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*

For one thing, I don't actually recognize the sovereignty of international law.

^

I think it's a misguided notion to make laws that apply globally.

no because if you send guns into north korea who gets the guns?

International law is one of the most useless things anyone could have ever come up with

It might have made sense in the Westphalian context

But trying to apply it globally, to a multitude of cultures who sometimes don't even want to recognise the existence of civil law, is a fool's errand

Sovereign nations are where the buck stops as regards rule of law IMO. Global law will be for the day when we are a multi-planet species, or we encounter an alien civilization and require that level of organization to compete.

Until then it's counterproductive to evolution and doomed to break into factions.

the question isn't about your thoughts on international law

if the USA follows the bill would you care

It *wasn't*

and what would your argument be for selling guns to places where the government would use them for war crimes

It wouldn't keep me up at night, but I oppose the US getting itself into any more sweeping treaty obligations

how is this different like I said before than a bad guy buying a gun

Unless we're talking maritime law international law is a globalist ploy to destroy national sovereignty

My hot take for tonight

I didn't say we *should* sell guns to corrupt states or terrorist groups. I just don't think we should make ourselves accountable to an international treaty organization over it @Fondboy

two different things

then make it just a US law

that would be acceptable