Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

[Mach1]

That didn’t take long. Less than a day after President Obama’s re-election, the administration breathed new life into the United Nations‘ previously comatose treaty regulating guns.

Last July, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Talks on the controversial agreement were put on indefinite hiatus after the United States requested an extension to the time allotted to negotiate the agreement. Gun rights supporters blasted the treaty as it inched toward approval, and many suspected U.S. procedural maneuvers were intended to delay the treaty so it wouldn’t become a topic of discussion during the election. It appears these suspicions were correct since “indefinite” turned out to mean until hours after Mr. Obama was re-elected.

The administration line is that the treaty applies only to firearms exports and poses no threat to domestic gun owners. “We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,” an administration official said. “We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms.”

It is hard to take the White House response seriously. The treaty instructs countries to “take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.” The agreement’s language is so broad, vague and poorly defined it could be stretched in a variety of ways that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment. Treaty backers also want to insert provisions forcing ratifying states to promote a variety of fashionable left-wing causes including “sustainable development,” even though they have nothing to do with the arms trade.

Though the treaty is supposed to be about “gun exports,” its provisions can still be applied domestically. Activist judges adjudicating cases arising under the treaty and enabling legislation could see to that. The definition of international commerce could follow the same expansive logic liberal courts have used to redefine “interstate commerce.” Anything that indirectly or incidentally affects the trade in arms would fall under its control.

A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that applies to any imported weapon or round of ammunition, those made with foreign components, those containing imported materials, those that might some day be exported, and those capable of being exported. If it affects the overall arms market, it could be said to be part of “international” trade, even if the item never leaves our shores. In practice this logic would give the government free rein to regulate all weapons, foreign and domestic. With the election out of the way, the White House can move swiftly to get the treaty through the U.N. General Assembly and up to the Senate by the summer of 2013. Elections have consequences.

The Washington Times

Read more: EDITORIAL: Gun ban back on Obama's agenda - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/8/gun-ban-back-on-obamas-agenda/#ixzz2C38Exk1D
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Welcome to international law.

[bayz101]

Try and take my guns, and i'll USE my guns. Go ahead. I dare you.

[zulater]

And this surprises us because?


Of course there would have been no difference if Romney was elected. :sarcasm:

[GoSlash27]

And this surprises us because?


Of course there would have been no difference if Romney was elected. :sarcasm:

Sad part is, I think you actually believe this.

[zulater]

Sad part is, I think you actually believe this.

Sad part you believe your own bloviating.

[GoSlash27]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Ygw9CQ9po

Yeah. Yeah I do.

[Seven]

It'll never happen. Not because they won't try, but there are too many people like Bayz who will not give up the right to own and carry a weapon. And if the government starts taking them by force, it will cause so many deaths citizens will boycott like nothing any country has ever seen.

My guns will never be in the possession of anyone but myself.

- - - Updated - - -

@Zulater, I gave up on this yesterday. It's clear there is no proof Romney's governing decisions would have been remotely similar to Obama's yet there are a few posters here who will keep throwing it out there as if it is some sort of indisputable fact regardless.

[Mach1]

It'll never happen. Not because they won't try, but there are too many people like Bayz who will not give up the right to own and carry a weapon. And if the government starts taking them by force, it will cause so many deaths citizens will boycott like nothing any country has ever seen.

My guns will never be in the possession of anyone but myself.



But they can do it by regulating them out of existence. The ones that are out there they'll leave alone, but try to replace them or even by ammo for them. Empty guns don't work to well.

[Seven]

But they can do it by regulating them out of existence. The ones that are out there they'll leave alone, but try to replace them or even by ammo for them. Empty guns don't work to well.

Good point, but there will always be an underground market for them. Just like everything else, simply because you outlaw something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Like I said, I truly believe there would be bloodshed before the government was able to phase out guns.

[pepsyman1]

I'll ask you guys since you have some passion for this subject. I don't own guns, nor have I ever shot one or had desire to. I have no problem with people owning guns and believe in the constitution and the right to bear arms, BUT what do you suggest to help bring the situation more under control in this country? We have more gun deaths in this country than anywhere in the world. Does anyone NEED an assault rifle or a machine gun? It's truly out of hand. There has to be some middle ground between what we have now and going all the way to the other end of the spectrum. Any suggestions? And can someone please reel the NRA in and get them a little under control? Lol

[Seven]

I'll ask you guys since you have some passion for this subject. I don't own guns, nor have I ever shot one or had desire to. I have no problem with people owning guns and believe in the constitution and the right to bear arms, BUT what do you suggest to help bring the situation more under control in this country? We have more gun deaths in this country than anywhere in the world. Does anyone NEED an assault rifle or a machine gun? It's truly out of hand. There has to be some middle ground between what we have now and going all the way to the other end of the spectrum. Any suggestions? And can someone please reel the NRA in and get them a little under control? Lol

I really have no suggestions, I'm sorry. But I strongly believe if someone wants to kill they're going to kill. I would have to guess the VAST majority of those gun deaths are blindsides, so what does it matter if the crime is committed with a gun or a blade? Not to be insensitive, but the only thing a gun does is make the job less messy.

As far as the assault rifle debate goes, I don't own any automatic weapons nor do I feel a need to at this time. However, I don't think they should be outlawed for a couple of reasons.

If this country does ever get to the point where it's so corrupt the citizens have to take it back (and no, I don't believe we are anywhere close to that now. But to act like it couldn't happen someday is silly) assault rifles are going to be necessary to even have the slightest chance at succeeding in that pursuit.

My other concern, is that if they start taking certain kinds of guns away where does it stop? If taking assault rifles off the legal market decreases deaths by gun, the next move is going to be "now we need to get rid of all guns" and they will have statistics to back that up.

- - - Updated - - -

The only suggestion I can make is to make it harder to purchase firearms. I have no problem with that. As long as citizens can get their hands on them if they really want them, I don't care what kind of hoops you have to jump through. Tests, crazy background checks, lie detectors - anything. As long as it's fair, I don't care if the process is ridiculous. That might deter some of the deaths, however, I bet there are more murders by guns purchased illegally than legally anyway. So I don't know what to say.

[Mach1]

I'd start by enforcing the laws that are already there.

As far as banning "assault" weapons I have a 12ga. Browning thats an auto and holds only 3 shells, under the definition of what they want to ban it would qualify as an assault weapon. I have an old Stevens .22 that holds 15 in the tube that would be considered an assault weapon. The definition is so broad it isn't funny.

[SCSTILLER]

I'll ask you guys since you have some passion for this subject. I don't own guns, nor have I ever shot one or had desire to. I have no problem with people owning guns and believe in the constitution and the right to bear arms, BUT what do you suggest to help bring the situation more under control in this country? We have more gun deaths in this country than anywhere in the world. Does anyone NEED an assault rifle or a machine gun? It's truly out of hand. There has to be some middle ground between what we have now and going all the way to the other end of the spectrum. Any suggestions? And can someone please reel the NRA in and get them a little under control? Lol

My response to this is that there will always be guns in the United States, no matter what. While we do have gun violence here, you cannot blame the gun. I can go on Google and find out how to build a pipe bomb out of things I can buy at the local Ace Hardware store. Do we ban all those things also? Plus, found this article : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html and while England has extremely strict gun laws, their gun violence rate is exploding (yes, stats can be manipulated in some ways but the fact still stands that they are suffering from gun violence in a place where guns are extremely restricted). Gun laws are only going to restrict the gun rights of law abiding citizens, the criminal element will still get them no matter what.

As for Assault Rifles, I like what Seven said about them. An unarmed population is a dangerous thing because the checks and balances to keep a runaway power hungry government in check are gone.

[Godfather]

I wouldn't worry too much. Obaaaaaaaaaama will never get 2/3 of the Senate to go along.

[LLT]

I'll ask you guys since you have some passion for this subject. I don't own guns, nor have I ever shot one or had desire to. I have no problem with people owning guns and believe in the constitution and the right to bear arms, BUT what do you suggest to help bring the situation more under control in this country? We have more gun deaths in this country than anywhere in the world. Does anyone NEED an assault rifle or a machine gun? It's truly out of hand. There has to be some middle ground between what we have now and going all the way to the other end of the spectrum. Any suggestions? And can someone please reel the NRA in and get them a little under control? Lol

The whole argument about "assault" weapons or "machine guns" is a manufactured strawman argument.

An assault weapon is so defined by possessing detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel

Really?...A bayonet mount? I guess we are attempting to stop all those drive by bayonetings that are occuring in East L.A.? Most of the features that the liberals dont "like" are purely asthetic.



As far as a "machine gun".... Since 1934, Congress has strictly regulated the manufacture, transfer, and possession of machine guns. The firearms are regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act as amended by the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act.

[st33lersguy]

No surprise, now that Obama will not be held accountable, he is going to be unleashed and he and the dems will unleash an all-out assault on American freedoms

[GoSlash27]

I'll ask you guys since you have some passion for this subject. I don't own guns, nor have I ever shot one or had desire to. I have no problem with people owning guns and believe in the constitution and the right to bear arms, BUT what do you suggest to help bring the situation more under control in this country? We have more gun deaths in this country than anywhere in the world. Does anyone NEED an assault rifle or a machine gun? It's truly out of hand. There has to be some middle ground between what we have now and going all the way to the other end of the spectrum. Any suggestions? And can someone please reel the NRA in and get them a little under control? Lol

#1 We do not have more gun deaths than anywhere else in the world. That's hyperbole. #
#2 How do you define "truly out of hand"? You're 6 times more likely to die falling out of bed in this country than by getting shot by a rifle ("assault" or otherwise) *or* a shotgun or a "larger firearm" (whatever that means). *
#3 If anything, I don't think the NRA goes nearly far enough.

# Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

* Reference http://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D77;jsessionid=F8678F0519B40D1087D746028F46670F
W06 (Fall involving bed) 6,468
W33 (Rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge) 1,178