Arms Trafficking After Cold War

The new laws that the government have made are very controversial because some people say that these laws conflict with our second amendment. These laws that were always required but are destroyed once a new law is passed are trying to create a successful law that allows the government to see who owns what gun. “The United Nations Program of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” (“Statement”). The UN has wanted to form a new law because many new gun transactions have been made and the UN does not know who owns what gun. “The establishment of an international tracking certificate, which could be used to ensure UN monitoring of the export, import, transit, stocking ,and storage of legal small arms and light weapons” (“Statement”). Weapons are constantly being traded or handed off to different people and the UN does not know who owns which gun. Also if a person is purchasing and storing many weapons, the government can see this persons purchases and put a stop to that persons plan before a gun related crime occurs. This is why the UN wishes to promote a tracking certificate which monitors legal small arms and light weapons. One man named Josh Horwitz said “If the gun industry gave it half a chance, they’d save lives” (Hamilton). There are many new laws that are proposed and vetoed

In spite of all the efforts in which the government has procured to face this situation still, this is the day that no agreement has been reached since there are opposing interests of both those who support the idea that owning firearms is safer and on the other hand those who are against. Due to strong threats that major powers such as Russia and China have developed nuclear weapons that could be used as weapons of war. That is why on two occasions the US Senate has proposed to monitor more rejected for lack of support for such a proposal. Although there are about 1000 on the list of citizens are seated from the database of suspected terrorist. At present everyone has the right to own a firearm unless it is revoked by the government due to a federal crime. According to the second amendment of the US regarding the property of firearms. Armed control has been a controversial issue in politics. The gun lobby as

”The United States has faced the same problem over and over again and it has been determined that relatively unregulated weapons ownership is worth the cost to society.” ( www.nytimes.com/es/2017/11/09/) When the world looks towards the United States, it sees a land of exceptions: a democracy of proven efficacy, although noisy; a defender of foreign policy; an exporter of music and movies that everyone

Because of numerous efforts by countries such as North Korea and Syria, the competition for acquiring nuclear weapons has escalated from what it was formerly. As this expands over time, it will increase the chance for another international conflict. In order to prevent this from happening, a substantial idea is to have the United Nations address this issue. With it’s vast amount of members, the UN can set a guideline for all its countries that limits the amount of weapons they are allowed to possess. By doing this, it will aid in relieving the tension occurring between multiple nations and provide international

Donald Trump wants to get rid of this agreement. We see that Donald Trump acts in selfish ways to get ahead in his endeavors. He has all along been acting selfish, with malicious intent to downright “make America great again,” more like make America divided. He’s making more enemies than allies in the world, one more thing that comes out of his mouth is another hundred people that don’t like him.

Throughout the course of 2016, many mass shootings and fatal incidents have occurred involving the use of guns. Assault weapons, specifically, have been the controversial target regarding these incidents. A large debate broke out as to whether or not assault weapons should be banned from U.S. soil. It is believed that the prohibition on these weapons would assure the country’s safety and would dramatically reduce homicide rates. While the claim does provide logical reasons as to why a ban on assault weapons would be beneficial, it does not consider any critical consequences upon taking this action. Therefore, The pursuit of banning assault weapons on U.S. soil will not ensure national security because it will affect law abiding citizens, establish a blatant sign of government tyranny, and ironically raise violent crime rates.

Having adopted the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, as well as keeping in mind the New START treaty in the Obama administration, the leaders of America and leaders around the world has come to the consensus that it is best to ban the use of nuclear weapons. As the public opinion of nuclear technology is usually negative, many would agree that a nuclear war could be dangerously fatal for lives world wide, therefore our group agrees that it is wise to be wary of powerful nations in possession of such hazardous and forceful arm, including our very nation, the United

The Cold war dated from 1947-1991. It was characterized by both political and military superiority between United States, which was backed by its NATO allies, and Soviet Union that led the communist side. The cold war was mainly started after the success of the alliance that was formed against Nazi Germany. This competition supremacy on nuclear warfare attracted other countries that also started making nuclear weapons due to the tension that existed in the world. Both sides directed huge sums of money to their military budgets with each side trying to outdo the other.

The Case Against a U.S.-Arms Monopoly by Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall is an article about the controversial topic of the United States having a monopoly over the global arms. Christopher J. Coyne is the F.A. Harper professor of economics at George Mason University and has also taught the University of

The United States has been a major supplier of arms to foreign buyers for the better part of the last 75 years. Major military exports beginning under the Lend-Lease Act, Robert M Gates reports in his Foreign Policy piece “Helping Others Defend Themselves”, led the United States to continue supplying weapons to nations that would pay for them in lieu of retreating back into the isolationist policies put forth on the heels of World War I (Gates). Today, America is the largest arms exporter by a wide margin. Per Amnesty International, between 2010 and 2015 the United States facilitated upwards of $55 billion worth of conventional arms sales (“Killer Facts: the scale of the global arms trade”). While a significant portion of the United States’s

The question of taking away U.S citizens right to bear arms has been in question in the past years. There has been an increasing rise in gun related incidents and shooting rampages. According to VerBruggen the U.S has a much higher homicide rate than almost any other country that is as highly developed as the United States.This growing epidemic has been long sought after to try to come up with a solution. Many solutions have been attempted but have not been fully able to fix this ongoing problem.

While weapons can be recycled for decades from conflict to conflict, the violence they sustain is fuelled by irresponsible trade in ammunition. The current draft of the arms trade treaty does not include ammunition and many non-governmental organizations strongly condemn this. However, including ammunition in the Treaty may preclude a signature from the U.S., which views this as a threat to citizens’ right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

This was negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union that tried to limit the manufacture of missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Of the agreements, the most important were the Treaty on Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Systems and the Interim Agreement. Both were signed by President Richard M. Nixon for the United States and Leonid Brezhnev, general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, for the U.S.S.R. on May 26, 1972, in Moscow. The ABM treaty regulated antiballistic missiles. This treaty limited each side to only one ABM deployment area and 100 interceptor missiles. These limitations allowed both sides to only protect a small fraction of their entire country (hoped that it would stop both sides from attack). The Interim Agreement reduced each side’s number of ICBMs (intercontinental Ballistic Missile) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). SALT II ( second negotiations) treaty set limits on the number of strategic launchers. The treaty set a limit of about 2,400 of all such weapons systems for each side. The SALT II treaty was signed by President Jimmy Carter and Brezhnev in Vienna on June 18,

is hoping for. Gun control would most likely cause more violence across the world hurting more people than saving. Taking the guns away from entire nations is going to greatly weaken there overall defenses of said nation giving hostile nations who didn’t agree to the terms of the U.N. an opportunity to attack a greatly harm any nation. Although the nation’s government would still hold firearms for use against foreign invaders the government cannot be everywhere at once. Civilians that become under attack from invaders would hold no means of self-defense and would simply be left to run or beg for mercy from the invaders. The U.N. disarmament commission set up a panel of small arms experts to help them to take away firearms that should be considered military grade such as handguns and automatic rifles. (Browne1) The national disarmament of firearms would affect many peoples on a personal level and financial level. Unless the governments of the world plan on paying citizens with guns reparations for the firearms that they take away many would be out a large sum of money that they have put towards hunting equipment, and the firearms themselves which alone can be extremely costly. Some guns are even kept for more personal reasons such as family heirlooms that are passed down generations from one family member to the next telling a story or reminding family members about their elders that have passed on.

The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an