The NRA ..........dragging its feet anyway.

[russ1943]

While President Obama has indicated he's not willing to expend any political capital to try to re-new the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons that expired in 2004 -- despite pleading from Mexican President Calderón that he do so -- he did announce a step this week that is meeting with opposition from the powerful National Rifle Association -- an international gun treaty that the Senate refused to ratify under former President Bill Clinton...

The treaty makes the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms illegal and calls for nations in this hemisphere to establish a process for information-sharing among different countries' law enforcement divisions to stop the smuggling of arms, to adopt strict licensing requirements, and to make firearms easier to trace....

And how does the NRA feel about CIFTA?

"The treaty does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict 'lawful ownership and use' of firearms," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox in a statement. "Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners."



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-ob-18.html

[rwheeler31]

1. Why should anyone care about guns?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. I agree. Why worry about them? People need to quit being scared and live their lives.

[rl6214]

12. Why should anyone care

about what other countries think we should do concerning our constitution.

[tularetom]

2. Why does the executive VP of the NRA have a name that sounds like a hairdresser

Wayne LaPierre? Gimme a fuckin break.

[spin]

10. So you would ridicule a man with a French name?

Louis Franchet D'Esperey would be insulted!



Decorations:

* Légion d’honneur
o Knight (21 August 1886)
o Officer (29 December 1904)
o Commander (31 December 1912)
o Grand Officer (30 December 1914)
o Grand Cross (10 July 1917)

* Médaille militaire (1918)
* Croix de guerre 1914-1918 with 3 palms
* Médaille Interalliée de la Victoire
* Médaille Commémorative du Maroc
* Médaille Commémorative de la Grande Guerre
* Médaille Coloniale with bars "Tonkin" and "Maroc"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Franchet_d%27Esp%C3%A9rey

[doctor jazz]

25. Or a name that sounds queer? Is that what you really meant?

:eyes:

Before anybody goes ballistic (as it were) over that question, let me add:

I'm gay in a committed relationship for 29 years now and have owned guns for 5 decades. To me "gun nut" is every bit as
offensive as "faggot."

[tularetom]

27. Actually I have no problem with your sexuality or Mr LaPierre's

I was merely attempting to point out that a lot of our fellow gun owners (I've owned guns for 6 decades and I have a FFL) would ridicule his name (and his manliness because of his name) if he were to be a proponent of gun control.

I too find the term "faggot" as offensive as you do, but I think there's a huge difference between a gun owner and a "gun nut".

[doctor jazz]

37. I understand the huge difference, it was your use of "hairdresser" (a classic gay stereotype)

that got my attention.

[pipoman]

3. Always be weary of anyone wanting to tell you in 6 paragraphs

the effects of a 300 page treaty, law or contract. Pardon me for being pessimistic, I remember all too well this type of description of NAFTA, GATT, and several pieces of "anti terrorism" legislation. These treaties are all too often used to usurp the legislative process of this country and disregard the will of the American people. They also have a history of infringing on US sovereignty.

Not interested. I read this as a backhanded way to force an assault weapons ban against the will of the people and a majority of congress/senate.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Calderón was talking out his ass

[Hoopla Phil]

51. I suspect it has to do with wanting more "aid" from the U.S.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Oppose any effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans

That is what they are there for. Good for them.

David

[FunkyLeprechaun]

29. David

Don't you think that the brutal drug wars in Mexico using US bought firearms is a reason to bring this law up?

Think about that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. No.

From everything I can tell, the drug wars in Mexico are being fought with automatic weapons.


David

[Hoopla Phil]

50. I agree with David.

And I'll ad that the U.S. doesn't seem to be having the same problem as Mexico. This is the same red herring that New York tosses out blaming their problems with crime on Virginia's easy access to guns.

[inkool]

54. Guns are not the real issue in the drug war..

Drugs is the issue.

Even if we were to stop all of the supposed guns entering Mexico from the US it would not solve anything. The Mexican Drug dealers would just get there guns from somewhere else, build there own, or find some other weapon to use.

As long as they can sell drugs at high profits there will be fighting. What we need is a solution to our drug problem.

[villager]

6. NRA = teabaggers

The equation is really that simple...

[benEzra]

8. Hmmm. Number of NRA members, 4 million.

Number of lawful American "assault weapon" owners, >20 million.
Number of American handgun owners, 40-50 million.
Number of American gun owners, >80 million.

The NRA is only a very small subset of gun owners in this country. Half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies.

[villager]

9. In terms of rhetoric and sensibility, no difference...

Check out the pronouncements of Wayne LaPierre...

[benEzra]

19. Except that only half of the above are repubs, much less teabaggers.

You apparently still cannot quite grasp the fact that half--HALF--of U.S. gun owners are Democrats and independents. One in four registered Democrats personally owns guns, and most are nonhunters.

[villager]

24. You're talking about gun owners in general, I'm talking about the NRA

Handy to conflate the two to get the other off the hook -- but what's your vested interest in trying to defend the NRA?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. He probably thinks progressives shouldn't lie about people. Just a guess though.

[benEzra]

53. Because of your constant conflation of anyone who opposes new gun bans

with "the NRA."

If the NRA vanished today, the opposition to the Protruding Rifle Handgrip Ban (aka the "assault weapon" fraud) would remain just as strong as it is now. But the MSM likes to characterize grassroots opposition as "gun lobby opposition" because it lets them trivialize it.

[rl6214]

13. I didn't see any mention

OR and signs about or from the NRA in any of the news acounts of that tea-bagging event.

Try again.

[Iktomiwicasa]

11. I wonder...

...if the treaty will be used to go after home reloaders.

Article I Definitions

For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply:

1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms,ammunition , explosives, and other related materials:

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.

[Pullo]

17. That's the part I'm watching.....

We all know how gang bangers and drug dealers love to reload their own ammo. :eyes:

[Hoopla Phil]

21. I missed that part. That is troublesome and IMO violates the 2A.

[Iktomiwicasa]

22. They might require reloaders to

be licensed, and then make the licensing requirements so stringent that virtually no one can get one.

[gorfle]

23. What this is really about.

This treaty is just about curbing the import of cheap arms and ammunition.

[Hoopla Phil]

52. What's wrong with poor people having access to

cheep arms and ammo? I'm not such a fan of cheep arms but I REALLY like cheep ammo.

[jody]

14. RKBA is an inalienable/unalienable right protected by the 2nd Amendment. As such no law or treaty

can take away that right and if necessary, the 80+million gun-owners and their family and friends who might not own firearms will successfully oppose any effort under the treaty that infringes on the 2nd or any other right protected by our Constitution.

[X_Digger]

15. Just like this treaty is being objected to by the ACLU & EFF

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/08/7421.ars

http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/opinion/story/1161072/

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/03/11/countries-move-forward-cybercrime-treaty

[jody]

16. Thanks. Sadly ACLU opposes RKBA for self-defense even though it's a civil right/liberty. n/t

[frebrd]

36. That's why I don't even open their letters anymore. eom

[jmg257]

18. Hmm..the President of Mexico or an American pro-rights group...ya, I'll go with the NRA on this one.

[Hoopla Phil]

20. There is a part of this that really bothers me

--------------------------------------------
The treaty makes the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms illegal
--------------------------------------------



What does "unauthorized manufacture" mean? The Government has to sign off on each and every gun before it is made? Or would it be more broad in that "Winchester is hereby authorized blaw, blaw"? Also, what would that do to the hobbyist home builder? I really do not like that verbage at all.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

30. I'm not sure about unauthorised manufacture

But there was a case where a guy bought hundreds of guns and exported them to Mexico for the drug lords.

There needs to be better regulation in this case, definitely.

[Hoopla Phil]

46. What do those two issues have to do with one another? Nothing

One is a case of illegal straw purchasing and smuggling. Why do we need a treaty that makes it MORE illegal?

The other is the lawful activity of reloading/recycling brass to re shoot it. What is criminal about that? Why SHOULD it be? I see it as being protected under the 2A. Do you disagree with that?

[jeepnstein]

55. Authorized manufacturers...

pay excise tax and have permits on file with the BATFE. There are those folks in this country who make firearms and sell them without an excise tax. Making them, not paying the tax, and then exporting them without license, that would be a very hefty jail term if the BATFE were interested in prosecuting it.

My problem with this is entering into another useless treaty with a government that is not capable of holding up their end of it. What benefit is the U.S. going to get from this treaty?

[Hoopla Phil]

56. But would this affectively ban the home manufacture of firearms?

I have a problem with this if it does. Your example is of someone breaking multiple laws that are already on the books. What I'm concerned with is me being able to make my own home made firearm for my own personal use. FWIW I've made four and plan on making another 3. It is not illegal to do this. It is not really illegal to sell them at a later time either as long as the law is followed.

As far as I'm concerned this home manufacture of firearms and re-manufacture of ammo is banned by this treaty it is a violation of the 2A.

[jeepnstein]

57. It's against the law...

to make one from scratch and sell it. They'll pop you on a tax charge if you do that. One or two isn't a big deal but if you have a little factory out in the tool shed then all I can say is "hide your dog". As long as it's not an NFA item, you're free to build whatever you want from scratch. I know several folks who bend their own AK receivers.

The entire treaty concept is just a couple of politicians wanting to look like they're doing something. If they were serious, there are any number of laws they could begin enforcing tomorrow to deal with the violence and drug trafficking. Problem is, more laws aren't going to fix a mess created by American appetites for illegal street drugs and cheap exploitable labor.

[doctor jazz]

26. Calderon is a far-rightwing nutcase. Are we supposted to take marching orders from him now?

:shrug:

[krispos42]

28. Strict licensing requirement and making firearms easier to trace

Translation: effectively turning it from a right into a privledge and mandatory registration of guns and accessories.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

31. Well, if you're a safe gun owner

Why do you not want this to prove further that you're a safe gun owner?

I do believe people have the right to self-defense, of course, but not the right to own a gun. Those are two effectively different things.

[krispos42]

32. How often do you want to be tested to drive?

How hard do you want that test to be? Would the test being designed and given by anti-driving enviromental fanatics make you happy or worried? And how much is too much for a testing fee?





And what else do you want put in a federal registration database? Computers? Internet modems? CD-Rs and DVD-Rs? How about the cash dispensed from an ATM machine? Household cleaning chemicals?





If we outlawed private unlicensed cooking, we'd save a lot more lives and money than would be accomplished with an "assault weapons" ban or gun registration.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

34. You know you're tested twice (first is the written test and then the driving test)

Why not do the same for guns.

*Sigh* another one of those silly things. Cooking wasn't designed to kill a human being, a gun is

[krispos42]

45. Yeah, for operation of a motor vehicle on public roadways

You don't have to take a test simply to own a car, or to drive a car on your own private property or in a race or whatever.



People that want to carry concealed in public should be tested and licensed. Past that... people have the ability to safely learn to handle firearms for recreational use without being tested. It's how I learned; I read magazine articles, I downloaded and read the operating manuals for guns, and I read the safe-handling instructions of state-issued hunting guides.

http://allmax.com/MILT/


*Sigh* another one of those silly things.

I thought we were trying to save lives here?

[Hoopla Phil]

48. Apx 44 states do that. For concealed carry on public roads, I mean

in public places. On private property there is no test for cars nor for guns; as it should be.

[jmg257]

33. Well, you are 1/2 right. Sorry, but your ignorance doesn't justify my loss of secured rights.

Besides, I don't need to prove any further I am a safe gun owner. I have been proving it for 45 years - plenty long enough.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

35. Tell me...

Is there any word of "gun" in the 2nd amendment or anywhere in the Constitution?

What are you so scared of if regulations go forward to make it harder to purchase guns? After all you're "trusted"!

[jmg257]

38. So you actually need someone to define "arms" for you? OK, then let's start with

the general guidelines Congress 1st came up with as required by the constititution, and later secured with the 2nd...

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed,..."

"...every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements" required as aforesaid,.."

"The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols,..."

"Each dragoon to furnish himself ...a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols..."

*************
We can also look at debates they had concerning arms:

Dec 16th 1790
Mr. Wadsworth then pointed out the great danger of providing large numbers of citizens with firearms and requiring that those arms be returned after use, which could become an excuse to disarm large numbers of citizens: “Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them? Nothing would tend more to excite suspicion, and arouse jealousy dangerous to the Union.”
***********


Now I do not know about you, but it certainly seems obvious "arms" includes firearms/guns to me. And to the founders.

Of course "arms" isn't limited to just guns, but that is what we are discussing here, as so far not too many bother trying to infringe on the right to acquire swords, bayonets, etc., nor their accoutrements.



What I fear is that those in power make it so hard to own/bear arms/guns, that they won't care whether I am, or anyone else is, trusted or not. Also I fear that they will make owning certain types of firearms impossible, no matter how trustworthy we are.

[Iktomiwicasa]

40. With very strict licensing

and registration for firearm ownership, the end result would be that firearm ownership would become the privilege of the wealthy and well connected. Much like the UK, where it is much easier to own a gun if you are rich and/or have friends in high places.

[jmg257]

41. Or in NYC. And let's not forget "gun free zones"...Are you trustworthy? Well, too bad.

[Hoopla Phil]

49. Do you realize that you are mis using the term "gun"? A "gun" is

actually one of those big things on Naval ships. What I think you are meaning is firearm. And it is covered under the 2A.

[Iktomiwicasa]

39. Interesting

that you would toss out the Bill of Rights.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. So you believe something that's not explicitly stated and don't believe believe something that is.

The firearms protected by the Constitution are settled law. You'll have to come up with another argument.

David

[Hoopla Phil]

47. Because it is a presumption and a prior restraint. Would you want such "proof"

in order to cast a vote?

[jeepnstein]

58. I don't have to prove anything.

The 2nd Amendment is what it is.

Of course we could go back to the "good old days" of Jim Crow and have literacy tests for voting and firearms regulations designed to keep some folks in their place. Mandating a government-sanctioned test before engaging in speech would be so outrageous that nobody would take it sitting down. Perhaps a government-sanctioned litmus test for what is an "acceptable" religion would be a good idea as well? I can't tell you how much easier being a cop would be if we could do away with search warrants, after all it's for the public good. And if we could compel a person to testify against themselves we could put all the criminals away for good.

I prefer to keep my rights as my rights. The world is full of people who want you to give everything away to make it more convenient for them.