Photo By � POOL New / Reuters/Reuters
Yahoo News
Secretary of State John Kerry voiced support on Friday for an international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global arms trade, but restated Washington's "red line," affirming that it would not accept limits on U.S. domestic gun ownership.
The U.N. General Assembly voted in December to hold a final round of negotiations from March 18 to 28 on what could become the first international treaty to regulate international weapons transfers after a drafting conference in July 2012 collapsed because the United States and others wanted more time.
Arms control campaigners say one person every minute dies worldwide as a result of armed violence and that a convention is needed to prevent the unregulated and illicit flow of weapons into conflict zones fueling wars and atrocities.
"The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability," Kerry said in a statement.
"An effective treaty that recognizes that each nation must tailor and enforce its own national export and import control mechanisms can generate the participation of a broad majority of states, help stem the illicit flow of conventional arms across international borders and have important humanitarian benefits."
But he repeated that the United States - the world's No. 1 arms manufacturer - would not accept any treaty that imposed new limits on U.S. citizens' right to bear arms, a sensitive political issue in the United States.
Wait, so now you're bragging that we're getting closer to a treaty?
ReplyDeleteBut I thought that all of the talk about the treaty back this summer and fall was just us right wingers seeing a non-existent conspiracy and trying to foist it upon Obama unjustly!
Where's the bragging?
DeleteFine, maybe you weren't delivering this news with joy that it's proceeding apace. (I find that hard to believe.)
DeleteMy point remains. Here, you're reporting, happily or not, on the progress toward this treaty. But before the election, if we brought up this treaty and the fact that Obama had put it off til after the election, but that his administration seemed to support it, your side said we were tin-foil hatters, and that we saw Obama as being Anti-gun in spite of all the supposed evidence to the contrary.
You are aware that treaties have to be approved by the Senate, no? The Senate will not agree to this. Talk all you want. You may end up making it harder for us to get antique guns from overseas, but we'll make more here.
ReplyDeleteIf you get rids of guns, people kill with swords and knives. If you get rid of swords and knives, people will kill with clubs and sticks. Get rid of the sticks and clubs, people kill with teeth and hands. While some things have no reason to be transported and sold across international lines, like heavy machine guns, and don't belong in private hands, sometimes you have to accept that people kill people. It's an indelible part of the human psyche. Some don't understand anything but force.
ReplyDeleteNobody's talking about getting rid of all guns.
DeleteYou mean, right now in public. But let's not forget all those gun control freaks who have been honest in the past. Remember Dianne Frankenstein saying that if she had the votes, she'd propose a bill to require all Americans to turn in their guns. That's one example.
DeleteThat's a bald faced Lie, Mike. You keep asserting that and we keep giving examples of people on your side who are talking about getting rid of all guns.
DeleteIt wasn't a lie, it was a mistake. I should say nobody who's serious about gun control is talking about that. I could also say that MOST gun control folks are not in favor of eliminating all guns from civilian ownership.
Delete