TED Conversations

Robert Winner
Joseph City, AZ
United States

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

United Nations Small Arms Treaty

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged the US in support for the UN small arms treaty. After years of attempting gun control democrats have found a way to by pass Congress and make gun ownership illegal for US citizens.

The Second Amendment would be void if the Senate votes 2/3 in favor of the UN Treaty and the democrats control the Senate.

The article stated that timing is critical prior to the election in case Obama is not re-elected.

The question is not gun control. The question is getting your political way in any manner acceptable. Should this be a matter of the people and not administrative political objectives.

Sort By:

Susan Waltz
- 0
Aug 23 2012: I wish I'd seen this conversation earlier. I've been following the ATT issue for a long time, and the SNOPES article basically has it right, as far as it goes. The ATT is definitely not about the US Second Amendment! In fact, it has virtually nothing to do with US laws, which the State Dept has promoted for years as representing the "gold standard" of an arms-export regime. The idea for an Arms Trade Treaty grew out of the Nobel Peace Laureates' Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers, back in the late 1990s. Oscar Arias won his Nobel Prize for helping to broker the deal that ended years of war - and a flood of small arms and light weapons-- in Central America. He brought the issue of untrammeled arms flows to the Nobel Laureates, and the UN Security Council. Other Nobel Laureates - including Amnesty International -- were likewise concerned that there seemed to be no way to stop the USSR arsenal from being dumped in Africa (Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, DRC) where they were used in one human rights catastrophe after another. The Arms Trade Treaty is one effort to create a global standard on international transfers (sales and military aid) so that unscrupulous arms brokers find it difficult to exploit the differences between national legal systems across the globe. In the early 1990s, Italy caught such a broker pretty much redhanded (Leonid Minin) but ultimately was unable to prosecute him because Italian courts couldn't claim jurisdiction. That's the sort of situation the Arms Trade Treaty is intended to address, and that has been clear in all the negotiations to date. July was certainly a setback, but hopefully it's not the end of the road.
- Robert Winner 50+
  - 0
  Aug 23 2012: Thank you. This was very informative. I believe it is also true that by majority vote that the senate can adopt a UN resolution into US law. That was the fear that both small arms and ammo could be impacted in the US through clauses introduced into UN resolutions. This administration has made no bones about gun control. This may or may not be an unfounded fear. The administrations willingness to use Executive Orders to circumvent the legislative process has added to the fear. I hope that this is all as up front as you suggest.
  
  Again, thank you.
  - Susan Waltz
    
    0
    Aug 23 2012: This is a little technical, but the ATT involves a formal treaty (which in due time would become part of international law), not simply a UN resolution. There are a lot of hoops that must be jumped in order for the US to accede to a multilateral treaty like this: first, the text/terms of the treaty has to be negotiated (and--unfortunately, in my view-- that step was not completed in July). Once the text has been confirmed, then the treaty is open for "ratification." Every country has its own process for ratification. In the US, it requires (sequentially), the President's signature and a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The Senate has the possibility of attaching "reservations" to any part of the treaty, saying effectively, "we will abide by clauses A and B, but we will interpret C in this particular way." So there is little chance that the US will endorse something the Senate doesn't want. And even if it did, there is another level of restraint at the Supreme Court.
    Even if a country does move forward with ratification, it is rather easy to apply international law selectively and there are nearly no international enforcement mechanisms. What, then, you might ask, is the point of international law? A couple quick things: one is that most countries endorse international law because they benefit from the order it brings (much like you and I are glad there is a system of traffic laws so we know what to do when we arrive at a busy intersection). Another thing is that countries who operate according to the tradition of "civil law" -- including much of Europe and almost all of Latin America -- incorporate international law into their domestic codes in a way that we (in the US, UK) don't. And finally, with regards to human rights and humanitarian law --including the Geneva Conventions -- international law has actually made some difference in the way countries behave, because they voluntarily adjust their behavior to a common code.
Barry Palmer 50+
- 0
Aug 3 2012: According to the State Department, there will be no further negotiations on this treaty until January.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/07/195768.htm

IMO, I don't see much point in discussing this treaty until the text of the treaty is available.

The spokesperson for the State Department has said that "we very much support the goals" of the treaty.
We might want to discuss those goals and the administration's decision to support those goals.
I have not been able to find a clear statement of those goals.
peter lindsay 30+
- 0
Jul 30 2012: Just checked the local news. In our news the US is listed with the countries that refuse to ratify the treaty.
I also just read the treaty and its about tracking and giving access to details of small arms movements across borders. It has no jurisdiction within a state.
peter lindsay 30+
- 0
Jul 30 2012: Its OK the US will just ignore the international laws it doesn't agree with, just like international patent law. If I hold a pattent in the Australian patent office it is recognised everywhere around the world except the US. Go figure!
Stewart Gault 30+
- 0
Jul 29 2012: Well it's democracy's biggest weakness, that a genius can be outvoted by a million idiots, and by-passing normal methods of law making's biggest weakness is that it can be abused endlessly.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
- 0
TED Translator Associate

Jul 29 2012: So that bit of (falsified) information warrants caps lock, but somehow lobbies skewing the democratic process is no big deal? Dare I say a bit of a one-sided outrage?
- pat gilbert 50+
  - 0
  Jul 29 2012: Give it a rest, it is definitely a two way street, apparently you think it is not ...
  - Matthieu Miossec 100+
    
    0
    TED Translator Associate
    
    Jul 29 2012: Don't get me wrong, I'd be shocked if this was true, but it seems we're ignoring the real already existing problems for rumors.
    - pat gilbert 50+
      
      0
      
      Jul 29 2012: The core problem is many deviations from the Constitution and the growth in government spending.
      
      But instead you indicate a big problem is lobbying which is part of the constitution. If government spending was held in check the lobbying would be a fraction of what it is. As it is we are fast becoming a kicked in the head form of ourselves called the U.K.
      
      Here is a video mainly because I love listening to this guy:
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
Debra Smith 200+
- 0
Jul 29 2012: Bob, honey, I know you are horrified but please use your indoor voice.
Ken brown 30+
- 0
Jul 29 2012: I'm against guns but that's because where we live the idea that carrying them on you is against the law but there's nothing stopping you from owning them for sports and hunting which a good majority of us have.

If a country has always had a right to bear arms under license then far from me saying it is wrong for them just,the main problem is the type of weapon,in what everyday activity can a semi-automatic be useful?
Lawren Jones 10+
- +1
Jul 29 2012: According to today's latest Snopes update, you've been had by an urban legend. Secretary of State Clinton has NOT pledged any such support:

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

You should really link to a news story before you go off all half-cocked. In any case, sure, the Democrats control the Senate, but not by 2/3 they don't. And they're smart enough to know that it would be election suicide.

Sorry, Robert, you've been had.
David Hamilton 50+
- 0
Jul 29 2012: Very interesting... I stayed off the news for the last few days, so I will have to get more information before I say too much.

If this is exactly how it goes down there could be some very interesting game theory at play here. Jon Stewart often says "sometimes I can't tell if Obama is getting his ass kicked, or playing some kind of 3d chess I don't understand".

Obviously the answer to your question, in my view, is no. This is an unacceptable way to pass legislation. In these weird times however... This might be a way for the democrats to position "moderate" candidates to vote against Obama and create some distance, in key battleground states.

Basically, they could create the argument "Obama is better than Romney for the middle class economy, and if he tries to take your guns away, us democrats here in the south won't let him... So you don't have to worry about that".

If not... he's still going to lose this vote. I don't think many democrats will sign on for a small arms ban directed by an outside governing body. Maybe I'm wrong. I think if this isn't a high level feint... It's bad news for the dems.
- Robert Winner 50+
  - 0
  Jul 29 2012: Even if signed it would still take 2/3 of the Senate to void the 2nd Amendment. Just the fact that the end play is being pursued is enough to damage his election hopes.
  
  Thanks for the reply.
pat gilbert 50+
- +1
Jul 29 2012: Not that I would put something like this past them and the endless czars...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
- Robert Winner 50+
  - 0
  Jul 29 2012: The article said it is not a done deal but it is on the table and has the Sec of State and the US Presidents approval and could only happen with 2/3 Senate approval.
  
  This article and the one I read are quite simular. The other one stated that more administrative options were available and none of them good if you own a gun. They also discussed states right and there were none if Congress ratifies the Treaty.
  
  I am sure that there are many scenieros but that the offer is on the table is enough to scare me about the government running my life with little regard to the Constitution. All of these Executive Orders and Back Door Politics tick me off. Sorry for ranting at you.
  
  All the best. Bob.
  - pat gilbert 50+
    
    0
    Jul 29 2012: Snopes is saying that it has to do with international trade. I wonder if it cover the trade Holder was covering up?
    
    I'm the last person to complain about making this sort of thing known. It is just that the propaganda comes from both sides.
    - Robert Winner 50+
      
      0
      
      Jul 29 2012: You hit the nail on the head. I feel bad that I have so little confidence in the Administration to believe it before I can prove it.
      
      Thanks for the reply. Bob.

Showing all 20 comments

Sign In

To join or start a conversation, you'll need to sign in. Not a member? Register Now (it's free and fast).

Live Conversations

Live Conversations are hosted by TED speakers and TED Fellows. Ask your questions and participate in the discussions on the following dates and times: