[TDS92A]

It is the way that the treaty is written. If the US signs it, it becomes permanent if the Senate ratifies it, which it has not each time that this has come up.

Originally Posted by theinvisibleheart

I have a question about this.

How does UN small arms treaty have sovereignty over domestic US territory?

[theinvisibleheart]

my understanding is that international small arms treaty usually doesn't cover domestic small arms.

[TDS92A]

That would depend on what Hitlery or her replacement would add to it.

Originally Posted by theinvisibleheart

my understanding is that international small arms treaty usually doesn't cover domestic small arms.

[theinvisibleheart]

Originally Posted by TDS92A

It is the way that the treaty is written. If the US signs it, it becomes permanent if the Senate ratifies it, which it has not each time that this has come up.

Senate is responsible for foreign affairs.

Does UN treaty covers US domestic small arms? Just confused because I thought it was over international small arms issue, not domestic small arms.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by theinvisibleheart

my understanding is that international small arms treaty usually doesn't cover domestic small arms.

Originally Posted by TDS92A

That would depend on what Hitlery or her replacement would add to it.

exactly! do not put it past them to add anything they think they slide past the American public.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by theinvisibleheart

Senate is responsible for foreign affairs.

Does UN treaty covers US domestic small arms? Just confused because I thought it was over international small arms issue, not domestic small arms.

the UN is global. the small arms treaty would or could involve every nation that makes arms for sale to private citizens. a Ruger in this country is domestic, but in UK it's international, not domestic. a Walther made in Germany is domestic in Germany, but international here in the USA.

i may be wrong in my assessment of this, but that's my take on the international small arms treaty. if i am incorrect, please correct my thinking and enlighten me.

[theinvisibleheart]

according to this entry on snopes.com, UN small arms treaty is supposed to be about illegal international small arms trafficking, not domestic small arms ownership.

In fact, according to entry on snopes.com, domestic ownership is intentionally excluded.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by theinvisibleheart

according to this entry on snopes.com, UN small arms treaty is supposed to be about illegal international small arms trafficking, not domestic small arms ownership.

In fact, according to entry on snopes.com, domestic ownership is intentionally excluded.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

i don't mean to sound insulting, but do you believe that? remember the Fast and Furious operation that was suppose to track firearms to the Mexican drug cartels so they could stem the flow of illegal firearms to them? and how did that end? not very well at all! many people died, including a US border agent, because of it. please don't delude yourself into believing such nonsense.

[theinvisibleheart]

no, I don't find your assertion insulting.

F&F was a domestic operation. UN treaty is supposed to be an international treaty.

International treaty, including small arms treaty, covers relationship b/w countries, not internal matters of participating nations, like domestic small arms ownership.

Let's say snopes' entry is not correct.

In that case, an easy way to confirm it is to find the relevant entry in the UN small arms treaty which, if signed by US, amount to new domestic small arms regulation.

Originally Posted by axxe55

i don't mean to sound insulting, but do you believe that? remember the Fast and Furious operation that was suppose to track firearms to the Mexican drug cartels so they could stem the flow of illegal firearms to them? and how did that end? not very well at all! many people died, including a US border agent, because of it. please don't delude yourself into believing such nonsense.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by theinvisibleheart

no, I don't find your assertion insulting.

F&F was a domestic operation. UN treaty is supposed to be an international treaty.

International treaty, including small arms treaty, covers relationship b/w countries, not internal matters of participating nations, like domestic small arms ownership.

Let's say snopes' entry is not correct.

In that case, an easy way to confirm it is to find the relevant entry in the UN small arms treaty which, if signed by US, amount to new domestic small arms regulation.

let me put this as simple as i can. irregardless whether it to be true or not at this point, it opens the door for future regulation and separation of our fireams from us as citizens of this country. are you an American citizen or a subject of the UN? as an American citizen, i don't feel any outside foreign orginization has any place or right to dictate to Amercans as to their Constitutional rights, in general and our 2nd admendment in particular. ask those in the UK or Australia about how this happens. one small restriction at a time, until one day everyone realizes they have no more gun rights at all!