Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arms bill supporters fight claims US citizens will be robbed of guns
The Hill ^ | 6/24/12 | Julan Pecquet

Posted on 06/24/2012 5:58:10 PM PDT by Libloather

Arms bill supporters fight claims US citizens will be robbed of guns
By Julan Pecquet - 06/24/12 05:27 PM ET

Advocates of a pending arms trade treaty are billing it as a way to strengthen U.S. import/export laws as they seek to counter claims that it will rob citizens of their guns.

The United Nations is slated to craft a long-delayed international treaty next month, with the Obama administration's blessing. Groups that support the treaty's stated goal of crafting “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons” are organizing a slew of events starting next week to build support with the U.S. public and a skeptical Senate, which would have to approve it for the United States to join.

Far from impeding on U.S. sovereignty, argue groups such as Oxfam, Amnesty International and the Arms Control Association, the treaty instead targets those countries with weak or non-existent regulations. The lack of international minimum standards, they say, allowed a notorious gun smuggler like Viktor Bout to circumvent U.S.-backed sanctions and sell weapons to rogue regimes for years before he was captured in Thailand and sentenced to 25 years in prison in New York earlier this year.

“What happens is arms dealers … can hang out and do their operations in countries with weak laws and continue to trade with sanctioned countries or terrorists with impunity,” said Scott Stedjan, a senior policy adviser to Oxfam America.

“The U.S. standard would be so much higher that it would have no impact on U.S. laws. That's where I disagree with people who claim it would violate the 2nd amendment,” he said.

Some lawmakers aren't buying it.

“I believe there is a threat to include civilian firearms within its scope,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) said in a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation this past week. “And the arms trade treaty, if that's true, could restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in the United States.”

Moran and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) have been leading the effort in the Senate to ensure that the treaty doesn't infringe on the right to bear arms. The two have spearheaded letters to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, signed by 45 Republicans and 13 Democrats, opposing restrictions on civilian firearm ownership.

In his speech, according to a Heritage summary, Moran said the treaty would only be acceptable if it:

• explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of hunting, sport shooting, and other lawful activities related to the private ownership of firearms and related materials; • explicitly excludes small arms, light weapons and related materials that are legal for private ownership; • doesn't contain any open-ended obligations that could imply any need to impose domestic controls on any of these items; and • explicitly states that any assertion of the right of sovereign states to individual or collective self-defense does not prejudice the inherent right of personal self-defense.

The National Rifle Association shares those concerns, and has lobbied senators to reject any treaty that includes restrictions on civilian arms.

Treaty advocates in the United States insist that's not the treaty's goal, even if many foreign countries disapprove of the U.S. attitude toward gun ownership. They say the treaty is vital to national security in a world where only 52 countries have laws regulating arms brokers – and fewer than half of those have criminal or monetary penalties for illegal brokering.

“Thousands of civilians around the globe are slaughtered each year by weapons that are sold, transferred by governments or diverted to unscrupulous regimes, criminals, illegal militias, and terrorist groups,” more than 50 U.S.-based organizations wrote to President Obama last month.

“The lack of high common international standards in the global arms trade also raises the risks faced by United States military and civilian personnel working around the globe. It is in U.S. security interests to help reduce the human suffering and instability caused by the lack of an effective international legal regulatory framework on conventional arms transfers,” they said.

In a related effort, Amnesty International next week will launch a month-long campaign by issuing a “bananafesto” in New York's Times Square drawing attention to the fact that bananas are subject to stricter global trade rules than conventional weapons.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: arms; banglist; citizens; guns
Get to the border. Holder is givin' 'em away.
1 posted on 06/24/2012 5:58:23 PM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

2 posted on 06/24/2012 6:01:54 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Thin edge of the wedge.


3 posted on 06/24/2012 6:05:21 PM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

If it wouldn’t impact the U.S., why do they so desperately need us to sign on? If other countries have weak laws, get them to change their laws. Leave us alone.


4 posted on 06/24/2012 6:09:16 PM PDT by WildSnail (The US government now has more control over the people than the old Soviet Union ever dreamed of)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“The United Nations, with the Obama administration’s blessing”

All you need to know.

No, No Way, and Hell NO!


5 posted on 06/24/2012 6:10:59 PM PDT by To-Whose-Benefit? (It is Error alone which needs the support of Government. The Truth can stand by itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: To-Whose-Benefit?

We need the names of each and every politician supporting this un-American “treaty”. I don’t trust the UN nor the vast majority of politicians. The jackwagons in the Senate who think this is a wonderful idea need to review what recently happened to RINO Richard Lugar for his support of such anti-American atrocities as the LOST treaty, another UN attenpt to attack American sovereignty.


6 posted on 06/24/2012 6:18:06 PM PDT by Czar (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All; WildSnail; To-Whose-Benefit?; Czar; Libloather

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts


7 posted on 06/24/2012 6:32:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (In honor of my late father, GunnerySgt/Commo Chief, USMC 1943-65)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Thirty years ago, I distinctly recall being told that we must oppose communism and the nations that support it. We were told that communist regimes were bad because they stiffled the rights of residents for the sake of the ruling party, forced them to go through checkpoints, forbid ownership of firearms, oppressed private property rights, did not believe in the free markets, and placed the needs of the state above the needs of the people. We were proud Americans, because none of these things limited us.

Fast forward to today. We have morphed into that which we were told we opposed. So, were we lied to then or are we being lied to now? What did we oppose in the cold war? Someone remind me, or better yet, someone remind our new ruling class.....................

8 posted on 06/24/2012 6:40:25 PM PDT by RobertClark (Be prepared, be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildSnail

That was exactly my thought...if we already have tougher standards in place then just have those other countries change their laws.


9 posted on 06/24/2012 6:46:59 PM PDT by willyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum; Libloather
Too bad we don't have a presidential candidate who was man enough to aggressively call for the eviction of the United Nations Headquarters in New York, and say the U.S. will activity seek to withdraw it's membership upon taking the oath.

Would Romney do this?

We'd have better luck juggling flaming chain saws.

10 posted on 06/24/2012 6:57:02 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

They keep harping about other countries not having gun control laws, so they need international gun control laws, yet say these won’t impact American law.

This is not just one bad argument, but two. If other countries do not have gun control laws, that is within their own national prerogative, not the international communities. If these nations leaders can’t or won’t try to change their own laws, why are they seeking a backdoor to their own nation’s lawmaking process?

And exactly how is the US, that also does not have a gun control regime, different from those other nations that do not have one? If it applies to them, it would appear to apply to us.

Those tyrannies, dictatorships, and bureaucratarian elitist regimes that do have gun control have long proven that it is not just a bad idea, but an *awful* idea. And everyone else adopting the bad idea will never make it a good idea.


11 posted on 06/24/2012 7:11:27 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
"Arms bill supporters fight claims US citizens will be robbed of guns"

Firearm and Ammo Vendors Cut Inventories and Hike Prices Again

"Some lawmakers aren't buying it."

Nearly all lawmakers would vote against it. And no, a president can't outlaw firearms by himself. All who perpetuate such myths are wishing that it could happen.


12 posted on 06/24/2012 8:17:48 PM PDT by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

As for the UN, BTW, get the USA out of the UN. Let the third-world dictators keep their evil laws in their own tourism regimes.


13 posted on 06/24/2012 8:19:20 PM PDT by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

Sell the UN building to the NRA and GOA for office space.

THen rename the ground-floor entrance area—

(wait for it)

—the Gun Lobby,


14 posted on 06/24/2012 8:20:59 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (Romney Sucks. Mutiny Now, or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

US out of the UN, UN off US soil!


15 posted on 06/24/2012 8:40:55 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop; All
"Nearly all (House of Representatives) lawmakers would vote against it."
true...but unfortunately; pResident O'Bozo, who despises the US Constitution
can sign it and he needs (only) his US Senate clowns to approve it..
it's a international treaty

16 posted on 06/24/2012 9:01:31 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (WA DC E$tabli$hment; DNC/RNC/Unionists...Brazilian saying: "$@me Old $hit; different flie$". :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: familyop
that said; I don't if NGO (the UN), would qualify as a separate country...
it's just a Socalist organization.

17 posted on 06/24/2012 9:08:52 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (WA DC E$tabli$hment; DNC/RNC/Unionists...Brazilian saying: "$@me Old $hit; different flie$". :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass

I doubt that a majority of the Senate would sign it, as political demographics currently stand. Even most Democrat voters are now in favor of the Second Amendment.

IMO, favorable, pro-Second-Amendment political conditions will continue, as long as imports and sales of cheap, semi-automatic rifles favored mostly (not all) by slum dwellers and other lefties continue. Not knocking AK variants here, but defending imports (including cheap ammunition) is something to think about for political public affairs.

If vendors tighten-up, price up or are outlawed on those kinds of imports and sales, then watch out. More Democrat and many Republican voters will turn back to favor anti-Second-Amendment laws sooner. Remember the year that the AWB was passed and who was in political offices.


18 posted on 06/24/2012 9:17:16 PM PDT by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
"that said; I don't if NGO (the UN), would qualify as a separate country... it's just a Socalist organization."

Yes, it is a socialist organization (even SoCal-ist...heh, little jibe at California politics there).


19 posted on 06/24/2012 9:25:00 PM PDT by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Fast forward to today. We have morphed into that which we were told we opposed. So, were we lied to then or are we being lied to now? What did we oppose in the cold war? Someone remind me, or better yet, someone remind our new ruling class.....................


The elitists are taking on the dark aspect of our latest enemies next. We are going to slave under Shria. Homeland inSecurity has already named Americans the real terrorists they fear and view Christians as the equivelant to Islamic jihadists.


20 posted on 06/25/2012 12:53:49 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Nuts!


21 posted on 06/25/2012 12:57:29 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
has lobbied senators to reject any treaty that includes restrictions on civilian arms...Treaty advocates in the United States insist that's not the treaty's goal...

So they must be intending that the treaty contain that minimum required language.

Maybe the deal is, since that isn't the goal of the treaty, no such language is needed. This would be more of an Obama stance.

22 posted on 06/25/2012 3:54:10 AM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Citizens with no criminal record should be able, at will, to carry, concealed or open, any firearm they please, hand gun or long gun, anywhere they please without let or hindrance by government authorities.


23 posted on 06/25/2012 5:44:48 AM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Maybe the horse (RNC) will learn to sing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

A contrary position on the UN, not because of accomplishments of worth, rather the opportunity to thwart some evil. The UN provides a soap box, so to speak, where petty dictators, megla- and kleptomaniacs can gather and talk at each other. When they do so they tend to expose all their plans and desires and they can then be thwarted. What happens at the UN tends to expose those wannabe tyrants among our politicians allowing us to take action to remove them from office. We complain about money from the government having strings, well the money from the United States to the UN also has strings.


24 posted on 06/25/2012 6:09:14 AM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Maybe the horse (RNC) will learn to sing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
We'd have better luck juggling flaming chain saws.

While perched on a ladder.

25 posted on 06/25/2012 9:06:48 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; All

Why can’t they leave our guns alone???

Glad I’m down to just what I need...I guess it’ll be easier to turn them in when the time comes...

I lost alot of them on that river trip down the Colorado...That stupid raft just tumpt right over and boom!!! Gone!!! Not recoverable, anyone can certainly try to see what they can find...

Truely a sad day for me...


26 posted on 06/25/2012 9:16:45 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

oh joy another “hunting is still ok” moron who thinks people will fall for that nonsense.

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is only about tyrany.


27 posted on 06/26/2012 12:35:50 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson