"robobass" wrote in message
...



Incidently, Bahraini protesters were attacked by US made helicopter
gunships, and Egyptions with teargas which hade "made in USA" stamped on
the canisters. Do any of you guys find that in any way objectionable?



Of course we do. Fortunately..WE didnt do it.



Your buddies the Soviet Union murdered 94 MIllion people..and "we"

didnt do it ..yet you and yours want it to happen inside our borders.


I don't get your point. What I am trying to say is:

1; Lots of innocent people all around the world get killed with weapons
supplied by US arms manufacturers under State Department approved sales (or
not), as well as other producers from big nations. China, Russia, Sweden,
South Africa, and my adopted country - Germany, to name a few. The ATT seeks
to curb this practice, and has absolutely nothing to do with US domestic gun
rights issues. Can we agree on that?

1.1; Weapons manufacturers in many countries have way too much influence in
their respective governments, which leads to sales to bad actors. Can we
agree on that?

2; Yes, of course a lot of the killing is done with Russian and Chinese made
AK-47s and other weapons, but does that absolve the US from responsibility
when people are killed with American weapons? The USSR killed 94 million?
Maybe, but what does that have to do with anything? Every nation has done a
lot of killing (Reagan - Nicaragua, Ford - Indonesia). Let's talk about who
is being killed now. Can we agree on that?

3; Is forcing a shelf life on weapons or adding a kill switch to electronics
something to consider? I've seen no comment, although I haven't asked any
five-year-old Laotian kids.

4; Do some American gun rights advocates confuse their own cause with the
effort to stamp out weapons proliferation in unstable countries? I don't
think there is a consensus on this one.

================================================== ===================================

This seems to have departed from the original question about *why* NRA et
al. object. The proximate reason is that the treaty requires that the
importing country must record the name and address of the "end user" (it's
assumed that means the retail customer) of any imported gun, and to supply
that info to the exporting country, plus they must keep their own record for
20 years.

That is de facto registration. That's the factual objection. Tell a gun nut
that his gun will be registered, and he'll raise hell. He might even shoot
something out of frustration. The consequences of wars in foreign countries
pale by comparison.

Beyond that, it's mostly paranoia.

However, there is some annoyance over another provision: If the importing
country doesn't keep the record or supply it to the exporter, the exporter
can be prohibited from selling guns to that (importing) country.

sob! There go our Beretta shotguns. I'll never be able to complete my
collection of Purdy doubles. The rack I have in my Aston Martin Shooting
Brake for that Holland & Holland .500 Nitro Express will have to go
unused...

This, of course, also upsets Beretta, FN, Sig-Sauer and many others.
Nonetheless, it will go into effect for our import sources when 50 countries
have ratified it. So far, 41 have -- including Italy, home of Beretta. Maybe
they'll just build another plant in the U.S.

This will happen regardless of whether the U.S. ratifies the treaty.

================================================== ===================================

And. No. Isil kills with GUNS they stole from their victims, not machetes.

================================================== ===================================

But the machetes add so much color to the creative narrative....

--
Ed Huntress