U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Fails On U.S. Opposition After False NRA Gun Rights Threat

[muriel_volestrangler]

WASHINGTON -- One week after the Aurora, Colo., mass murder brought gun-control back to the forefront of political discourse, the Obama administration found itself faced with its first test on the issue -- and blinked.

An arms control treaty to regulate the $60 billion global business of illicit small arms trading that had worked its way through United Nations negotiating channels for several years came up at the final day of a U.N. global conference in New York on Friday. The U.S. joined Russia in objecting to a final version, with some diplomats and human rights advocates blaming the U.S. for the defeat.

As the Colorado slaughter put guns back on the agenda this week, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and 50 fellow senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday, saying that they would vote against ratifying the treaty if it "restricts the rights of law-abiding American gun owners."

Moran, in a press release, quoted a National Rifle Association leader, who said members would "never surrender our right to keep and bear arms to the United Nations." Treaty opponent John Bolton, ex-President George W. Bush's ambassador to the U.N., wrote that gun-control advocates "hope to use restrictions on international gun sales to control gun sales at home."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/un-arms-trade-treaty-nra_n_1711578.html

Reposted, after the group host called The Brad Blog, a progressive website run by a DU member, and which has a long and honorable history of being quoted and used on DU, an 'inflammatory source'. I'm guessing the Huffington Post is anodyne enough. I daren't post the reaction from those inflammatory people at Oxfam - I suspect the American spokesman would get accused here of treason for what he said.

[xchrom]

1. everything is inflammatory to the 2a fundies. that's why they have guns. nt

[ileus]

2. don't these people know guns kill people?

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Must have been unreasonable. As we know the gunnutRA supports reasonable regulation.

Or so I have been told.





Right here.

[DanTex]

4. Apparently, bradblog is an "inflammatory source"...

...but WashingtonTimes, FoxNews, TownHall, etc. are A-OK. Hmm...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Good. Antigun-Freaks make the US suck.

n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Thank you for parroting NRA propaganda

Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional
arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems

http://www.acronym.org.uk/official-and-govt-documents/draft-text-arms-trade-treaty-att-26-july-2012

But, to you, if the NRA and gun manufacturers say this is about the US, then it's damn well about the US, and screw the thousands who get killed in conflicts in the rest of the world. In the US gun manufacturers want to keep up their profits, they'll tell the NRA to rustle up some scaremongering about American rights (and, fuck knows, the NRA will be only too willing to have another reason to scare people about Obama), and people like you will follow the trail of crumbs laid by those nice NRA people.

[Reasonable_Argument]

7. So...

You're comfortable using an international treaty to limit our rights? Why don't we have Russia or China sponsor a bill on free speech and assembly then? I'm sure they'd have some interesting ideas on the subject.

[DanTex]

8. What rights does this treaty limit?

You've been watching too much FOX News.

[Missycim]

10. Am I wrong?

But has the treaty been finished? I don't care what the UN people say the treaty does I want to see the finished product first then I will comment on it.

[DanTex]

11. Yes, you are wrong (as usual).

It has nothing to do with gun control in the US. It is the about international arms trade.

Never underestimate the paranoia of a gun nut...

[Missycim]

13. You're funny (no not really)

I DONT CARE WHAT YOU OR OTHERS SAY about this treaty,

LET ME SEE WHAT IT SAYS ON PAPER FIRST. Is it done is there a copy of it to read? I doubt it. I don't trust the UN on anything much less with my 2nd amendment rights.

[DanTex]

16. Exactly: you don't care about the facts. And you hate the UN as much as any self-respecting...

...gun fanatic would. I bet you're probably also opposed to the land mines treaty, after all, in your paranoid mind that might also somehow morph into a gun confiscation scheme. And once they've disarmed you, then comes the FEMA camps and the world government. Quick, you better take all your money and use it to buy gold at CASH4GOLD.COM!!

We get it. You're not the first loony gun nut to visit the gungeon. Enjoy your stay.

[Callisto32]

17. I'd say a copy stamped "FINAL DRAFT" or some such is the epitome of "facts" here.

Either you are illiterate, or you do this on purpose. I strongly suspect the latter. Either way, you need help.

[DanTex]

19. LOL. We got another one!

Please educate yourself before repeating the idiotic talking points you heard on Glenn Beck. This has nothing to do with gun control. It has about as much chance of morphing into a gun grabbing scheme as the Kyoto protocol.

[HALO141]

106. Then you'll have no trouble supplying a link

to the final version of the treaty.

[Missycim]

18. I take back what i just said

You are funny, not haha funny but funny none the less.

[Missycim]

21. I love it

unless you agree with the gun grabbing crowd here you are labeled a gun fanatic and told to enjoy your short stay, take a look at my other posts besides here and I am no fanatic. I keep forgetting you are a pro-control kind of person so you can write whatever you want and get away with it.

[DanTex]

22. LOL. Sorry, but fear that the UN is coming for your guns puts you firmly in gun fanatic territory...

I do hope you enjoy your stay. As much as you did your last stay. And the one before that...

[Missycim]

23. Ok tex

you enjoy your stay as well.

[Reasonable_Argument]

29. Interesting

In New York this week, the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty continued trying to draft a treaty to impose worldwide controls on small arms, including civilian-owned firearms.

The NRA has made clear its opposition to any treaty that includes civilian firearms, and continues to note that a majority of the United States Senate stands with American gun owners in opposition to such a treaty. We have led the effort to mobilize opposition to the treaty in Congress, and not only a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate, but also 130 House members, have voiced strong opposition to the treaty. Ignoring that reality, U.N. conferees are working to regulate not only civilian small arms, but also ammunition and firearm parts.

Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie.

For example, the most recent draft treaty includes import/export controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the "end user" of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

And even if the U.S. never ratifies--or even signs--the treaty, many other nations will. The cost of complying with the treaty would drive up the price of imported firearms and probably force some companies to take their products off the U.S. market.

That's not all. This week, the delegates focused on an endless series of drafts that would either ban exportation or require states to consider the risk of exporting, if the arms could be used to commit crime, or could "be diverted to unauthorized end users" or "the illicit market." Exports could also be blocked if they would "support" or "encourage" terrorist acts or "provoke, prolong or aggravate acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace," or could be used in "gender-based violence" or to inflict "human suffering." Anti-gun activists here and abroad have long claimed that gun ownership in general does all of these things, so any of these provisions could be abused by foreign governments to shut off exports to law-abiding Americans.

The NRA has spent nearly 20 years lobbying against U.N. attacks on civilian firearms ownership. As a U.N.-recognized NGO (non-governmental organization) we have attended meetings and conferences and we have spoken out directly at the U.N. about our unfailing opposition to any treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.

As the conference completes drafting the treaty, the NRA will continue to gather information on what provisions are included, and will work with our allies in the international community as well as Congress to oppose adoption of any anti-gun treaty or any other international restriction on our constitutional freedoms.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. And this is what I mean by "parroting NRA propaganda"

Since that is NRA propaganda: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/7/disinformation-continues-as-un-arms-treaty-takes-shape.aspx

What the fuck are you bringing right wing shit onto DU for?

[DanTex]

31. LOL. "Maybe if I post it without a link, nobody will notice"

[Reasonable_Argument]

34. Nonsense

I would have happily provided a link but I'm on my iPad at work and the site reloads between tabs so I can't copy both at once. Thankfully someone above did. As for "propaganda" it clearly demonstrates the bills intent and refutes the claims made by the person I responded too. The fact that you don't like being called out on it doesn't matter a bit to me.

[DanTex]

37. LOL. Of course! And BTW, an NRA press release has no credibility. It doesn't "demonstrate" anything.

Except that the NRA will lie about anything in order to support the gun industry and right-wing politicians.

[Reasonable_Argument]

38. I've provided my evidence from a group that was there

Please provide yours or move on.

[DanTex]

41. Wow, you still don't get it!

A press release from the NRA is not evidence. It doesn't matter if the NRA was "there", they are a professional right-wing lobby group. Citing an NRA press release is liking citing Sarah Palin's Facebook page about Obamacare. It's fiction.

[gejohnston]

39. the gun industry is actually for the treaty

when it comes to military and police small arms, the US isn't that big of a player outside of maybe Colt. The big players are FN (Belgian), Norinco (Chinese), Heckler and Koch (German), Glock (Austrian)

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. Are you sure they back it?

For instance:

Global trade in conventional weapons is estimated at $60 billion a year. The huge profits for arms manufacturers are cited as a major hurdle in negotiating an Arms Treaty Pact, which was stalled on Friday after the U.S. asked for a postponement.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1233590--arms-treaty-supporters-hope-to-see-stalled-pact-move-ahead-after-u-s-election

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. It refutes nothing; IT'S THE N-R-FUCKING-A

The point of this thread is that the NRA lies. That's what Huffington Post said.

The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States.

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

A U.N. arms trade treaty would not "interfere with the domestic arms trade and the way a country regulates civilian possession," the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs has said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/28/us-arms-treaty-idUSBRE86Q1MW20120728

"The White House walked away at a critical moment by failing to move this treaty to conclusion. It is a tremendous loss for thousands of innocent civilians around the globe who die each year from armed violence fueled by the unregulated transfer of arms.”

“In the United States we already have tough regulations governing the trade of weapons—and this Treaty is about leveling the playing field with the many countries around the world that have weak or ineffective regulations, if any at all. The patchwork of laws around the globe allows irresponsible arms brokers to operate in the black holes of the international regulatory system and circumvent the jurisdiction of countries like the United States. These weapons often end up in in enemy and rogue hands, putting US troops at risk every day and threatening our national security."

“This was not going to be a perfect treaty, but the latest draft is workable and consensus is imminent. To not act now threatens final passage."

“The Administration must get this process back on track. Our nation has the opportunity and the responsibility to stand on the right side of history. For the millions of people living in fear and poverty around the world there is no time left to waste.”

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/pressreleases/obama-adminstration-stalls-arms-trade-treaty

Again, I ask you: Why are you posting, with approval, right wing talking points on DU?

[Reasonable_Argument]

46. The point

Is that the NRA wanted a specific exception for civilian arms and it wasn't granted. If they put that into the bill I'm sure they'd remove their objections, but the fact that the administration doesn't feel the existing language could be used that way doesn't fill me with confidence without a specific exception. Which is my understanding of the NRA's position, which I support.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. So you trust the NRA, but not a Demcratic govt, Amnesty, Oxfam, the UN, or Snopes

We can see exactly where you come from.

[Reasonable_Argument]

53. On gun rights

Absolutely, if there was no harm in adding the NRA's exception to the bill because it couldn't be abused as we're told then why was it met with such resistance? Resistance that ended up torpedoing the entire bill?

[DanTex]

54. It was met with resistance for the same reason that Obamacare was met with resistance.

Because the same teabaggers who listen to the NRA on "gun rights" also listen to Sarah Palin on "death panels".

[Reasonable_Argument]

56. Considering this was the U.N

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Can you explain it a little better?

[DanTex]

63. Really? The fact that the NRA was successful politically doesn't mean they were right.

Just like, the fact that "death panels" effectively scared the teabaggers doesn't imply that there actually were death panels in Obamacare.

[Reasonable_Argument]

67. Ah, now I understand your point

The problem is this wasn't some fabricated boogie man. There's a real possibility for those rules to be used as described by the NRA because the world has a very different opinion on gun rights than the US and a federal gun registry is against existing law so we wouldn't have been able to comply thus leading to the described consequences. Again, all they had to do to get this treaty passed was put in the exception for civilian arms. They refused.

[DanTex]

70. Once again, given that there are zero credible sources that back you what you are saying...

I don't believe there's a "real possibility" that this treaty will be used to grab your guns, any more than I believe there's a real possibility that Obamacare will be used to kill off people who the government deems unproductive.

[Reasonable_Argument]

72. Why exactally

Does the NRA asking for an exemption for civilian arms make them an uncredible source? Other than your personal bias, obviously.

[DanTex]

76. Why is the NRA not a credible source? Is that really your question?

Umm... for the same reason that Sarah Palin is not a credible source on Obamacare. Are you serious?

[Reasonable_Argument]

78. Very

The false equivalence you're trying to draw is based off nothing more than your bias on this issue.

[DanTex]

81. LOL. False equivalence? The NRA is headed by Wayne LaPierre, Grover Norquist, Ted Nugent...

Their keynote speakers are people like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck. It seems like a pretty precise equivalence to me.

Are there any other right-wing lobbies that you take at their word, or just guns? How about when the oil industry issues a press release saying global warming is a hoax?

[Reasonable_Argument]

83. That's not a refutation

You'll need to provide actual examples. There's evidence showing global warming, show the evidence where the NRA has taken a position that hasn't supported gun rights.

[DanTex]

85. That's true. It's an analogy.

There's also no evidence supporting the NRA's claims about the UN Small Arms treaty. My point is that press releases by right-wing lobbies don't count as "evidence". I hope you agree.

[Reasonable_Argument]

87. Normally

But I see a compelling case for it given their refusal to add in the NRAs stipulation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. The NRA is a right wing pressure group, takign money from arms manufacturers

Why the fuck should the world rewrite its treaties to satisfy right wing Americans in love with shooting people and selling arms to enable others to do so?

Fuck the American sense of entitlement. The world doesn't revolve around you. And especially not around right wingers who think the United Nations is a plot to seize control of the USA.

[Reasonable_Argument]

62. So in other words

It could be used exactally how the NRA describes but you don't like firearms so it's ok. Thank you for your honesty, but I'm disappointed in your respect for our rights.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. It isn't how the NRA describes it; I've asked you to show it hurts your rights

and you've said fuck all about that. "It could be" is not an argument; it's a strawman. You've just linked to a right wing site, and said that if the NRA says it, it's good enough for you. I have, however, given several different opinions that the NRA position is full of shit. Disinterested opinions, like Snopes. People who aren't interested in American politics, but want to save lives elsewhere in the world, like Oxfam.

But your sole crutch is the rotten NRA.

I have respect for your rights. You just believe right wing lies about how the evil UN is coming to take them away. You are enabling the NRA, the gun manufacturers, and their clients who want more arms for violence and wars in the world. All because you'll always follow the NRA, rather than anyone liberal.

[Reasonable_Argument]

68. Then put in the exception and the opposition goes away

As for the rest, you're correct that they're disinterested or more interested in other parts of the world. That's exactally the issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. Please look up the definition of 'disinterested'

As for 'other parts of the world' - oh, for fuck's sake, why does everything have you be about you, and you alone? It has an explicit statement that countries' sovereign rights to legislate inside their own country are unaffected. You can't put in a "this doesn't affect any civilian" clause, because most of the wars in the world are carried out by 'civilians'. The NRA wants thousands of deaths in the rest of the world, because it receives millions from gun manufacturers, it wants to score political points against Obama, and doesn't give a shit about anyone not American.

[Reasonable_Argument]

77. I'm aware of the definition of the word

I just choose to listen to people that are defending my rights instead of those who look at something on the face of it and say " it's ok". As for civilians fighting wars in other parts of the world, that very true but I'm not going to have my rights limited because of what they're doing.

[gejohnston]

66. the manufactures actually support the treaty

the only manufactures that would be negatively impacted would be Chinese and Russian. US and European, not so much. In military small arms, European companies like FN and Glock are bigger players than any US company.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. As you've said before; can you link to something backing it up? Thanks

The reason I ask is that American gun manufacturers donate millions each year to the NRA, and it seems strange for their lobby group to be going against them.

[gejohnston]

84. as soon as you back up your claims

Ask yourself this, Why isn't FN lobbying the Belgian government to oppose it? How about Heckler and Koch and the German government? Glock and Styer lobbying Austrian government? They are bigger players in the military arms business than the US.
The biggest loser would be Norinco. Frankly, if it hurts Norinco I'm for it.

In 1994, some employees of Norinco came under federal investigation from both the FBI as well as the ATF after a successful sting dubbed "Operation Dragon Fire." In May 1996, in what was called "the largest seizure of fully operational automatic weapons in U.S. history,"[8] 14 individuals and an Atlanta, Georgia company were indicted for the unlicensed importation and sale of 2,000 Type 56's into the United States. U.S. Customs agents posing as arms traffickers convinced a group of Chinese arms dealers, including three Norinco representatives, that they were in the market to buy guns for drug rings and street gangs.[9] "The defendants offered the government undercover agents more sophisticated weapons, including hand-held rocket launchers, mortars, anti-aircraft missiles, silenced machine guns and even tanks," said Wayne Yamashita of the U.S. Customs Service.[10] The Customs Service discovered during the investigation that these weapons were bound for Oakland, California street gangs.[11] According to an affidavit signed by two of the undercover agents involved in the investigation, representatives from Norinco offered to sell urban gangs shoulder-held missile launchers capable of downing a large commercial airliner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norinco

The type 56 is real assault rifle, a machine gun as defined by the National Firearms Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56_assault_rifle

The NRA's Canadian equivalent, the National Firearms Association, is also opposed to the treaty.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. I did back up my claim - a media report said manufacturers stand to lose from it

So, it's your turn now. I can't work out what you think talking about other gun manufacturers has to do with this - Chinese gun manufacturers are just as amoral and profit-seeking as American ones, it seems; so what? You claim that American manufacturers are in favour of the treaty. So, please tell us why you think that's the case.

Though I am glad to see you're in favour of the treaty - thank you. So many people in this group are just following the NRA line.

[gejohnston]

97. US and European

the only US manufacture would be Colt, maybe. They are the ones that make the full auto M-16. Remington, Ruger, etc. is mostly civilian sales. Bradblog does a good job on corporate welfare and environmental issues, but seems to be just repeating conventional wisdom here. It doesn't explain the Europeans. Belgium supports the treaty, FN is a major employer in the Waloon region. FN makes a lot of guns it can't sell on the civilian market anywhere. IMHO, the US gun industry is more moral than the car industry. I certainly trust a licensed used gun dealer than I would a licensed used car dealer.

Will the ATT infringe on national gun ownership?
No. It is the sovereign right of every country to decide and oversee its national regulations regarding gun
ownership. The ATT Conference will have no jurisdiction in this matter.
What practical difference will an ATT make after it is concluded?
The ATT will bind those Member States that sign and ratify the final treaty text. Subsequently, the
implementation of the modalities agreed to in the treaty will be left to those Member States. Ideally, an
ATT will create a level playing field for the global arms trade, bringing to it more accountability,
openness and transparency. If implemented in good faith an ATT can make it harder for human rights
abusers, criminals and arms traffickers to obtain weapons – because the selling country would assess
the importer’s credentials against the objective globally agreed norms.
What will the ATT do about weapons already in circulation?
The ATT will only deal with the trade in arms across borders, not with present military holdings or with
civilian possession.
Will the ATT aim to dismantle the arms industry?
No. The ATT is not aimed to ban any weapon category from being manufactured. The ATT is currently
supported by many arms manufacturers.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/media/presskit/ATT_FAQ.pdf

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. So we don't know if that includes any of the American backers of the NRA

Given the organised propaganda against it in the USA and the US government capitulation to it, compared to other western countries, it seems far more likely that 'many' refers mainly to the non-American ones.

[gejohnston]

101. Most American ones

would not be affected for the same reason most UK ones wouldn't, they only stay withing the civilian and LE market. I would guess the reason most US manufactures would be for it as the European ones:
under the treaty, there would be one uniform regulation. As it is, each country has their own regulations that change. The ATT would save of paying lawyers fees to figure out what the rules of each country. A rough analogy is why Canadian docs have less overhead than US docs. Here you have to hire a dedicated billing and coding specialist to navigate the bureaucracy of each insurance company, with their own forms, and their own service codes. In Canada, or any other single payer system, you have one insurance company, the province, with one form, one coding system.
BTW, the Canadian National Firearms Association shares the NRA's concerns on the subject.

[Reasonable_Argument]

104. The problem is

We cannot comply with the regulations and would be subject to the penalties due to the "Firearms Owners Protection Act". That's one of the points the NRA is making.

The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law ( Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being:
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition

This is why those "indifferent observers" are useless. They don't know wtf they're talking about because they don't follow the issue.

[gejohnston]

107. As I understand it, the ATT does not expect registration within borders

it simply says countries should have laws to address them falling in wrong hands. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and Gun Control Act of 1968 plus various state and territory laws fill that requirement.
That isn't to say some gun prohibition group won't claim that their country is not following the treaty, which is part of what the NRA and NFA claim. I have not found any other gun rights group, like Protell or NRA-UK saying anything one way or the other. It seems to be mostly a US and Canadian thing. My view is this: if the NRA is wrong, I'm for the treaty (although I can picture bad unintended consequences, like the French resistance of old or Arab Spring of today could be viewed as "bad insurgents&quot
If the current band running the NRA today were there in the 1930s, FWS would be screwed as well as many important environmental projects including the wildlife refuge system. They would take what simply moved an existing tax from the general fund, since 1919, and spin it to " taxing regular guns like the NFA transference tax" or some such nonsense. Once I figured out that the Cincinnati Revolt was as much as an attack on the environmental movement's flank as it was others feeling the Fudds giving away the store.
As it was, hunters, western ranchers and farmers were part of the environmental movement back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman-Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act
The Robertson was Pat's dad. Sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x429241
Long story short, while Brady and VPC are completely full of shit, the NRA with Wayne and Ted is about 60 percent full of shit.

[Reasonable_Argument]

108. True

Only international sales, look at your weapons friend. See how many are made in the USA. Almost none, they're a licensed product. Hence the Beretta example I posted earlier in the day from the NRA. You need to look your gift horse a little closer in the mouth.

[gejohnston]

109. Beretta is a 500 year old company

Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)

and still made in Italy. They have a US subsidiarity to get on the DoD gravy train.
My Walther P-22 is made in Germany, a PPK is made under license in Maine, for the US market
My Mauser Hsc is made in the former Federal German Republic
My wife's Markov was made in the former German Democratic Republic
These were never US companies
My Ruger .22 is made in the US
My Marlin .30-30 is made in the US
These are made in the US. I missed your point.

Mauser is German
Walther is German
Ruger is US
Marlin is US
Beretta is Italian
Glock is Austrian

Don't feel bad. My son and I was in a store and this asshole and his wife were looking at pistols. She wanted to look at one of the small Berettas, her asshole old man starts being disrespectful to her in the store about "she should only buy American etc." Then buys spare Glock magazines raving how great Glock is. Gun issue aside, I hope she dumps his ass.

[Reasonable_Argument]

110. I don't understand

You're making my point for me even if you don't realize it. They're made under license. Look it up friend. Most of the manufactures you listed, only have "made in the USA" on them because they're made in the Philippines. This bill is garbage from the start but this is a separate discussion I'd be happy to have. Just send me a PM.

[gejohnston]

111. I fail to see how

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)

unless you are saying James Bond's Walther PPK is as American as Ford F-150 and that all of the guns in the world are made in the US. Not the case. Walther, and Glock (which is inferior to Walther IMHO) are as European as espresso and Volvos. Mauser stopped making pistols the late 1970s, my Hsc is one of the last ones made. Mauser did make some lugers in the 1960s-1970s even in .45, kind of ironic. I like lugars, always have since I was a kid.

Out of the six companies I listed, only two are US companies. Four out of the six were not made in the US, are not US companies,/
Walther is a German company
Mauser is a German company
The Makarov was made in a GDR government arsenal in 1964.
They don't have made in the USA. They have "made in Germany"
the only one that is made in under license is the Walther PPK. The ones marketed in the US are made in the US by Smith and Wesson because it is banned from import because of the Gun Control Act of 1968. A German or French gun shop would have the German made one.
There is a confusion about Walther and Smith and Wesson. There has been a rumor that S&W bought Walther, Not the case. They do have a deal. Smith and Wesson markets Walthers in the US while Walther's parent company markets Smith and Wessons in the EU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_arms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makarov_pistol
http://www.carl-walther.de
http://www.mauserguns.com/gungalleryModelHSC.asp/cw.php

I have seen the some of the guns mentioned, they say Made in the Philippines. They are not made under license. A Phillipine company bought the names of a couple of companies that went under. John Brownings patent for the 1911 expired before I was born, it seems like everybody makes 1911s.
http://www.shootersarms.com.ph/
http://www.armscor.com.ph/autorifle.htm
I have seen a few of these in the US. The quality is quite good. Certainly better than the Norincos sold to anyone other than the Chinese military. I have seen one Norinco in the US, but several in Canadian gun stores and websites.

[bongbong]

36. The gungeon

Where the Rendon Group & other radical anti-American organizations ply their trade.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Prove it will 'limit your rights'

And don't just link to a right wing website. Actually read and analyse it - or find a left wing source that claims it will limit American's rights.

[Missycim]

14. Cant prove anything

till its complete.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. In which case the claim that it limits Americans' rights would be idiotic

If someone claims it's bad for them, then they need to explain why. You can't argue against it, and then back out and say "I can't say what's wrong with it, it's not complete yet".

[Missycim]

25. Like I said to Dantax

I didn't listen to him about it and I wont take your word for it either, you must be a trusting person to rely on the words of others. Like I said you and dan COULD be right but before I take yours/his/UN's word for it let me see the finished product m'kay? I dont see whats so wrong about that. lol

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Your logic fails

"Reasonable_Argument" claimed it restricts Americans' rights, and I asked him to prove that. Your "it's not final yet" whine is a red herring. It doesn't restrict the rights in its current form, and it's ridiculous to say "well, it might get changed some time in the future, therefore we must oppose it now".

[Missycim]

32. Well i am not reasonables arguments spokesperson

I will wait to see the treaty and not listen to people with a pro control mindset ok?

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Frankly, no, it's not OK - you should be thinking, not following the right wing NRA

or its supporters. You're here defending Reasonable_Argument, by posting what you did in #14. I've posted a link to the draft - tell us what you object to.

[Missycim]

45. Draft is the operable word here...

ok will look.

[Missycim]

49. If the draft where to become reality

Then I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, now how much cost would be imposed on our arms companies? Would we lose jobs? Those are good payiing jobs, machinists, crafts-persons etc. I am not saying that any cost would be imposed but I am just curious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Who cares? This is about saving lives in other countries

If you're going to put profit ahead of lives, you're a lost cause.

[Missycim]

55. Can you point out where I said anything about profit?

I'll wait.....


while I am waiting I was talking about Jobs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Don't hide behind "arms companies are job creators"

People who make guns are profiting from it - whether they're on the factory floor or in the boardroom.

[DanTex]

20. I think the gun nuts oppose this treaty simply because it has the term "small arms" in it.

Or maybe it's the fact that Amnesty International supports it. I guess that's enough to send any teabagger into a paranoid frenzy.

[DanTex]

12. Also, the irony here is that Russia and China are the other countries opposed to this treaty...

Russia, China, and the NRA!

As reports of civilians being targeted in Syria continue to make headlines, China, Russia and the USA acted to delay what could have been a landmark agreement to end the irresponsible trade in arms, Amnesty International said on Friday.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/world-powers-delay-landmark-arms-trade-deal-2012-07-27

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. China, Russia and the USA

Three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council; there's no good reason to think they have some logic in their opinions.

[DanTex]

40. Yes, the "logic" of China and Russia is that they make money selling weapons to...

...regimes with abysmal human rights records. Very fitting allies for the NRA!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. Please extend...

...that "logic" to the USA. We sold to Iran, the Taliban...

It's just a good sound business solution.

[gejohnston]

26. As I understand it

the manufactures are for the treaty because it is easier to deal with one regulation than 178 regulations. The NRA isn't the only gun rights group in the world against it, it just happens to be the largest and most vocal.

[slackmaster]

15. Today's West Wing video review topic in logic is the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. So what's your theory on the US govt support for more international arms trading?

You think they just like it, and want more of it? You don't think the senators' letter had anything to do with it?

[slackmaster]

43. The treaty never got as far as the Senate. The diplomatic teams of several countries...

...including ours, let it die at the UN.

I think it's a lot more likely that any influence from within our government to kill it came from the top. I mean the real top.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0726/Gun-rights-why-UN-small-arms-treaty-is-another-land-mine-for-Obama

For clarity, ETA the treaty never made it as far as the President.

[Equate]

73. Even if it did get to the Senate

It would never pass, Harry Reid wouldn't even allow it to come up for a vote. That's one of the many reasons I'm glad Reid is the Majority Leader.

[aikoaiko]

33. Frankly, the position advocated in the Gunwar.org video is based on a misleading statistics.

I went to the Brad Blog and by posting the gunwar.org video I wouldn't trust much posted there.

The video makes the claim that "Around 70% of all firearms seized in Mexico and submitted for tracing come from the United States".

What they are not saying is that less than a third of the gun seized at drug shootouts are actually submitted tracing. Why because the vast majority of the guns are being smuggled in from other countries without serial numbers. No US guns without serial numbers are sold to US residents via FFLs. Even Factcheck, funded by the anti-gun obsessionist Annenberg Foundation, put the figure at 34% (edited to add correction of 36%).

And, further more, there is an unknown percentage of those guns that are US originated that are coming from US govt sales to other governments like Mexico and Guatemala. Again, not through US guns stores.

[DanTex]

50. Save the FOX News lies for another website please.

The claim that "the vast majority of the guns are being smuggled in from other countries without serial numbers" is a right-wing lie. There is zero evidence to support this. And you are also misrepresenting what Factcheck said. Factcheck actually talked to officials involved with the gun tracing, who pointed out that the reason that guns don't get submitted for tracing are primarily due to things like clerical errors, but that there is no evidence of guns coming in large numbers from anywhere other than the US.

Why not? Several reasons, according to Houser. One is that some officials — in the U.S. as well as in Mexico — don’t realize the benefits of tracing a weapon. In many cases, law enforcement has sufficient evidence to convict a suspect without running a trace on any gun that might have been recovered, Houser said. He and other ATF officials preach the gospel on the information that can be gleaned from tracing. For instance, traces on guns picked up in routine traffic stops might reveal a pattern that would unmask gang activity. It’s all about making larger connections. "We have spent several years going around the United States saying that it’s not just about one moment in time and one single investigation," said Houser. "It’s about what is the source of guns for whatever the deal is that’s going on. What’s the big strategic picture of the movement of these firearms?"

Other reasons: In Mexico, the farther away a police station is from a major city, the less likely it is that officials there will have access to ATF’s eTrace system, which allows a trace request to be submitted to the agency via the Internet. Without that access, requests can be submitted the old-fashioned way, via paper, but the hassle factor increases and with it the willingness of police to go through with it. "We’ve got to distribute [eTrace] more broadly so it’s closer to where the recovery comes from," said Houser. "Let’s face it, without the electronic means of tracing, you’re relying on faxes or paper moving from one inbox to another. It’s not particularly efficient, and it takes a long time for [a gun] to finally get traced."

...

None of this changes what we said in our article, which is that we simply don’t know whether the guns submitted by Mexico for tracing are a representative sample of all the guns recovered in criminal matters in that country. We can’t conclude, therefore — and neither can anyone else — that 90 percent of all the crime-related firearms recovered in Mexico come from the U.S. Nevertheless, Houser said that in his view, the claim is correct. "The government of Mexico says that virtually all of the guns that they recover come from the United States. … I’ve been down there. Other agents have been down there. A lot of agents are there in the vicinity. They haven’t seen any indication of any significant number of foreign-made guns whatsoever and the trace information seems to corroborate it. From what we know about gun trafficking, it makes sense to us. Who’s the nearest manufacturer of firearms? The United States."

And Houser thinks the debate over the precise number isn’t productive. "It seems so obvious to me that I find it difficult to believe that everybody’s gotten so wound up about this," he said. "I mean, just for last year, what happens if it were 85 percent of the guns that came from the United States? Does that make much difference? Not really.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/more-on-mexican-guns/

[aikoaiko]

59. Right. Clerical errors. That's the ticket. 64% of submissions have clerical errors.

Seriously, it is not a lie to say that FactCheck estimated the % at 36% (upthread I said 34%, in error). If you want to believe the remaining 64% had clerical errors, then drink deeply from the kool-aid cup. I don't think Mexican LEO are that incompetent.

An Elusive Number

Given the lack of hard data from Mexico, we can't calculate a precise figure for what portion of crime guns have been traced to the U.S. Based on the best evidence we can find so far, we conclude that the 90 percent claim made by the president and others in his administration lacks a basis in solid fact. But we also conclude that the number is at least double what Fox News has reported, based on its reporters' mistaken interpretation of ATF testimony.

Whether the number is 90 percent, or 36 percent, or something else, there's no dispute that thousands of guns are being illegalIy transported into Mexico by way of the United States each year.
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

[DanTex]

69. Yes, it is a lie. Or maybe you missed the correction they issued.

Correction, April 22: We originally concluded that Obama’s 90 percent figure was “not true” and based on a “badly biased” sample of recovered guns. We are retracting both those characterizations, and we apologize to our readers for this error. We have rewritten the article throughout to correct this.

Our error was to think we had confirmed that Mexican officials submit for tracing only those guns they believe likely to have come from the U.S. Law enforcement officials say they don't know if that's the case.

So, if you missed the correction, along with the follow-up article which disproved every claim you made, maybe you were just wrong and not lying about FactCheck. But you are definitely lying when you said this:

the vast majority of the guns are being smuggled in from other countries without serial number

There is no evidence of guns coming in significant quantities from anywhere other than the US, and certainly not "the vast majority". You've been watching too much FOX.

[aikoaiko]

79. I don't watch Fox news, Sparky.

I will admit that I suspect the other guns are coming from other counties and do not have hard evidence. But on the otherhand there is not much evidence that the other guns came from the US either (if I understand Factcheck's carefully worded "correction" correctly), but they came from somewhere.

I also suspect that Factcheck's funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, a known anti-gun organization, "helped" them back off their claim. Mind you, they never verified that 90% of submitted for tracing came to the US -- only that they were unwilling to say whether it was true or not.

[DanTex]

82. My name isn't Sparky. But I suspect you do watch FOX.

And that's because FOX (or equivalents) are the only places that actually push the lie that most guns in Mexico are coming from somewhere other than the US. At least you admit that you don't have any evidence. And it's not just you -- there simply isn't any evidence of guns coming in large numbers from anywhere except the US.

It must be weird being a pro-gun ideologue: the only sources who ever seem to agree with you are places like FOX and WorldNetDaily, and so you have to label everything else "anti-gun bias", including not just the legitimate news organizations, but also the top research universities and academic journals, and pretty much every liberal commentator.

[gejohnston]

86. it must be frustrating being an anti gun ideologue

The only people claiming they are coming mostly or exclusively from US gun shops are Brady and MM who reprints their press releases. You don't read the Latin American media or anything outside of cable infotainment that you agree with. Too many self described "progressives" have that in common with ditto heads.

You label legitimate news services like McClatcy and CBS as "right wing gun blogs" when the purpose suits you.

[DanTex]

91. Wow, every single thing you just said in that paragraph is false! That's some kind of record!

[gejohnston]

92. No it isn't

even if it were so, it would not be a record compared to yours.

[rDigital]

112. I'm just surprised that with all of these killer murder guns hopping the borders,

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

that Canada hasn't exploded into MurderDeathKillerVille.

[aikoaiko]

96. To be fair there just isn't much verifiable evidence for where the "other" guns originate.

Some people speculate that they all come from the US, but Mexican LEO make clerical errors on nearly 2/3 of submissions.

Other people speculate that they come from elsewhere.

[Kaleva]

48. The reason the first post got locked is becasue DU is in campaign mode now.

Citing a source that describes the Obama Administration as "caving", "cowering", and as "wilted whenever it feels the heat" could get a member PPR'd.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. That would be DU caving, cowering and wilting in repsonse to NRA propaganda, then

It's ridiculous - there's still stronger criticism of Obama on other subjects.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1127956 - 96 recs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1110837 - 118 recs

It's only in the gungeon that people look everywhere for excuses to lock a liberal viewpoint. Your alert failed. It went to admin, and they've done nothing - because they know what the liberal viewpoint on this, is, and what the right wing one is. Unlike all those who objected to the previous thread. Clue: the right wing one is the one with John Bolton on it. Since you seem to find it so hard to figure it out.

[Kaleva]

64. The thread got locked didn't it? So my alert on it didn't fail.

I had also sent a SOP alert on it and I got a PM from the host saying he was going to discuss the matter with other hosts. Apparently there was a consensus as the thread did get locked for the reasons I alerted on it.

DU is in campaign mode now and one takes their chances.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. It wasn't locked for community standards

It was unilaterally locked by the sole gungeon host, because he felt like it. It doesn't break the SOP of the group. There's nothing about DU hosts being meant to make decisions on whether a post is too disrespectful of Obama.

He posted about it in the Hosts group, and the replies he got were:

"I think that would be a TOS issue, not for hosts"
"I think this is TOS. I also think the alert is weak"
"Not a gun guru, but definitely something for a jury. Your job is to make sure the thing fits your SOP"
"I wouldn't lock it"
"I'd lock that in a second and make it clear such things were not wanted"
"Clearly a RKBA/political opinion piece"
"Looks like one for a jury, to me"

So, that was 6 to 1 for no host action. But it was locked anyway. krispos42 has the right to do that - he can lock without reason. But it's his decision, not something from DU as a whole, or from its rules.

[DanTex]

80. And the funny thing is, there is no shortage of OPs here that are openly hostile to...

...Democrats, from right-wing sources like the Washington Times. I guess when right-wingers criticized Democrats for "gun grabbing", that's OK, but when progressives criticize Democrats for not standing up to the NRA, that's crossing a line.

[gejohnston]

89. hostile is not the same as

honest criticism on one issue. You can't seem to tell the difference.

[DanTex]

90. Depends what you mean by "honest". But my point is still valid.

If OPs are getting locked for criticizing Democrats from the left, they should also get locked for criticizing Democrats from the right.

[gejohnston]

93. That was not locked for criticizing Obama

it was the language used. It also assumed a reason why the US might have rejected it, but neither of us know the actual reason.

[Kaleva]

88. Then PM Skinner about it. He can order any locked thread to be unlocked.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. He won't; he's made it clear it's up to DUers to call out bad decisions by hosts

That was clear from fights in other groups.

krispos42 kowtowed to the pro-NRA faction here, and those of us who see that as shameful just have to prod krispos42's conscience to try to prevent it happening again.

[Kaleva]

98. I'm not pro-NRA and I pointed out a simple google search turned up many articles on the subject.

Articles that didn't protray the Obama Administration as as "caving", "cowering", and as "wilted whenever it feels the heat". Three of the hosts you quoted said the OP should be locked or they thought it was a TOS violation. Skinner has said that juries are not expected to enforce or even know the TOS but to get a TOS alert to Admin, it has to go to a jury first and regardless on how they vote, it then goes to Admin.

Edit: You argue the post didn't violate CS. I never attempted to argue that it did.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. And TOS violations are not to do with hosts either

That's for admin; they will have seen it by now. None of the other hosts said it was a violation of TOS; they thought is was a TOS issue, not a host one (though the one that thought it should be locked may think it a TOS violation).

[Kaleva]

102. And I also sent out a SOP alert

In the end, the thread was locked. If I see such again, I'll go the same route. You are free to do what you want.

"If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[HALO141]

103. Zombie thread

Or, if not zombie thread, zombie topic.


Moving on.

[Simo 1939_1940]

105. I agree with those who assert that the UN has no interest in banning small arms.

Oh wait.........never mind.

(photo of the UN plaza in N.Y.C.)