12.14.2006

exceptional

From Gun Guys, "Where Everyone's A Straight Shooter":
The United Nations passed a resolution [on December 6th] that could lead to an international treaty on small arms around the globe. The vote on the treaty was 153 to 1. Take a guess who was the sole vote against.
Over U.S. objections, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution Wednesday that could lead to the first international treaty on controlling the trade in assault rifles, machine guns and other small arms.

The nonbinding resolution asks the secretary-general to seek the views of the 192-member General Assembly on the feasibility of a comprehensive treaty "establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms."

Global trade in small arms is worth about $4 billion a year, of which a fourth is considered illegal. The arms cause 60 percent to 90 percent of all deaths in conflicts every year.

The resolution asks the secretary-general to submit a report in the next General Assembly session, which starts in September 2007. It also asks the secretary-general to establish a group of government experts to examine the feasibility of a treaty based on the report.

Resolution advocates said they hope any final treaty would compel countries to officially authorize all weapons transfers, stiffen compliance with previous treaties related to conventional weapons while prohibiting weapons transfers with countries likely to use the arms to violate their citizens' rights.
This is an international embarrassment. These small arms account for, as the article says, a huge percentage of deaths across the globe, and we can't even sign a nonbinding resolution against them. It's sick. [The US is] the backwards member of the UN on this one, and the reason for that is none other than the NRA.

The National Rifle Association has strongly opposed U.N. efforts at crafting a treaty to curb private ownership of small arms. The group has said such a treaty might embolden regimes that violate human rights to disarm their citizens and make popular uprisings against oppression impossible.

But human rights campaigners supporting the drive to regulate the arms trade welcomed the resolution's approval, though they said much work is left to be done before the final passage of any comprehensive compact.

"This indicates not only widespread recognition of the problem but also widespread political will to take action," Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms, said in a statement.

Did you catch the NRA's rationale for being against this? They say they're fighting for human rights by allowing these weapons to be used to slaughter human beings. Even human rights people think that's crazy. Even if the Second Amendment did grant an individual right to firearms (it doesn't), that law doesn't exist outside of this country. For [the US] to vote against even the thought of this resolution is a travesty.
Great stuff, read more here. Many thanks to Redsock for sending it to me.

2 comments:

Daniel wbc said...

you wrote:
Even if the Second Amendment did grant an individual right to firearms (it doesn't),

[Deep breath]Thank you for pointing out something that always drives me nuts. People forget the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment -- and it's not a long amendment (27 words):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, damn it ...

L-girl said...

Well, I didn't write it, but it's true all the same. :)