Many non-governmental organizations are pushing an international campaign to regulate the small arms trade. They want this regulation because a flood of small arms are fueling countless conflicts around the world. Small arms has faciliated the explosion of the use of child soldiers, with even pre-teenagers being recruited into the horrors of war; in the past, weapons were too heavy for young children to use.
The Bush administration has been an active opponent of any regulations on the international small arms trade. Its pretext: it will not support anything that it claims might go against the Second Amendment to US Constitution.
Of course, contrary to the assertions of the chicken littles, the small arms treaty wouldn't ban the use of all weapons within the United States; it would only REGULATE the international trade in such arms. But fanastical scare tactics are the bread and butter of any activist organization, left or right.
Yet this begs the question: why should our Constitution's rights apply to foreigners in foreign countries?
This argument is even more bizarre when you consider this: in the War on Civil Liberties, we are told that foreigners in this country have absolutely no rights and can be treated in a contempible, offensive manner, even kidnapped and sent to Cuba, with no judicial recourse for arbtirary and capricious reasons... or none at all. Why are foreigners living in THIS country not subject to US constitutional rights but foreigners in foreign countries are?
Collectively, the use of small arms has wrought significantly more damage on far more lives than the use of WMDs. In modern wars, some 90% of all non-military casualties are caused by small arms. Civilian casualties represent an estimated 80% of all casualties in recent conflicts.
So why doesn't this universal (according to the administration) right to bear arms not include arms of mass destruction?
Oh wait... the small arms trade represents a multibillion dollar industry. I guess that explains it.
No comments:
Post a Comment