Me too- though some of my best pals are not Canadian citizens. but are Commonwealth military personnel stationed at the British Army Training Unit Suffield near Medicine Hat in Alberta.
Posted on 07/11/2012 10:08:10 AM PDT by marktwain
Most of the developed world seems to be living in la-la land when it comes to the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. I would include the Obama Administration in that category despite any reassurances that they might give regarding the Second Amendment. Not so out in la-la land are the Canadians whose statement at the opening of the Arms Trade Treaty talks has some realism in it.
For example, the Canadians insist that it is important for the ATT to recognize the legitimacy of lawful trade in firearms as well as that it recognize "the lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for personal and recreational uses." They propose adding the following two paragraphs to the Preamble of the Arms Trade Treaty.
Recognizing that the purpose of the ATT is to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit and irresponsible transfer of conventional arms and their diversion into the illicit market, including for use in transnational organized crime and terrorism;
Noting that the ATT acknowledges and respects responsible and accountable trans-national use of firearms for recreational purposes, such as sport shooting, hunting and other similar forms of lawful activities, whose legitimacy is recognised by the State Parties.
I would also add in there the self-defense of individuals but it seems that the United Nations concept of lawful self-defense extends only to nations and not to individuals.
Given the recent experience with their own Firearms Registry and what a colossal and expensive failure it ended up being, it is no surprise that the Canadians say any additional reporting commitments be practical and realistic. They note for large importers and exporters maintaining detailed records of each and every transaction would overwhelm "virtually any administrative system now in existence."
They go on to add that any reporting requirements must not contain so much details as to impair the national security of individual states nor compromise "the legally-protected information of private companies or the personal information of private individuals."
I love their last point where they insist that if any new administrative unit is needed to implement and administer a new ATT then its funding should come out of the existing UN budget. Moreover, any new personnel would come from existing UN agencies and be located within existing UN institutions.
The points that the Canadians make notwithstanding, I still think the best treaty is no treaty and that the US should have told the UN to stick their ATT just like it did when John Bolton was the Ambassador to the UN.
True.
The UN seems more determined to protect the dictators of the third world than promote freedom.
FYI
If Romney wins and the Republicans control both houses, after repealing Obamacare the next piece of legislation should be the defunding and eviction of the UN from the US.
I know others would have their own top 2. My number 3 would be to change the configuration of the press room. The letter to the MSM would read something like,
“From 2000 to 2012 you chose to support the DNC rather than do your job. Because of this, the press room has been reconfigured to give those that do their jobs more access to the President. You’re invited to send a pool reporter who will get their information from a single point of contact, who happens to be Breitbart. When you decide that you are a mouthpiece for the American people and not the DNC, we will reevaluate your credentials.”
I have come to realize that the entire purpose of the ATT is further cement the power of various oppressive governments and to make certain they are never challenged by an armed citizenry.
This is purely an attempt by the third world dictatorships of the globe to prevent the flow of arms to rebels within their own borders who mught effectively oppose them.
Looks like I have been misinformed.
One of our daughters was recently transferred to Calgary.
We were told that there were no guns allowed in Canada—privately owned guns, that is.
Removal of the right to bear arms via treaty would represent to me, and many others, the Federal Government unilaterally abrogating their compact with the People to have the power that they do.
I do not say this lightly.
I agree. That would be Fort Sumter times 100.
There are not enough senator-critters with sufficient balls to try.
Me too- though some of my best pals are not Canadian citizens. but are Commonwealth military personnel stationed at the British Army Training Unit Suffield near Medicine Hat in Alberta.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.