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

@A. Spader why do you think there needs to be a boarder between the USA and Canada?

ok Uncephalized

🙂

I'd still have to look at the specifics of any given bill of course FondBoy

Us law already heavily regulates export of small arms and small arms components under ITAR

true im going off its basics 'dont sell guns to shitty states'

when did I say we need a border between us and knuckistan @Fondboy ?

um, there already is one...

unless the US conquered Canada while I wasn't looking....

I'm just wondering cause you said you thought globalism is a ploy to destroy national sovereignty

for the record I agree with that Spader

No I said international (not maritime, that makes sense) law was a globalist ploy

yea and I want to know why you guys think there must be a boarder between Canada and America

Globalism itself is a movement seeking power like any other

?????????????????????

ok

because they are separate sovereign nations with independent citizenries and governments

I don't see a need for one particularly

you don't think we need a border @A. Spader ?

That's different from having a right to enforce one.

I just see nothing in Canada I'm all that worried about

why can't people just walk over the boarders like states? Different laws would be the only thing to worry about

I'm not talking about a militarized border, just a legal line that says "this is USA" and "this is Canada"