Sunday, July 29, 2012

UN Arms Treaty Must Wait - Agreement Fails

Bloomberg Businessweek

"This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line," said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "It's a staggering abdication of leadership by the world's largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough."
The gun-rights advocates will probably begin considering Obama a friend after this, don't you think? I mean, they claim to not be biased.  Who else should get credit for this?

Let's see what they have to say on TTAG.

NRA: We Killed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty


  1. Actually, gun rights groups, including the NRA, made it clear to U.S. Senators that we oppose this treaty, and since all such documents have to be ratified by the Senate, they informed the President that it wasn't going to happen. He had little choice.

    Of course, such a treaty would have had little effect, except to make the trade in World War Two surplus rifles and the like difficult between first world nations. The trade in illicit drugs is already illegal, and we see how well that is prevented.

    When the U.N. understands that its job is to deliver bags of rice and vaccines and to catalogue statues, I'll support it. Until then, the banana rrepublic have been put on notice that their schemes won't fly.

  2. The NRA's fault, the President's fault? Who cares? The important thing is that it failed.

    I think it was more than the NRA or the President though. I mean, why can't these nations form their own treaty without the U.S.? I think this has less to do with us and more to do with the perpetual state of the UN which is massive FAIL in anything they do.

  3. It hasn't failed; it has been delayed. It is still in play; no one has abandoned the treaty.

    Doesn't it bother you even a little that the right has lied up one side and down the other about this treaty, and that neither of you have a clue about the facts of it?

    You don't; it should bother you. The lowest common denominators of ignorance are prevailing again.

    1. I've read the proposed draft of the treaty, and I've communicated with an NGO that was advocating for it--is that good enough for you? Does it ever bother you that you come to answers by guessing? Does it ever bother you that you're wrong about what I know?

      What I've seen is a lot of verbage that would restrict the First World, leave the Third World dictators free to do as they choose, and end up being ignored in the same manner as many other U.N. talk.

    2. I've not seen one draft, excerpt, news story or anything from either side that indicates that this is a good treaty for the U.S.

  4. Texas Colt carryJuly 30, 2012 at 5:59 AM

    I do not support Obama on a number of reasons. However, calling Obama a coward on this issue is wrong. It was a pretty brave stance on the ATT draft given his known and recently public discourse on his objection to private gun ownership to not sign the draft.

    I have read the draft, all of it. Its interpretation can be cloudy for a number of reasons according to many lawyers. And the danger of the draft was not just for private ownership of guns inside the U.S., the commerce surrounding all aspects of firearms would be greatly affected. That would be ANY firearm, not just small and light arms. I personally believe that in the wake of this economy and job loss, he didn't want to be personally responsible for a huge loss of more jobs.