UN arms trade agreement - USA votes against

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by gekko513, Oct 27, 2006.

  1. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #1
    Link

    My emphasis. Some people would probably claim that I'm just anti-american, but it's hard to love the US administration when they consistently try to thwart constructive international agreements. This, the Iraq "solution", Kyoto agreement... I could go on.

    Wouldn't it be nice if just for once the countries made an initiative for a better world in some area, and all countries agreed upon it?
     
  2. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #2
    gekko513, you're not anti-american for hating the current administration. I don't think there is anyone here at MR that thinks favorably of GW and his cronies. If there is, I dare them to speak up. ;)
     
  3. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #3
    or my favourite: http://www.icbl.org/treaty/snp
     
  4. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    Bush has done more to start the global Arms race again then anyone I know. His policys tell other countries you better load up. This is what we get for having this guy & Cheney running our Govt. Its like the cold war days all over. His stupid statements like your with us or against us, or his latest boondogle space policy statements are clear examples for all countries it seems. We have to get him and his party out. His example says to everyone buy weapons,buy weapon systems and build nukes. All the progress we had this past 20 years was pissed away by Bush and his Iraq war. Imagine what we could do instead of building bombs we were building schools,farms etc. His example is the Bully, who' stick is bigger then the other bullys stick so what do those bullys do? get bigger sticks. Its a never ending weapons cycle. Clinton though I never voted for him was setting the right example, Bush/Cheney dont get it,never will.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Ever since the end of the Cold War the military-industrial complex has been desperate for something to justify their obscene plundering of the public purse. The more conflict there is, the more profits there are to be made, and George Bush is their boy. They will brook no interference.
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    Skunks statement is what its about. Congress and these companys are screwing us over building anything and everything even if its not needed,doesnt work, or cant be done. The U.S. taxpayers are being stolen from. The new Arms race brought to you buy Bush and people like Duke Cunningham.

    The same thing is happening with the prison system, they want to build lots of Prisons and lock everyone up costing us big big $$$ then they want to go cheap on our schools,send factories overseas then wonder why little johnny grew up to be a criminal? Our Govt is backwards, and is working hard for these corporations,not the people. We can vote these false christians out of Congress.
     
  7. gekko513 thread starter macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #7
    I like this thread. :)

    All of you are making good points.
     
  8. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #8
    Trouble is, these good points have nothing to do with the UN proposal. The way it's phrased, the usual US system of firearms ownership by citizens could be negated by the treaty. That's not about "assault rifles" as written. It could even include your .22 plinker-rifle, a skeet- or trap-model shotgun or even the firearms used in Olympic competiton.

    The key is "as written".

    The US would be in agreement if the terminology about "illegal trade in firearms" would be limited to military firearms and explosives. As sold by the various producers through middlemen, they wind up with the various rebellious groups in places like Lebanon (Supplied by Iran.), Palestine (Supplied by Iran.), Chad, Somalia, Nigeria, etc. The "problem" guns are mostly AK 47s, produced in China and the old ComBloc countries. The explosives include grenades and mines. The arms trade of whatever sort, both legal and illegal, is a source of hard currencies. Brazil's production is intended for legal purchase, but the buyers aren't always righteous people if the profit is sufficient.

    This particular deal from IANSA is one place where Bush's appointment of Bolton to the UN has favored the US citizenry and its Bill of Rights.

    If such a treaty were allowed to be supra to our Second Amendment, it sets a precedent for a treaty which could reduce the rights under other Amendments, including the First. Note the "freedom of the press" and the rights of the citizenry in countries without an equivalent. In Canada, for instance, it is not a defense against a libel suit that what you said is factual. In England, the government can order the press not to print something. In other countries, you can be jailed or killed for what you say in public.

    Always remember the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not given or granted by government. They are seen to exist even in the absence of government, and in spite of government. Their purpose as a package is a restraint on abuse of power by the central government. The last thing we need is any "camel's nose in the tent" precedent.

    'Rat
     

Share This Page