FROM THE ARTICLE -
[i]John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control, told the first U.N. conference to curb small arms trafficking that he opposed a mandatory review of what individual countries had done, which he said would only serve only to ''institutionalize and bureaucratize this process.''
U.S. WARY OF WEAPONS BANS
As one of the world's largest suppliers of arms, the United States backs all sort of legal trade and Bolton fiercely guarded the rights of citizens to own guns.
``Small arms and light weapons, in our understanding are strictly military arms -- automatic rifles, machine guns, shoulder-fired missiles and rocket systems, light mortars -- that are contributing to continued violence and suffering in regions of conflict around the world,'' Bolton said.
``We separate these military arms from firearms such as hunting rifles and pistols,'' he said. ``It is the illicit trade in military small arms and light weapons that we are gathered here to address and that should properly concern us.''
But he added that Washington also opposed a suggestion in the draft document that national governments ``seriously consider'' banning unrestricted sales and ownership of small arms ''specifically designed for military purposes.''[/i]
I applaud what the U.S. Bush Administration did, but this part sopunds alittle like double-speak to me.
On the one hand Bolton seems like he's against full auto and for hunting rifles, but then he's against the draft document which called for unrestricted bans on military small arms.
It STILL seems like these guys don't understand that its the INDIVIDUAL, NOT the firearm that commits the crime. It still sounds like they don't get that the Second Amendment is ALL ABOUT owning firearms of current day military application.
Even so, this was a FAR CRY better than anything Clinton or Gore would have done.