UN Gun Treaty Dead
- Thread starter StatesRightist
- Start date
- Status
Register to hide this ad
Martimus
US Veteran
Don't know that I'd agree that it's dead... but it's certainly on the back burner for the moment.
I read an article yesterday that indicated that it would not be considered again by the U.N. until November. When I saw November, I paused. November 6th is the date of the upcoming Presidential election.
I read an article yesterday that indicated that it would not be considered again by the U.N. until November. When I saw November, I paused. November 6th is the date of the upcoming Presidential election.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alas, not so much dead as deferred. It's also a bit disingenuous for the NRA to take full credit in their in-house "news" report...
Steve in Vermont
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,969
- Reaction score
- 1,379
When something like the latest shooting takes place, and gun sales increase, that alone tells us what the public thinks of gun control. Every year this issue comes up and every year the results are the same. The 2nd A is here to stay and any "gun control" will not change the way 99% of us (shooters) buy possess and use guns. And the NRA taking credit for the UN treaty defeat is like me returning to work and claiming I've helped lowered the national unemployment rate.
McBear
Member
The majority of folks globally seem to believe it was Syria, North Korea, Iran and a few others who roadblocked the treaty as they constantly blocked the negotiations [as shown in all the transcripts]. On the otherhand the arms control folks blame the US and Russia for dragging their feet.
I have yet to figure out how the NRA can take credit for the actions of Syria, N. Korea, Iran or Russia, or even H. Clinton for that matter.
I deleted a number of posts in this thread.
Please keep in mind that general politics is a banned topic on the forum.
Please keep in mind that general politics is a banned topic on the forum.
Syria, North Korea and Iran all benefit from illicit international arms trade -- the fundamental phenomena the treaty seeks to curb, hence their undermining the process.
Makes those authoritarian regimes strange bedfellows with more than a few members around here railing against this particular treaty, no?
McBear
Member
I have to say, I found the irony a bit funny as I read the analysis on Financial Times.Syria, North Korea and Iran all benefit from illicit international arms trade -- the fundamental phenomena the treaty seeks to curb, hence their undermining the process.
Makes those authoritarian regimes strange bedfellows with more than a few members around here railing against this particular treaty, no?
Syria, North Korea and Iran all benefit from illicit international arms trade -- the fundamental phenomena the treaty seeks to curb, hence their undermining the process.
Makes those authoritarian regimes strange bedfellows with more than a few members around here railing against this particular treaty, no?
I'm so sorry you gentlemen are so disappointed.
OP
StatesRightist
Member
Syria, North Korea and Iran all benefit from illicit international arms trade -- the fundamental phenomena the treaty seeks to curb, hence their undermining the process.
Makes those authoritarian regimes strange bedfellows with more than a few members around here railing against this particular treaty, no?
Kind of like the Anti's a few on here?
We were keeping it light and noting an amusing "politics makes strange bedfellows" moment; pretty harmless.I'm so sorry you gentlemen are so disappointed.
You're reading entirely too much into it, not to the least of which is your wrongheaded assumption of positions on the issue.
Lighten up, Francis...
Makes those authoritarian regimes strange bedfellows with more than a few members around here railing against this particular treaty, no?
Accusing some members of being like authoritarian regimes and "railing" against the treaty is "light and . . . . amusing"?
Oh, I see! You put a winking smiley face after your particular shot, and I didn't. Sorry about that oversight. Here you are.
I bet if we conducted a poll on this particular forum about who has a "wrongheaded assumption of positions" you would hold the short end of the stick. Of course, all of us knuckle-dragging Neanderthals can't be expected to be as enlightened as you and McB.
Stu Honea
Member
SR,thanks for posting that.
s&w chad.I just saw this post.Missed it somehow before.
I want to go on record as stating that I certainly respect the forum rules.However,I do think we need a political sub forum.As much as I despise politics for what it is,it can make or break us in many ways. Sad to say,but it's what makes the world go 'round,so to speak. We're all interested in these things as they will relate to our lives,and of course there would be some argumentive posts,no doubt about that.
But,I was always taught that debate was good.
Perhaps the ownership and moderators could discuss this possibility? Thanks for any help and consideration.
s&w chad.I just saw this post.Missed it somehow before.
I want to go on record as stating that I certainly respect the forum rules.However,I do think we need a political sub forum.As much as I despise politics for what it is,it can make or break us in many ways. Sad to say,but it's what makes the world go 'round,so to speak. We're all interested in these things as they will relate to our lives,and of course there would be some argumentive posts,no doubt about that.
But,I was always taught that debate was good.
Perhaps the ownership and moderators could discuss this possibility? Thanks for any help and consideration.
McBear
Member
You do know that it was the folks like Syria, North Korea and Iran who were siding with the NRA and the folks on many of the gun boards who were inflexible, don't you?
McBear
Member
So, if a poll was conducted, would we find that 100% of respondents had opinions?Accusing some members of being like authoritarian regimes and "railing" against the treaty is "light and . . . . amusing"?
Oh, I see! You put a winking smiley face after your particular shot, and I didn't. Sorry about that oversight. Here you are.
I bet if we conducted a poll on this particular forum about who has a "wrongheaded assumption of positions" you would hold the short end of the stick. Of course, all of us knuckle-dragging Neanderthals can't be expected to be as enlightened as you and McB.
I know that the countries you mentioned were probably opposed to the treaty, but for different reasons. I doubt NK has much concern about guaranteeing the right of its citizens to own and use firearms.
I find your comparison of NRA members and rogue nations like Syria, NK, and Iran offensive. Why would you do that on a pro-gun forum? Are you just trolling? Why would you come on this particular forum and spew leftist opinions, knowing that most of the members here hold differing views? Speaking for myself only, I welcome any lover of S&W handguns, regardless of political view, to take part in the discussions. I have to question the motives of someone who continuously stirs the pot by posting views that are antithetical to those of most of the membership.
Getting back to the reasons the treaty failed. Amnesty International, another NGO with credentials that allow them to take part in the debate at the treaty talks (like NRA), places the entire blame for the failure on the Obama administration, an act of cowardice according to the AI spokesperson. One can, I believe, logically conclude that this act of cowardice was brought on by a belief that getting embroiled in a Senate debate regarding a treaty vote would not be a good idea for the Obama administration with an election on the horizon. Score one for the good guys. The NRA, I mean. I will, this week, extend my current membership for two years. I will probably send some money to the ILA. I will definitely donate a little money to a few selected pro-gun candidates. We knuckle-dragging, gun-clinging, religious zealots are like that, you know.
Link to an AP article that quotes two sources blaming the US, the AI spokesperson and an "unnamed Western diplomat" who says the US "derailed" the process until after the election. The rogue nations and their opposition are not referenced until much later in the article.
Arms treaty must wait after UN agreement fails - Yahoo! News
Once again, hooray for the NRA and their continued firm grasp on the cajones of certain wavering legislators in the US congress.
Certain topics are banned on this forum because they invariably lead to hard feelings and take up too much of our time. Political discussion is unlikely to change the opinion of the vast majority of our members. This site is dedicated to all things Smith & Wesson and the 2A forum exists to alert out members to legislation that poses a threat.
/\/\/\/\/\/\ My thoughts exactly!
As a general rule, we don't allow bare links (posts with a link and no discussion primer). I saw this thread before any responses were posted and let it go because I saw it as good news. Those of you who don't agree will notice that this forum gives special recognition to NRA members.
We need to remain vigilant because the battle is far from over. For the time being, we're done here.
- Status
