Small arms. if they are legal domesticly, should they be legal internationaly?

[devil-fire]

reading about small arms trade i came across an article reviewing a meeting of the UN where they were trying to talk about solving problems coming from small arms, and it turn, about international legalitys about the selling and buying of these arms.

this is from the site (http://www.id21.org/id21-media/pressjuly0303.html)


On the political front, not all governments in a position to donate funds towards small arms control recognize civilian ownership of arms as a problem. The second amendment to the United States constitution awards its people the right to keep and bear arms, for example, and it is estimated that between 66 and 92 per cent of the population do so. It is on the basis of this constitutional right that the US blocked in 2001 the UN's adoption of a measure to prohibit civilian possession of small - much to the regret and concern of the participating African nations.

"The United States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life…We, therefore, do not begin with the presumption that all small arms and light weapons are the same or that they are all problematic… The United States will not join a consensus…that contains measures abrogating the Constitutional right to bear arms," the US representative to the conference John Bolton - Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs - stated in 2001.


end quote

and in another site with much the same context...(http://www.globalissues.org/Geopoli...opleandGovernmentsareTryingtoAddresstheIssues)


The Conference, held July 9-20, 2001, began on a rather sour tone with the statement of U.S. Under Secretary of State John Bolton, who expressed the U.S. position on the issue of small arms and the Conference in no uncertain terms. Bolton stressed that the Conference should address only the illicit transfer of military style weapons, excluding firearms and non-military rifles (the weapons responsible for terrible carnage and destruction around the world every year).

Bolton bluntly stated the position of the United States in front of the ministerial-level portion of the meeting, describing the U.S. "redlines," items unacceptable for inclusion in the Conference plan. Bolton stated that the United States could not support a final Conference document that included:

restrictions on the legal trade and manufacture of small arms and light weapons;
promotion of international advocacy by NGOs and international organizations;
restrictions on the sale of small arms and light weapons to entities other than governments;
a mandatory review conference; and
a commitment to begin discussions on legally binding agreements.


end quote.

to sum this up, USA wants to export non-military (to a lesser degree the military arms as well) small arms to whoever wants to buy them, private sector or national government organizations alike because its legal to buy such weapons in the usa. plus any weapons distributions that are currently legal should stay legal, but illegal gun running should be addressed. this is vary much contrary to the interests of countrys where small arms proliferation is a big problem. african countrys for example have big problems of legally sold guns being bought or acquired illegally and turning up in hands they shouldn't be

 

[Pengwuino]

Fireworks are going off in my eyes as there is a CLEAR solution to this whole idea.

The United States currently has the sale of Cuban cigars (for example) as a banned sale. You are not allowed to have one, it is illegal to import them. This is EXACTLY what countries should do. This is a VERY simple concept and the idea that you should solve a few countries problems by restricting the entire planet is absolutely lunicy when it comes to something with this simple of a solution.

Lets say if South Africa wants to control small arms distribution. Which idea is SANER and more effective and cheaper? Telling every nation on Earth to stop selling it weapons or ban them like the US bans them. We don't tell every nation on Earth to stop importing cuban cigars just because we don't want them.

 

[devil-fire]

if cuban cigars were still getting into the USA even though it is illegal to import them, would it also not solve the problem to make it illegal to sell cuban cigars to america? keep in mind wer not just talking about lung cancer here.

there are a few things wrong with this situation your talking about when it comes to poorer countrys including the inability to inspect all incoming traffic. that is to say if i ordered $500,000 worth of AK-47s and ammunition to ethiopia, the sellers wouldn't nessisarily be committing any offence where as the ethiopian government won't know anything about it. then the shipment is put on trucks and brought into sudan against international embargos. there is another example where a company operating in egypt but owned by sudanese buys weapons from china, but for unknown reasons wants the shipment to go by plane to sudan before going to egypt where the flight is unloaded in sudan and the registered traffic of that aircraft stops in sudan (change decals, get a new registry and move on like nothing happened).

in this case sudan might want only national government organizations in africa to be the legal buyers of arms and make even selling the arms to non-NGOs illegal

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes but you don't go off and say "ok, since we can't deal with our problems, everyone else should be forced to lose their soverign rights as a nation to hopefully compensate." Should we tell the UN to force every nation on Earth to stop importing cuban cigars since we still get them here?

And since it is illegal to sell cuban cigars in the US, obviously it also doesn't work. When we're talking about "banning" a product like we are in these 2 situations, its normally considered that importing and sales are both to be criminalized.

 

[Art]

Yes but you don't go off and say "ok, since we can't deal with our problems, everyone else should be forced to lose their soverign rights as a nation to hopefully compensate." Should we tell the UN to force every nation on Earth to stop importing cuban cigars since we still get them here?
.

Actually you tried. The US threatened sanctions against any company trading with Cuba but had to back down under pressure from practically every country in the world where these companies were registered.

 

[Pengwuino]

Actually you tried. The US threatened sanctions against any company trading with Cuba but had to back down under pressure from practically every country in the world where these companies were registered.

Although this is not really related to the topic at hand, it still somewhat proves a point. Cant tell the whole world what to do just because you can't contorl your own borders.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Although this is not really related to the topic at hand, it still somewhat proves a point. Cant tell the whole world what to do just because you can't contorl your own borders.

Except when the USA has control of a Security Council veto and they can effectively make it impossible to act for the positive.

The USA voted this way simply because the USA sees nothing wrong with the carnage in their own country.

No party in the USA is going to risk offending the NRA or the arms producers contributing to their party coffers.

They don't care if people die in 3rd world nations as long as they can buy something freudian to massage their ego and feel empowered.

And so it is that the rest of the world suffers becasue of American 'uncivility' to other Americans is guaranteed by your constitution.

Apparently, they are necessary to negotiate the traffic jams of LA.

 

[devil-fire]

Yes but you don't go off and say "ok, since we can't deal with our problems, everyone else should be forced to lose their soverign rights as a nation to hopefully compensate." Should we tell the UN to force every nation on Earth to stop importing cuban cigars since we still get them here?

And since it is illegal to sell cuban cigars in the US, obviously it also doesn't work. When we're talking about "banning" a product like we are in these 2 situations, its normally considered that importing and sales are both to be criminalized.

considering how difficult it is to regulate the traffic of arms domestically in the nations where arms are problematic, would it be agreeable to ban selling to these specific countrys?

P.S.

i think the usa would be opposed to even this because it would lose potential customers and the oppertunity to supply potentialy positive armed rebelions.

 

[devil-fire]

*revival of older post*

anyone seen that new movie lord of war? its a closly related subject mater that hasnt changed in the last 15 years.

 

[Smurf]

We don't tell every nation on Earth to stop importing cuban cigars just because we don't want them.

You do that all the time. Just no one listens.