Jump to content

In other news...


tkdguy

Recommended Posts

I remember saying that Secretary Clinton's assurances that actions taken under the Arms Trade Treaty would be by consensus did NOT mean they would have to be unanimous, and thus our rights we're not protected from international meddling. I was iirc, mocked and assured my fears were unfounded. Sadly, it looks like I was right. Of course Reuters seems to think this is a good thing...

 

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QW09F20150827

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the specific concerns with the treaty?

It's goal is to track and. Control international trade in small arms. Including end users. If a nation does not take steps to track such users, other nations aiui are supposed to block all exports to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasn't been ratified yet.

What was that term? Oh yeah, "Customary International Law."

 

Besides, iirc, all it takes is the Democrats getting the strong control of the Senate back, and they can Ratify it, whether next year or or 20 years down the road. 2/3 is a high bar, but I am sure they would find a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was that term? Oh yeah, "Customary International Law."

 

Besides, iirc, all it takes is the Democrats getting the strong control of the Senate back, and they can Ratify it, whether next year or or 20 years down the road. 2/3 is a high bar, but I am sure they would find a way.

 

HAHA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAHA. 

 

 

Give them another 8 years of propaganda, with pressure from the international community because we will not co-operate with the ATT group, and I could see enough shifting of support.  PoLIEticians are generally fickle creatures.   (oh wait, all us humans are)

 

I do not believe there are very many Republicans (PoLIEticians of any stripe, really) who would not be willing to compromise support for gun rights, if they thought it would get them more votes.  

 

And they could argue they were only trying to support International law, while preventing massacres by rogue nations and warlords and such...

 

.This leaves out co-operative executive orders, and things like that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give them another 8 years of propaganda, with pressure from the international community because we will not co-operate with the ATT group, and I could see enough shifting of support.  PoLIEticians are generally fickle creatures.   (oh wait, all us humans are)

 

I do not believe there are very many Republicans (PoLIEticians of any stripe, really) who would not be willing to compromise support for gun rights, if they thought it would get them more votes.  

 

And they could argue they were only trying to support International law, while preventing massacres by rogue nations and warlords and such...

 

.This leaves out co-operative executive orders, and things like that.  

 

Not going to happen. The Gun Lobby is too paranoid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...