop wars and become a world governing body. It failed, and the UN is the second attempt at just that.

Kind of like how the EU was devised to create a governing body for all European countries. Once you see the NAU and the Asia Pacific union come about, then these will be merged to a new world governing body.

Centralization through globalization and by pressure groups like NGOs has been a key part in facilitating this new world government.

[waldo]

It's not going to do any of that.

how contradicting... you seem like such a risk averse guy!

[waldo]

It is a goal. The League of Nations was made to stop wars and become a world governing body. It failed, and the UN is the second attempt at just that.

Kind of like how the EU was devised to create a governing body for all European countries. Once you see the NAU and the Asia Pacific union come about, then these will be merged to a new world governing body.

Centralization through globalization and by pressure groups like NGOs has been a key part in facilitating this new world government.

sorry, I thought you actually had a citation you could provide... one that spoke to a defined goal within UN formative documents. If you prefer, I'll settle for the infowars alternative that's driving your conspiracy.

[GostHacked]

sorry, I thought you actually had a citation you could provide... one that spoke to a defined goal within UN formative documents. If you prefer, I'll settle for the infowars alternative that's driving your conspiracy.

It's there if you know how to read. So why WAS the UN created?

[waldo]

It's there if you know how to read.

if you know how to read it... you should know how to quote it - cite it! What are you waiting for?

[GostHacked]

if you know how to read it... you should know how to quote it - cite it! What are you waiting for?

So what IS the UN, how DID it come about and WHY did it come about? League of Nations failed. It was the precursor to the UN. It was to allow an Internationa forum to air differences. Just like two parties air differences in a municipal, provincial and then federal levels in a court of law. The International Court is just at the top of this chain.

We don't need to sign this treaty and give control to the UN. That is what this is really about. Always under the guise of safety are your rights and sovereignty under threat by the powers that be, who ever the hell they really are.

[eyeball]

The treaty regulates all conventional arms within the categories of battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers and small arms and light weapons.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46005&Cr=arms+trade&Cr1=#.UlH4t9KbNgg

Why would anyone want to hurt Canadians working in these industries, and therefore our economy ?

Do you think people working in arms industries ever ask about the people their produce hurts?

I can't imagine why anyone would even want to work in such industries.