Did you know that Iran, Syria and N Korea Defended the 2nd today? Well kinda

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty funny.

Mexico said go ahead, it is passed, we will make up the rules as we go, to us it is a consensus.
Then Russia said "no", no redefining 'consensus' here, this is not corrupt Mexico.

So we have Russia to thank for actually holding people to rules.











That most nations want this is no surprise. Leaders historically have always wanted to limit the weapons of people thier military/police/King's men, etc may face. They want to centralize power and rule over thier people easier with the well armed men they have at thier disposal with as limited potential armed opposition as possible.
In reality the vast majority of the leaders of the world would happily see those they rule over disarmed, and only those armed men at thier disposal armed.
Citizens that don't like the latest edict or unpopular thing can pose more resistance if they are armed. At which point they are insurgents/terrorists.
 
Last edited:
The U.N. may take a hike. It was a bit disturbing clicking on the video links in the left sidebar of two B2 bombers conducting S. Korea drills. Flown all the way from Missouri. This is getting serious.

Bluster and bellicose bravado from the N. Koreans, as usual.

Oh, back on topic; the U.N. has been a problem child for so long, I don't give it much thought anymore, although I should in light of recent events.
 
Nobody else in the world listens to the un and since i feel they are a UNELECTED bunch of morons that want to destroy my Freedoms while living off of my tax dollars, i don't think i will listen to them either. they need to be booted out of this country. :fire:
 
The U.N. may take a hike. It was a bit disturbing clicking on the video links in the left sidebar of two B2 bombers conducting S. Korea drills. Flown all the way from Missouri. This is getting serious.

Bluster and bellicose bravado from the N. Koreans, as usual.
Click to expand...

You are right...all NK does is bluster. Without China's support, North Korea is nothing, and right now they are nothing and will continue to be nothing as long as China stays out.

Therefore, I don't see the point in the US beating its chest...cause it's really stupid.
 
The point is to remind North Korea that they're not anything without China, and to nudge China with "Hey, look what we still have."

I'd be all for the U.N. if they thought out their ideas and could actually accomplish anything. As it is, they're a good idea that's gone obsolete and become little more than a knitting circle.
 
The U.N. is like an abbatoir full of mooing cows, with a couple of wild boars thrown in for good measure. They shouldn't have any say in how we do business in our country, because they are a bunch of idiots that, for the most part, don't even know how to run their own countries. And our politicians want us to be like them. It sounds good on paper, but it's really not.

Moo.
 
This really has nothing to do with the rights of US citizens and everything to do with international politics and arms trading -- or more accurately, using arms trades and the arming of countries, nations, and factions therein as extensions of foreign policy.

Any possible ramifications to the US citizen of any of these potential treaties are far, far outside the scope or purpose of these treaties.

But it's still nice to see them fail. :)
 
Without China's support, North Korea is nothing, and right now they are nothing and will continue to be nothing as long as China stays out.
Click to expand...

Which is far from certain and much more complicated.

China is the reason everyone dances around North Korea.
Let us not forget the whole relatively forgetten war in between the much bigger WW2 and Vietnam called the Korean War which created North and South Korea.
The Chinese essentially said cross this point with your invasion force and we get involved. The US crossed that point and China flooded Korea with troops and essentially pushed the US forces across the Korean peninsula into the sea.
Rather than then escalate it to what would have been a serious and likely Nuclear War even back then with a much less advanced China they simply went to the negotiation table and divided the country in two.



Then there is Taiwan. Taiwan being the Republic of China, the non-communist former Chinese government pushed all the way to the island in the Chinese civil war.
Taiwan went from being internationally recognized not that long ago to having its recognition dropped by most of the world. Why? China is now much more powerful and most of the world is not willing to stand up against China over Taiwan and would rather just see China do what it wants. As going to war with China would be a total war and a nuclear war, and they would rather write Taiwan off.
The USA is one of the last to support it and not abandon it to the all powerful China.
China wants it.
Nobody talks about it, they don't want tensions between China and the USA.
Then you have Japan, which now has to deal with China doing more and more of what it wants as an emerging super power nobody wants to actually stand up to too strongly. With a lot of US military bases in Japan, and strong ties, that is also a key issue.

There is a lot at stake, and nobody is sure China won't get involved. They already don't like the US in that part of the world and want to be the dominant super power and influence over there.

So people tiptoe around North Korea.

There is some strong potential for some serious demands or changes in a lot of things over there if some tensions between the US and China arise, and at a minimum they could lead to changes in regional policies well beyond North Korea.
And if those things go poorly could become something like a new Cold War or even worse between the two strongest powers on the planet.
It is not something they just play around with lightly, or even openly mention in the media. Nobody wants any of that, and they don't want the average ignorant American weighing in with the typical nuke em all take everyone on point of view leading to some patriotic anti China sentiment that makes things worse. So they only mention North Korea.
 
Last edited:
Any possible ramifications to the US citizen of any of these potential treaties are far, far outside the scope or purpose of these treaties.
Click to expand...
How so? Doesn't the one in question require signatories to "track" weapons? If approved, what would stop a President from issuing an "executive order" to require registration in order to "comply" with it? Maybe that is "far, far outside the [stated] scope or purpose of these treaties," but can you trust your government not take it there?
 
Track weapons and ammunition.

Reloading becomes manufacturing according to many signatories, and is a serious offense in many places.


On top of it the whole purpose is to centralize power within each nation by limiting arms possessed by civilians, which can become insurgents or terrorists or other thorns in the side when they don't like what thier government is doing. And limit the flow of weapons in one nation to civilians in another.
It is all about control and power, and has little to do with the human rights and other nonsense they spout.
They want thier soldiers and police and king's men to have all the power and not have to worry about arms coming to thier civilians from sources outside thier borders, because they can more easily control those sources within thier borders.
 
I said, "scope and purpose" which is separate from what possible ramifications they might have for a US citizen gun owner.

It is remotely possible that these things, if they ever get passed (which seems to be vanishingly unlikely), COULD see attempted enforcement against the freedoms of US citizens by a very terrible Executive. I don't believe that's likely (even the current President would be unlikely to try and enforce UN dictates domestically, IMHO), but there could possibly be other fallout that would affect us, mostly in terms of surplus items, ammo, and parts (and parts kits), or even commercial firearms sold internationally.

Still, my point was these are aimed at reducing states selling military hardware to insurgents, rebels, failed and failing states, etc. as a (IMHO misguided) attempt to reduce genocide, violent rebellion, and other such unrest in the trouble-spots of the world. A treaty like this is not written with a view to reducing US Citizen gun ownership, and how internal, civilian gun sales and ownership would be affected really isn't a factor in the UN's intents.

At any rate, we have some inadvertent allies in our fight, in that various member states and even security council members have intense interests in being unconstrained in their ability to provide arms and ammo to allies and customers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top