UN passes Small Arms Treaty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tweakabelle -> UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 12:56:36 AM)

The UN has passed, by an overwhelming majority, the Small Arms Trade Treaty regulating trade in small arms internationally. The will force States to take responsibility for the end placement of their arms sales, hoping to prevent the flow of arms to illegitimate actors worldwide. The Treaty doesn't cover domestic sales of small arms.

Welcoming the historic vote, Amnesty International commented:
"The voices of reason triumphed over sceptics, treaty opponents and in death to establish a revolutionary treaty that constitutes a major step toward keeping assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons out of the hands of despots and warlords who use them to kill and maim civilians, recruit child soldiers and commit other serious abuses."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/02/un-general-assembly-passes-arms-treaty


The UN doesn't always get things right, so does it deserve plaudits in this case? Will international action such as this help bring about a more peaceful world?



Politesub53 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 4:36:11 AM)

I cant see it unless there is a full global agreement.

Noble but meaningless, much like the land mine treaty.



Moonhead -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 4:38:22 AM)

It doesn't matter whether the UN deserves plaudits or not, we're still going to have some of the pro gun posters from the 'States throwing the sort of tantrums normally only seen in a toddler that's shat their nappy about this, aren't we?
[:D]



Lucylastic -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 5:01:59 AM)

yes...that its non binding doesnt seem to matter to the poopy pants tho..they arent fond of agreeing to anything the UN suggests, binding or not.
After all they stillhavent ratified the human rights declaration have they.



Hillwilliam -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 5:04:34 AM)

I'm just trying to figure out how they plan to enforce it.
It's kinda like putting a traffic cop on a bicycle at the Baja 1000.



Moonhead -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 5:12:17 AM)

They can't possibly enforce it, I'd imagine.
As Lucy says though, that won't stop the tantrums.



DesideriScuri -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 5:33:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
yes...that its non binding doesnt seem to matter to the poopy pants tho..they arent fond of agreeing to anything the UN suggests, binding or not.
After all they stillhavent ratified the human rights declaration have they.


Lucy, a Declaration of Human Rights is a very noble idea, but the things within the UN's aren't all rights, nor should all of them be guaranteed. And, as such, the Declaration shouldn't be agreed to.



ElChupa -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 5:36:44 AM)

whew, now that the un has passed something we can finally RELAX! I'm sure all the dictators and socialists that run the UN are quite happy.



Lucylastic -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 6:00:14 AM)

And so it begins:) LMFAO



Real0ne -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 6:36:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElChupa

whew, now that the un has passed something we can finally RELAX! I'm sure all the dictators and socialists that run the UN are quite happy.



yes its a good thing that they addressed small arms and not wmd's to insure and perpetually institutionalize the governments of the world "rights" protection scheme.





tommonymous -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 6:51:55 AM)

Here's a thought experiment, inspired by RealOne:

Suppose the UN actually can enforce this, and has total support from the nations of the world. Suppose you're living under an illegitimate regime. Suppose you're at the point of using force to legitimately revolt. Suppose no-one will supply arms to you because they're afraid of running afoul of the UN. Is this treaty a good thing? I don't think so.

I suppose it's a very American point of view, but the idea is to allow good (proper/ righteous/ what have you) action, even if it means that we don't prevent all the bad actions that we otherwise could. The First Amendment to the US Constitution (American POV, right?) doesn't exist to protect the popular, governmentally-approved, points of view. It's there to ensure that those who would otherwise be banned from the discussion also have a seat at the table. (Where they can then, perhaps, be shouted down by saner voices...) This seems like a great way for those in power to stay in power, even if they ought not to be.

As I said, this is a thought experiment. Please feel free to not play if you're not willing to abide by the constraints (however tightly drawn).



Lucylastic -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 7:08:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
yes...that its non binding doesnt seem to matter to the poopy pants tho..they arent fond of agreeing to anything the UN suggests, binding or not.
After all they stillhavent ratified several human rights declaration have they.


Lucy, a Declaration of Human Rights is a very noble idea, but the things within the UN's aren't all rights, nor should all of them be guaranteed. And, as such, the Declaration shouldn't be agreed to.


I didnt think you would say any different....your opinion, is your opinion:) Its what I was talking about.
and actually Im wrong, they did ratify it, they just dont follow it...as its non binding .... who woulda thunk it!
non binding, and non enforceable is the favourite get out of treaties card



BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 7:31:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tommonymous

Here's a thought experiment, inspired by RealOne:

Suppose the UN actually can enforce this, and has total support from the nations of the world. Suppose you're living under an illegitimate regime. Suppose you're at the point of using force to legitimately revolt. Suppose no-one will supply arms to you because they're afraid of running afoul of the UN. Is this treaty a good thing? I don't think so.

I suppose it's a very American point of view, but the idea is to allow good (proper/ righteous/ what have you) action, even if it means that we don't prevent all the bad actions that we otherwise could. The First Amendment to the US Constitution (American POV, right?) doesn't exist to protect the popular, governmentally-approved, points of view. It's there to ensure that those who would otherwise be banned from the discussion also have a seat at the table. (Where they can then, perhaps, be shouted down by saner voices...) This seems like a great way for those in power to stay in power, even if they ought not to be.

As I said, this is a thought experiment. Please feel free to not play if you're not willing to abide by the constraints (however tightly drawn).

Of course the point of this is to consolidate control of those currently in power to perpetuate the status quo.
As with all things of this nature only the good guys will follow it.



Lucylastic -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 7:31:57 AM)

OMG you dont mean Agenda 21 do you???
Gasp[8|]



BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 7:38:25 AM)

Fortunatly there do not seem to be enough votes in the Senate to ratify this.



thompsonx -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 11:49:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
yes...that its non binding doesnt seem to matter to the poopy pants tho..they arent fond of agreeing to anything the UN suggests, binding or not.
After all they stillhavent ratified the human rights declaration have they.


Lucy, a Declaration of Human Rights is a very noble idea, but the things within the UN's aren't all rights, nor should all of them be guaranteed. And, as such, the Declaration shouldn't be agreed to.


Which human rights are you against?



thompsonx -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 11:50:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElChupa

whew, now that the un has passed something we can finally RELAX! I'm sure all the dictators and socialists that run the UN are quite happy.

Is it your opinion that the u.s. is a socialist dictatorship? Anyone with a three digit iq and a pulse recognizes that the u.n. is a u.s. puppet.



subrob1967 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 11:55:07 AM)

FR

Meh, it's the eUNuchs... Who the fuck cares, really?



thompsonx -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 12:02:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tommonymous

Here's a thought experiment, inspired by RealOne:

Suppose the UN actually can enforce this, and has total support from the nations of the world. Suppose you're living under an illegitimate regime. Suppose you're at the point of using force to legitimately revolt. Suppose no-one will supply arms to you because they're afraid of running afoul of the UN. Is this treaty a good thing? I don't think so.


Does the treaty do that or you just making shit up?

quote:

I suppose it's a very American point of view, but the idea is to allow good (proper/ righteous/ what have you) action, even if it means that we don't prevent all the bad actions that we otherwise could.


Where do you get that this is a "very american idea"?
Ehy do you fell that no one else besides the u.s. believes in free speech?

quote:

The First Amendment to the US Constitution (American POV, right?) doesn't exist to protect the popular, governmentally-approved, points of view. It's there to ensure that those who would otherwise be banned from the discussion also have a seat at the table. (Where they can then, perhaps, be shouted down by saner voices...) This seems like a great way for those in power to stay in power, even if they ought not to be.
]

So you are saying that the first ammendment should be revoked?
How do you get from the first ammendment being a good thing to the first ammendment being used to maintain the status quo?

quote:



As I said, this is a thought experiment. Please feel free to not play if you're not willing to abide by the constraints (however tightly drawn).


This from the cite:
The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons but requires countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. It covers battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, as well as small arms and light weapons.



thompsonx -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 12:11:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

FR

Meh, it's the eUNuchs... Who the fuck cares, really?

Had you ever chosen to study history or civics you would know that the u.s. has signed a treaty that says we will abide by the rues of the u.n..
So unless you are planning on leaving the country you,an alleged copper, would be required to enforce those rules unless you are one of those coppers who "protects and defends" when it is convenient.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625