No-one should profit from selling weapons

No-one should profit from selling weapons or arms to any individual or organisation. A British constitution should clearly forbid any money or benefit following from the exchange of devices that are designed or likely to be used as weapons against any group or individual. This includes everything from hand weapons, to drones, aircraft designed to deliver weapons, nuclear weapons and components of these. Accepting that weapons exist but that they should not be regarded as a source of revenue, the constitution would end government support for arms exports and encourage progressive alternative industries.

Moderator: If you like this idea, you may also like the idea 'Peace' https://constitutionuk.com/category/view#/post/81552 

edited on Apr 16, 2015 by Screenname is already in use

Cecilia Rossler Apr 8, 2015

At this stage, one possibility is to combine ideas, and I think this idea would go very well with 'Peace' (https://constitutionuk.com/category/view#/post/81552 )

Fiona Condon Apr 8, 2015

Although they are related, I think they are are actually two separate ideas.

We should remove the reference to 'British' values - see the discussion under https://constitutionuk.com/post/81201

I very much agree with the sentiment but we need to allow the sale of, for example, kitchen knives and other things that could be used for peaceful purposes. How about borrowing from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade:

  • to stop the procurement or export of arms where they might:
    • exacerbate conflict, support aggression, or increase tension
    • support an oppressive regime or undermine democracy
    • threaten social welfare through the level of military spending
  • to end all government political and financial support for arms exports
  • and to promote progressive demilitarisation within arms-producing countries.

 

 

Screenname is already in use Apr 9, 2015

Agreed, let's scrap reference to "British values" - that was only to echo the wording of the administrators. I would say that kitchen knives etc. are made for a specific peaceful purpose, and thus would not count as producing weapons. Almost anything can be used as a weapon; the point is rather to restrict production of weapons as weapons (primarily at least). 

I respect CAAT but would go further than point 1: "to stop the procurement or export of arms where they might...". The wording is weak, and why not include production of arms? 

Points 2 and 3 sound sensible, and I like the idea of drawing on already agreed on frameworks. Thanks for suggesting this.

Fiona Condon Apr 10, 2015

Maybe the anwer is to use the work 'arms' rather than' weapons'. I'm not sure of the technical difference but I think we would all understand that.

Cecilia Rossler Apr 12, 2015

Screenname is already in use, could you try and formulate your idea in one or two sentences? We want to make sure it is really clear by the end of this stage.

Cecilia Rossler Apr 14, 2015

Perhaps simply "No-one should profit from selling weapons or arms"?

 

 

Fiona Condon Apr 15, 2015

That doesn't get round the problem of people selling things that are not necessarily weapons but which could be used as such.

Screenname is already in use Apr 16, 2015

This seems to me to be a slightly different problem which could be dealt with in other ways. For example, we already have knife amnesty programs, and there are laws about proper use of chemicals. Perhaps it goes better with the thread on "Peace"? This idea was primarily about reducing the incentive to produce things that are designed to harm people.

View all replies (3)

Fiona Condon Apr 14, 2015

That doesn't get roun he problem of people selling things that are not intended as weapons but which could be use as such. How about:J9Q-QX4A

There will be no production, procurement or export of arms.

Scott Wilson Apr 14, 2015

The original post wasn't to prohibit production (or procurement), but rather prohibit profit from production (which implies a nationalised or co-operatively based industry could exist). 

Presumably this would leave the Police incapable of being armed and all of the consequences that would bring, and also implies a policy of unarmed neutrality for defence .

This does not appear to be the intent of this proposal.

Fiona Condon Apr 14, 2015

Sorry - I don't know where those odd characters in my last post came from.

Screenname is already in use Apr 16, 2015

I've shortened the idea text (slightly) and tried to incorporate reference to the CAAT text and to arms in it. Is this any better/ clearer?

Cecilia Rossler Apr 17, 2015

I think it is much better, thanks Screenname. My only comment is that "Accepting that weapons exist but that they should not be regarded as a source of revenue, the constitution would end government support for arms exports and encourage progressive alternative industries." is not necessary - although obviously I agree with you, it would be good to keep things as concise as possible.

Cecilia Rossler Apr 17, 2015

To all users: Please note this phase ends in 1 day. By the end of this phase we need a finalised, concise, clear clause that can go into the constitution.Thank you for your contributions.

Share