Message from @Fondboy
Discord ID: 626258419279593477
northern part of vietnam
I don't remember which side we were on in the Vietnam war. 😓 I guess it's immaterial compared to all the warfare we did.
hanoi was the commie capitol
if memory serves
In Korea and Viet Nam, the south were the good guys.
In the American Civil War, the south were.................................................................. uuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh
misunderstood?
I thought about making that joke
I was going to say something like 'just remember, the south is alwasy the good side.'
i mean
wouldnt be wrong
what is the opinion here on the arms trade act being dropped?
are you talking about the Arms Trade Treaty?
@Fondboy ?
yea that one
I think internationally, as domestically, any attempt to curtail *violence* through centralized control of *weapons* is doomed to fail and is counterproductive.
I'd rather have a robust, open market in arms and a strongly protected individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense and defense of community/state.
so I guess I am predictably against a broad and sweeping ATT
would you make the same argument for those who fail background checks?
Basically, you can lose your individual right by proving you can't use it responsibly.
So no, I think it is reasonable to prohibit violent felons from owning guns, although the way we enforce it now makes it worse than nothing.
We shouldn't have laws we aren't willing to expend the effort to enforce; it reduces respect for the law generally.
would you not argue the states barred by the act are the ones that have proven irresponsible?
treaty
No, that argument doesn't fly.
The right to self defense and to bear arms is fundamentally an individual right and the actions of my government are not my actions.
It is unjust to bar me from defending my family because my government is unjust.
And in fact the places where the governments are not well-behaved are probably the ones that would benefit most from a well-armed populace.
It takes a certain culture, as well, imo
Yes.
Somalia is a great case study for a 2A failing even with a "good" government
do you really think selling guns to northkorea will end with its population getting guns?
Ironically Saudi Arabia with its otherwise mostly oppressive laws generally treats its citizens well within the confines of sharia
No. Not necessarily. But banning them also won't have the salutory effects you're hoping for.
I don't see the difference in not selling to a bad person vs a bad state
"The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs claimed the treaty would not interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in its member states; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm the legitimate right to self-defence; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.[24][25]
The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they do not end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria.[26]
Advocates of the treaty say that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws.[27][28][29] These advocates point to the UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the ATT. The resolution explicitly states that it is "the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership."
^If true, it could be worse, but I don't trust it to be true
Do you acknowledge the difference between North Korea as the state and the North Korea people?
North Korean*