The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 20, 2010, 03:43 PM   #1
Join Date: March 24, 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 91
The U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty “Programme of Action” on Small Arms is Dangerous!

The U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty Process “Programme of Action” on Small Arms is Dangerous!

Just read an excellent short essay on some of the problems with the new United Nations Arms Trade Treaty and the international bureaucracies' “Programme of Action” on Small Arms. The link is here.

Key grafs:
Originally intended as "a voluntary mechanism, the [“Programme of Action”] posed few dangers and offered the hope of modest gains in cooperation to address illicit arms trafficking. The 2010 biennial meeting demonstrated that these hopes are unlikely to be fulfilled. The better facets of the PoA are being weakened, while its worst aspects are receiving additional emphasis."
The article goes on to identify several principal dangers. Among them:
  • The Danger of the PoA as a Treaty. "The U.N. wants to turn the PoA into a binding treaty. In 2008, the Secretary-General identified as the PoA’s first weakness the fact that it “is not a legally binding instrument.” In his opening remarks at the 2010 meeting, the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte (Mexico) regretted that the PoA “proposes neither benchmarks nor cut-off dates … [and] does not provide a specific framework to facilitate international assistance and cooperation.”[2] If the PoA were to become a treaty, all of its existing flaws would become much more dangerous."
  • The Danger to the Second Amendment. "... The convention poses serious dangers to the Second Amendment because it defines “manufacturing” in such as a way as to require nearly every gun owner to obtain a “manufacturing” license. ... the PoA continues to ignore—and by implication to denigrate—the existence of constitutions in three dozen nations that guarantee the right to arms, the right of self-defense, or the right to resist tyranny."
  • The Danger to the First Amendment. “[t]he reduction of violence in the media and in video games” as well as “[s]ustained efforts at re-education and reorientation of [member state] citizens.” In the U.S., such efforts would be unacceptable on First Amendment grounds, as they would mandate government suppression of speech that is deemed politically incorrect by the U.N.

The entire essay is short. If you are interested in this kind of thing, I recommend you just take five minutes and read the whole thing.
nemo2econ is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 12:38 PM   #2
Mike Irwin
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 39,177
This again?

Try the search button before posting.

Iteration 5,027,371,296 closed.
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Closed Thread

international law , international treaties , small arms treaty , united nations

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.04711 seconds with 9 queries