8/19/2009

The right to bare arms - The right to bear arms

A report suggest the UK should be more careful about who we sell weapons to incase they are used against civilians. Tighter controls on who we sell stuff like this to should be welcomed, but we should be careful about the examples given.

Israel has been singled out because of the use of the military equipment they have been sold against civilian targets outside the borders of the country. This is a valid argument. However, the report sites Sri Lanka as another country we have sold weapons to which might have seen civilians attacked using the weaponry. Sri Lanka is, in my opinion, a different case.

Sri Lanka was dealing with an internal insurgency from within its own borders. Whilst there may be evidence of the Sri Lanka army attacking civilians, are we seriously suggesting that we should not have sold weapons to a country fighting a terrorist group within its own borders ?

It does remind me of the the days when Labour claimed it would have an ethical foreign policy. That seems like a long time ago now.

Update - Used the wrong "bare/bear" so decided to keep it in honour of the hot weather today.

3 comments:

None of the above said...

You already have the the right to bare arms, even women can bare arms at any time - this isn't the middle east.

Note sure about carrying guns though.

Don't worry, the teachers in my school are just as bad...

Jonathan said...

Are short-sleeved shirts really a right?

neil craig said...

Obviously nobody who is not a complete Nazi suggests that any representative of Israel is 1,000th as guilty of anything comparable with the genocide, child sexual slavery & worse that most British politicians & all LibDem ones are guilty of. It would therefore be hyppocritical to suggest that we should allow the sale of weapons to the British government or other NATO governments.

Pages