N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 887 times:
Below I have copied two articles discussing the recent UN summit on small-arms. The articles accurately express my opinion on the matter... let's hear yours. I know its a lot of text (it'll probably take a few minutes to read) but try to read it all if you're going to reply.
Bypassing U.S. Voters
Rejected by the American electorate, antigun groups find themselves at home at the U.N.
Mr. Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute.
August 3, 2001 9:10 a.m.
Rejected by the electorate last November, American gun prohibition found the United Nations Conference on Small Arms to be the friendliest of venues.
Appalled by the Bush administration's insistence that the U.N. conference not become a springboard for the destruction of Second Amendment rights, a coalition of antigun groups organized a demonstration outside the U.N. during the conference. In conjunction the demonstration, the groups released a joint letter stating that the conference proved the necessity of additional antigun laws in the U.S. The groups included the Children's Defense Fund (an anti-welfare reform group), the Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc., formerly known as the National Council to Control Handguns), Physicians for Social Responsibility, "Million" Mom March chapters, and various other local groups. The letter read: "The Cold War is over, but the international community is suffering from a new source of terror: the glut of small arms and 'civilian' weapons that are seeping from many industrialized nations, through channels both legal and illegal, to virtually all four corners of the globe."
Note that the very idea of "civilians" owning weapons had to be put in quotation marks.
The "Million" Mom March, hadn't been doing very well before the UN met. The group had trouble getting attendance into three digits at its last Washington rally, turned out to be a political liability for Al Gore and many other candidates, had to lay off 30 of its 35 staff, was kicked out of its free office space in San Francisco General Hospital when it was discovered that the space was obtained by fraud, and finally ended up being absorbed into the Brady Campaign, unable to exist as a viable separate organization. But at the U.N., the group's leader, pretending that she represented and strong, independent grassroots organization, won a standing ovation from the delegates.
And if the group could claim that 850,000 people showed up at its Washington rally in May 2000 (when the true size, based on D.C. transit figures and crowd photos, was 100,000 or less) why not increase the mathematical fiction? So the "Million" Mom March now claims to be an organization representing a "Billion" mothers worldwide. As if a billion women have even heard of this failed US group.
But the U.N. made its support for the "Billion" prohibitionist movement clear. The press conference announcing the new group was run by U.N. Under-Secretary-General Jayantha Dhanapala, head of the U.N. Department of Disarmament. Dhanapala called the group "vital" to global disarmament, and urged the billion/million members to act "through their legislatures and governments to ensure that the program of action is in fact implemented."
The anti-Bush demonstration featured five huge ugly puppets representing the United Kingdom, US, Russia, China, and France, created by the U.S. gun-prohibition group Silent March. (Apparently the fact that the U.K. and France were working hard for Silent March's agenda wasn't enough to get in the way of some mean-spirited street theater.) The U.S. puppet, resembling President Bush, wore a gaudy Uncle Sam hat and a necklace of bullets, and was smoking a cigar that on closer inspection was also a bullet. The puppet sported an "NRA" sticker, and the sign worn by the person holding this puppet read: "US: Puppet of Gun Lobby?"
Silent March revealed a lot about its overall political orientation when it decided that dressing somebody up like Uncle Sam was an insult.
The conference provided an opportunity for several international groups have come out of the closet on their antigun stance. For years Amnesty International has organized and coordinated international antigun work, but has insisted that it is doing nothing to promote gun control. But at the Conference, Amnesty International USA Executive Director William F. Schulz said, "Gun trafficking is a critical human rights issue around the world, but the problem begins at home." He blamed "Loose gun regulation — in [countries such as] the USA, Russia or Liberia."
"Should human rights abusers be given arms?" asked Amnesty International, although the group had nothing to say about arms for people resisting human-rights abuses.
The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global consortium of antigun non-government organizations (NGOs). The IANSA site happens to be hosted on the website of Oxfam, a world hunger group with wide-ranging hard left agenda. Save the Children and World Vision also complained about the U.S. position at the conference — revealing the strong leftist tilt that careful observers have seen in these organizations in recent years — but which has, discretely, not been publicized to the organizations' American donor base.
July 16 of the conference featured two hours of speeches by anti-gun groups, plus a half-hour for pro-rights organizations. The gun prohibition forces claimed to be motivated by saving innocent lives, but their rhetoric showed much more interest in stopping guns than in saving lives. In case of a conflict, they clearly preferred the former to the latter.
Neil Arya of Physicians for Global Survival in Canada asserted that physicians don't care where a shooting was the result of a suicide, accident or homicide, or whether the shooter was a gangster, a soldier, or a law-abiding gun owner. In other words, his group sees no distinction between a gangster murdering a robbery victim, a victim saving her life by shooting the gangster, a Nazi soldier shooting a Jew, and an American soldier shooting a Nazi soldier.
A press release from Silent March complained that the U.S. had "rejected a call for states to stop arming guerrillas in other countries." The press release came after Undersecretary Bolton had explained that the U.S. objected to the provision because it would prevent aid to groups which were resisting genocide. Silent March promotes itself as a humanitarian group concerned about gun death, but this concern apparently vanishes when the victims are being murdered by governments.
This is the moral upside-down world of the United Nations culture, in which victims who resist genocide, and governments which help the victims resist, are condemned as immoral.
The gun prohibition groups also talked a lot about the need to keep guns out of the hands of "children." These demands who not limited to keep guns out of the hands of child soldiers. Rather, the groups were following Hillary Clinton's position that children and guns shouldn't even be in the same sentence. U.S. gun-prohibition groups have been long at work to frighten parents into not allowing children to participate in the shooting sports, and to enact gun licensing laws that prohibit young people from hunting or target shooting, even under immediate parental supervision. (For example, in New Jersey, it's a felony to take your ten-year-old to a target range and let the child use a Red Ryder BB gun while you supervise.)
Stymied in free elections in the United States, the gun-prohibition lobbies in 1998 turned to the courts, filing meritless suits against gun manufacturers, with the hope of imposing de facto prohibition through bankruptcy. As the lawsuit strategy falls apart, gun-prohibition groups now seek their victory through international law. The further that the locus of decision moves from democratic, American control, the better the chances for success of the prohibition movement.
Gunning Against Guns
Transparency at the United Nations.
Mr. Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute.
July 31, 2001 8:30 a.m.
At the Small Arms Conference, one of the buzzwords of gun-prohibition advocates was the need for "transparency" in small arms. This was shorthand for saying that there should be no privacy regarding gun ownership. Every government ought to have a list of every gun owner and every gun in the country. Registration has been used to facilitate gun confiscation in the United Kingdom, Australia, Jamaica, California, New York City, Nazi-occupied Europe, Soviet-occupied Europe, the Philippines, Bermuda, and many other places. Registration as an important preliminary step to total handgun prohibition.
Pete Shields, the founder of America's largest gun-prohibition movement (originally called the National Council to Control Handguns; later, Handgun Control, Inc.; currently, the Brady Campaign) explained his three-step program for handgun prohibition in the July 26, 1976 New Yorker:
"The first problem," Shields explained, "is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country." Solving this "problem" was high on the U.N. agenda, with many concerns expressed about "excessive" accumulations of small arms.
"The second problem," said Shields, "is to get handguns registered." This was Secretary General Kofi Annan's prime hope for the conference, to create a worldwide system of gun registration.
"Our ultimate goal," Shields continued, "is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition--except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal."
As the U.N. pushed for global gun registration, the Washington Post and many other newspapers fumed that there was nothing on the U.N. agenda which would infringe anyone's Second Amendment rights. To the Washington Post editorial page, this statement was plainly correct, since the Post believes that individual Americans have no Second Amendment rights.
Other newspapers, appeared to recognize an individual Second Amendment right, but insisted that nobody's hunting guns were in danger. If a U.N. treaty were to require governments to register the ownership of every book (or every political book) in a country, would these same newspapers insist that there was no danger to freedom of the press?
A United Nations press release touted mandatory gun registration for every (non-government) firearm anywhere in the world, but said that a U.N.-controlled registry was "premature" — not that a U.N. registry was a bad idea, just "premature" in light of current political realities.
The Canadian government, having sunk almost three-quarters of a billion (Canadian) dollars into domestic gun registry — at the expense of police on the streets and the health-care system — pushed hard for international registration mandates. Apparently the Canadian government's failed registration scheme would look less foolish if other governments followed suit.
"Transparency for thee, but not for me" could be the U.N. motto. While pushing to abolish privacy for gun owners, the U.N. barred the press from the debate and deliberation on the official program of action. Americans would be appalled if Congress threw the press out of the Capitol while debating a gun law. But that is precisely what the U.N. did.
"Transparency" for small arms also requires, in the U.N.'s view, abolition of Internet privacy. The U.N. complains that part of the small arms trade conducted by e-commerce "is frequently encoded or encrypted, thus placing an extra burden on the law enforcement institutions to detect it."
To the extent that gun "transparency" can actual help track down how criminals and terrorists get their guns, the world's responsible firearms manufacturers already provide it. Since the Gun Control Act of 1968, all guns manufactured in or imported into the United States must have serial numbers, and markings indicated the identity of the manufacturer and place of manufacture. In conjunction with the U.N. Conference, the world's firearms manufacturers, working through their World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, signed an agreement with the Eminent Persons Group (a collection of 23 anti-gun politicians) to provide similar markings on all their firearms.
Such identification has never been objectionable to the manufacturers. At a previous international conference, the only reason that a binding agreement on markings was not achieved was that China objected.
At the U.N. Small Arms Conference, the U.S. again supported firearms identification — provided that the language clearly did not open the door for registration of gun owners. That's good enough for legitimate investigations — but not good enough for prohibition groups who wanted to use the trade in illicit arms as a pretext for destroying the privacy of every (non-government) gun owner in the world.
This is sickening! I, for one, will never register any of my guns if the United States buys into this anti-liberty crap. I think we should get out of the UN before it is too late, but that probably won't happen.
N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 746 times:
I've never heard of the Independence Institute. I have heard of the author, and he is right-on.
Interesting how some people never see how the essential right to bear arms is more important than any temporary feeling of security. Our war of independence would never have been fought without an armed citizenry.
"They that would give up essential liberty for some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Eg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 15 Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 737 times:
"Our war of independence would never have been fought without an armed citizenry."
And you see this being a requirement when??????
Why can't the US copy the example of Switzerland, where (I'm told) the level of security is so high that if you wanted to invade the country you would have to do it street-by-street...but they seem to avoid the gun-related crime that is in evidence in the US.
For some reason, people don't relate guns with gun-related crime.
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 729 times:
The issue of guns aside, the whole notion of the U.N. trumping our own Legislation should give anyone pause, even if it for a cause they believe in. That is just damn scary. Talk about a slippery-slope!!!!!!
Nicolaki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week ago) and read 718 times:
Just one question, why is it that every (or almost every) gun maniacs (including the Nauseatic Riffle Assoc.) are pro cop killer bullets. Why do you need that for security? To protect you from corupt cops uh?
This "security" BS is just a cover for your need to have a gun to feel yourself "more like a man" because without it your "manhood" is equal or near 0. That had to be said.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12948 posts, RR: 79 Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week ago) and read 725 times:
This stuff was in the press outside the US weeks ago.
The UN wants to reduce the amount of guns available to non-govermental groups in the third world. These various warlords and bandits have killed 2 million civilians since 1990.
These victims live lives the average westerner could not imagine, so it's a bit galling to the rest of the world when the gun nuts in the USA try to scupper these plans.
If US citizens want to keep offing each other in numbers unimaginable in any other western country-and that's taking account of relative population sizes, that's their business. Go crazy! Make every mall, school and workplace a free-fire zone, that's your right supposodly.
But why make other's already miserable lives worse? Just because a few Americans, with that Dodo in the White House they financed backing them, have this odd Roy Roger's/John 'Marion' Wayne fixation, and see plots to take away their 'sacred' rights in the most unlikely places.
The rest of the world sees this stuff with the same jaundiced eye that views all the other crankiness like mass belief in UFO's, creationism as science, conspiracy theory mania etc.
But this time the crankiness is blighting millions of lives in places that are not on the main tourist routes.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6243 posts, RR: 36 Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week ago) and read 713 times:
I'm a person who N400QX would probably label as a liberal. I think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. The NRA tends to be dominated by wackos. And, I do not understand people who actually like guns. This being said, what right do a bunch of foreign countries have to try to influence US law?
BTW, I do own a gun. I do NOT consider it what makes me a man, and when I am forced to use it (very rarely) it is most certainly not enjoyable. And , no, I have never been forced to shoot a human.
Is grammar no longer taught is schools? Saying "me and her" or some such implies illiteracy.
Western727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 643 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 711 times:
Do you all remember those two towns in Utah that declared themselves "UN-Free Zones?" Now do you know why?
But seriously, I'm all for getting along, and being friends with other countries, but not at the expense of the security of our own. And to be quite honest, I don't think gun legislation has anything to do with security. It does no good to ban guns, because the poeple using them to harm innocent people are criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws - especially gun laws. It does nothing to punish the law-abiding citizen. It won't help our situation at all.
And one tendency of the Liberals that sort of annoys me is that they think that they have changed the world for the better because they have merely done something, when the legislation is largely ineffective. I think the gun laws are a great example: Banning guns won't do anything to reduce gun-related deaths, because those who are doing the killing don't follow laws. But the democrats are viewed as "the party that cares," because they have done "something." But hey! Why not tell the American people what they want to hear? It keeps them in office, right?
If we are to maintain our freedoms, it is the responsibility of each individual citizen to live their lives in a moral way.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12948 posts, RR: 79 Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 715 times:
But the point is the UN didn't seek to alter your gun laws, they might have dented profits at Colt and Smith & Wesson etc, as the US was identified as the main western supplier of arms to the Third World.
Pole position has to be all those millions of Kalasnikovs out there, but some of them come through US based arms merchants.
Of course there's a knee-jerk response by Bush and his NRA friends to the words 'arms control', even if it only has bearing in places they know nothing of, or even know exsist.
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 702 times:
GDB, if the UN wants to put mandates on gun importing (not US exporting) on certain countries, then I don't have a problem with that. But the languauge of the article indicated that the mandates would be enforcable in the US. THAT I have a problem with. Perhaps I missed something. I will reread and see. As for the cop-killer bullets, did you know that no cop has ever been killed by one. Not sure why they are called that. I suspect only because they pierce armor. Also, you imply that our right to bear arms is the crux of the gun deaths in the country. Actually, this right prevents deaths, but obviously not all of them. Even if guns were outlawed in the USA, those same people that criminally shoot others would still have their black-market weapons. The only thing a ban would do would gaurantee that their victims would be defenseless. I didn't want to disgress this thread into a gun debate since the original poster's message was more about the UN influencing US legislation. So back on topic, my main issue isn't so much the gun issue but foreign entities making laws in the US. Not good!
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12948 posts, RR: 79 Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 706 times:
The rest of the world did not interperet this UN plan as anything to do with the US gun laws. The focus was entirely on the wholesale slaughter in the third world, and we are talking about military-style weapons here.
I think that certain politicians want to make the UN some kind of new bogeyman. Soviets are no more, Japan didn't really convince many-and their problems with the ecomony undermined any attempt to present them as a threat.
It reminds me of that 'flag-burning' debate the US had about 10 years ago, once the Supreme Court (I think), ruled that locking people up for flag burning was a bit excessive, you get all those numbskulls saying 'what? does that mean I HAVE to burn my flag?'
Very much a Rush Limbaugh audience, but when the Chief Executive thinks the same way, (or is told to), you are going to get misunderstanding, ignorance and plain mischief-making.
Given all the terrible suffering small-arms are causing to the least fortunate people in the world, isn't it a bit self-centered for the world's richest country to see the UN proposals as some kind of threat to them?
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 12 Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 689 times:
GDB, well this is the first of heard of anything on the matter. I will certainly look further, as I admit that I'm not up to speed on this issue. I was basing my opinions merely on the posted articles, assuming they were accurate, complete and truthful. My interest is this is high and I will seek further information.
We're Nuts, no problem, I wouldn't expect you to change your mind. You just posted a comment on Zach and not his topic. Thought that was kind of wierd. I couldn't figure out why you bothered to go in a thread of his that you had no apparent interest in just to say you were tired of him. It just seemed counterproductive. No big deal.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 689 times:
I agree with GDB-the gun crazies in this country are protecting their "rights" to have any gun made on the earth available to them at the expense of these third world nations where bandits roam the streets, killing anything in sight. I seriously doubt that ownership of guns in the U.S. would be threatened at all with this. It would help the rest of the world if they could get guns away from these armies of thugs that roam around the world, though. But I guess Zach identifies much more closely with the thugs who rule these streets than he does those that these thugs brutally murder every day.
Enthusiast From France, joined Jun 2013, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 683 times:
I don't care what Thomas Jefferson said, it is not 1780 anymore. It's ridiculous to try to relate an antequated quote from 200 years ago to a totally different, namely industrialized, society. Eg777er is right. Also, nowhere in the constitution OR bill of rights does it say citizens have the right to bear arms. It says trained militia can. That ends that argument as far as I'm concerned. So unless you belong to the police or Army in some way, you shouldn't even be allowed to own a gun. In England, private citizens aren't allowed to own handguns. Their deathrate by gun last year?- 2. America's?- try a few hundred thousand. Forget your paranoid need for security, the more guns, the more deaths. Period. BTW, statistically, 70% of handguns bought in the U.S. each year wind up in the hands of a criminal or used against a loved one. As for the U.N., with Bush in the White House, they're the only ones that'll even listen to anything that's not right wing.
Western727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 643 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 680 times:
So unless you belong to the police or Army in some way, you shouldn't even be allowed to own a gun.
While I would agree that no person outside of the Armed Services or Law Enforcement has any business owning an assault weapon, I do not feel that the realm of illicit firearms should be expanded to include all firearms. Believe it or not, guns are actually used for legitimate purposes.
Personally, I would most likely not ever buy a firearm. That's my preference - I'm not into guns. But who am I to tell someone else that they can't use their firearms in legitimate ways? They assume the risk, and the responsibility for proper use.
And I don't think the "X amount of people get accidentally killed by guns" argument is valid. People get accidentally killed by doing a lot of things, but we don't go trying to ban them all.
Jack @ AUS
25 JetService: Enthusiast, I don't think its fair to compare US to UK. There are just way too many factors. I suspect their stabbing, rape, domestic abuse, etc. rate
26 Delta-flyer: I don't see what all the fuss is about the UN and gun control. The US is only bound by laws passed by US federal, state and local legislatures. Please
27 NoUFO: N400QX wrote: I think we should get out of the UN before it is too late, but that probably won't happen. God help us all. I'll say. NoUFO
28 N400QX: >Why can't the US copy the example of Switzerland I wish! A gun in every home would all but bring crime down to zero. >The issue of guns aside, the wh
29 Alpha 1: Thank God your wishes aren't facts, Zach. Many of us-many, many, many of us, DON'T WANT GUNS! Can't you get that through your thin little brain? More
30 N400QX: You tried to say something nice to me, Alpha?! lol >And don't get so damned worked up about the U.N. Were you trying to say that you agree with me, ex
31 Alpha 1: Yeah, I said something if not nice, than halfway civil, and you jumped down my throat with a technicality. The point is simple. All these people in th
32 DeltaRNOmd-80: one question, why do liberals get so worked up when we say they are all in PETA and are a bunch of tree-hugging envirowackos but they turn around and
33 We're Nuts: one question, why do conservatives get so worked up when we say they all wield assualt weapons and are right wing militia freaks who barracade themsel