UN Arms treaty?

[Niner]

UN representatives are meeting this month to see if they can reach an agreement on controlling arms sales to various potential trouble makers....dictators killing their own people, terrorists, rebels of any sort, drug cartels, etc. Many of the usual "conservative" sources are saying it will attack the US 2nd Amendment rights if a UN treaty is reached. And since the US supplies more than half of all arms shipments in the world, if the US doesn't play the UN treaty won't mean anything. Proponents, on the other hand, say any treaty reached won't have anything to do with US gun laws. And.... no guns will be banned from sale. The only question is... if the US goes along with it... who is going to be apointed to determine what is legitimate to sell and to whom it can be sold?

The US Senate is over fifty percent against a treaty and it takes two thirds of the Senate to approve it for the US to go along with it.
Meanwhile......a lot of bogus emails are going out and I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA isn't asking for some money based on fear mongering. Whatever...I got a feeling the treaty is going nowhere, and if something is agreed to it won't have much of an affect on anything it purports to address.

Here is a relatively objective report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/fin ... story.html

[Niner]

Looks like Wayne , perpetual vice president of the NRA, LaPierre, has spoken. However, he only stands firmly in opposition to any control of firearms manufactured for civilian use being controlled by the UN in arms deals. That seems to ignore old Enfields, Mausers, Mosin Nagants....and more particularly... the large quantity of Garands, and carbines coming up for sale in places like Korea that would make good collectibles. And what about those Makarov's that have recently been replaced in Russia? Guess he doesn't care much about them.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news- ... tions.aspx