1) “The UN document explicitly acknowledges God given rights to self-defense with personally owned firearms.”
2) “The UN document explicitly refutes God given rights to self-defense with personally owned firearms.”
3) “The UN document ambiguously ignores God given rights to self-defense with personally owned firearms.”
It’s #3 now and will provide a stepping stone to get to #2.
You asked a poster where the gun registry was in the doc, I asked you where #1 was.
It’s not there. So your answer is that you’re wrong.
ok
“You asked a poster where the gun registry was in the doc, I asked you where #1 was.”
The registry is required in the language I quote in post 181. It requires a national control system that prevents people from “circumventing” the controls on export of firearms. There is no way governments can prevent circumvention unless they know where every gun in the country is and who owns it.
This treaty is bad juju.
And here’s another one:
“State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty. State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.”
Of course, this one only covers arm imported from, say, Europe instead of all arms, like the language I quoted in post 181.