steelheart
Moderator
(Copied from "The Firing Line")
Everyone should take a second to read the American Rifleman this month (or any of the companion magazines). The NRA does an excellent job of laying out the antis strategy to bring the type of gun control proposed by Australian gun-control activist and IANSA speaker, Rebecca Peters to the United States.
All the antis need to do this is a President who will sign it and 50 votes in the United States Senate. Normally to pass an internationally binding treaty, you would need two-thirds of the Senate to ratify the treaty - a goal that while still dangerous isn't quite as threatening. However, if you phrase the treaty as an agreement (a la the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA), then it can pass the Senate with a simple majority vote. In fact, this is precisely why the Clinton Administration introduced NAFTA as an agreement and not a treaty, even though the effect is similar.
Both of these factors are something to keep in mind when making your vote for President or Senator. The 2006 UN Small Arms Conference is going on right now and during the week of July 4, 2006 (ironic eh?), they will make another attempt to push an internationally binding agreement on the United States. Because of our efforts in 2004, that push will be met with a President who will not sign this agreement and a Senate that will not have 50 votes to pass such an agreement; but 1/3 of the Senate is up for reelection in 2006. We need to grow our lead there. If you know of a strong pro-gun Senator we need to keep or an anti-gun Senator we can get rid of, let's start working on it now!
Reading the timeline for the original UN Small Arms Conference, it suggests that one of the goals of the Clinton Administration was to pass just such an agreement. The initial UN small arms study was started in 1995 and it was the United States (under Clinton) and Canada who pushed the UN to accelerate negotiations so that a treaty could be reached before the end of 2000. The negotiations stalled though and by 2001 - the new administration stopped such talk. Think of what we might have now if it weren't for small favors like slow bureaucrats at the UN...
It was often criticized RKBA groups like the NRA that foresaw this threat and became a UN non-governmental organization at the UN in 1996 (one year after the initial agenda study on small arms was requested). Because of the NRAs foresight, the new administration had the information necessary to stop that threat in its tracks.
Everyone should take a second to read the American Rifleman this month (or any of the companion magazines). The NRA does an excellent job of laying out the antis strategy to bring the type of gun control proposed by Australian gun-control activist and IANSA speaker, Rebecca Peters to the United States.
All the antis need to do this is a President who will sign it and 50 votes in the United States Senate. Normally to pass an internationally binding treaty, you would need two-thirds of the Senate to ratify the treaty - a goal that while still dangerous isn't quite as threatening. However, if you phrase the treaty as an agreement (a la the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA), then it can pass the Senate with a simple majority vote. In fact, this is precisely why the Clinton Administration introduced NAFTA as an agreement and not a treaty, even though the effect is similar.
Both of these factors are something to keep in mind when making your vote for President or Senator. The 2006 UN Small Arms Conference is going on right now and during the week of July 4, 2006 (ironic eh?), they will make another attempt to push an internationally binding agreement on the United States. Because of our efforts in 2004, that push will be met with a President who will not sign this agreement and a Senate that will not have 50 votes to pass such an agreement; but 1/3 of the Senate is up for reelection in 2006. We need to grow our lead there. If you know of a strong pro-gun Senator we need to keep or an anti-gun Senator we can get rid of, let's start working on it now!
Reading the timeline for the original UN Small Arms Conference, it suggests that one of the goals of the Clinton Administration was to pass just such an agreement. The initial UN small arms study was started in 1995 and it was the United States (under Clinton) and Canada who pushed the UN to accelerate negotiations so that a treaty could be reached before the end of 2000. The negotiations stalled though and by 2001 - the new administration stopped such talk. Think of what we might have now if it weren't for small favors like slow bureaucrats at the UN...
It was often criticized RKBA groups like the NRA that foresaw this threat and became a UN non-governmental organization at the UN in 1996 (one year after the initial agenda study on small arms was requested). Because of the NRAs foresight, the new administration had the information necessary to stop that threat in its tracks.