That report is well done and present's what both sides are saying. Apparently you would want them NOT to report on what our concerns are about the treaty? To just gloss over and say that we're crazy rather than reporting on the sections that we have a problem with?
That's just what was done with the Patriot act, and the Media's refusal to report on the dangerous sections in it--after all, only the fanatics at the ACLU were paranoid enough to think those sections would infringe with first and 4th amendment rights.
The video link doesn't work, but do tell, what is debunked? A final draft of the treaty isn't done, so everything is up for negotiation. But the U.S. Senate served notice that it won't ratify any such treaty, so enjoy the talk shop.
O.K., the video is now available. So you're saying that there's no provision for a registry or for internal controls on trade of firearms? Both those ideas were in the draft that I read from last year. But what you consistently fail to acknowledge is that we don't trust you. The Oxfam representative said it, so we're supposed to believe it? Stop meddling, and we'll be more trusting.
Read it. Note all the mentions of a national control system? How about the requirement for record keeping? If we were as stupid as you claim us to be, we'd believe what you say about this treaty.
The United States imports millions of arms each year for civilian use, and billions of rounds of ammunition. How can they say it has “zero impact on second amendment rights” when internationals trade is such a big part of the right? The have never said exactly what they plan on doing to the import market, but they make it clear that there will be an impact when they say it won’t affect “domestic issues” and “exports”. They are very deliberately leaving the word “imports” out of those “you have nothing to worry about” statements.
That report is well done and present's what both sides are saying. Apparently you would want them NOT to report on what our concerns are about the treaty? To just gloss over and say that we're crazy rather than reporting on the sections that we have a problem with?
ReplyDeleteThat's just what was done with the Patriot act, and the Media's refusal to report on the dangerous sections in it--after all, only the fanatics at the ACLU were paranoid enough to think those sections would infringe with first and 4th amendment rights.
The video link doesn't work, but do tell, what is debunked? A final draft of the treaty isn't done, so everything is up for negotiation. But the U.S. Senate served notice that it won't ratify any such treaty, so enjoy the talk shop.
ReplyDeleteO.K., the video is now available. So you're saying that there's no provision for a registry or for internal controls on trade of firearms? Both those ideas were in the draft that I read from last year. But what you consistently fail to acknowledge is that we don't trust you. The Oxfam representative said it, so we're supposed to believe it? Stop meddling, and we'll be more trusting.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Presidents_Non_Paper_of_27_March_2013_%28ATT_Final_Conference%29.pdf
ReplyDeleteRead it. Note all the mentions of a national control system? How about the requirement for record keeping? If we were as stupid as you claim us to be, we'd believe what you say about this treaty.
The United States imports millions of arms each year for civilian use, and billions of rounds of ammunition. How can they say it has “zero impact on second amendment rights” when internationals trade is such a big part of the right? The have never said exactly what they plan on doing to the import market, but they make it clear that there will be an impact when they say it won’t affect “domestic issues” and “exports”. They are very deliberately leaving the word “imports” out of those “you have nothing to worry about” statements.
ReplyDelete