Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by olddog573 on December 25, 2013 at 2:41

Hopefully she's toast and will not be re-elected

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on December 26, 2013 at 5:13

OD,

She'll probably run for Governor and be elected by the N.O. and South Louisiana bunch. I can't see her going away.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on December 26, 2013 at 17:13

I don't think so. She signed on to that UN Gun Ban treaty. People in south LA are hunters and pro gun. I don't think they will forget that. That issue will be more important to them than her pro Obamacare stand

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on December 26, 2013 at 21:01

Good point. I didn't think about that one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 27, 2013 at 2:29

There are a number of pertinent issues to be considered in the upcoming US Senate race.  The UN gun ban is not one.  Or should not be for anyone who is informed.

The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market":

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 don't end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria.

The text of the proposed treaty specifically "reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems," so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#bKP61RRE70iwU3LI.99

                               

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin on December 27, 2013 at 3:01

Skip --

   Thanks for the background information. 

  Hope this post works. A previous attempt failed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Francis Mayo on December 27, 2013 at 3:10

I find it unusual that this has not been directed to the political and off topic. Maybe Mary is acceptable to the Industry after all. Interesting, though hardly surprising.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304866904579268...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 27, 2013 at 3:19

Mary is acceptable to the industry as their long history of campaign contributions attest.  She has carried their water on numerous occasions. I agree that this discussion is more appropriate for the political group but Keith has a long history of minimal intervention as long as discussion replies remain civil.  Civility was an early casualty in all past political discussions that's why the political group exists. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Francis Mayo on December 27, 2013 at 3:22

I understand that but it usually happens that things less blatant than this thread are politely directed to political and off topic. Just an observation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 27, 2013 at 3:52

I don't recall any less blatant.  Some diacussions may have been moved simply because Keith was acting based on past experience.

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on December 27, 2013 at 4:52

The fear is the U.N. — especially with its long track record of failures — would meddle with the rights of American citizens and disrupt the American firearms industry. Many fear the Arms Trade Treaty would be a first step down a very dangerous road that could eventually lead to the disarming of American citizens and the destruction of the U.S. firearms industry. This is especially troubling when you consider the U.N. and the rest of the world give not one whit for the firearm rights of the American citizen.

While the curtailment of U.S. citizens’ firearm rights is certainly a possibility, there is more at stake then just this. The U.S. is the largest arms exporter in the world, and there are very real concerns the Arms Trade Treaty could be utilized to hinder U.S. industry and further damage our economy. Plus, there are very real concerns regarding U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. has long had very close relations with both Israel and Taiwan, and there are concerns the Arms Trade Treaty could be utilized to hinder or halt sales along with the transfer of technology to these two countries in particular. There is also the possibility the U.S. would be hindered in supplying other allies in various places around the world as well. To be frank, there is a lot at stake for the U.S.

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/09/27/what-the-united-nations-arms-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tony allen on December 27, 2013 at 6:32

I did not start this thread due to politics. I stay out of that arena. I posted hoping to get opinions from those with more experience than I to see if they felt having Landrieu chair the committee would  expedite   approval for more LNG export terminals and drive the idea for the elimination of  the ban of oil exports. The API said these were top priorities on their political agenda for 2014.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page