It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: news.investors.com... Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
news.investors.com...
Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: news.investors.com... Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Say what the #?
I think this Adminstration has push this BS far enough.
Just saw this on FB and I am in shock, but not surprised. Obama jumped right back into these talks after he was re-elected. How it will impact our 2nd Amendment rights I am not sure, but the article indicates that it may. Thanks Obama!edit on 3/20/2013 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)
The treaty also contains, at its heart, a troubling paradox. It is supposedly based on respect for national sovereignty and implementation at the national level. But the criteria it sets out for assessing proposed transfers of conventional arms are not defined solely at the national level. The criteria are also vague and easily politicized.
Thus, the ATT is likely to restrain law-abiding democracies far more effectively than it restrains lawless dictatorships, because only the law-governed nations will take its evolving standards seriously. Precisely because—unlike many nations—the U.S. is a law-abiding nation that actually implements treaties to which it is party, it cannot accept an ATT containing commitments that are subject to redefinition by other nations.
Originally posted by SpaDe_
Pretty sure it has to be ratified by congress for it to mean anything here in the states. Still I wish this thing would go away and never return, We all know that it really means nothing for the countries that do not wish to abide by it anyhow, so really what is the point?
In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal.
The UN can put together all the bills / laws / agreement it wants.
So basically the international gun trade treaty is aimed at what? reduce violence in troubled nations? or favor specific countries to sell guns other than US? Just curious.
Originally posted by rnaa
This is a treaty about INTERNATIONAL GUN TRADE not personal gun ownership.
It is designed to curb gun running, not void the 2nd amendment.
What is this place coming to?
The motto here is "DENY IGNORANCE" not "FEIGN OUTRAGE".
www.ammoland.com...
Art. VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”
Gunlaws.com
PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Can the U.N. Gun Treaty Trump the Constitution?
It shouldn’t, and the U.S. Senate won’t ratify it (67 votes would be needed), but too many people in government would like to see international control over us, a main goal of the U.N.
www.gunsandcrime.org...
For the years 1980 through 1993, 16.2 million civilian guns were imported, and 4.6 million were exported, according to the BATF.