U.S. gun rights at issue in UN effort


PDA






Drizzt
August 14, 2005, 03:50 AM
U.S. gun rights at issue in UN effort
Vitter proposes bill to protect arms owners

Saturday, August 13, 2005
By Bruce Alpert
Washington bureau

WASHINGTON -- Expressing concern that the United Nations' efforts to stem international gun running could impede the rights of U.S. gun owners, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., is proposing legislation to bar financing for the world organization should it infringe on Americans' Second Amendment rights.

Critics of Vitter's bill, including Eric Howard of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, accuse the freshman senator of placating voters who oppose gun control and are cynical about the United Nations. Howard said the bill could torpedo international efforts to stem the flow of arms to brutal militias in Africa and elsewhere that target civilians, particularly children.

Vitter, who calls his bill The Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005, said he's all for reducing the spread of weapons to terrorists, criminals or violent insurgents. "But the UN efforts seem to go well beyond that into an area that threatens the Second Amendment rights of Americans to keep and bear arms," he said.

Among the steps Vitter said have been discussed by UN delegates at a recent meeting are tracking lists of all firearm sales, worldwide record-keeping of all manufactured guns and even the licensing of all gun owners, measures he said are anathema to U.S. gun owners.

International focus

Vitter, who introduced his bill just before the start of the August recess, has nine co-sponsors, all Republicans.

Rebecca Peters, director of the London-based International Action Network on Small Arms, said that while the National Rifle Association is trying to portray the UN effort as an attempt to require Americans to register their guns, the consensus of delegates who met at the United Nations last month is quite different.

The emphasis, she said, is on getting international agreements to notify countries when arms are being shipped across international boundaries, a requirement that manufacturers produce an identifying trait, much like a fingerprint, so officials can identify guns used in crimes and military attacks, and a system to ensure the destruction or securing of surplus military weapons and those confiscated in crime investigations.

UN delegates at the conference said they would return for another meeting next summer to try to draw up a treaty, although Peters said opposition from the United States and its new UN Ambassador John Bolton may make that task difficult, if not impossible.

U.S. laws too lax?

"I'm sorry if the senator (Vitter) is feeling anxious, but I'm happy to assure him that there is no danger of the United Nations coming in and confiscating guns of his constituents," Peters said. Even if that's what UN delegates wanted, she said, the United States would be unlikely to ratify a treaty with such provisions.

At its July meeting on gun running, the United Nations released a report estimating that 500,000 people have died over the past decade from injuries caused by small weapons or guns used in crimes or military attacks. Children are frequent victims, the UN report said.

Wendy Cukier, president of Canada's Coalition to End Gun Violence, said the issue is a priority to the United States' northern and southern neighbors because 80 percent of gun crimes committed in Mexico and 50 percent in Canada involve guns that originated in the United States. Strong gun control laws in Mexico and Canada, she said, are being undermined by lax laws in the United States.

"The United States never hesitates to impose standards on other countries: pushing Canada to strengthen its border controls in the fight on terrorism and for Mexico and Central American countries to reduce the flow of drugs north across the border," Cukier said. "But it won't take steps to reduce the flow of guns outside the United States, and that's a big problem in Canada and Mexico."

Target: Gun violence

Under the Vitter bill, the United States would be barred from providing financing to the United Nations unless the president of the United States certifies that the United Nations "has not taken action to restrict, attempt to restrict, or otherwise adversely infringed upon the rights of individuals in the United States to possess a firearm or ammunition . . . "

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said that Vitter is right to be concerned about what the United Nations might do in the name of reducing gun violence. "While the goals may be noble, their intent is very clear and that is impeding the rights of law-abiding Americans to own guns," Arulanandam said.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1123916107232310.xml

If you enjoyed reading about "U.S. gun rights at issue in UN effort" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hifi
August 14, 2005, 06:13 AM
How is it possible for an international organization to infringe on U.S. gun owners rights unless there's alot of other things terribly wrong in the first place? More feel good non-sense. Hey, let's make a law that says the 2nd Amendment is law! I got more brilliant ideas where that came from! Another attempt to deny reality and placate the sheep.

armoredman
August 14, 2005, 10:40 AM
NEVER TRUST ANYTHING REBECCA PETERS OF IANSA SAYS!!! If you saw the gun debate she had with Wayne LaPierre, you would have seen her adgenda exposed - complete confiscation of every single firearm from civilian possession around the world, with the only legal civlilian "firearm" being a single shot rifle capable of only shooting 100 yards...yes, she said so in so many words. When she says don't worry, WORRY!

SIOP
August 14, 2005, 11:11 AM
You notice that the bill doesn't appear to do anything to actually prevent abuses of our second amendment rights, it simply cuts funding for the U.N. after our rights are gone. More republican inaction.

Art Eatman
August 14, 2005, 11:23 AM
SIOP, impacting the UN budget is the only hammer we have. And nothing scares a bureaucrat more than the idea that his budget will get chopped--and possibly his job.

(Yeah, sure, we could leave the UN, but that ain't gonna happen, so I won't ever address that issue...)

Art

SIOP
August 14, 2005, 11:28 AM
(Yeah, sure, we could leave the UN, but that ain't gonna happen, so I won't ever address that issue...)

Could happen tomorrow if Republicans really were conservatives and had any balls. Same with balancing the budget, puting an end to abortion, restoring property rights, restoring 2nd amendment rights, ending judicial activism, ad nauseum. End of story.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 14, 2005, 11:38 AM
Could happen tomorrow if Republicans really were conservatives and had any balls. Same with balancing the budget, puting an end to abortion, restoring property rights, restoring 2nd amendment rights, ending judicial activism, ad nauseum. End of story.

So the Republicans have the ability to do all these things tomorrow if they just had the backbone eh? Without getting into the tedious argument of whether Republicans could actually do these things with their current numbers in the House and Senate, let's just grant that they could.

Now the only question is after they have stepped on all the toes that would need stepping on to accomplish those goals, how many Republicans are left in Congress after the 2006 elections? How does the 2008 election run for them?

Politicians are predictable creatures in one aspect - they do what they believe will get them re-elected and don't do that which they believe will get them fired from their cushy job. Just looking at the evidence at hand it appears a lot of them think they might lose their jobs for enacting your platform. Now is that their fault or is it our fault that there isn't more popular support for whatever cause it is we want to see enacted?

SIOP
August 14, 2005, 11:45 AM
Now the only question is after they have stepped on all the toes that would need stepping on to accomplish those goals, how many Republicans are left in Congress after the 2006 elections? How does the 2008 election run for them?

The definitive answer to your question is: Who cares? It's gotten to the point where today's Republicans are no better than yesterday's Democrats. You can spare me all the rhetoric about how the Democrats will destroy all of our rights if they get back in power; it's already happening with the Republicans at the wheel. Only now, it's being done in the name of "conservatism", so it's acceptable to those who would be sreaming bloody murder if the Democrats were doing it.

JERRY
August 14, 2005, 12:09 PM
i guess no one is pointing out that the VAST MAJORITY of arms in criminal hands outside of the U.S.A. are from some of these U.N. countries trying to kill our rights.

me thinks they should do a little self reflection.

DeseoUnTaco
August 14, 2005, 12:10 PM
Howard said the bill could torpedo international efforts to stem the flow of arms to brutal militias in Africa and elsewhere that target civilians, particularly children.
They are INSANE if they think that a strongly-worded letter from the UN is going to change the minds of African warlords. The UN has been so successful at controlling international trafficking in drugs, I'm sure they'll have just as much success with arms. The UN puts its absolute best efforts into controlling nuclear technologies, and nuclear technologies are a lot easier to control than plain old guns, and still nuclear technology is getting out there.

Gun control laws here in the US will only disarm law-abiding citizens. International efforts against guns will only succeed in keeping guns away from civilians in non-violent first world countries.

I support this bill.

Anyway, the biggest misusers of firearms by far are authorized government purchasers. I'm sure Kim Jong-Il would be authorized to buy small arms under this UN treaty, but North Korean freedom fighters would be denied. Oh great! Keeping the world safe... for dictators.

rick_reno
August 14, 2005, 12:11 PM
2nd Amendment Protection Act? Aren't they about 75 years too late?

Justin
August 14, 2005, 12:14 PM
Getting out of the UN may seem like a good idea, but I'll stop here long enough to point out that as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the United States has the ability to halt anything simply by voting no. Essentially we have the power to veto anything that comes down the pike, even if we're the only ones voting against it.

As for UN headquarters, I'm all for moving that to Mogadishu.

SIOP
August 14, 2005, 12:21 PM
Getting out of the UN may seem like a good idea, but I'll stop here long enough to point out that as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the United States has the ability to halt anything simply by voting no. Essentially we have the power to veto anything that comes down the pike, even if we're the only ones voting against it.

Only on Security Council items. The vote on disarmament will be a treaty voted on by the General Assembly. Then, even if the U.S. votes against it, you will hear from Washington that we have to abide by the treaty because treaties trump the Constitution. They don't, but that's what the socialists in D.C. will use as justification for coming to take your guns away.

ralphie98
August 14, 2005, 12:23 PM
Wendy Cukier, president of Canada's Coalition to End Gun Violence, said the issue is a priority to the United States' northern and southern neighbors because 80 percent of gun crimes committed in Mexico and 50 percent in Canada involve guns that originated in the United States. Strong gun control laws in Mexico and Canada, she said, are being undermined by lax laws in the United States. This looks to me like another reason to seal up the borders. If its such a big problem, why don't these other countries do more to stop illegal border crossings instead of this UN crap?

Baba Louie
August 14, 2005, 12:26 PM
...we could leave the UN... Yeah Art, highly improbable we'd leave the organization WE STARTED and give up that ever important Security Council VETO vote, keeping the smaller mongrels at bay... let alone the funding thing. The U.N., without American Taxpayers money = toothless dog. Even with American Taxpayers money, long on words/resolutions... short on action.

They're supposed to be do-gooders and tyrant watchdogs; talkers not walkers. Who does the actual heavy lifting, be it finances, sending troops with guns, food or medicine; going into the valley of the shadow of death where others fear to walk?

The United States is today and has always been the largest financial contributor to the United Nations system. United States contributions to the United Nations is currently assessed at 27 percent of the total, and as of October 2003 the U.S. was paid in full. In 2003, the U.S. contributed over two-thirds of a billion dollars for United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world. (latest info I could quickly find)

Still and all, pricey as it is to belong to the club, it is nice to know what our enemies and friends discuss and plan in a public forum. Forewarned is forearmed and all that.

Waitone
August 14, 2005, 05:01 PM
Wendy Cukier, president of Canada's Coalition to End Gun Violence, said the issue is a priority to the United States' northern and southern neighbors because 80 percent of gun crimes committed in Mexico and 50 percent in Canada involve guns that originated in the United States. Strong gun control laws in Mexico and Canada, she said, are being undermined by lax laws in the United States. Steaming fresh male bovine skat. Can these people not come up with original argumentation?

I'm glad Bolton reported for duty. He's summarily dealt with preceding initiatives out the UN. Perhaps he'll continue his exemplary conduct.

His boss is a different matter. The guy is evidently an international corporatist not beholding to the UN. The joker would seem to surrender our sovereignty of trade boards but stand up to legislative groups like the UN. I expect Bolton to wreck any initiative out of the UN but we'd better watch our 6 because his boss is back there.

hifi
August 14, 2005, 05:08 PM
How come getting into the U.N. wasn't considered toe stepping, but getting out would be?

NEVER TRUST ANYTHING REBECCA PETERS OF IANSA SAYS!!! If you saw the gun debate she had with Wayne LaPierre, you would have seen her adgenda exposed -

..and Wayne LaPierre's lack of debate skills.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 14, 2005, 05:52 PM
The definitive answer to your question is: Who cares?

Well, I got the impression YOU did since you were complaining about it. After all, if the Republican s have the power to enact your entire agenda right now then I would think you would be concerned with convincing them to do it.

Making a politician do what you want is simple enough - convince him he won't get re-elected if he doesn't do what you want him to do. The tough part is building up the bloc of voters who share your concerns without compromising your agenda. That task only gets tougher with the more politicians you want to replace.

I would suggest to you that the Republicans don't enact the agenda you suggest because the majority of political powers-that-be (whether voters, corporations, or special-interest money) do not want that exact agenda enacted. Some may want parts of it but are not willing to compromise on other issues so the agenda remains a net political loser.

Now if you want to complain about how the Democrats and the Republicans are all the same then maybe it is worth considering why they might share some simalarities. They are similar (but most assuredly not the same) because they can't adopt policies too different from each other and still keep enough people supporting them to remain in power. The key to changing either party lies in changing what the voters demand of the party.

This means that on an individual level you need to educate your friends, neighbors, co-workers etc. on why what you want is a good thing and why they need to get politically active and write letters to help you support it. I personally don't believe that negative complaints about the current state of affairs will serve that goal very well; but you're free to try whatever method you like.

hifi
August 14, 2005, 06:09 PM
You notice that the bill doesn't appear to do anything to actually prevent abuses of our second amendment rights, it simply cuts funding for the U.N. after our rights are gone. More republican inaction.

+1

Silver Bullet
August 14, 2005, 07:37 PM
Wendy Cukier, president of Canada's Coalition to End Gun Violence, said the issue is a priority to the United States' northern and southern neighbors because 80 percent of gun crimes committed in Mexico and 50 percent in Canada involve guns that originated in the United States. Strong gun control laws in Mexico and Canada, she said, are being undermined by lax laws in the United States.
This looks to me like another reason to seal up the borders. If its such a big problem, why don't these other countries do more to stop illegal border crossings instead of this UN crap?

Good one ! :cool:

Standing Wolf
August 14, 2005, 07:47 PM
Could happen tomorrow if Republicans really were conservatives and had any balls.


Might rain nickels later this evening, too.

beerslurpy
August 14, 2005, 08:13 PM
I hope not. I just had the roof replaced and the walls repainted.

The gun issue is not the politicians fault, it is the people's fault. The republicans will not act en masse to repeal gun control legislation unless they perceive two things simultaneously:

1) widespread tolerance of such action (I think we are some of the way there).

2) widespread fear of voter defections due to inaction (look at what fear of the illegal alien problem accomplished)

The only way to accomplish this is to make large swaths of the population care about guns and feel threatened by gun control. Right now maybe half the adults in this country have a gun of some sort. But how many sit on their asses and rationalize about how assault weapon bans arent really incrementalism? At the very least a sizeable majority.

How many gun owners not only say "I will definitely vote this election" but also "I will vote on the gun issue." and lastly "I will be informed as to my candidates actual position on said issue." 4 million people is enough to make us an annoyance in close races, but not enough to make us an annoyance in every race, which is what we have to become.

R.H. Lee
August 14, 2005, 09:08 PM
The U.N. doesn't seem to have much success enforcing its 'resolutions', even against third world rabble. Such a resolution against 80+ million armed Americans would be utterly hopeless.

javafiend
August 14, 2005, 09:26 PM
Then, even if the U.S. votes against it, you will hear from Washington that we have to abide by the treaty because treaties trump the Constitution.

???

General Assembly votes are not treaties.

Treaties do not become US law until and unless ratified.

Gifted
August 15, 2005, 12:41 AM
a system to ensure the destruction or securing of surplus military weapons and those confiscated in crime investigations. I'll be more than happy to secure some of those weapons in my gun safe. Of course, then I'd have buy the bigger gun safe. :evil:

the United Nations released a report estimating that 500,000 people have died over the past decade from injuries caused by small weapons or guns used in crimes or military attacks. Is it me, or are those numbers small?

Too Many Choices!?
August 15, 2005, 01:43 AM
Okaaaay, :banghead: ....Man some people are brain dead. A Politician at his best, making a good stand and effort ,but not really doing anything at the exact same time(always amazes me how people bite this crap too, kinda creepy)

. As has been pointed out, this would take away funding AFTER the point at which I believe it would already be an US against THEM mentality, IMHO :scrutiny: ! It stands to reason that we would stop paying into the UN, move it elsewhere(or keep an eye on it here, hmmm), back out of alot(or most) agreements/treaties, and treat the U.N. as a,"Hostile and Detremental Entity TO Freedom and THE CONSTITUTION of the U.S. of A, if the U.N. ever tried to do an," End Run", around the Constitution. That is my opinion of what we should REASONABLY DO, but politicians/beuarcrats tend not to be reasonable people is what I am discovering with age:scrutiny:...

I file this under the category discussed a while ago titled something like," Patriotic Rhetoric, Helpfull or Harmfull", as this is a double edged sword. It can be an attension grabber to those," Half Awake", bringing them to our side of recogniton on the issue(usually not likely but possible), or it can be a little too much,"Tipping of the Hand You Will Play". This is kinda an odd discussion in light of what the U.N did, or did not do(depending on perspective like always), just recently in Iraq. I thought small arms weren't treated as,"Evil WOMD", and as thus baned from civil hands,anywhere but ,"Across the Pond", Australia, both South and Central Americas,Japan, Africa,Canada(to a lesser degree), and some fascist regimes still around. But some would say that the use of the term fascist regimes in it's intended connotation with GUNS and SMALL ARMS BANNED or SEVERELY ABROGATED from THE PEOPLE of Nations, is unnecessarily redundant :scrutiny:.. Others would say tin-foil hat time(perspective) ...

P.S. I do not know how stringent the Gun Laws of the Nations I listed REALLY are, save for the U.S.(although Border Control on BOTH sides would answer a lot of this crap about," illicit arms trade") all others are an approximation based on guns being available to average person commercially(which is based on my best guess basicly, so my OPINION), and is not intended to hurt any feelings ANYWHERE. Some of the listed nations may fall verrrrrrrrry short of what you call fascist, and I have forgotten many places with more stringent Gun Control than Countries listed, however, basic defense from evil(malice for non-believers) with weapons(particularly Small Arms) of the type suitable and used,"At the Time",for "Civilized Warfare Among Opposing Nations and Countires",(whatever that is but it sounds very politician-ese), is a basic human right; thus placing said Countries on my list. A non-corrupt government entity or organized leadership has nothing to fear from an armed populace(Their Brothers not SUBJECTS!), and everthing to fear from Armed Criminals, which is their job :scrutiny: :mad: !

Whoops that's kinda long :o ...

c_yeager
August 15, 2005, 02:36 AM
I applaud his effort but really;

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., is proposing legislation to bar financing for the world organization should it infringe on Americans' Second Amendment rights.

a foreign power infringes on American freedom and our solution is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY? And this is considered heavy-handed?!?!?!

What happened to warming up the silos?

Wendy Cukier, president of Canada's Coalition to End Gun Violence, said the issue is a priority to the United States' northern and southern neighbors because 80 percent of gun crimes committed in Mexico and 50 percent in Canada involve guns that originated in the United States.

Just so that noone is confused, these numbers dont mean that the guns were smuggled from the U.S. They mean that the guns ORIGINITATED in the U.S.

If a gun is manufactured in New Hampshire, then that is its place of origin. The U.S. makes a *lot* of guns.

rock jock
August 15, 2005, 02:39 AM
Vitter, who introduced his bill just before the start of the August recess, has nine co-sponsors, all Republicans.
Yeah, but there's no difference between the Demicans and Republicrats, right? :rolleyes:

Bartholomew Roberts
August 15, 2005, 03:21 AM
By the way, Vitter is the Louisiana Senator. His seat was previously occupied by a Democrat who was OK with renewing the assault weapons ban; but Vitter won that seat in 2004 with help from gun owners.

Progress can happen; but we have to have the votes to make it happen.

If you enjoyed reading about "U.S. gun rights at issue in UN effort" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!