United Nations Small Arms Treaty... a back-door repeal of our 2A rights?

[T.O.M.]

hey guys, I've been reading about the Small Arms Treaty being discussed by the UN.  let me start off by saying that I'm not one of the paranoid types who think that I may soon find troops in blue helmets on my street searching all of the houses for my guns...but this treaty has me worried.  Now, I just read the proposed treaty, found here:

http://www.poa-iss.org/RevCon2/Documents/Documents/Firearms-Protocol-E.pdf

and it has some things we shoud be concerned about.

1.  It prohibts the import of any firearm, part of a firearm, or ammunition unless the import is specifically approved by the exporting and importing government.  Like shooting that cheap imported ammo?  Want to buy a Sig, an H&K, or a Beretta?  How about a factory magazine for your Sig or H&K?  Not unless the administration says it's approved for import, and what do you think the odds are that the current administration will stamp the approval form?  Yeah, me too.
2.  It requires that all arms, parts of arms, and ammunition be marked for identification for "tracking illicet trafficking."  I think that this is a concern, at least in terms of pricing, if the manufacturer has to mark each part in some way. 
3.  It requires all dealers to be regulated and licensed.  I know, big deal.  Already need an FFL.  But maybe now you need an IFL (International Firearms License).  Think your local gunshop will get the ATF to approve that one?  Doubt it.

Folks, do some research on this one.  It may be something you want to get your congresscritter aware of.  It requires attention.

[TechMan]

Chris here is more information about the UN Treaty:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/237109-d-day-for-gun-control

The congresscritter that needs to be hit the most it the Senators, since they have to approve treaties.

[RoadKingLarry]

This thing has been in the works for several years now in a variety of iterations. While it sure has  the potential to be an ugly mess, I don't think even our most idiotic senators are stupid enough to ratify the thing.

If it did get ratified it might even be enough to be that straw.

[AJ Dual]

hey guys, I've been reading about the Small Arms Treaty being discussed by the UN.  let me start off by saying that I'm not one of the paranoid types who think that I may soon find troops in blue helmets on my street searching all of the houses for my guns...but this treaty has me worried.  Now, I just read the proposed treaty, found here:

http://www.poa-iss.org/RevCon2/Documents/Documents/Firearms-Protocol-E.pdf

and it has some things we shoud be concerned about.

1.  It prohibts the import of any firearm, part of a firearm, or ammunition unless the import is specifically approved by the exporting and importing government.  Like shooting that cheap imported ammo?  Want to buy a Sig, an H&K, or a Beretta?  How about a factory magazine for your Sig or H&K?  Not unless the administration says it's approved for import, and what do you think the odds are that the current administration will stamp the approval form?  Yeah, me too.
2.  It requires that all arms, parts of arms, and ammunition be marked for identification for "tracking illicet trafficking."  I think that this is a concern, at least in terms of pricing, if the manufacturer has to mark each part in some way. 
3.  It requires all dealers to be regulated and licensed.  I know, big deal.  Already need an FFL.  But maybe now you need an IFL (International Firearms License).  Think your local gunshop will get the ATF to approve that one?  Doubt it.

Folks, do some research on this one.  It may be something you want to get your congresscritter aware of.  It requires attention.

Superficially, the U.S. already does all of this.

However, the devil is in the details, as always.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Wrote the following letter to both my congresscritters (although being solid liberals, i doubt it will make a whit of difference):


I am writing today in regards to the proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty.  While keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals is a laudable goal, I don't believe that this treaty is the best means for accomplishing this goal.  

First of all, I don't believe that subrogating the authority of the United States to a foreign body is a good policy.  We are a sovereign nation, with our own laws, regulations, and rights, and placing those under the jurisdiction of any other foreign body is not consistent with maintaining our sovereignty.

Second, I don't believe that this treaty will accomplish anything with regards to preventing the illicit trafficking of firearms or ammunition.  Most modern nations already have laws placing strict regulations on the import of firearms or ammunition, the United States included.  Yet those items find their way into the black market on a daily basis.  Adding another layer of bureaucracy will not change this, for the simple fact that criminals, by the very definition of the word, do not follow the law.  

Rather, this treaty will make it much more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms, firearm accessories, replacement parts, and ammunition.  This treaty appears to require that all parts or accessories be marked in order to allow "tracking".  Some of these parts are simple small springs, or in some cases "detents" which are small steel spheres, sometimes smaller than a BB.  Putting a unique mark on a spring or a small steel BB would make the manufacture of those items prohibitively expensive.  The same can be said for ammunition, replacement accessories (such as magazines, or even wood grips for a revolver), or any other item associated with a firearm.

As such, I would request that you vote no on the ratification vote for any such treaty should it come to the Senate.  

Thank you,

AmbulanceDriver

[RevDisk]

This isn't new, and it's still dead in the water.  On September 14, 2011, 58 US Senators (45 Republicans and 13 Democrats) have expressed their opposition. Considering only 1 in 3 senators need to vote "No", it's unlikely to pass.

Also, the Arms Treaty doesn't exist yet. It's all reports and committee meetings. Even if it did, it would not trump the Constitution. Worst case is it could restrict imports/exports. US arms industry is over $40b per year in exports. Not so much rifles or pistols, but tanks, helicopters, etc.


http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/documents/

Pretty much the justification for thinking the ATT is a bad idea:
http://www.controlarms.org/home


As others have said, treaties don't trump the Constitution. But they are accorded, theoretically, above domestic law.  Sorta, kinda, not really. The reality is, we either sign the treaty and ignore it, or pass laws to implement it ourselves. This is not always good. There is a Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) of tariff nomenclature that we signed onto. Basically, it means imports/exports get identified to a specific code, which makes life easier for friggin everyone. So, naturally, we created a Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States which is mostly the same. But you have extra annoying stuff.  But, in fairness, it's better than Schedule B nomenclature, so...

If we sign a treaty and don't enforce it, it's on the books but no one cares. CBP gets stuck with most of that enforcement, because most treaties deal with either international travel or commerce. Few treaties deal solely with internal laws. Which sucks, because CBP has to enforce a couple hundred different laws and treaties. You have to be REALLY book smart to implement it. I like to think I'm fairly bright and my head was hurting just dealing with international arms trafficking. Don't go into CBP's Customs enforcement sections unless you are REALLY bright and can handle implementing hundreds of Byzantine laws. Most CBP agents can't, hence the high turnover and morale problems. On the flip side, you'd make very good bank for the rest of your life as an import/export specialist, especially if you got your Customs Broker license.

So, in short, it's not going to pass. If it would pass, the economic implications to our domestic "arms" manufacturers would be more of a concern than to individual firearm owners. The US is one of the largest arms manufacturers of the world, that would be a legitimate concern. But dude, Raytheon, Boeing and LockMart own more Senators than the unions and the NRA put together. Why do you think we're willing to spend ridiculous amounts of cash on military aircraft? I would not be surprised if those three companies alone had a "marketing" budget larger than the gross revenues of every firearms manufacturer in the entire US.

[seeker_two]

Even if it's not ratified, Obama can still use executive order & regulation to "enact" it. Remember Clinton & the Kyoto Treaty?.....

.....and Bush never rescinded Clinton's executive orders....

[RevDisk]

Even if it's not ratified, Obama can still use executive order & regulation to "enact" it. Remember Clinton & the Kyoto Treaty?.....

.....and Bush never rescinded Clinton's executive orders....

Uhm. Yes and no.

First off, this is mostly aimed at regulating state to state sales. To make sure governments get weapons, and folks disagreeing with said governments don't. Think blocking Taiwan from arms sales. Or folks overthrowing governments, like is currently happening across the Middle East and North Africa.

Obama could play games with import/export and has the Constitutional authority to do so. Bush I certainly screwed over the 2A with import games than Obama ever did. But trying to push it domestically? Nope. Ain't happening.

Majority of reactions on this are FUD, fearmongering and hype. It's a bad idea, for economic purposes. Not the 2A. And it won't pass because it'd piss off our domestic arms manufacturers who want to sell shiny new tanks, ships, aircraft, etc.

- Says the guy spent a while doing international arms trafficking

[MillCreek]

^^^ But were they black, or merely very dark green arms?

[RevDisk]

^^^ But were they black, or merely very dark green arms?

Any colour the customer desired.  At $60-200 per pint of DuPont Imron Polyurethane Enamel paint.

[AJ Dual]

This isn't new, and it's still dead in the water.  On September 14, 2011, 58 US Senators (45 Republicans and 13 Democrats) have expressed their opposition. Considering only 1 in 3 senators need to vote "No", it's unlikely to pass.

Also, the Arms Treaty doesn't exist yet. It's all reports and committee meetings. Even if it did, it would not trump the Constitution. Worst case is it could restrict imports/exports. US arms industry is over $40b per year in exports. Not so much rifles or pistols, but tanks, helicopters, etc.


http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/documents/

Pretty much the justification for thinking the ATT is a bad idea:
http://www.controlarms.org/home


As others have said, treaties don't trump the Constitution. But they are accorded, theoretically, above domestic law.  Sorta, kinda, not really. The reality is, we either sign the treaty and ignore it, or pass laws to implement it ourselves. This is not always good. There is a Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) of tariff nomenclature that we signed onto. Basically, it means imports/exports get identified to a specific code, which makes life easier for friggin everyone. So, naturally, we created a Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States which is mostly the same. But you have extra annoying stuff.  But, in fairness, it's better than Schedule B nomenclature, so...

If we sign a treaty and don't enforce it, it's on the books but no one cares. CBP gets stuck with most of that enforcement, because most treaties deal with either international travel or commerce. Few treaties deal solely with internal laws. Which sucks, because CBP has to enforce a couple hundred different laws and treaties. You have to be REALLY book smart to implement it. I like to think I'm fairly bright and my head was hurting just dealing with international arms trafficking. Don't go into CBP's Customs enforcement sections unless you are REALLY bright and can handle implementing hundreds of Byzantine laws. Most CBP agents can't, hence the high turnover and morale problems. On the flip side, you'd make very good bank for the rest of your life as an import/export specialist, especially if you got your Customs Broker license.

So, in short, it's not going to pass. If it would pass, the economic implications to our domestic "arms" manufacturers would be more of a concern than to individual firearm owners. The US is one of the largest arms manufacturers of the world, that would be a legitimate concern. But dude, Raytheon, Boeing and LockMart own more Senators than the unions and the NRA put together. Why do you think we're willing to spend ridiculous amounts of cash on military aircraft? I would not be surprised if those three companies alone had a "marketing" budget larger than the gross revenues of every firearms manufacturer in the entire US.

I'm not sure if it's called the same thing, but you already see U.N. markings like this on hazmat shipping of any class 4.1 "self reactive hazardous solids" if you've ever ordered gunpowder or primers for reloading and had UPS or FedEx bring it to your door.

Although I presume that was probably some sort of treaty to standardize the packaging nomenclature so dock workers in different countries that didn't speak the language of the origin country didn't blow themselves up rather than some nefarious desire to block free-world citizenry access to small-arms. 

I also imagine that a lot of these smaller third-world, second-world, and other little dirtbag and banana-republic countries who's own governments, or ruling political parties have arisen from revolutions, or coups etc. in living memory, and think they might be screwed getting access to guns should they suddenly be on the outs again are going to throw a bunch of wrenches into the process too. It'll probably equal out the .govs that see the treaty as a way to clamp down on their own insurgents or opposition/rebel groups on getting access to arms.

[never_retreat]

I have been keeping a eye on this a little.

I just wish the NRA and GOA would put a little more truth in there daily email blasts.

First of obama would have to sign it. (possible)
2nd It must be ratified by the senate, 2/3 is required (about as likely as pigs flying)
3rd Anything laid forth by a treaty still comes after all our constitutional amendments.
4th You would have to repeal the 2nd amendment for it be legal. (what comes after pigs flying?)


Light reading below.

The Fourteenth Amendment

Striking similarities exist between the supremacy clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Both of these are parts of the Federal Constitution that define the Federal Government's supremacy over the States regarding laws that have been delegated to the federal government in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. A difference between the two, however, is that whereas the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States.

[slingshot]

First of obama would have to sign it. (possible)
2nd It must be ratified by the senate, 2/3 is required (about as likely as pigs flying)
3rd Anything laid forth by a treaty still comes after all our constitutional amendments.
4th You would have to repeal the 2nd amendment for it be legal. (what comes after pigs flying?)

I doubt Hillary would be negotiating this treaty if Obama has not assured her that he will sign it.
I doubt the senate has the votes for a 2/3 rds majority.  But the treaty would be in effect once it was signed by Obama.
The Treaty has the force of an amendment to the constitution.  Hence it overrides previous rights in the USA.

I admit I don't understand it because the details are generally not known by the common man.  There must be a reason beyond politics for certain Republican pundits to be adamantly against the US being part of this and Obama signing it.  They claim that firearm registration will be required to meet the terms of the treaty.  Remember Mexico is part of the deal here... Remember Fast & Furious?

Added:  I read the document from Chris's link.  That thing is like 10 years old.  What on earth is being negotiated today?  I hear that China and Russia will not ratify this treaty.  So, why is the US so interested in it?

I don't think the treaty will not be effective in stopping illegal gun sales for revolutionary purposes.

There is a lot of language that I have serious issues with.  I believe if this is ratified, the result in the US will be registration of firearms just in case they might be sold accross national boundaries.

[RevDisk]

I doubt Hillary would be negotiating this treaty if Obama has not assured her that he will sign it.
I doubt the senate has the votes for a 2/3 rds majority.  But the treaty would be in effect once it was signed by Obama.
The Treaty has the force of an amendment to the constitution.  Hence it overrides previous rights in the USA.

I admit I don't understand it because the details are generally not known by the common man.  There must be a reason beyond politics for certain Republican pundits to be adamantly against the US being part of this and Obama signing it.  They claim that firearm registration will be required to meet the terms of the treaty.  Remember Mexico is part of the deal here... Remember Fast & Furious?

Added:  I read the document from Chris's link.  That thing is like 10 years old.  What on earth is being negotiated today?  I hear that China and Russia will not ratify this treaty.  So, why is the US so interested in it?

I don't think the treaty will not be effective in stopping illegal gun sales for revolutionary purposes.

There is a lot of language that I have serious issues with.  I believe if this is ratified, the result in the US will be registration of firearms just in case they might be sold accross national boundaries.

The first paragraph is false in every way.  Obama cannot sign it into law.  And it does not trump the Constitution.  Also, I provided a link with all the information on the treaty and explained it, I happen to be a common man as well.  The only part I do agree with is it won't be totally useful in stopping rebellions.

 

[Phyphor]

Molon labe, anyway.

[Waitone]

2/3 yes by the senate is required to ratify a treat.  Now what if it is introduced to congress as an agreement kinda like NAFTA, CAFTA, or WTO.  Presto chango 2/3's majority is reduced to simple majority in both houses.  And then there is the presidential tactic of enforcing provisions of the treaty / agreement as if it was passed.  When you combine a president who hasn't concerned himself with the constraint of law with a gelding house leadership you have all the elements of a constitutional flap.

[slingshot]

And it does not trump the Constitution.

If you believe the pundits.  It does carry the weight of a Constitutional Amendment.  I personally don't know one way or the other.  But I suspect you are incorrect.  It is law until the Senate rejects it.  They will probably wangle some kind of simple majority rule for the Senate vote and the Senate is controlled by the Democrat party.

Added:  According to Dick Morris, Obama and Hillary Clinton know that the Senate will not ratify the treaty.  But the UN Small Arms Treaty will be in effect until renounced by the President or the Senate by vote.  The Democrats will simply not bring the treaty up for Senate ratification and it will remain law according the the Vienna convention until action is taken.  It doesn't matter what our Constitution says.  It trumps it.  We need Rommey to renounce any support for this treaty, NOW.

[RevDisk]

If you believe the pundits.  It does carry the weight of a Constitutional Amendment.  I personally don't know one way or the other.  But I suspect you are incorrect.  It is law until the Senate rejects it.  They will probably wangle some kind of simple majority rule for the Senate vote and the Senate is controlled by the Democrat party.

Added:  According to Dick Morris, Obama and Hillary Clinton know that the Senate will not ratify the treaty.  But the UN Small Arms Treaty will be in effect until renounced by the President or the Senate by vote.  The Democrats will simply not bring the treaty up for Senate ratification and it will remain law according the the Vienna convention until action is taken.  It doesn't matter what our Constitution says.  It trumps it.  We need Rommey to renounce any support for this treaty, NOW.

This is incorrect, entirely. 

Article VI, Clause 2, the Supremacy Clause.  Plus Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955), Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (1972), and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) all say Constitution trumps laws and treaties. Now, federal treaties can and do trump STATE constitutions.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, Treaty Clause. "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"  Treaties = 2/3 vote of the Senate.

Now, there are sole-executive agreements (NOT treaties) signed off by the president's authority only when it comes to foreign policy, armed forces, prior act of Congress or prior treaty. Anything beyond that, approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties). "Status of Force Agreements" would be examples. When I was doing stuff in, say, Macedonia, we had an sole-executive agreement with the Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia on what I was allowed to do, what would happen if I was arrested, what level of weapons I was allowed to have, etc. Sole-executive agreements don't have the weight of law when it is domestic to the US, unless it's just implementing something Congress already passed.

Since the ATT is a treaty, it's not likely to be implemented as a congressional-executive agreement (simple majority of both houses) but it's theoretically possible. But it still does not trump the 2A domestically, it could be implemented under border authority. It'd only impact imports/exports.


I'm open to any legal knowledge that conflicts with any or all of the above. My training in international arms trafficking says differently, but admittedly I was fairly limited in scope and I'm not a lawyer. Let alone one specialized in international law. Ah, mind pointing out where I'm missing something?

[slingshot]

You know a lot more about this topic than I do.  So I accept your statements.  I hope they are true.

A couple things...

Since the ATT is a treaty, it's not likely to be implemented as a congressional-executive agreement (simple majority of both houses) but it's theoretically possible. But it still does not trump the 2A domestically, it could be implemented under border authority. It'd only impact imports/exports.

I hope you are correct about "congressional executive agreement".  You say that the treaty would have the force of law for "States".  The states might be forced to implement requirements to abide by the treaty and it is currently legal for them to do so.  Gun registration does not trump 2A.  It obviously is something that is very important to most of us here.  Registration is registration or essentially a government list of firearms owned.  Whether a fee is charged would be another matter.  I would expect no fee initially, and later there would be a "sin tax" so to speak for licensing ownership to cover administrative costs.  In my opinion, if registration is required nationally, we have started down a slippery slope where the outcomes are not predictable as time progresses forward.

I still find it hard to believe that Dick Morris, who claims to be an expert on many political matters, would keep bringing up this treaty if there was no meat to his statements.  He doesn't have anything to gain personally other than publicity and I guess selling his most recent book "Screwed".

My question is... why would the current administration support this treaty when they know it will not likely be ratified by the Senate by vote? 

Events like the one in Aurora are stimulus for government action.  But we all know registration would have no effect what so ever in terms of the harm done to the innocents.  But politics are politics.  This Aurora thing just happened.  The gun control discussions will probably commence after the dust settles on the various TV networks and news media.

[AJ Dual]

You know a lot more about this topic than I do.  So I accept your statements.  I hope they are true.

A couple things...
I hope you are correct about "congressional executive agreement".  You say that the treaty would have the force of law for "States".  The states might be forced to implement requirements to abide by the treaty and it is currently legal for them to do so.  Gun registration does not trump 2A.  It obviously is something that is very important to most of us here.  Registration is registration or essentially a government list of firearms owned.  Whether a fee is charged would be another matter.  I would expect no fee initially, and later there would be a "sin tax" so to speak for licensing ownership to cover administrative costs.  In my opinion, if registration is required nationally, we have started down a slippery slope where the outcomes are not predictable as time progresses forward.

I still find it hard to believe that Dick Morris, who claims to be an expert on many political matters, would keep bringing up this treaty if there was no meat to his statements.  He doesn't have anything to gain personally other than publicity and I guess selling his most recent book "Screwed".

My question is... why would the current administration support this treaty when they know it will not likely be ratified by the Senate by vote? 

Events like the one in Aurora are stimulus for government action.  But we all know registration would have no effect what so ever in terms of the harm done to the innocents.  But politics are politics.  This Aurora thing just happened.  The gun control discussions will probably commence after the dust settles on the various TV networks and news media.

1. You've answered your own question.
1a. To a lesser degree Morris does not like the Clintons after their falling out/parting of the ways. And he does not dislike the Obamas any less. So whatever fuss he can generate to hurt their agendas is a plus in his mind.

2. The appearance of looking like you did something in politics is often just as important, if not more so than actually doing anything. Aside from the nominal collectivist/leftist ideology of the welfare state, that's the number one reason "we're all in this mess" because in most cases, on either side of the aisle, no one has the guts, or even simply the mentality to respond when a "problem" is brought to them by "the people" or the media, and say, "So?" then do nothing, knowing that government action, combined with the law of unintended consequences just makes things worse.

[Strings]

> You say that the treaty would have the force of law for "States".  The states might be forced to implement requirements to abide by the treaty and it is currently legal for them to do so<

Ummm... no, he didn't say that.

all say Constitution trumps laws and treaties. Now, federal treaties can and do trump STATE constitutions.

So... for the sake of discussion: Obama signs this treaty. It trumps the constitutions of the several states, however does NOT trump the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Therefor, still can't be implemented within the US (unless they WANT another court battle. And I'm pretty sure this would immediately be brought to SCOTUS)

[slingshot]

I guess Rand Paul, Dick Morris, and John Bolton who have been pretty vocal about the UN Small Arms Treaty are all wrong and it does not represent a serious threat to 2A rights in the USA???  And they are all using the talking point for publicity and raising money for their own purposes....

[RevDisk]

I still find it hard to believe that Dick Morris, who claims to be an expert on many political matters, would keep bringing up this treaty if there was no meat to his statements.  He doesn't have anything to gain personally other than publicity and I guess selling his most recent book "Screwed".

My question is... why would the current administration support this treaty when they know it will not likely be ratified by the Senate by vote? 

Re taxes, there is already a sin tax on firearms and ammo. It's called FAET. Creatively named Firearm and Ammo Excise Tax. Funds goes to conservation, not general revenue. Not great, but acceptable.

Ah, how to phrase this. Dick Morris is a politician. Politicians first job is to lie and/or manipulate you into doing what is in their interest and probably not your's. So, yes, Dick Morris used half-truths, lies and likely even damn statistics to try to manipulate you. Probably for his own ends. Just because a politician says he is on your side does not mean he is on your side, and that he does not employ the same tactics as the opposition's politicians.


Both Strings and AJ are both correct. States can get their Constitutions stomped on, but not if it conflicts with Federal Constitution.

It does not present a serious threat to the 2A. It is economically and foreign policy probably a bad idea. Idea is to limit international arms trafficking to established governments. Idea is to hurt rebels, insurgency or revolutionary forces. Which would actually include folks we call terrorists. It'd also include the folks that overthrew the Libyan government. US has roughly 40% of the global arms trade. I would prefer we kept that, good money and jobs.


Just like to point out, you may think you hate the UN. But you don't know the depths of my dislike, disdain and contempt for the UN and its personnel. I had to work with them. Don't get me wrong, I met one or two people employed by the UN that I personally thought were almost decent human beings. When someone took some shots at the UN compound, I certainly did not "interfere". Well, unless you count laughing and (jokingly) shouting fire corrections.

PS, Bolton is an incompetent moron, regardless of the guy's politics. One can politically agree with a person, and still think they are incompetent and stupid. Bolton qualifies for both. Probably the worst diplomat, from a competency POV, that I've ever heard of. Rogozin is probably a "worse" diplomat, but scores epic Russian bad*** points for donating poplar trees to NATO HQ.

[slingshot]

Thanks RevDisk.  Now say what you really think! :D

It is hard for me to accept that these people are trying to minipulate me other than to convince me that 2A rights are in jeopardy.  Guess you can't trust anyone's opinion.  Maybe that one Democratic spokesman from FL (forget her hyphenated name) who I can't stand because she never says anything that is not already a talking point approved by the party.  At least I can dismiss her statements as being the party line.

[Viking]

Apparently, they were unable to reach an agreement .