Other countries want to disarm US, rest of world


PDA






LAR-15
October 6, 2005, 02:32 AM
*UN HAND GUN CONFERENCE: COLOMBIA WANTS INTERNATIONAL CONTROL

United Nations, July 9 (RHC)--The government of Colombia today proposed the
creation of a worldwide system to control the spread of small arms across
the globe.

Colombian vice president Gustavo Bell Lemus and UN Ambassador, Camilo Reyes
are heading a delegation to the UN Conference on Hand Gun Trading that began
today in New York. The Conference will run through July 20 and includes the
participation of more than 70 countries.

Bell Lemus said that the commercial trade of handguns has reached global
proportions and that all nations confronting the problem at home needed
cooperation from the international community to put an end to the traffic.
He added that the delegates should ensure that action follows any decisions
made during the Conference and asked that a commission be set up to monitor
results. Ambassador Reyes added that although handguns may not be the
principal cause of armed international conflict, they enable the flow of
illicit drugs, which pays for such conflicts. It has been estimated that
handguns account for the deaths of over a million people a year.

In the first international accord of its kind, a number of nations in the
Americas have already signed and ratified the Interamerican Convention
against the Manufacture and Trafficking of Firearms, Munitions, Explosives
and other Related Materials. The Convention was proposed by Mexico to close
the blackmarket arms trade that contributes to violence associated with drug
trafficking, terrorism and organized crime.

In the United Nations, Colombia also exhorted member nations to quickly
resolve their differences and, when the time comes, to issue a strong and
consensual closing document. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and some 100
heads of state last year came to an agreement to design a strategy to put an
end to the illegal trade of pistols, assault rifles and other small arms
that are easily transported.

In the United States, the ready availability of handguns has contributed to
a 2.7 higher possibility of being killed and a 4.8 times greater likelihood
of suicide, recent studies report. On an international level, of the
half-billion small arms that exist in the world, between 40% and 60% were
obtained illegally. Of the 49 major armed conflicts of the 1990s, small arms
predominated in 46 of them, resulting in the deaths of four million people--
90% of them civilians and 80% of those women and children.

If you enjoyed reading about "Other countries want to disarm US, rest of world" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LAR-15
October 6, 2005, 02:37 AM
Old but relevant news.

Countries like Colombia and Japan keep pushing for UN gun control.

Preacherman
October 6, 2005, 02:48 AM
The scary thing is that if we end up with the "wrong" individuals in the US Senate, we could end up with something like this, despite the Second Amendment. If a foreign treaty is signed by a US President, it has to be ratified by the Senate. All it takes is 67 Senators to vote "Aye" on such a treaty, and it takes on the force of law in the USA - overriding anything to the contrary in the Constitution. I can see leftist gun-grabbers using this legal loophole to accomplish by the back door what they could never achieve through the "front door" of electoral politics...


Edited to change the number of Senators - it takes a two-thirds majority, rather than a simple majority, to approve treaties.

Bruce in West Oz
October 6, 2005, 05:48 AM
The attacks are coming from all sides and are becoming more coordinated.. Note the date on this report:

EU backs need for treaty on global arms sales
03 Oct 2005 15:23:06 GMT

Reuters

LUXEMBOURG, Oct 3 (Reuters) - European Union foreign ministers on Monday
backed the idea of creating an international treaty controlling the sale
of small arms and called on the United Nations to take the lead.
At a meeting in Luxembourg, foreign ministers "acknowledged the growing
support, in all parts of the world, for an international treaty to
establish common standards for the global trade in conventional arms," a
statement said.
They agreed that the United Nations was the only forum capable of
overseeing this, the statement added.
The EU move drew praise from aid agency Oxfam which, with Amnesty
International, has campaigned for a treaty setting global controls on
small and light arms.
Oxfam says one million people have been killed by small arms since the
U.N. last met on the issue in 2001.
"Dozens of countries from around the world have already backed the
treaty. Attention now turns to the U.N. arms conference next year and
ensuring that the treaty tops the agenda," it said.
The United Nations is due to meet on June 26 next year to discuss small
arms.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03608916.htm

artherd
October 6, 2005, 07:18 AM
United Nations, July 9 (RHC)--The government of Colombia today proposed the
creation of a worldwide system to control the spread of small arms across
the globe.

COLOMBIA?!?!?! The same Colombia that's pumping out metric tonnes of Coke every day?

Come on!

Mongo the Mutterer
October 6, 2005, 07:27 AM
Transnational Socialism

Tranzis

Check it out. Government by non-elected elitist bureaucrats and NGOs. The leftist's dream... Global taxation with no representation. No accountablility.

Nematocyst
October 6, 2005, 08:43 AM
And after small arms, next will come swords. Then, knives.

After that, karate, kung fu & baseball bats because they can kill people.

Followed by fried chicken & mashed potatoes, causes of obesity, which kills people.

After that, there's nothing left but sharks, avalanches, tornadoes, hurricanes & rattlesnakes.

Oh yeah, and the occassional lightning bolt.

It should be interesting to watch them try to stop lightning. :neener:

ChiefPilot
October 6, 2005, 09:27 AM
All it takes is 51 Senators to vote "Aye" on such a treaty, and it takes on the force of law in the USA - overriding anything to the contrary in the Constitution.

Practically speaking, this is probably true. However, I don't think legally speaking this is the case. Unless I am misreading it, the constitution overrides treaties and all other laws.

Cold dead hands, blah blah blah...

Hawkmoon
October 6, 2005, 10:21 AM
I, too, thought the Constitution trumps treaties.

Bell Lemus said that the commercial trade of handguns has reached global proportions and that all nations confronting the problem at home needed
cooperation from the international community to put an end to the traffic.
He added that the delegates should ensure that action follows any decisions made during the Conference and asked that a commission be set up to monitor results. Ambassador Reyes added that although handguns may not be the principal cause of armed international conflict, they enable the flow of illicit drugs, which pays for such conflicts. It has been estimated that handguns account for the deaths of over a million people a year.
Maybe if some of the countries that have made handguns completely unavailable to law-abiding citizens would loosen up and allow them to be sold through normal (regulated) channels, some of the appeal of illegal handguns would go away.

I wonder where they make up their statistics. 2.7 times more likely to be killed? 2.7 times more likely than where? A statistic comparing one thing is not a statistic.

geekWithA.45
October 6, 2005, 10:32 AM
Preach,

I've looked into the "international treaty over riding the Constitution" thing in a fair amount of detail, and my take is that the theory is not well founded.

All laws and treaties must be made in congruence with the constitution, or they become a nullity.

Now, what we (rightly) fear is that revisionists in the 3 branches would accept that invalid theory, and start behaving as if it were in deed the law, in the same way that the 3 branches might accept the ill founded "collectivist" interpretation of 2A.

If that were to firmly become the case, we'd be in Kozinski's nightmare, and our choices would be to accept the final death of our Constitution, or fight, ultimately going to guns _if_ need be.

Preacherman
October 6, 2005, 10:37 AM
I was wrong about the number of Senators - it takes a two-thirds majority, or 67, to approve a treaty, rather than a simple majority of 51. Nevertheless, any treaty, once approved, becomes part of the Constitution in terms of its legal status:

US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"
US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, yes, any treaty limiting the possession, sale, transfer, etc. of firearms to which the USA is a signatory, and which is approved by the Senate, would trump any and all internal US legislation, even the Second Amendment, which would be modified by the treaty, since the latter has the same status as the Constitution in terms of being "foundational law" for the entire USA.

Jhorn
October 6, 2005, 10:39 AM
they say that small arms were in 46 of the 49 conflicts, what did they use in the other 3?

geekWithA.45
October 6, 2005, 10:52 AM
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;

under the Authority of the United States,

These clauses LIMIT the nature of laws and treaties.

Laws must be made "in pursuance", which means "Proceeding from and conformable to; in accordance with."

Treaties must be made "under the authority of", which means the enumerated and delegated Powers granted to the fedgov.

If the "override theory" had any merit, one could assert that simple legislation was sufficient to repeal the Bill of Rights.

Clearly, that is not the case.

This phrase,

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

causes the confusion, until one realizes that what it means is that it is the STATE constitutions and laws being over ridden.

I believe the purpose of this is to prevent, say, New Jersey opting out of the acceptance of a peace treaty with say, Belgium.

Another test of this, would, for example, be to assert that the US could negotiate a treaty with the UK asserting that Anglicanism shall be the Established Church of the USA.

Clearly, also not the case.


The bottom line is that treaties may not contravene any element of the Bill of Rights.

The _real_ problem is what the nature of scope of the protections of the B of R actually are.

For example, one could argue that requiring makers marks and serial numbers does not Infringe RKBA, and if so, a treaty requiring makers marks and serial numbers might pass the test.

Ultimately, it all comes down to what is deemed Infringement.

If Infringment is interpreted narrowly, or the right is construed to be collective, then we are vulnerable to mere acts of legislation, which is easier to pull off than a treaty anyway.

beerslurpy
October 6, 2005, 11:25 AM
Well there is some punctuation separating pursuant and the treaty bit.

The "authority of the united states" might be read as "the US only has authority to agree to things which it has authority over" or "only treaties made by the authority of the US, not by the subordinate states."

I guess it boils down to what the "authority of the united states" means. Is this the authority that you need to possess a machine gun under 922(o)? There might be a revolt in this country if the gun grabbers moved forward too quickly, but the current SCOTUS might well uphold such a treaty. The united states has a lot of authority lately.

Then again, treaties were traditionally between countries and involved wholly internation issues. Ie- we agree that neither of us shall fish these waters bordering our nations, or we shall not shoot firearms at your soldiers across the border, etc. Obviously a law made by the local mayor that it was OK to shoot canadians would not be acceptable and might result in war if the US had signed a treaty to the opposite effect.

Only recently have treaties become a means of implementing enormous amounts of civil and criminal law in areas that were traditionally reserved to the states or to the people. Multinational corporations dont like having to lobby for each individual piece of law, especially in countries which have no vested interest in protecting the corporations. A great example of this is the movie industry and its forcing through of the Berne Copyright treaties.

geekWithA.45
October 6, 2005, 11:39 AM
As you point out, the fundamental underlying question as to whether our scheme of limited government wielding only enumerated Powers is still in force remains to be seen.

If it's not, all bets are off, and anything goes.

NCP24
October 6, 2005, 11:41 AM
What happens when US outsourcing reaches 75% and these countries impose trade sanctions to impose their will? Can you say "bye bye guns"?

DelayedReaction
October 6, 2005, 11:46 AM
In the United States, the ready availability of handguns has contributed to a 2.7 higher possibility of being killed and a 4.8 times greater likelihood
of suicide, recent studies report.

Compared to what? This is a junk statistic thrown in there to make people feel bad about guns, and reflects poorly on the journalist.

Zundfolge
October 6, 2005, 12:30 PM
Despite some of the pessimism in these forums, I don't expect that our government will sacrifice our sovereignty and the 2nd Amendment on the altar of the UN any time soon ... but whats going to happen to Glock, SIG, Walther and the other European firearms manufacturers when the EU gets on board with complete gun control?

I say we start working on them now ... try to get them to move their companies here to the States.

In the United States, the ready availability of handguns has contributed to a 2.7 higher possibility of being killed and a 4.8 times greater likelihood
of suicide, recent studies report.
Gun access has been clearly demonstrated to have ZERO effect on suicide.

Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

mpthole
October 6, 2005, 01:51 PM
Well isn't this dandy. Not only do they want to take everyone's guns, but eventually have their grubby hands on free speech and the internet too!

Breaking America's Grip on the Net (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html)

:fire:

Waitone
October 6, 2005, 02:03 PM
So a supermajority in the senate is a bit of a hassle so the workaround is to take a treaty, change the name to "agreement", and presto chango a simple majority in both houses will suffice. You get to spread responsibility for failure and lower the bar for approval. NAFTA and CAFTA come to mind though many others exist.

Ain't a constitution a grea thing?

Archangel
October 6, 2005, 02:25 PM
Man, that is some interesting math they did.

In the United States, the ready availability of handguns has contributed to a 2.7 higher possibility of being killed
(Ignoring the fact that they don't say what they're comparing to to get that 2.7 higher possibility... I'm just going to have to assume they mean everybody else in the world.)


Approx 300 million people in the US, average 35,000 gun deaths per year (total, not just handguns, and that includes murder, suicide, accident, justified...)

Approx 6 billion people on earth... with a 2.7x lower rate. So, let's see, 35,000 x 19, divided by 2.7... I'll even add the US's 35000 back in... carry the 2...


Using their "2.7 higher possibility," I extrapolate the US's rate out to 281,269 annual firearms (not just handguns) deaths wordwide.

It has been estimated that handguns account for the deaths of over a million people a year.
Apparently, rifles and shotguns are bringing over 700,000 people back to life every year! :what:

DeseoUnTaco
October 6, 2005, 02:41 PM
In the first international accord of its kind, a number of nations in the
Americas have already signed and ratified the Interamerican Convention
against the Manufacture and Trafficking of Firearms, Munitions, Explosives
and other Related Materials. The Convention was proposed by Mexico to close
the blackmarket arms trade
Now THAT is a good idea, just like how the Single Convention on Narcotics of 1961 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs_of_1961) eradicated the illegal trade in cocaine, heroin, and cannabis within a few short years of its passage, such that by the middle of the 1960s, drugs were virtually unheard of throughout the West, a situation which persists to this day.

Yeah that'll work!

Never mind that a) guns are easier to manufacture than drugs and b) there are millions of us who would never give up our guns (I won't die for my gun rights, but I'll certainly move).

Standing Wolf
October 6, 2005, 06:00 PM
A statistic comparing one thing is not a statistic.

What passes for "news" is often pure propaganda dished up for people who are completely incapable of critical thinking. For reasons I've never been able to fathom, numbers are often much more convincing than words.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 6, 2005, 07:31 PM
The Constitution is superior to all treaties in terms of hierarchy, not that it would help us much in this example since the Second Amendment is still in a pretty tenuous state despite recent comebacks. Without any clear decision from SCOTUS on whether it is an individual right or not, it would be all too easy for 67 Senators and a President to contravene the will of the American people. The only inside-the-system recourse would be to fight a judicial battle on ground that hasn't been that favorable to us in the past.

TallPine
October 6, 2005, 07:59 PM
The Constitution isn't going to save you, unless you engrave it on a steel plate and wear it over your chest under your poncho :p

The Congress and Supreme Court will just define any part of the Constitution to mean whatever they want it mean at the moment - as they have been doing the past few years (emminent domain, campaign finance reform, states rights of medical marijuana, etc...). :(

We are only going to keep the rights that we fight for (literally) and maybe not even then. :scrutiny:

solareclipse
October 6, 2005, 09:29 PM
Cliffs: The UN wants to make it easier and less dangerous to oppress their citizens which will be the next step.. if they could only first disarm those pesky armed people though...

The creators of the UN will cry if they could see what it has evolved into.

R.H. Lee
October 6, 2005, 09:32 PM
Come and get 'em. We'll see how effective the .308 is on kevlar and blue helmets.

solareclipse
October 6, 2005, 09:42 PM
like knife through butter but what is of concern is that 50 cal about to punch a hole through your wall...

reality is that people can't resist. if this was not the case, then none of the previous disarmaments in history would have been so easy.

vol_907
October 6, 2005, 09:46 PM
Anyone else see this in the news a few days ago? I think they restricted firearms somewhere in Israel--for the purposes of making people more manageable (trying to move some settlers out, IIRC).

It was the first time in my lifetime I have seen gun control for what it is--people control. I know the histories of other nations who did the same thing, but this incident made it really clear to me.

jth

LAR-15
October 6, 2005, 10:22 PM
Britian is behind the big EU disarmament push.

Dionysusigma
October 6, 2005, 10:44 PM
I'd like to see them try.

geekWithA.45
October 6, 2005, 10:46 PM
Britian is behind the big EU disarmament push.

Yeah, because it worked so well for them. :barf:

Bart Roberts +2, with the addition that it's an open question whether in that case the legislature would be contravening the will of the people, or whether most of the people have lost what Scalia terms "societies abiding belief" in the value of an armed citizenry.

This loss of abiding belief is entirely, chillingly possible. For evidence, count how many times you encounter the "it can't happen here" attitude, or "nobody needs XYZ evil gun", and so forth and so on. These are symptoms, not causes.

Fortunately, there's lots of evidence that plenty of Americans retain the abiding belief in the value of armed citizens, especially when we encounter reminders like Katrina and the Rodney King riots every 12 years or so.

When the S HTF, Americans don't go running to the cops. They go running to the gunshops.

gc70
October 7, 2005, 01:15 AM
reality is that people can't resistUndoubtedly why Iraq is such a peaceful country today.

Lupinus
October 7, 2005, 01:55 AM
this is true.

For all the plane's and techknowlagy trying to control well armed people is still a bitch. And they don't even have access to all the civilian companies that produce thing's for the US force's and all other stuff American's would have access too.

DontBurnMyFlag
October 7, 2005, 11:11 AM
how does that saying go...oh yea, i remember

"dont fire 'till you see the blue of their helmets" :cool:

jefnvk
October 7, 2005, 05:26 PM
You know, the whole AWB thing went over so well for those that got it in effect, and it was nowhere near as bad as this. I'd love to see what happens to any official that puts something like this in place.

Mongo the Mutterer
October 7, 2005, 08:54 PM
When the S HTF, Americans don't go running to the cops. They go running to the gunshops.

Geek ya got it. Went by my favorite store Wednesday. They are selling handguns like hotcakes.

Everyone whines about the police. They (the media) should publicize the fact that the police have NO DUTY to protect you as an individual, by law. The media is dishonest and won't publicize that fact, and beats up the police whenever they can in my area.

It is up to us to get the word out...

earonthief
October 7, 2005, 11:34 PM
The left has been trying this crub for years. If by some wild streatch of the imagination it happens. Just how would the left figure to enforce the treaty? Like we're just going to drop our heads and turn them in. Kinda of like the "War on drugs" or Phrobition or ..... hell, pick your crime. Not to mention the black market for firearms will sky rocket over night. So who will give a flip about NFA anymore. Talk about SHTF.

If you enjoyed reading about "Other countries want to disarm US, rest of world" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!