Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but this isn’t a win for US citizens. This is just a register for exported arms around the world and has nothing to do with internal private gun ownership?
Well, even without understanding what it's about, it's part of the UN's Office for Disarmament Affairs, so that should be telling on its face. This specific thing is about having countries report their international large arms transfers; it's about tanks, artillery, and fighter jets rather than small arms like pistols and rifles which the UN refers to as "conventional arms" which they also seek to restrict access to. But it is, nonetheless, an aspect of the UN's full-court press towards complete disarmament of the general public.
How is transparency in the arms trade a bad thing? ROCA is just a record of 7 types of arms imports/exports. Last I checked, most countries still aren't even reporting the additional category "small arms and light weapons" added in 2016.
How exactly do you think it is bad for domestic US gun rights.
To reduce trolling, spam, brigading, and other undesirable behavior, your comment has been removed due to being a new account. Accounts must be at least 2 weeks old and have combined karma over 100 to post in progun.
I like how roughly half the comments here are "what does this mean," and I can't find a single comment that actually explains what it means beyond "it's good/bad, trust me"
Edit: after doing a bit of research, it sounds like the direct impact to US firearm owners is nothing. This entirely just means that the US will be less open about when it buys or sells military equipment which us plebs aren't allowed to buy anyway.
For years, anti-gunners in the the US have been trying to use international arms treaties to attack firearms ownership in the USA. They bootstrapped small arms into this UN register to legitimize expanding the arms trade treaty to cover SALW (small and light weapons). Treaties, due to their hierarchy in international law, give anti-gunners great power to block cross border shipments of armaments. and when "SALW" are included in treaties, it can choke off the supply of the firearms with other counties to/from the US. These schemes are all very opaque and yet, are directly harmful to USA gun rights because they can sometimes be "incorporated by reference" into USA legislation. They are also indirectly harmful as a propaganda tool for anti-gunners. Also, funding any of these kinds of schemes basically does nothing but pay the salaries of internationalists who seek to undercut USA power, including private firearms ownership by Americans. You can see Page 11 here to see the shoehorning scheme at work: https://documents.unoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022-02-16-Background-Paper-by-UNODA-for-the-2022-UNROCA-GGE.pdf
6) THE ARMS TRADE TREATY
a) Substantive issues
47. UNROCA is a central reference in the ATT, as this Treaty’s scope mirrors that of the Register’s “7 +1 formula” – i.e. 7
categories of major conventional arms plus small arms and light weapons.
16 The ATT obliges its States Parties to report annually
on their international transfers of these eight categories of conventional arms. ATT reporting is mandatory, while reporting to
UNROCA is voluntary.
Telling groups like this to "piss off" is a good thing for USA gun rights. The entire 7+1 scheme is aimed at harming the flow of firearms in/out of USA via the +1 angle.
It you want to be able to buy nice sporting or "assault" rifles from other counties especially, then you have to keep any eye on what the UN schemers are doing via treaties like ATT and this reporting annex.
These people are a big part of the nest of vipers who champion the idea that normal rifles are "assault" rifles and must be banned by treaty
Im not sure why you are being downvoted... The UN and many countries in the UN are very much against civilian gun ownership - and hate the fact that we have it.
Thanks for the explanation. I had no clue what this meant, and it was frustrating to not see anyone actually giving any sort of description of why it mattered.
For years, anti-gunners in the the US have been trying to use international arms treaties to attack firearms ownership in the USA. They bootstrapped small arms into this UN register to legitimize expanding the arms trade treaty to cover SALW (small and light weapons). Treaties, due to their hierarchy in international law, give anti-gunners great power to block cross border shipments of armaments. and when "SALW" are included in treaties, it can choke off the supply of the firearms with other counties to/from the US. These schemes are all very opaque and yet, are directly harmful to USA gun rights because they can sometimes be "incorporated by reference" into USA legislation. They are also indirectly harmful as a propaganda tool for anti-gunners. Also, funding any of these kinds of schemes basically does nothing but pay the salaries of internationalists who seek to undercut USA power, including private firearms ownership by Americans. You can see Page 11 here to see the shoehorning scheme at work: https://documents.unoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022-02-16-Background-Paper-by-UNODA-for-the-2022-UNROCA-GGE.pdf
6) THE ARMS TRADE TREATY
a) Substantive issues
47. UNROCA is a central reference in the ATT, as this Treaty’s scope mirrors that of the Register’s “7 +1 formula” – i.e. 7
categories of major conventional arms plus small arms and light weapons.
16 The ATT obliges its States Parties to report annually
on their international transfers of these eight categories of conventional arms. ATT reporting is mandatory, while reporting to
UNROCA is voluntary.
Telling groups like this to "piss off" is a good thing for USA gun rights. The entire 7+1 scheme is aimed at harming the flow of firearms in/out of USA via the +1 angle.
It you want to be able to buy nice sporting or "assault" rifles from other counties especially, then you have to keep any eye on what the UN schemers are doing via treaties like ATT and this reporting annex.
These people are a big part of the nest of vipers who champion the idea that normal rifles are "assault" rifles and must be banned by treaty
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but this isn’t a win for US citizens. This is just a register for exported arms around the world and has nothing to do with internal private gun ownership?
It looks like they have been trying to include national production (only four states reported it).
[deleted]
How is it bad? Please explain.
Well, even without understanding what it's about, it's part of the UN's Office for Disarmament Affairs, so that should be telling on its face. This specific thing is about having countries report their international large arms transfers; it's about tanks, artillery, and fighter jets rather than small arms like pistols and rifles which the UN refers to as "conventional arms" which they also seek to restrict access to. But it is, nonetheless, an aspect of the UN's full-court press towards complete disarmament of the general public.
So reporting all the weapons we send to Ukraine and Israel?
I’m not against transparency where that’s concerned.
The real question is how is/would it not be bad?
[deleted]
No I’ll just copy and paste the same line like you do in this thread.
Literal nothingburger, the UN has no bearing on US domestic policy surrounding civilian firearm ownership. None. Zero.
[deleted]
You have no idea what any of these agreements are about so it is not worth arguing about it with you, but this has nothing to do with gun control
What does that mean for us parts kits foster parents?
Sadly I don't think it helps with 922r
I’m waiting for mass $99 shipped original barreled AK kits!
So time travel. Got it.
read this: https://reddit.com/r/progun/comments/1q7qeyl/under_the_direction_of_president_trump_the_united/nyjx5f3/
Translation please
being tied up in any of these international agreements is bad for the USA and bad for gun rights, so leaving is always better
Can you be more specific?
How is transparency in the arms trade a bad thing? ROCA is just a record of 7 types of arms imports/exports. Last I checked, most countries still aren't even reporting the additional category "small arms and light weapons" added in 2016.
How exactly do you think it is bad for domestic US gun rights.
[removed]
To reduce trolling, spam, brigading, and other undesirable behavior, your comment has been removed due to being a new account. Accounts must be at least 2 weeks old and have combined karma over 100 to post in progun.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
read this: https://reddit.com/r/progun/comments/1q7qeyl/under_the_direction_of_president_trump_the_united/nyjx5f3/
I like how roughly half the comments here are "what does this mean," and I can't find a single comment that actually explains what it means beyond "it's good/bad, trust me"
Edit: after doing a bit of research, it sounds like the direct impact to US firearm owners is nothing. This entirely just means that the US will be less open about when it buys or sells military equipment which us plebs aren't allowed to buy anyway.
For years, anti-gunners in the the US have been trying to use international arms treaties to attack firearms ownership in the USA. They bootstrapped small arms into this UN register to legitimize expanding the arms trade treaty to cover SALW (small and light weapons). Treaties, due to their hierarchy in international law, give anti-gunners great power to block cross border shipments of armaments. and when "SALW" are included in treaties, it can choke off the supply of the firearms with other counties to/from the US. These schemes are all very opaque and yet, are directly harmful to USA gun rights because they can sometimes be "incorporated by reference" into USA legislation. They are also indirectly harmful as a propaganda tool for anti-gunners. Also, funding any of these kinds of schemes basically does nothing but pay the salaries of internationalists who seek to undercut USA power, including private firearms ownership by Americans. You can see Page 11 here to see the shoehorning scheme at work: https://documents.unoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022-02-16-Background-Paper-by-UNODA-for-the-2022-UNROCA-GGE.pdf
To get a sense of the pointy-headed smugness of the internationalists behind this crap, read this article: https://unidir.org/the-end-of-transparency-in-international-arms-transfers/
Telling groups like this to "piss off" is a good thing for USA gun rights. The entire 7+1 scheme is aimed at harming the flow of firearms in/out of USA via the +1 angle.
It you want to be able to buy nice sporting or "assault" rifles from other counties especially, then you have to keep any eye on what the UN schemers are doing via treaties like ATT and this reporting annex.
These people are a big part of the nest of vipers who champion the idea that normal rifles are "assault" rifles and must be banned by treaty
Im not sure why you are being downvoted... The UN and many countries in the UN are very much against civilian gun ownership - and hate the fact that we have it.
the down votes are because this sub is infested with anti-gun and anti-Trump troll lurkers
Thanks for the explanation. I had no clue what this meant, and it was frustrating to not see anyone actually giving any sort of description of why it mattered.
Who gives a shit?
[deleted]
Did we ever listen to them anyways?
We created them 🙂
Still can't buy Russian guns can I?
…or Chinese…
There needs to be an exception made for arms captured by Ukraine. Let Ukraine sell the Russian guns to us.
Wow. Now about those Epstein files?
For years, anti-gunners in the the US have been trying to use international arms treaties to attack firearms ownership in the USA. They bootstrapped small arms into this UN register to legitimize expanding the arms trade treaty to cover SALW (small and light weapons). Treaties, due to their hierarchy in international law, give anti-gunners great power to block cross border shipments of armaments. and when "SALW" are included in treaties, it can choke off the supply of the firearms with other counties to/from the US. These schemes are all very opaque and yet, are directly harmful to USA gun rights because they can sometimes be "incorporated by reference" into USA legislation. They are also indirectly harmful as a propaganda tool for anti-gunners. Also, funding any of these kinds of schemes basically does nothing but pay the salaries of internationalists who seek to undercut USA power, including private firearms ownership by Americans. You can see Page 11 here to see the shoehorning scheme at work: https://documents.unoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022-02-16-Background-Paper-by-UNODA-for-the-2022-UNROCA-GGE.pdf
To get a sense of the pointy-headed smugness of the internationalists behind this crap, read this article: https://unidir.org/the-end-of-transparency-in-international-arms-transfers/
Telling groups like this to "piss off" is a good thing for USA gun rights. The entire 7+1 scheme is aimed at harming the flow of firearms in/out of USA via the +1 angle.
It you want to be able to buy nice sporting or "assault" rifles from other counties especially, then you have to keep any eye on what the UN schemers are doing via treaties like ATT and this reporting annex.
These people are a big part of the nest of vipers who champion the idea that normal rifles are "assault" rifles and must be banned by treaty
Yes.
So what’s this mean lol
But muh bump stocks!
frt FTW!
It's a good start,but what took so long?