UN Army Treaty

[dcxplant]

I wrote Flake and MCain.

It's easy just google your senators name and click on the contact button.

 

[KKECK5]

My former Senator, Our gift to the rest of American.....SORRY.....

 

[finesse_r]

Treaties are the method of choice these days for getting around the U S Constitution and we can look for a lot more of these "treaties" to be slipped in on the American public, especially those dealing with our second amendment rights.

 

[the ringo kid]

Good idea here, it's a fine idea to make sure your Senators hear from you on this. I signed it and it automatically generated letters to my Senators and House Rep from me, in my name.

Sent mine in as well.

 

[snubbyfan]

Um, yeah, ask any American Indian about how well treaties work.

 

[the ringo kid]

Just did a 2 page short count but--it appears that approx 110 people signing that petition per hour--maybe more?

 

[the ringo kid]

Just contacted and sent letter to my Senators as well. With what it looks like approx 100 letters per hour by link method--it appears they will have to listen.

 

[redlevel]

There ain't no way 67 United States Senators are going to vote to ratify this treaty. I don't know exactly what the time limit for treaty consideration is. I don't know how soon it can be brought before the Senate, nor do I know if it can be brought up again if it is defeated. I should know. Upon further thought, I believe it would have to be renegotiated by the Pres and St. Dept, and a totally new treaty brought before the Senate if it is voted down. Remember, it takes 67 Senators to ratify. Thank God for the foresight of the Framers.

There are still people on gun web sites trying to say the treaty is innocuous. I did research earlier this year, and posted some of my findings on a couple of the McBear threads. One thing that sticks in my mind is the language that requires signatory nations to implement a method of "tracking" small arms movement within its own borders. This is nothing less than a requirement for not just universal background checks, but universal registration of all firearms.

 

[Hillbilly77]

The water level in every body of water in the country is sure to increase by about a foot or two, what with all of the guns lost in boating accidents.

 

[perrazi]

why am I not surprised?

 

[AZretired]

There ain't no way 67 United States Senators are going to vote to ratify this treaty. I don't know exactly what the time limit for treaty consideration is. I don't know how soon it can be brought before the Senate, nor do I know if it can be brought up again if it is defeated. I should know. Upon further thought, I believe it would have to be renegotiated by the Pres and St. Dept, and a totally new treaty brought before the Senate if it is voted down. Remember, it takes 67 Senators to ratify. Thank God for the foresight of the Framers.

There are still people on gun web sites trying to say the treaty is innocuous. I did research earlier this year, and posted some of my findings on a couple of the McBear threads. One thing that sticks in my mind is the language that requires signatory nations to implement a method of "tracking" small arms movement within its own borders. This is nothing less than a requirement for not just universal background checks, but universal registration of all firearms.

They can write all the requirements they want into an Arms Treaty and until it is ratified by the Senate it means squat to us. If a 2/3 majority was needed for Obama Care we wouldn't have that either! Remember there was a South American Arms Treaty signed by Clinton back I. The 90's and to this day it has never been brought to the Senate floor for a vote. Because it won't pass.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[finesse_r]

I foresee a gun shortage as well. We're lucky, gun making is one of the few industries left where most of our product is made in the USA, but we still import a lot of guns for the civilian market. As those other countries ratify this treaty they will be bound by it. With a clause like disallowing any export that could be "used to attack a school or hospital" will Germany or Belgium or Italy take steps to curb exports to the US market? Clearly the Treaty will give them the justification, and Obama can use it as leverage with them to constrain exports to the US without ever passing a single new reg or issuing a single executive order.

Will Obama try to block a move by the Mexican President in the UN to cut off exports to the US b/c we don't regulate our market enough? The treaty requires they not export to markets where guns will fall into illegal hands. He'll make the case that the US market qualifies and if the US doesn't fight against it the UN could rule that the US market is off limits for exports.

I don't see a problem with other nations refusing to export guns to the USA. We are far too dependent on imports as it is. This might cause a small shortage in the short run, but in the long run it would be a great stimulus to the American gun industries. With in 5 or 6 years there would be an ample supply of guns and all of them American made.

I am a long time proponent of using tariffs to stem the tide of cheap foreign imports that have helped to decimate all our industries. The federal governments failure to use tariffs on all manufactured imports has been a serious shortcoming and until we do so, our industries will continue to close down here only to reopen in foreign nations providing those nations with the jobs we so desperately need here.

 

[JSR III]

There ain't no way 67 United States Senators are going to vote to ratify this treaty. I don't know exactly what the time limit for treaty consideration is.

Once a treaty is signed, it lasts forever, unless it is unsigned by a future administration. I will stand by the old adage, "never say never". As unlikely as it may seem today, there is no telling what will happen a year from now, 5 years from now or 10 years from now. It is just another foundation brick being laid by the antis that can sit there forever until a future senate decides to act.

You say that will never happen. Really?? If the current administration gets their way and allows the 1 million or so illegals to become citizens with the right to vote, just who do you think they will owe their vote to???? Then future, like minded administrations, (Hillary perhaps) get elected hands down. Then she lets in another million and so forth. How long before there exists the possibility of a senate capable of passing such a treaty?

This is why the NRA is opposed to any infrigement on our rights. Do you really think the NRA supports so called cop killer bullets because they wish to see police officers gunned down? Of course not, but they know if we give one inch, it leads to 1 1/2 inches and then 2 and so forth.

If an intruder was trying to get into your home, are you safer behind a locked and bolted door or safer if he has his foot in the door and you are trying to hold the door closed.

If we give an inch, they will eventually take a mile.

 

[bluegrassarms]

I don't see a problem with other nations refusing to export guns to the USA. We are far too dependent on imports as it is. This might cause a small shortage in the short run, but in the long run it would be a great stimulus to the American gun industries. With in 5 or 6 years there would be an ample supply of guns and all of them American made.

I agree long term US production can increase to meet demand, and those companies will in fact move production to the US, but it will take the 5-6 years you state, which means a gun shortage over the short to medium term.

People haven't exactly been keen on the shortages in this last gun grab. They're going to be even less happy with the prices and availability if we cut off something like 40% or so of the US gun market. FWIW I don't think it will be all of it or all at once, but there is a lot of language in this thing that more than justifies limiting exports to the US. Some nations will choose to follow it IMO, and it's not like Obama will fight to keep them coming.

 

[S&W45Colt]

Tariffs don't work, that is a simple economics principle. Look at the failure of the US auto industry to take advantage of the huge tariffs they are the recipients of, combine that with the fact other countries simply retaliate and it becomes apparent tariffs are not the way to go.

I could go into a long explanation of why they don't and won't work, instead, I'll simply say any Econ student can tell you why. If you Goggle it, there's plenty of explanation why.

 

[bigmoneylewis]

For those who think it will never get passed in the senate, keep this in mind. It only needs a 2/3 majority of those senators PRESENT .
Only 50% of the senate need be present in order to conduct a vote.
A vote can take place with as few as 50 senators present .


Lewis

 

[627 city hunter]

Down with the U.N. Gun "treaty"

 

[finesse_r]

Tariffs don't work, that is a simple economics principle. Look at the failure of the US auto industry to take advantage of the huge tariffs they are the recipients of, combine that with the fact other countries simply retaliate and it becomes apparent tariffs are not the way to go.

I could go into a long explanation of why they don't and won't work, instead, I'll simply say any Econ student can tell you why. If you Goggle it, there's plenty of explanation why.

Tariffs do work and it may be taught as a simple economics principle, but they do work. They also teach Keynesian economics in most of our Universities and that is worthless as well.

The auto industry is not protected by tariffs to any extent that I am aware of. If they were foreign cars would cost a lot more and US auto companies would not be producing cars in Canada and Mexico to sell in the USA. The tariffs should include Chevy, Ford, and Dodge cars and parts made in Mexico and Canada.

Since we import far more than we export, it would not be much of a problem if other nations retaliated. Other nations only buy the products from us that they have to any way, so foreign tariffs would do our tiny exports very little damage. We certainly no longer sell many autos abroad, or many TV, or even many computers.

If we do not do something to reverse the staggering imbalance in trade we will sooner or later see our entire economy collapse. Continuing along the globalization and “free trade” path is like standing on a railroad track while a train is bearing down on you and deciding to take a nap. No matter who teaches you that the train cannot hurt you, it can and will if you keep standing there.

Free trade is the most expensive and costly and insane idea that the USA has ever embraced.

 

[S&W45Colt]

Tariffs do work and it may be taught as a simple economics principle, but they do work. They also teach Keynesian economics in most of our Universities and that is worthless as well.

The auto industry is not protected by tariffs to any extent that I am aware of. If they were foreign cars would cost a lot more and US auto companies would not be producing cars in Canada and Mexico to sell in the USA. The tariffs should include Chevy, Ford, and Dodge cars and parts made in Mexico and Canada.

Since we import far more than we export, it would not be much of a problem if other nations retaliated. Other nations only buy the products from us that they have to any way, so foreign tariffs would do our tiny exports very little damage. We certainly no longer sell many autos abroad, or many TV, or even many computers.

If we do not do something to reverse the staggering imbalance in trade we will sooner or later see our entire economy collapse. Continuing along the globalization and “free trade” path is like standing on a railroad track while a train is bearing down on you and deciding to take a nap. No matter who teaches you that the train cannot hurt you, it can and will if you keep standing there.

Free trade is the most expensive and costly and insane idea that the USA has ever embraced.

1. I do not believe Keynesian models are good ones, however, it's pretty much been the model the US has used since FDR.

2. Have you heard the phrase "most favored nations"? Listen to a foreign trade discussion on CSPAN sometime n Congress, all it means is lower tariffs.

3. Yes, there are tariffs on cars, 2.5% at the moment, with the Auto Unions lobbying for it to go much higher, maybe even quadrupling.

You can argue all you want based on emotions, it's not a convincing argument at all. Tariffs have been proven to be ineffective, even a classic conservative like Regan and his advisers agreed and did away with many of them. Tariffs have not worked since the 19th century.

If you want to make a legitimate argument against countries like China practicing "unfair trade practices" or warranting the U.S. changing it's policies toward them, discuss what is relevant, which is monetary policy. China artificially deflates it currency's value, which makes our goods much more expensive than theirs to purchase. This is how they have damaged our economy, you can put a larger tariff on their goods, they'll simply deflate their currency to match it. The U.S. to be effective will have to address the monetary policy of China, not try to use failed 19th century tactics on them.

No one in either party is going to support a tariff, what we need to do is to find a way to counter act China and other countries currency scams.