Author Topic:  (Read 1671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AbaraXas

  • ?? ??????? ?????
  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,217
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
« on: July 25, 2012, 09:52:57 PM »
This is the treaty that includes small arms restrictions.

http://iapcar.org/?p=970
(below is just a snip0

Quote

Article 2

-          A. Covered Items

-          1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

-          a. Battle Tanks

-          b. Armored combat vehicles

-          c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

-          d. Combat aircraft

-          e. Attack helicopters

-          f. Warships

-          g. Missiles and missile launchers

-          h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

-          2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.

-          3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

-          4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.




Note how they classify small arms along with battle tanks and warships.

famousdayandyear

  • Guest
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2012, 09:57:50 PM »
My NC Senators:

Burr:  Won't sign
Hagen:  Won't say (because she is a Dem will no doubt vote Yea)

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2012, 09:59:50 PM »
58 Senators have already pledged to not vote for this thing.

So as of right now, only 41 will vote yea, and that is 25/26 votes short of what is needed.

The Senate right now only has 99 active members, Kirk from Illinois is still out of commission last time I heard.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

famousdayandyear

  • Guest
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2012, 10:15:45 PM »
58 Senators have already pledged to not vote for this thing.

So as of right now, only 41 will vote yea, and that is 25/26 votes short of what is needed.

The Senate right now only has 99 active members, Kirk from Illinois is still out of commission last time I heard.

Thanks.  Good info

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2012, 11:05:00 PM »
The point to ponder my friends, is this:  Does anyone doubt that Obama would try and do this himself if the political and economic climate were different? 

As it is, he is relying on UN Ambassador Susan Rice to do the dirty work for him, so he can claim political victory among a portion of his base while not really doing anything that is binding on the United States in any way.  To say this is absurd is an understatement, as is anything that (A) comes out of the U.N. and (B) has Iran's fingerprints all over it.

The US Senate is the only body empowered by the Constitution to ratify treaties, but given their track record with American Indians I wouldn't lend much credence in any treaty they ratified anyway....

 :beer:

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,416
  • Chief Dork
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2012, 11:18:49 PM »
The point to ponder my friends, is this:  Does anyone doubt that Obama would try and do this himself if the political and economic climate were different? 

As it is, he is relying on UN Ambassador Susan Rice to do the dirty work for him, so he can claim political victory among a portion of his base while not really doing anything that is binding on the United States in any way.  To say this is absurd is an understatement, as is anything that (A) comes out of the U.N. and (B) has Iran's fingerprints all over it.

The US Senate is the only body empowered by the Constitution to ratify treaties, but given their track record with American Indians I wouldn't lend much credence in any treaty they ratified anyway....

 :beer:

:beer:


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf