Hmmm, They didn't show all of the amputee kids who are still falling victim to buried cluster bombs, which are estimated to outnumber Laos' current population.

The war ends, but the killing doesn't stop. People still get killed in Germany when a WWII bomb gets unearthed. Has anyone ever considered building obsolescence into munitions? couldn't every new bomb or rocket or cartridge contain something which would make it inert after a few years?

On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 04:05:35 -0700 (PDT), robobass
wrote:

Hmmm, They didn't show all of the amputee kids who are still falling victim to buried cluster bombs, which are estimated to outnumber Laos' current population.

The war ends, but the killing doesn't stop. People still get killed in Germany when a WWII bomb gets unearthed. Has anyone ever considered building obsolescence into munitions? couldn't every new bomb or rocket or cartridge contain something which would make it inert after a few years?

Considering that it has to be stored for many years before
deployment...up to spending gazillions of dollars every few years?

But I do agree its a shame about the mines. Sure all those kids were
hurt with mines?

They didnt show all the people who died pounding on bombs with a
hammer either. Not enough left to shovel back into the new bomb
crater.


Gunner

-

"[F]ar from being the Great Satan, I would say that we
are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women
from the armed forces of the United States to other parts
of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression.
We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism.
We saved Europe in World War I and World War II.
We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to
Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of
preserving the rights of people.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we
do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we
defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan,
so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do?
We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which
they have embraced totally to their soul.
And did we ask for any land? No.

The only land we ever asked for was
enough land to bury our dead."

General Colin Powell

On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 04:05:35 -0700 (PDT), robobass
wrote:

Hmmm, They didn't show all of the amputee kids who are still falling victim to buried cluster bombs, which are estimated to outnumber Laos' current population.

The war ends, but the killing doesn't stop. People still get killed in Germany when a WWII bomb gets unearthed. Has anyone ever considered building obsolescence into munitions? couldn't every new bomb or rocket or cartridge contain something which would make it inert after a few years?

Oh, sure. It wouldn't do much more than double the cost of each
munition. Taxpayers would like that even less. And the bad guys
would be sure to leave those devices intact before using them on their
enemies.

War is hell. What say we just stop having wars?

--
You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore
the consequences of ignoring reality.
--Ayn Rand

On 7/4/2014 7:05 AM, robobass wrote:
Hmmm, They didn't show all of the amputee kids who are still falling
victim to buried cluster bombs, which are estimated to outnumber
Laos' current population.

The war ends, but the killing doesn't stop. People still get killed
in Germany when a WWII bomb gets unearthed. Has anyone ever
considered building obsolescence into munitions? couldn't every new
bomb or rocket or cartridge contain something which would make it
inert after a few years?

The US needs to pay reparations!

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 04:05:35 -0700 (PDT), robobass
wrote:

Hmmm, They didn't show all of the amputee kids who are still falling
victim to buried cluster bombs, which are estimated to outnumber
Laos' current population.

The war ends, but the killing doesn't stop. People still get killed
in Germany when a WWII bomb gets unearthed. Has anyone ever
considered building obsolescence into munitions? couldn't every new
bomb or rocket or cartridge contain something which would make it
inert after a few years?

Oh, sure. It wouldn't do much more than double the cost of each
munition. Taxpayers would like that even less. And the bad guys
would be sure to leave those devices intact before using them on
their
enemies.

War is hell. What say we just stop having wars?

It looks like the US just did, freeing everyone else to resume their
old ones.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 06:05:26 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 04:05:35 -0700 (PDT), robobass
wrote:

Hmmm, They didn't show all of the amputee kids who are still falling victim to buried cluster bombs, which are estimated to outnumber Laos' current population.

The war ends, but the killing doesn't stop. People still get killed in Germany when a WWII bomb gets unearthed. Has anyone ever considered building obsolescence into munitions? couldn't every new bomb or rocket or cartridge contain something which would make it inert after a few years?

Oh, sure. It wouldn't do much more than double the cost of each
munition. Taxpayers would like that even less. And the bad guys
would be sure to leave those devices intact before using them on their
enemies.

War is hell. What say we just stop having wars?

Good idea. Tell the Americans.

The Wikki shows some 58 wars or military engagements conducted in the
228 years the country gas existed. Or an average of one every four
years.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Why in the FARK are we (is _anyone_) supplying any Islamic entities

with weapons or ammo at all? That's my burning question.


Well, we want big smiles on their faces so they won't go shutting off the oil or kicking out our military bases. Also, Our weapons manufacturers make big money on the sales, some of which filters back to Washington.

But what you're referring to is not
even _close_ to gun rights, so please learn the difference. Jeeze!

The NRA has intervened in the UN Arms Trade Treaty. The NRA has always held the position that any arms limitation of any kind anywhere in the world is a step toward taking away Billy-Bob's right to carry a loaded AR into Walmart. I'm not the one you need to educate on the difference between domestic gun rights and selling tanks to monsters in foreign lands.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 07:47:07 -0700 (PDT), robobass
wrote:


Why in the FARK are we (is _anyone_) supplying any Islamic entities

with weapons or ammo at all? That's my burning question.


Well, we want big smiles on their faces so they won't go shutting off the oil or kicking out our military bases. Also, Our weapons manufacturers make big money on the sales, some of which filters back to Washington.

But what you're referring to is not
even _close_ to gun rights, so please learn the difference. Jeeze!

The NRA has intervened in the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

Thank God for that. I wouldn't like to see what America would look
like without any personal defense, considering that guns are used for
upwards of a couple million times a year just for that. Are you
saying that we should allow those crimes and deaths just because -you-
don't like guns? tsk,tsk,tsk


The NRA has always held the position that any arms limitation of any kind anywhere in the world is a step toward taking away Billy-Bob's right to carry a loaded AR into Walmart. I'm not the one you need to educate on the difference between domestic gun rights and selling tanks to monsters in foreign lands.

Perhaps, some day, if and when you're more rational, we can discuss
this. You're bringing up gun rights in the middle of a debate about
heavy arms sales. You're one person who really needs that education,
Rob. Maybe get an anti-NRA rabies shot, too. You were foaming there
for a minute.

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

--Andrew Johnson

Perhaps, some day, if and when you're more rational, we can discuss

this. You're bringing up gun rights in the middle of a debate about

heavy arms sales. You're one person who really needs that education,

Rob. Maybe get an anti-NRA rabies shot, too. You were foaming there

for a minute.

I don't have a personal position gun rights. I don't live in the US, so don't care very much about it. The UN Arms Trade Treaty was intended to stop developed countries from shipping weaponry to bad nations. It had nothing to do with domestic gun rights, but the NRA took it up for no logical reason, and you seem to support that they did. You need to educate yourself, friend.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 23:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:



Perhaps, some day, if and when you're more rational, we can discuss

this. You're bringing up gun rights in the middle of a debate about

heavy arms sales. You're one person who really needs that education,

Rob. Maybe get an anti-NRA rabies shot, too. You were foaming there

for a minute.

I don't have a personal position gun rights. I don't live in the US, so don't care very much about it. The UN Arms Trade Treaty was intended to stop developed countries from shipping weaponry to bad nations. It had nothing to do with domestic gun rights, but the NRA took it up for no logical reason, and you seem to support that they did. You need to educate yourself, friend.

I have educated myself on the UN. The disarmament treaty won't stop
where they reduce weapons of mass distruction. They want to take -all-
guns/firearms from -all- citizens of the world for all time, period. I
view this as a very bad thing. They should instead be trying to
reduce crime and criminals, not removing the tools which can, and are,
being used to -fight- crime. Reeducate yourself, friend.

From http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/ :
--snip--
The Arms Trade Treaty

On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly adopted the landmark Arms Trade
Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms,
from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The
treaty will foster peace and security by thwarting uncontrolled
destabilizing arms flows to conflict regions. It will prevent human
rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied
with arms. And it will help keep warlords, pirates, and gangs from
acquiring these deadly tools.
--snip--

How does this do a _thing_ to the massacres in Africa right now?
They're using machetes, not firearms, for most of the terrorism and
murder there.


I'm iffy on a few things the NRA does, but this is one stance on which
I'm firmly behind them. They're the #1 educator on firearms
worldwide, and that's A Good Thing(tm) to me.

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

--Andrew Johnson

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Y'mean Britain doesn't have a few of our nuclear subs and guided
missile frigates?

Britain doesn't need us to build their Navy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_N...marine_Service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_E...rcraft_carrier

On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 23:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:



Perhaps, some day, if and when you're more rational, we can discuss

this. You're bringing up gun rights in the middle of a debate about

heavy arms sales. You're one person who really needs that education,

Rob. Maybe get an anti-NRA rabies shot, too. You were foaming there

for a minute.

I don't have a personal position gun rights. I don't live in the US, so don't care very much about it. The UN Arms Trade Treaty was intended to stop developed countries from shipping weaponry to bad nations. It had nothing to do with domestic gun rights, but the NRA took it up for no logical reason, and you seem to support that they did. You need to educate yourself, friend.

Since you know little about guns and gun rights...the FACT of the
matter is that the Arms Treaty set itself up to make our 2nd Amendment
null and void.

Sorry folks...we here in America have no wish to become like the UK or
Oz and have people come and try..try to take our guns away.

It would simply mean that UN troops would come to America..and be
dozed enmass into large open pit grave sites. And most of us..actually
like those fellows when they are not wearing that blue helmet/cap...so
killing them would simply be a bummer.

Your attempt in trying to minimalize the effects of the Arms
Treaty...either from ignorance..or alterior motives..is noted.

Gunner

-

"[F]ar from being the Great Satan, I would say that we
are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women
from the armed forces of the United States to other parts
of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression.
We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism.
We saved Europe in World War I and World War II.
We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to
Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of
preserving the rights of people.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we
do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we
defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan,
so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do?
We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which
they have embraced totally to their soul.
And did we ask for any land? No.

The only land we ever asked for was
enough land to bury our dead."

General Colin Powell

On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 12:39:08 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Y'mean Britain doesn't have a few of our nuclear subs and guided
missile frigates?

Britain doesn't need us to build their Navy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_N...marine_Service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_E...rcraft_carrier

Yes, they have their own, but I remember reading about the gimmes,
too.

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

--Andrew Johnson

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 05:57:34 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:01:36 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 07:14:22 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
I've always questioned the sanity of selling our top-of-the-line
equipment and _TRAINING_ to countries who would surely be our next war
stop, if not the next terrorist training camp site. sigh

We dont sell our top of the line weapons to anyone..and the
training..given the raw materials..is sporadic at best..as we have
seen in Iraq

Y'mean Britain doesn't have a few of our nuclear subs and guided
missile frigates? We're not still selling weapons systems, F-16s, and
F-16 parts to most of the world, including some "friendly" Islamic
countries (like our "ally", Saudi Arabia)? We (and, quietly, the CIA)
didn't train Iraqis, Afghanis, and many Al Quaeda infiltrators in both
countries? Israel doesn't have beaucoup of everything? We're arming
LIBYA? We're even starting to rearm Viet Freakin' Nam, fer chrissake.
Every time we sell to the bad actors, it's used against us. SAM
missiles are a perfect example in history for that.

When we leave a country, we apparently sell (or just leave) most of
our military assets there. I'd rather we didn't do that.


It is a bit more complex that your simple statement. I was in Thailand
when the U.S. Army vacated some of their bases and from the newspaper
articles I read, there are specific (US apparently) rules and
regulations that specify what can be left and what has to be removed.

The decision to leave, is I believe, primarily a logistics decision.
It the value is X and it costs X x 2 to ship it home then it is left.
--
Cheers,

John B.

I have educated myself on the UN. The disarmament treaty won't stop

where they reduce weapons of mass distruction. They want to take -all-

guns/firearms from -all- citizens of the world for all time, period.


This is nonsense and you know it. You can put up all the links and quotes you want. None will point to anything regarding domestic ownership rights in the US or anywhere else, for that matter.


How does this do a _thing_ to the massacres in Africa right now?

They're using machetes, not firearms, for most of the terrorism and

murder there.


Just listen to yourself. Now you've really laid your hand bare. What kind of pill is it anyway that the NRA hands out? Or is it some kind of chip? Maybe a copper mesh hat would help.

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?

On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 22:47:12 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


I have educated myself on the UN. The disarmament treaty won't stop

where they reduce weapons of mass distruction. They want to take -all-

guns/firearms from -all- citizens of the world for all time, period.


This is nonsense and you know it. You can put up all the links and quotes you want. None will point to anything regarding domestic ownership rights in the US or anywhere else, for that matter.

Translated:
" Im gonna put my fingers in my ears and spin in circles going
LaLaLaLa so I dont have to listen to those silly facts and data
because if I do..Ill understand that I look like a horses ass"

Sorry spurt..much too late for that already.

Gunner

-

"[F]ar from being the Great Satan, I would say that we
are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women
from the armed forces of the United States to other parts
of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression.
We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism.
We saved Europe in World War I and World War II.
We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to
Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of
preserving the rights of people.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we
do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we
defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan,
so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do?
We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which
they have embraced totally to their soul.
And did we ask for any land? No.

The only land we ever asked for was
enough land to bury our dead."

General Colin Powell

On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 22:47:12 -0700 (PDT),
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.

And with a bit of luck...it will.

Then you and yours will be dozed deep into mass graves and we wont
need to worry about Lefties ever again.


-

"[F]ar from being the Great Satan, I would say that we
are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women
from the armed forces of the United States to other parts
of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression.
We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism.
We saved Europe in World War I and World War II.
We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to
Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of
preserving the rights of people.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we
do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we
defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan,
so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do?
We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which
they have embraced totally to their soul.
And did we ask for any land? No.

The only land we ever asked for was
enough land to bury our dead."

General Colin Powell

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.

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

Am Montag, 7. Juli 2014 12:22:29 UTC+2 schrieb robobass:


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.



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

Edit: It just came out that a lot of the initial Isil financing came illicitly from Saudi princes. So... The last time you guys filled up your Ford trucks you inadvertently purchased a carton of bullets for some radical Islamists. Green energy anyone? No. We'll just frak more.

Edit: It just came out that a lot of the initial Isil financing came illicitly from Saudi princes. So... The last time you guys filled up your Ford trucks you inadvertently purchased a carton of bullets for some radical Islamists. Green energy anyone? No. We'll just frak more.

Edit 2. What about the Patriot act? "Providing material support for terrorism". No doubt you buy gas, and by extension provide material support to terrorists. How does the US gov't resolve this issue? As I said, I am on the sidelines. I left my birth country long ago. I read American news fervently, as it fascinates me. But, there are major policy inconsistencies which I can't resolve.

"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

On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 04:08:48 -0700 (PDT), robobass
wrote:

Am Montag, 7. Juli 2014 12:22:29 UTC+2 schrieb robobass:


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.



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

Edit: It just came out that a lot of the initial Isil financing came illicitly from Saudi princes. So... The last time you guys filled up your Ford trucks you inadvertently purchased a carton of bullets for some radical Islamists. Green energy anyone? No. We'll just frak more.


But the U.S. is now the largest producer of crude oil in the world,
larger than Saudi, larger than Russia.

Your argument is faulty.
--
Cheers,

John B.

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

On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 04:08:48 -0700 (PDT), robobass
wrote:

Am Montag, 7. Juli 2014 12:22:29 UTC+2 schrieb robobass:


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.



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

Edit: It just came out that a lot of the initial Isil financing came illicitly from Saudi princes.

It sucks to have allies like that, doesn't it? sigh


So... The last time you guys filled up your Ford trucks you inadvertently purchased a carton of bullets for some radical Islamists. Green energy anyone? No. We'll just frak more.

Fark fracking! Indeed, let's do more green energy, but let's not
subsidize bad actions for bad actors here.

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

--Andrew Johnson

Larry Jaques wrote:

I have educated myself on the UN. The disarmament treaty won't stop
where they reduce weapons of mass distruction. They want to take -all-
guns/firearms from -all- citizens of the world for all time, period. I
view this as a very bad thing.


Let them put on their silly blue headgear and go door to door,
demanding that people hand over their guns. They wouldn't last three
days, and some prime NYC real estate would be freed up.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:55:49 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

I have educated myself on the UN. The disarmament treaty won't stop
where they reduce weapons of mass distruction. They want to take -all-
guns/firearms from -all- citizens of the world for all time, period. I
view this as a very bad thing.


Let them put on their silly blue headgear and go door to door,
demanding that people hand over their guns. They wouldn't last three
days, and some prime NYC real estate would be freed up.

And the parks will be fertilized for years to come.


--
"Living in the United States now is like being a Tampon.
We're in a great place, just at a bad time."

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:18:00 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:55:49 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

I have educated myself on the UN. The disarmament treaty won't stop
where they reduce weapons of mass distruction. They want to take -all-
guns/firearms from -all- citizens of the world for all time, period. I
view this as a very bad thing.


Let them put on their silly blue headgear and go door to door,
demanding that people hand over their guns. They wouldn't last three
days, and some prime NYC real estate would be freed up.

And the parks will be fertilized for years to come.

g

--
Liberalism is the result of severe pathogens in our society.