Wednesday, April 3, 2013

U.N. Overwhelmingly Approves Global Arms Trade Treaty

 Yahoo News with video

The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the first treaty on the global arms trade, which seeks to regulate the $70 billion business in conventional arms and keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers.

The official U.N. tally showed 154 votes in favor, 3 against and 23 abstentions, though diplomats and U.N. officials said the actual vote was 155-3-22 due to Angola being recorded as having abstained and not voting yes. Venezuela, which said it had planned to abstain, Zimbabwe and three other countries were not allowed to vote because they were in arrears on their U.N. dues.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the vote, saying the treaty "will make it more difficult for deadly weapons to be diverted into the illicit market and ... will help to keep warlords, pirates, terrorists, criminals and their like from acquiring deadly arms."

Well, I guess we'll see now if all those dire prophesies come true about how bad this will be for gun owners in the US.  Of course, it's quite possible it will have no effect.  When it comes to gun legislation of any kind, gun-rights fanatics are a contrary lot, even when they don't have a dog in the fight.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

10 comments:

  1. So, is it your belief that the Senate will ratify this monstrosity? What a . . . remarkable (as in remarkably idiotic) notion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The law does not require the rabble's support to be effective. Gun control will be implemented, whether you Americans like it or not.

      If the U.S. Government fails to protect the rights of it's subjects by implementing and enforcing Gun Control, then it will be deemed necessary to enact the full provisions of the ATT (and apply such prohibitive restrictions to American subjects), and revoke the United States ability to decide it's own arms regulations.

      Soon the U.S. will be gun free, from sea to shining sea.

      Delete
    2. E.N., I take it you watch the remake of Red Dawn in reverse? Tell you what: Try it. My local gun shop has a blue helmet on display with a beautiful set of holes shot through it. Inspiring, that.

      Delete
    3. E.N.

      Stuff it. Go spend your time trying to convince Space Cockroach Junior to calm down before we have to come over and reunite the Koreas.

      End of Line.

      Delete
  2. So long as we hold ranks and keep the Senate from ratifying this piece of window dressing, we should be spared it's worst effects such as registration and tracking of all civilian arms (something it could reasonably be interpreted to require).

    As for any other results, we shall see if the Russians and other signatories comply with it and refuse to sell ammo to the US market without such controls. My bet is that, absent US ratification (which might cause OUR government to stop the sales) most of these countries will behave as they do when they sign onto other treaties--obey when they feel like it, and disregard when there's a profit to be made, whether selling to the US or to human rights abusers.

    After all, none of these other countries are constitutionally required to follow treaties they sign--they've all seen the "light" of Mike and his cohorts' suggestion to not be bound by the dead hand of the past.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Senate won't ratify this treaty, but we do have a dog in this fight. A lot of us collect foreign military surplus firearms--not Class III, by the way--and a lot of us shoot cheap foreign ammunition, whether surplus or commercial. This could shut off our access to those things.

    Before you accuse me of being selfish in the matter, as Anonymous pointed out above, nations that are a true problem will ignore this as they ignore every other treaty that inconveniences them. I do hope he's right in saying that countries will continue to sell to us.

    But then, this could mean a boost to our economy if American gun and ammunition makers have to pick up the slack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the one who writes under the moniker "Greg Camp":

      1. What would be lost to society if the United Nations where to successfully ban the sale of war-surplus munitions? Such does not benefit the collective State.

      2. Unlike you, a mere person, State Actors have a legitimate interest in the allocation of arms and ammunitions. Some of the provisions of the ATT serve to further the imperialist goals of the western powers, and deny the right of legitimate governments to defend their land and subjects.

      The decadence of the imperialist powers is the reason that America relies on the generosity of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to feed their (it's) citizens. Those who have long oppressed the collective will of the people, as expressed through Mao Tse-tung Thought (Juche) will be brought to justice and meet their punishment. Your liberation will come soon.

      3. American manufactures may be allowed to continue to produce small arms for the domestic market. For now.

      Delete
    2. E.N., are you serious? Do you really believe that North Korea feeds us? The truth is the opposite, and I challenge you to offer any evidence to the contrary.

      But if you don't like us making and owning guns, why don't you come over here and try something? Of course, the reality is that you're likely just some loser with a computer.

      Delete
    3. Just great, Greg. Now he's gonna link to that NorK TV piece about them feeding us. It's actually pretty funny as it shows homeless shelters and Occupy rallies as the standard of living.

      Honestly, the frightening thing is that NorK propaganda is so insane that you honestly can't tell the difference between E.N. and it.

      Unfortunately his other personas all sound like him rather than like the proper counterparts they're supposed to be.

      Delete
  4. How long before the UN uses this treaty to block arms sales from the US to Israel?

    ReplyDelete