The question of gun control has fiercely reentered the American dialogue and in 2013 the issue is set to incur an intense battle within Congress.
If the issue of gun control in the United States desperately needs to be addressed, President Obama needs to act on a second front and support an historical treaty regulating the arms trade. In March 2013, the UN will reconvene in another attempt to reach an agreement on an international treaty that would regulate the trade of conventional weapons.
This upcoming conference is the last opportunity to reach an agreement in the UN structure, according to Dr. Natalie Goldring, a senior research fellow at the Center for Security Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
The issue of regulating the international arms trade has lasted more than two decades. According to NGOs in favor of the treaty, there are approximately 639 million small arms and light weapons in the world today, killing one person every minute and leaving millions of others living in fear. Easy access to weapons in conflict zones has been detrimental to the progression of peace, as well as allowed devastating human rights violations; Sudan, Syria and Congo being the most recent examples of such atrocities.
Additional costs of the arms trade include its impact on the economic development of conflict regions such as Africa, as well as widespread corruption in arms transactions. However, contrary to others goods, there has never been an agreement on the international trade of arms in a global market where it is currently more difficult to trade fruits than guns.
Among the countries reluctant to see stricter market regulation for guns are China, Iran, Egypt, Syria, but also the United States, the world’s number one weapons dealer with 40% of the market for conventional weapons. In fact, in 2006, the United States, under the Bush administration, was the only country to oppose the resolution that started the negotiations for an international treaty on the sale of small arms and light weapons.
In 2009, the Obama administration broke with this tradition, and entered negotiations before withdrawing again at the last minute. This was the major reason behind the failure of the negotiation round in July 2012. The November election was coming, and as usual the gun control issue was a topic to be avoided by political campaigns. The NRA had an effective campaign about the potential consequences the treaty would have on the 2nd Amendment, leading 51 Senators to oppose the treaty.
The purpose of the treaty is to create a framework that would prohibit the international transfer of weapons in situations where these weapons are ”likely to be used for grave violations of international human rights, humanitarian law.” The treaty is in no way addressing the issue of how the United States manages its internal weapon trade, and thus would have no affect on the 2nd Amendment.
While it is expected that in an international negotiation not every player will leave completely satisfied with the result, the absence of agreement from the biggest weapons manufacturer in the world will considerably affect the chances of a successful outcome. Thankfully, the United States has agreed to participate in the March negotiation round.
The Obama administration appears to be serious about tackling the scourge of gun violence in the U.S., but its legacy could be truly great by successfully addressing gun trade around the world. The U.S. delegation should actively participate in helping the UN Arms Trade Treaty conference be a success, as well as make sure that the pro-gun lobby does not misinform the public and endanger the treaty’s success.
In July, the US delegation already imposed many restrictions in the treaty in order to make sure the Second Amendment remains protected. Despite these guaranties, the NRA has already announced they will continue to oppose the Arms Trade Treaty.
Now is time for political courage to finally tackle an issue which has been too costly for humankind for far too long.
Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.
Long I know, but I have to lay the groundwork..
The fact that fractional reserve banking is destroying prosperity worldwide by creating money from debt should be enough to clue you in that complete control of the worlds resources, economic systems, and people is the true aim of the UN, which is really controlled by powerful banking interests.
It is not a sound economic system, but one based on corruption of the common citizen. Early banking interests realized there is not enough gold to back the dollars needed to loan to the greatly increasing world population due the advent of oil, thus a system was created from the debt of people. By increasing the margin 10x what the banks actually had, they could then loan more money – with interest! All money that comes in is thus compounded and in turn loaned out further creating a world debt we can never repay. This corruption is played out upon the individual consumer as it is the national government. We never needed a Federal Reserve in 1913 since the US government already had the power to print its own money. The bankers feared this and knew that in order to claim a piece of the American prosperity that was coming from industrialization, they had to forge into the US a central bank and an income tax, the latter of which was never fully ratified as stated by a federal judge in 2003. Money we know today has become purely digital, representing some 90% of this imaginary currency with a very small percentage of actual "paper" being on the street. Now think, if we had a 2008 event that drained Americas retirees before and that resulted in the bankers getting a stimulus and the people ultimately getting the shaft ,hats to stop this from happening again? It does not take an economic genius to realize, the ultra wealthy banks have all the gold and the people are walking around with nothing. If they can shut it down once, it can be done with greter ferocity in at any time. There is no intent to pay back debt, all they intend is for the people to keep the tax money flowing to the central banks, further reducing wages worldwide so that the people will eventually have nothing
It was a policy that was forced upon us in secret meetings at the turn of the century and most people think this was so long ago and that surely world leaders have changed their tune and that wrongs have been corrected for the benefit of man, but what these people don't understand is that world financial domination takes time, especially when youre trying to foil a constitution backed American people. If they had created an environment of sound economics where people could prosper and make use of their resources equally rather than creating a world of oppression and decay, one could possibly see the wisdom in world disarmament, since the would have less strife and more economic equality.
Read the Patriot Act and the NDAA. The US government can raid your home unannounced, without cause, and take you without trial AND execute you. As Bush, Obama and subsequent Presidents sign off more of your civil liberties, you’ll have no choice OR GUNS as a last defense to the obvious tyranny that's approaching.
Handing the responsibility of securing freedom to government or world government is not the answer and never has been because government is and always has been controlled by money. Its the reason why partisan politics occurs, too many representatives are conflicted by whats good for the people versus whose paying for their campaigns and we all know what choice eventually wins.
They've laid their cards on the table without even thinking they have to hide it well anymore..
Obama's one-world socialist regime does intend to disarm citizens who legally have acquired and possess a variety of firearms for a variety of reasons. The primary US Constitutional Article recognizes the right of US Citizens to possess weapons for self-defense and, particularly, for self-defense against a tyrannous government regime. Unfortunately and reasonably, Obama recognizes that an armed America is a threat to his regime and has and will continue to work inside and outside the existing laws to take these arms away. Our Constitution also prohibits ex post facto laws such as the proposals to take legally acquired and owned weapons away from citizens after they have legally acquired and possess the weapons and also prohibits the seizure of property or the infliction of penalties outside of the judicial process which would follow Senate approval of a UN treaty. Adoption of the UN treaty and substituting it for the US Constitution would result in elimination of enumerated rights including the prohibition of a government established religion (Amendment 1), right to a citizen militia and gun ownership (A-2), need for a search warrant (A-4), use of the grand jury, prohibition against government seizure of private property without due process, and prohibition of dual jeopardy ()A-5); various rights of due process in criminal prosecutions (A-6); the prohibition against excessive fines (A-8); among other Constitutionally certified currently enjoyed by American citizens. No paranoia here - just a realization of how vicious, subversive, and unscrupulous the current regime is and how dangerous passage of this law in terms of future regimes.
The best thing we can do for peace is to quit empire-building and end the 'world policeman' stupidity. Treaties like this are a drop in the bucket compared to our military interventions around the world.
seems like some seriously common sense ideas. limiting sale to problem areas. though it's sure to have some unintended consequences like increasing gun smuggling in neighboring areas, those types of issues might be more easily solved than direct buying and selling
I don't really understand the NRA's stake in an international arms trade treaty. Like you said, this has very little to do with 2nd amendment rights as it pertains to how countries obtain these weapons. Unless their goal is to expand the opportunity for everyone in the world to bear arms, then the NRA shouldn't have to be involved.
The NRA doesn't really have any evidence of how gun owners' rights would be adversely affected by this treaty. The PrisonPlanet.com article (linked in the third-to-last paragraph) speculates of the possible endangerment of the 2nd Amendment just because the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty doesn't explicitly acknowledge the domestic legislation of each participating country. It's not the UN's role to remind each country that they will still have the right to govern themselves even if the treaty doesn't acknowledge "lawful private ownership." Gun owners paranoid that everyone wants to take away their rights shouldn't have to be consoled every time the international community wants to responsibly discuss arms trade.
For anyone who does not study linguistics , this should help explain some of the concerns over the UN Tarms treaty. http://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/blog/131-why-the-un-arms-trade-treaty-violates-the-constitution
Some argues that the NRA has just become the spokes person of weapon manufacturers who have a lot to lose if more restriction to international trade is set by the UN. That is why there are fighting the treaty behind the excuse of the 2nd amendment.
Yeah, i agree. A gun owners concern over their rights to own guns should not prevent a meaningful discussion on the arms trade treaty and what can be done to prevent violence caused by the legal trafficking of weapons.
Saying that the trafficking of firearms causes violence demonstrates a complete reversal of causality and a gross oversimplification of how the world works. The Rwandan genocide happened almost entirely with machetes. Guns had a limited role early on, but even after the Arusha "peace agreement" General Habyarimana was still importing machetes like crazy to keep slaughtering Tutsis. People who are ALREADY violent go looking for weapons. In part they do this because they know their victims don't have them.
When it comes down to using machetes to fight each other, the biggest, strongest, and most numerous are going to win. If some little village wants to just live their lives and not bother anybody, it doesn't matter whether they're Tutsi or Hutu, they should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves. Especially the women, the elderly, and anyone else who simply can't compete with a massive muscled psychopath with a machete. It will in no way make them suddenly become violent to be able to defend themselves. Two bit "generals" who know how to manipulate the emotions of the populace do that.
Besides, I'll take the bullet over the machete any day.