Trump pulling U.S. out of U.N. arms treaty, heeding NRA

By Roberta Rampton

 

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up an executive order with his signature as he announces that the United States will drop out of an international arms treaty during a speech at the National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action's (NRA-ILA) 148th annual meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S., April 26, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - President Donald Trump told the National Rifle Association on Friday he was pulling the United States out of an international arms treaty signed in 2013 by then-President Barack Obama but opposed by the NRA and other conservative groups.

 

Trump told members of the gun lobby at an annual meeting he intends to revoke the status of the United States as a signatory to the Arms Trade Treaty, which was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.

 

"We're taking our signature back," Trump said to thousands of cheering attendees, many wearing red hats emblazoned with the Republican president's "Make America Great Again" slogan.

 

On Twitter, Trump called the decision a defence of "American sovereignty." In reversing the U.S. position on the pact, he wrote, "We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedoms."

 

The NRA has long opposed the treaty, which regulates the $70 billion business in conventional arms and seeks to keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers. The lobbying group argues it would undermine domestic gun rights, a view the Obama administration rejected.

 

The agreement covers weapons exports, ranging from small firearms to tanks, but not domestic sales.

 

Trump said the United Nations would soon receive formal notice of the withdrawal.

 

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric called the treaty "a landmark achievement in the efforts to ensure responsibility in international arms transfers." U.N. officials said they were unaware Trump had been planning to revoke the U.S. signature.

 

The NRA spent $30.3 million in support of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks campaign spending.

 

The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the pact in April 2013 and the United States, the world's No. 1 arms exporter, voted in favour of it despite fierce opposition from the NRA.

 

Dropping out of the treaty is part of a broader Trump administration overhaul of arms export policies to bolster a domestic industry that already dominates global weapons trade.

 

Trump's action drew an immediate rebuke from international human rights groups.

 

"The United States will now lock arms with Iran, North Korea and Syria as non-signatories to this historic treaty whose sole purpose is to protect innocent people from deadly weapons,” said Oxfam America President Abby Maxman.

 

So far 101 countries have formally joined onto the treaty. Another 29, including the United States, signed it, but have not yet formally joined.

 

Ted Bromund, senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the treaty "can only have the perverse effects of driving potential importers to buy from China or Russia" and other nations that are not party to the agreement.

 

Rachel Stohl, director of the conventional defence programme at the Stimson Center think-tank in Washington, said U.S. firearms makers could benefit, including Smith & Wesson owner American Outdoor Brands Corp, Sturm Ruger and Vista Outdoor, as well as Remington Outdoor Co, which owns Bushmaster, a brand of AR-15 assault rifle.

 

Trump was joined on his trip to the NRA's meeting in Indianapolis by White House national security adviser John Bolton, an advocate of withdrawing the United States from international treaties out of concern they might undermine U.S. authority.

 

With Friday's announcement, Trump continued his drive to roll back Obama-era initiatives.

 

Nearly two years ago, Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which aims to reduce global carbon emissions that scientists link to harmful climate change. Republicans argue the U.S. economy would suffer if it met the deal's carbon-reduction goals.

 

In May, 2018, Trump pulled the United States out of a 2015 international deal that eased sanctions on Iran in exchange for strict limits being placed on Iran's nuclear activities. The United States has since reimposed some sanctions that had been suspended under the deal.

 

Friday's speech marked the third consecutive year Trump has spoken to the annual meeting of the NRA. Since his election, he has been a vocal proponent of gun rights, a position that plays well with his political base.

 

Trump banned "bump stocks" - rapid-fire gun attachments used in the October 2017 mass shooting that killed 58 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas. But he has sidestepped tough restrictions he considered after the February 2018 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in which 17 people were killed and embraced an NRA proposal for arming teachers to defend schools.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-04-28

 

 

12 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

seeks to keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers.

And there quite simply you have the problem. The worlds biggest abuser of human rights, outside of its own borders, is hardly likely to sign up to restrictions on its behaviour.

Just Donald pandering to his ever shrinking base

As a Brit who can't understand as what I see as an obsession with guns, I just don't get why there are even more guns needed?

The often quoted second amendment about the 'right to bear arms', seems no more bizarre to me than the 'right to arm bears'.

 

31 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

The agreement covers weapons exports, ranging from small firearms to tanks, but not domestic sales. 

 

Geez, and I was just about to trade in my old car for a tank.  It will give a whole new meaning to "road rage."  ????

 

Maybe I missed it in the OP, but did Trump have an alternative plan for dealing with the world arms trade?  I am not sure how well this can be regulated, but this issue always reminds me of children wielding AK-47s.  Also, I am reminded of that 2005 movie Lord of War with Nicholas Cage.  That movie gave me a more graphic understanding of this problem.   

4 minutes ago, bluesofa said:

As a Brit who can't understand as what I see as an obsession with guns, I just don't get why there are even more guns needed?

 

As a Brit, you are ingrained with a different mentality from childbirth on what the role of the government is supposed to play in your life, and how you view it.

 

A large percentage of the American electorate believes that no matter what, a person should always have a means available to fight back against said government, and to defend its sovereignty. 

 

It is a civil right, much like voting or freedom of press, and enshrined in great granddaddy laws of the nation. 

 

And as a brit, you should know that the entire basis of the Second Amendment is base largely on the actions of the British Crown during colonial times, so I guess in a way we can thank you for that, as without your oppression and tyrannical rule we wouldn't be what we are today. 

The USA can only be safe when EVERY man, woman, child, dog and rat is armed, come on Donald, there's a huge market there! ????

1 minute ago, Thainesss said:

 

As a Brit, you are ingrained with a different mentality from childbirth on what the role of the government is supposed to play in your life, and how you view it.

 

A large percentage of the American electorate believes that no matter what, a person should always have a means available to fight back against said government, and to defend its sovereignty. 

 

It is a civil right, much like voting or freedom of press, and enshrined in great granddaddy laws of the nation. 

 

And as a brit, you should know that the entire basis of the Second Amendment is base largely on the actions of the British Crown during colonial times, so I guess in a way we can thank you for that, as without your oppression and tyrannical rule we wouldn't be what we are today. 

Surely, the end result of all this is so many guns used to kill so many of your own population?

40 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

"The United States will now lock arms with Iran, North Korea and Syria as non-signatories to this historic treaty whose sole purpose is to protect innocent people from deadly weapons,”

 

Considering the worldwide carnage going on during the treaty, I hardly see how this will change anything. 

Kinda funney to think you could protect yourself from the government you do realize they have tanks aircraft mortars flame throwers ect now to protect yourself or family ok I’m onboard 

1 minute ago, bluesofa said:

Surely, the end result of all this is so many guns used to kill so many of your own population?

 

Considering that most of the deaths that happen by firearm in the USA are actually suicide, and the size of the population, and the sheer number of guns in the population, we are actually pretty safe. 

Every American should have the right to defend themselves against...…...other Americans! How sad is that! 

4 minutes ago, Tug said:

Kinda funney to think you could protect yourself from the government you do realize they have tanks aircraft mortars flame throwers ect now to protect yourself or family ok I’m onboard 

 

Kinda funny to think that the military, which is largely patriotic and largely 'right-wing' and swears an oath to defend the constitution, would carry out orders to do such a thing to its own citizens on its own land. 

 

Dont forget, just in numbers alone there are more members in the NRA than there are soldiers in the US military. 

24 minutes ago, Tug said:

Kinda funney to think you could protect yourself from the government you do realize they have tanks aircraft mortars flame throwers ect now to protect yourself or family ok I’m onboard 

 

American history is full of incidents where an armed public changed the result of something the government was trying to do.  Specifically, there have been several labor disputes where the government sent in a goon squad and were repelled by the armed strikers.  Just recently, we saw the Bundy standoff.  Instead of a quick "round 'em up and throw 'em in irons", the armed protest went on for days and weeks.

 

Without passing judgment on whether the causes were good or bad, there is no doubt that being armed against the government changed the outcomes.  So then, the question becomes, what kind of shenanigans does the government not even try, because they know they'll be opposed by armed resistance.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Considering that most of the deaths that happen by firearm in the USA are actually suicide, and the size of the population, and the sheer number of guns in the population, we are actually pretty safe. 

From just googling that now, yes it seems that 64% of US gun deaths are suicide, I had no idea.

There's still a significant percentage left of presumably mostly innocent people murdered. Even though I accept that some of those could be self-defence, there must be a lot lives lost through the easy availability of weapons.

1 minute ago, bluesofa said:

From just googling that now, yes it seems that 64% of US gun deaths are suicide, I had no idea.

 

Not many people do, because most of the arguments for gun control are made in bad-faith. 

 

2 minutes ago, bluesofa said:

There's still a significant percentage left of presumably mostly innocent people murdered. Even though I accept that some of those could be self-defence, there must be a lot lives lost through the easy availability of weapons.

 

Yes, there is murder, no doubt. But the conservative position is that the person who commits murder is the one responsible for the murder, not the object they used, and nor should people who have done nothing wrong be punished for the actions of a few. 

13 minutes ago, impulse said:

American history is full of incidents where an armed public changed the result of something the government was trying to do.  Specifically, there have been several labor disputes where the government sent in a goon squad and were repelled by the armed strikers.  Just recently, we saw the Bundy standoff.  Instead of a quick "round 'em up and throw 'em in irons", the armed protest went on for days and weeks.

 

Without passing judgment on whether the causes were good or bad, there is no doubt that being armed against the government changed the outcomes.  So then, the question becomes, what kind of shenanigans does the government not even try, because they know they'll be opposed by armed resistance.

 

An excellent thought experiment that will likely be either ignored or mocked. 

36 minutes ago, bluesofa said:

Surely, the end result of all this is so many guns used to kill so many of your own population?

We only live in hope Vladimir Putin was overheard to say  ????

16 minutes ago, bluesofa said:

From just googling that now, yes it seems that 64% of US gun deaths are suicide, I had no idea.

There's still a significant percentage left of presumably mostly innocent people murdered. Even though I accept that some of those could be self-defence, there must be a lot lives lost through the easy availability of weapons.

My google says 60%. Gun deaths in US standing at 12 deaths per 100,000 people, even excluding suicides that leaves close to 5 deaths per 100,000 people. Figures for some other Western countries (including suicides): UK - 0.3, Japan - 0.2, Germany 0.9 and Canada - 2.1.

 

Us is one of the top 6 countries in the world for gun deaths, alongside Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela and Guatemala. Proud to be an American?

14 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Not many people do, because most of the arguments for gun control are made in bad-faith. 

 

 

Yes, there is murder, no doubt. But the conservative position is that the person who commits murder is the one responsible for the murder, not the object they used, and nor should people who have done nothing wrong be punished for the actions of a few. 

There are still thousands die through gun deaths, irrespective of your defence of gun ownership by saying "nor should people who have done nothing wrong be punished for the actions of a few."

 

It's something I'll just never understand. I suppose if you want to accept killing of thousands that's up to the US and the apparently very powerful NRA gun lobbyists to accept.

44 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Considering that most of the deaths that happen by firearm in the USA are actually suicide, and the size of the population, and the sheer number of guns in the population, we are actually pretty safe. 

As long as you are white, don't go to concerts in Las Vegas or attend schools in Colorado.

48 minutes ago, impulse said:

American history is full of incidents where an armed public changed the result of something the government was trying to do.  Specifically, there have been several labor disputes where the government sent in a goon squad and were repelled by the armed strikers.  Just recently, we saw the Bundy standoff.  Instead of a quick "round 'em up and throw 'em in irons", the armed protest went on for days and weeks.

Which is juxtaposed by the Kent State massacre when the National Guard opened fire on a group of unarmed student protesters, killing 4 and wounding 9.

 

The US a civilised country? I don't think so.

15 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Which is juxtaposed by the Kent State massacre when the National Guard opened fire on a group of unarmed student protesters, killing 4 and wounding 9.

 

The US a civilised country? I don't think so.

Nothing can be defined alone.  To gauge civilization one must look at other countries and compare.  List of massacres in Ireland.  US comes out well in retrospect eh?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Ireland

17 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Which is juxtaposed by the Kent State massacre when the National Guard opened fire on a group of unarmed student protesters, killing 4 and wounding 9.

 

The US a civilised country? I don't think so.

 

Well, if you want to take the discussion from "gun control" to "America sucks", be my guest.

 

But when the zombie apocalypse comes around, I'll be with a bunch of Texans and Cajuns.  Good luck with your crew.

 

Just now, marcusarelus said:

Nothing can be defined alone.  To gauge civilization one must look at other countries and compare.  List of massacres in Ireland.  US comes out well in retrospect eh?

Nope. Not in my book. Massacres in Ireland are in the past, hopefully and were as a result, as far as the IRA were concerned, a consequence of war. Mass shootings in US a completely different ball game.

 

A number of years ago, a young couple from my home town were on a fly/drive holiday in Florida. Stopped at a red light and were gunned down in an attempted mugging. I know a number of Brits who have been put off holidaying in the US by the amount of lawlessness and danger for tourists in the US.

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Well, if you want to take the discussion from "gun control" to "America sucks", be my guest. 

 

But when the zombie apocalypse comes around, I'll be with a bunch of Texans and Cajuns.  Good luck with your crew.

 

"Well, if you want to take the discussion from "gun control" to "America sucks", be my guest. "

Am I mistaken in thinking  the topic  is about  gun control in  America?

5 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Well, if you want to take the discussion from "gun control" to "America sucks", be my guest.

 

But when the zombie apocalypse comes around, I'll be with a bunch of Texans and Cajuns.  Good luck with your crew.

 

And no doubt cowering behind that big wall you are building waiting for the Zombies to p$$s all over you ????

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Well, if you want to take the discussion from "gun control" to "America sucks", be my guest.

 

But when the zombie apocalypse comes around, I'll be with a bunch of Texans and Cajuns.  Good luck with your crew.

What apocalypse are you expecting? I'm guessing that 'Texans and Cajuns' are a gun owing majority?

 

2 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

And no doubt cowering behind that big wall you are building waiting for the Zombies to p$$s all over you ????

The purpose of the wall isn't to keep Mexicans out, it's to keep the zombies in. That's why Trump argued that Mexico should pay for the wall. It's for their benefit really.