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

[nemo2econ]

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 “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.

 

[Mike Irwin]

This again?

Try the search button before posting.

Iteration 5,027,371,296 closed.