On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 03:22:29 -0700 (PDT), robobass
wrote:



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?

If you had taken the time to read that short quote, you would have
seen the actual damning text from the treaty. The treaty has
outrageous content and it would absolutely restrict all US gun rights
if we signed it. We unequivocally cannot 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?

Corruption is everywhere, not just in arms deals. Ending corruption
would be good.


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.

The costs are probably why they have been considered and rejected. But
we did already discuss this briefly.


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.

We see the UN's global document which wants to take our guns away,
too, and we reject that -ABSOLUTELY-! There is no consensus on UN
treaties (or AGWK), thank Crom.


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

So how are reduced arms sales in the future going to stop current
deaths with current weapons? Isil isn't the only terrorist org out
there right now, which is why I brought up the machetes, which are not
firearms but have caused millions of recent deaths.

--
The goal to strive for is a poor government but a rich people.

--Andrew Johnson