NationStates Jolt Archive


The Bush administration has turned it's back on Gun owners. <sigh>

DesignatedMarksman
01-07-2006, 02:44
Traitor :mad:




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATEMENT
BY
Robert G . Joseph
Undersecretary of State for
Arms Control and International Security
United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made
in the Implementation of the Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate
the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

Mr . President, distinguished colleagues, it is my honor to present the views of my government at this important conference .

I want to begin by thanking the .President of the Review Conference, Ambassador Kariyawasam, for his leadership and effort in setting the stage for what should be a successful Review Conference. We look forward to constructive engagement with all. States present today to build upon this work . The United States believes it is important for all of us to speak with one voice concerning the grave matter of the international illicit trade in small arms and light weapons . To do so, we should start with a full and focused review of our progress, and document that review in a manner that strengthens our collective commitment to effective action .

As a first step, we must make our positions clear . So let me be very clear : the United States believes it is critical to our collective interests that we act to stem the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons .

The United States believes strongly in the agreed Program of Action and is committed to its implementation . We will put forth detailed plans that we think the Review Conference should adopt, including advancing the effectiveness of export controls, the destruction of excess, loosely secured or otherwise atrisk stockpiles of small arms and light weapons, and implementing the marking and tracing instrument .

My delegation is here today with a positive agenda -- an agenda for effective action to address the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, covering military style arms such as Shoulder-fired missiles and rocket systems, light mortars, machine guns and automatic rifles .

But, with the goal of making an effective contribution to stopping the international illicit trade in small arms aid light weapons, I will be equally clear about those actions we will not accept .

In this regard, we agree with the remarks made by the . Secretary General to this conference yesterday, namely that the Program of Action is not "intended to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national traditions" and that our efforts should be "directed toward illegal weapons and not legal ones ."

The U .S . Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those rights . The United States will not agree to any provisions restricting civilian possession, use or legal trade of firearms inconsistent with our laws and practices . Many millions of American citizens enjoy hunting and the full . range of firearm ,sports, and our work will not affect their rights and opportunities . As a~ officer of the Executive Branch of my government, 1 took an oath to protect the Constitution -- a duty that is an honor to uphold .

The long established U .S . positions on two other topics also remain unchanged . First, we are resolute in our belief that regulating ammunition is beyond the mandate of this body amid would be ineffective, prohibitively costly, and is best addressed elsewhere - - if at all . And second, while we will of course continue to oppose the acquisition of arms by terrorist groups, we recognize the rights of the oppressed to defend themselves .against tyrannical and genocidal regimes and oppose a blanket ban on non-state actors .
We believe lengthy debates on these topics will only serve to distract us from our areas of agreement and dilute the collective will required to combat the international illicit trade in small arms and light weapons .

Finally, we will not agree to a document that obfuscates the main problem, namely that of "illicit trade," or which seeks to substitute an expansive and unworkable set of international regulations for specific and targeted actions of proven worth .

We must strive to take effective action . It is critical to our collective interests that we act here and elsewhere to stem illicit weapons flows across national borders or acquisition efforts by rogue regimes or by States that are known to support terrorist- organizations . The key to achieving this goal lies not in creating new textual language, but in overcoming the political impediments to implement what has already been agreed upon and having the courage to take meaningful, bud sometimes difficult, actions today that will prevent serious adverse consequences tomorrow .

The United States enters these proceedings with the strong desire, backed up by demonstrated accomplishments, to conduct a serious review of the progress that has been made in implementing the original Program of Action . To that end, the United States supports : aggressive steps to implement the recently concluded agreement on the marking and tracing of weapons ; effective controls on weapons transfers - both import and export - as well as robust end-user certification ; strengthening controls over international brokers ; effective stockpile management of weapons under state control ; and the destruction of government-declared surplus and illicit weapons . And, while we will not accept formal negotiations or a formal agreement on transfer controls, we are willing to consider text that encourages the adoption of a set of principles on arms transfers . These steps, taken collectively, will reduce the international illicit trade in small arms and light weapons .

Not only is the United States prepared to endorse language to this effect in this conference, but more importantly and without regard to conference outcomes, the United States will continue, to implement the actions noted above through enforcement of robust export controls and end-user certification processes, as well as through our cooperation with others . By our analysis, the United States is one of less than a dozes countries that have shown progress in implementing all aspects of the Program of Action .

The U .S . commitment to implementation of the Program of Action can be seen in our arms export control structures, our law enforcement efforts, and our significant programs of cooperation and assistance .

The United States has a robust and transparent system of laws and regulations governing national holdings, manufacture and the international movement of small arms and light weapons . All firearms, by law, are marked at the time of manufacture and import . In addition, we have some of the strongest laws of any State concerning third-party transfers of weapons . The United States is also one of only a handful of countries to assert universal jurisdiction on all U .S . weapons or citizens involved in the arms trade, no mater where they are located . A robust end-use monitoring system and a tough legal framework for enforcement support this export control regime .

In terms of cooperation and assistance, since agreement on the Program of Action, the United Stats has allocated over $37 million to destroy 900,000 small arms and light weapons, as well as over 18,600 MANPADS in 25 countries around the world . Just this month, I endorsed plans to start new programs in four African States, as well as initiating what we expect- to be a long and productive relationship with the Nairobi-based Regional Center for Small Arms . Moreover, we have a long track record of helping others enhance the security o~ their national stockpiles and improving the border controls and customs services so important to stopping illicit trade of all types .

Additionally, the U .S . Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), works effectively in our country to enforce our firearms laws . Internationally, ATF offers a variety of training courses related to firearms and ballistic identification and firearms tracing for international law enforcement professionals . ATF also cooperates in more than 20,000 foreign tracing requests per year for oúr foreign law enforcement partners .

We are particularly pleased with the progress that has been made on this issue in various regional bodies such as the OAS, OSCE and NATO . Based on the documented success of these bodies, success measured in terms of working agreements and on-the-ground results, we feel that these are the most vital venues for meaningful newt steps .

There should be no debate regarding the serious and disturbing collateral effects caused by the illicit international trade in small arms and light weapons .

Indeed, the deleterious and disproportionate effects they have on innocent civilians, underdeveloped nations, and those states trying to recover from the ravages of war and conflict are beyond dispute . It is for this reason that this Review Conference - must remain focused on the issue at hand -- illicit tradé . We must focus on substance and not process . Accordingly, the United States will not commit to another Review Conference . We will only consider proposals regarding follow-on actions that are focused, practical, and to intended to strengthen the implementation of the Program of Action .

The United States is proud of its commitment to the tenets of the Program of Action and of our demonstrated achievements in its implementation . Mr . President, we look forward to working with you and all States present to identify and overcome thóse obstacles that remain to expanding and strengthening implementation of what we all agreed in 2001 .


:p
Bottle
01-07-2006, 02:44
Welcome to the club.
[NS]Liasia
01-07-2006, 02:47
Sooner america bans firearms the better *shrugs*
NERVUN
01-07-2006, 02:49
What part of illegal gun trading are you in favor of?

Really now.
Psychotic Mongooses
01-07-2006, 02:50
I don't understand. What exactly are you whinging about?
Les Drapeaux Brulants
01-07-2006, 02:52
Okay, we shouldn't be participating in that awful UN conference. But we probably need to be there to make sure that they don't send out some recommendations that are just completely out to lunch. It looks like the parts you bolded show that the undersecretary understands that there is a difference between types of small arms.

What's your gripe?
CthulhuFhtagn
01-07-2006, 02:59
I don't understand. What exactly are you whinging about?
Well, if illegal gun trading is cracked down on, there will be far fewer criminals with guns, and he won't have that excuse to own weaponry that the military doesn't even have.
DesignatedMarksman
01-07-2006, 03:02
Well, if illegal gun trading is cracked down on, there will be far fewer criminals with guns, and he won't have that excuse to own weaponry that the military doesn't even have.

Psst...shhh...don't tell them about my plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

The secondary reason I own guns is for JBTs.

I am all for cracking down on illegal weapons. Mine are all legal, 110%.

I hope you guys can see the humour in the OP.
DesignatedMarksman
01-07-2006, 03:03
What part of illegal gun trading are you in favor of?

Really now.


Nothing....you should read the OP and get a sense of humour.
CthulhuFhtagn
01-07-2006, 03:05
Psst...shhh...don't tell them about my plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

Way to miss the point. See, in some states in the U.S. it is legal to own an assault rifle that is capable of firing all of its ammunition in one burst. The U.S. military's weaponry is restricted to bursts of three.
Psychotic Mongooses
01-07-2006, 03:05
Nothing....you should read the OP and get a sense of humour.
What's funny about it?
CthulhuFhtagn
01-07-2006, 03:05
Nothing....you should read the OP and get a sense of humour.
Humor is funny.
Non Aligned States
01-07-2006, 03:06
What's your gripe?

Clearly, by examining the nature of the article, and DM's response, he is actually either an owner or a trafficker in illicit arms and would like to keep his shoulder launched SAM launchers as well as other high yield ordnance.

As such, we can extrapolate that DM is either a gun runner, or a terrorist arms supplier. As such, we can then have him moved to the place he approves of most. Guatamo Prison.
Teh_pantless_hero
01-07-2006, 03:10
I don't understand. What exactly are you whinging about?
I assume it is because there was no anouncement that the government will be handing out AR's on street corners for free.
Minkonio
01-07-2006, 03:10
Obviously the OP was joking with the title there, since GWB said he would'nt take any reccomendations from the U.N.

Did'nt anyone notice the little ":p " at the bottom of the post?
Psychotic Mongooses
01-07-2006, 03:11
I assume it is because there was no anouncement that the government will be handing out AR's on street corners for free.
Curses.

I shall have to redraw my Christmas list.
CthulhuFhtagn
01-07-2006, 03:12
Obviously the OP was joking with the title there, since GWB said he would'nt take any reccomendations from the U.N.

Did'nt anyone notice the little ":p " at the bottom of the post?
Who cares what DM intended.
New Zero Seven
01-07-2006, 03:14
No gunz for j000000!!!!! muhuwahahaha!!!!! :eek:
Teh_pantless_hero
01-07-2006, 03:25
No gunz for j000000!!!!! muhuwahahaha!!!!! :eek:
No guns for jews? Racist.
Trostia
01-07-2006, 03:27
Psst...shhh...don't tell them about my plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.


Hmm, I didn't think the OP was funny, but you get kudos for a Terminator reference. :)
[NS]Liasia
01-07-2006, 03:29
No guns for jews? Racist.
sensibel, i'd say
New Zero Seven
01-07-2006, 03:29
No guns for jews? Racist.

Yes, and while we're at it, no hash browns for them either, it all belongs to me! :)
DesignatedMarksman
01-07-2006, 06:54
Way to miss the point. See, in some states in the U.S. it is legal to own an assault rifle that is capable of firing all of its ammunition in one burst. The U.S. military's weaponry is restricted to bursts of three.

Actually, no. Only the marines have the burst capability, and it's for ammo conservation. Everyone else has full auto, not burst.

In the US if a true machinegun is registered with the ATF it can have burst, double, full, etc...
DesignatedMarksman
01-07-2006, 06:55
Hmm, I didn't think the OP was funny, but you get kudos for a Terminator reference. :)

I was wondering where that came from. Speaking of which, I have a new thread to post on this...check GD....
Swilatia
01-07-2006, 06:57
Personally I think that the second ammendment should be done away with.
Duntscruwithus
01-07-2006, 07:48
Personally I think that the second ammendment should be done away with.

Then it is good for those of us who believe in the right of self-defense, that you are not in a position of political power in the US.
Not bad
01-07-2006, 08:10
The Bush administration wont turn their back on all gun owners. They know better now. Cheney might pepper them with his scatter gun.:p
Jeruselem
01-07-2006, 08:15
I don't think the US government will be stopping government contractors from selling weapons to nations who have a fondness for civil wars though.
Earth Starfleet
01-07-2006, 08:34
If it was up to me a single round of any calibre would cost $20,000.
Epsilon Squadron
01-07-2006, 08:35
I still can't understand why so many people are so vocal about their opposition to another human's right to self defense.

Can someone explain that?
DesignatedMarksmen
01-07-2006, 08:37
Then it is good for those of us who believe in the right of self-defense, that you are not in a position of political power in the US.

That is so true.
Free shepmagans
01-07-2006, 08:38
I still can't understand why so many people are so vocal about their opposition to another human's right to self defense.

Can someone explain that?
My thoughts exactly. *mentally hugs bolt action rifle in hallway*
Earth Starfleet
01-07-2006, 08:40
Weapons are so... Ugly. An unpleasant reminder that a lot of us can't get along, and vocally oppose the part of society who want us to. :)
Krakatao0
01-07-2006, 08:42
If it was up to me a single round of any calibre would cost $20,000.
So you want people to handle guns incompetently? What such pricing would lead to is that people practise less (or not at all in most cases).
DesignatedMarksmen
01-07-2006, 08:44
Weapons are so... Ugly. An unpleasant reminder that a lot of us can't get along, and vocally oppose the part of society who want us to. :)

You are a reminder that I should vocally oppose those who wish to challenge our rights to bear arms, as a proud American.
Earth Starfleet
01-07-2006, 08:44
I personally don't want anyone outside of the armed forces carrying guns, except perhaps state-regulated militia groups, and they shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons.

EDIT: as a citizen of the UK, I can tell you that we're no wrose off for our lack of guns.
DesignatedMarksmen
01-07-2006, 08:48
So you want people to handle guns incompetently? What such pricing would lead to is that people practise less (or not at all in most cases).

lol :p Yeah if it were up to me I'd passing out rounds like candy. It's a World That Works.

But seriously, cheap ammunition is important to me. I target practice with hundreds of rounds per week. Any less and I'd get antsy.
Not bad
01-07-2006, 08:56
If it was up to me a single round of any calibre would cost $20,000.

So only the rich might have ammo?
Epsilon Squadron
01-07-2006, 09:15
I personally don't want anyone outside of the armed forces carrying guns, except perhaps state-regulated militia groups, and they shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons.

EDIT: as a citizen of the UK, I can tell you that we're no wrose off for our lack of guns.
Why do you oppose the very basic human right of self defense?
Chellis
01-07-2006, 09:27
Actually, no. Only the marines have the burst capability, and it's for ammo conservation. Everyone else has full auto, not burst.

In the US if a true machinegun is registered with the ATF it can have burst, double, full, etc...

*sigh*

DM, please stop acting like you know all this stuff. You dont.

The army and national guard use the M16a2, with burst and single only.

The Marines use the a4, with the detachable carry handle. Burst and single only as well.

Since the person you quoted originally talked about assault rifles, it wouldn't make sense if you were talking about anything else...
Texoma Land
01-07-2006, 10:04
Why do you oppose the very basic human right of self defense?

Seriously? You don't see the flaw in that line of questioning?

You do not need a gun to practice self defense. It is a sad person indeed who *needs* a gun to replace their security blanket.

Now I have no problem with guns, the second amendment, or most gun owners. I am considering buying one myself. However, those who are gun obsessed are another breed altogether. It's as if they believe that by having a personal arsenal and the biggest and best guns on the market, no one will notice their sub par social skills/intelligence/social status/genitalia/spouse/children/career or whatever it is they are trying so desperately to compensate for. I kind of feel sorry for them.
Gun Manufacturers
01-07-2006, 10:09
Liasia']Sooner america bans firearms the better *shrugs*

The day firearms are banned in the US is either the day the people responsible for it are impeached, or the day the US starts a new revolution.
The Alma Mater
01-07-2006, 10:10
I hope you guys can see the humour in the OP.

No, just the extreme sadness. The UN conference is about cracking down on illegal arms trades and the bloodshed caused by for instance child soldiers with AK 47s in third world countries. It never had anything to do with restricting the legal ownership of firearms in the USA.

The NRA however decided to launch a huge propaganda scheme claiming it did. And people believed that without question. Protest against it without question. And now even the US government plays along with it, while it should know better.

I see no humour in the willingness of US citizens to embrace lies and deceit on every level.
Gun Manufacturers
01-07-2006, 10:11
Way to miss the point. See, in some states in the U.S. it is legal to own an assault rifle that is capable of firing all of its ammunition in one burst. The U.S. military's weaponry is restricted to bursts of three.

The US military has F/A firearms as well. The reason current M-16s have burst instead of F/A, is because soldiers sometimes lack ammo conservation.
Gun Manufacturers
01-07-2006, 10:15
If it was up to me a single round of any calibre would cost $20,000.

Too bad for your idea that ammo is relatively easy to manufacture. If the price for commercial ammo was that expensive, you'd start to see a decrease in the availability of wheel weights, brass, and the ingredients necessary to make gunpowder.
Gun Manufacturers
01-07-2006, 10:23
Seriously? You don't see the flaw in that line of questioning?

You do not need a gun to practice self defense. It is a sad person indeed who *needs* a gun to replace their security blanket.

Now I have no problem with guns, the second amendment, or most gun owners. I am considering buying one myself. However, those who are gun obsessed are another breed altogether. It's as if they believe that by having a personal arsenal and the biggest and best guns on the market, no one will notice their sub par social skills/intelligence/social status/genitalia/spouse/children/career or whatever it is they are trying so desperately to compensate for. I kind of feel sorry for them.

So the 100 pound woman who can't physically fight back against an attacker should be left without the tools to defend herself? What about the elderly man, who can't defend himself physically because his body has weakened with age?
Texoma Land
01-07-2006, 10:34
So the 100 pound woman who can't physically fight back against an attacker should be left without the tools to defend herself? What about the elderly man, who can't defend himself physically because his body has weakened with age?

As a man with a spinal cord injury myself, I stand by my statement. There are many ways to defend ones self (even if you are small/frail/weak/disabled) that do not require a gun. A basic self defense course can teach anyone how to defend themselves without a gun. And if one still insists on accessories there are many to chose from such as mace, pepper spray, tazers, etc. There really isn't any need for a gun for self defense.

Edited to add: Please read my entire earlier post. I have nothing against guns. I just don't feel they are necessary for self defense. I didn't say they were useless or evil.
Tactical Grace
01-07-2006, 12:31
Trolling. Not me who locked it, but this would be the reason I would.