Coming for our Guns...


PDA






RaetherEnt
January 10, 2006, 06:54 PM
UN Small Arms Preparatory Committee, 9-20 January 2006

The Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) at UN Headquarters in New York (US) is part of the UN process on small arms.

The process began in July 2001, after years of lobbying by humanitarian organisations for the human cost of gun proliferation to be recognised. At that time, UN Member States unanimously adopted the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (PoA), a political agreement aiming to curb the illicit trade in guns.

Governments agreed to review the PoA after five years. The five years will be up in June 2006, when governments will meet again at the UN Review Conference on small arms.

The Review Conference will be an opportunity for much greater progress if governments are prepared to take up the challenge. However, this opportunity may be lost, depending on the outcome of the preparatory meeting over the next two weeks.

What happens at the PrepCom?
At the PrepCom, UN Member States will decide the agenda of the high-level Review Conference in June, ie which solutions to the problem of gun violence are open for discussion.

A number of issues were dropped from the text of the PoA in 2001, including

regulating civilian possession of guns,
arms transfers to non-state actors,
and tough regulation of arms brokers.
Experience over the last five years shows that these elements are vital to effective implementation of the PoA, and this must now be recognised.

Many governments would now like to see some of these issues discussed; others, opposed to further controls on gun proliferation, want to restrict discussion to the topics that are already covered by the Programme of Action.

What does IANSA want from the PrepCom?
IANSA members are urging governments not only to include the key issues left out in 2001 (see above) in the outcome document of the Review Conference in June, but also to strengthen some of the existing provisions.

For example, in the PoA, states agreed to ensure that small arms transfers were consistent with their existing responsibilities under relevant international law. But there is no shared understanding of what these responsibilities are.

Therefore IANSA urges governments to adopt a set of global principles for arms transfers, based on international law, in order to close the legal loopholes exploited by arms dealers.

IANSA is also urging governments to move swiftly towards negotiations for a legally-binding instrument to control arms brokers, wherever they operate.

The PrepCom must lay the foundations for this progress. It must ensure that:

the agenda for the Review Conference is open for discussion of all issues related to gun proliferation;
non-governmental organisations can participate fully in the meeting, so that the voices of those who are dealing with the daily reality of gun violence are heard;
decision-making is by vote rather than consensus, so that the tiny minority of states opposed to further controls on gun proliferation no longer have power of veto.
More on the UN small arms process
In July 2003 and July 2005, governments reported on their implementation of the PoA at the Biennial Meetings of States (BMS) at UN Headquarters in New York.

Both meetings revealed that governments were making very slow progress on implementing the PoA.

Across the Middle East, North Africa and much of Asia almost no small arms commitments have been put into action. Some states in East Africa, East and Central Europe and the Americas had made progress, but there is still much to be done in order to save lives.

The UN's Chief Puppet, Bill Clinton got many of our guns taken away for a decade...All part of the plan to slowly disarm Americans. Hillary in '08??? Start burying them now. :what:

If you enjoyed reading about "Coming for our Guns..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
odysseus
January 10, 2006, 06:57 PM
Both meetings revealed that governments were making very slow progress on implementing the PoA.

Because they have no authority to mandate such stupidity. That is a good thing.

whm1974
January 11, 2006, 02:42 AM
The UN actully has very little power for now. They have no means of enforcing any resilutions they pass.

-Bill

beerslurpy
January 11, 2006, 02:47 AM
UN Security Council Veto. That is all. Also, assuming a hillary presidency, which I'm not, it would still have to be ratified by a mostly pro-gun congress. Not gonna happen.

<willy wonka>You win nothing! You lose! Good day sir!</willy wonka>

Even if they somehow could get it ratified, the treaty would be forbidden by the constitution. Then again, so is much of Title 18 section 922-925.

danurve
January 11, 2006, 12:54 PM
The "UN" is by far to the "US" as a Lamprey eel is to a Trout.

Molon Labe
January 11, 2006, 01:02 PM
The UN actully has very little power for now. They have no means of enforcing any resilutions they pass.This will change when HRC becomes president.

armoredman
January 11, 2006, 01:07 PM
Rebecca Peters and IANSA are a huge threat to our liberties, and she has her sights set on a socialist world, with her in a large position power, of course. The UN without the US is not quite a paper tiger, but close.

ReadyontheRight
January 11, 2006, 01:12 PM
The UN actully has very little power for now. They have no means of enforcing any resilutions they pass.

This will change when HRC becomes president.

But I thought there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans.:rolleyes:

ArmedBear
January 11, 2006, 01:42 PM
But I thought there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans.:rolleyes:

That is why I, as a card-carrying member of Libertarian Party, think it's STUPID to vote third-party in a big Federal election, as long as the Democrats remain totalitarian internationalists.

The Republicans suck much of the time, but there is NOTHING the Democrats would do that would be better, and much that would be worse. Their bizarre love for the UN is a genuine threat to all we value as Americans who have some awareness of what remains of our unique freedom.

We're all going to die someday. Probably before there's a Libertarian majority in DC. In the meantime, I'd just as soon hang onto what freedoms I can, when I can, instead of whistling a happy tune of pure libertarian ideology as my country turns totalitarian in every respect.

Every vote is an important choice. Please try to choose wisely. I do sometimes vote Libertarian, but I think about it when I do.

progunner1957
January 11, 2006, 02:00 PM
Rebecca Peters and IANSA are a huge threat to our liberties, and she has her sights set on a socialist world, with her in a large position power, of course.
When "W" was reelected in '04, the losers in the election - Demosocialist gun grabbing freedom haters - bandied about the question, "Is it ethical to shoot [and presumably kill] Republicans?" I'm sure many will recall this.

If the Demosocialists in "our" (ha, ha) own government are not kept in check as well as the Demosocialists at the UN and IANSA, some day those of us who took the oath "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic" may well find ourselves in the position of being forced to take action on that oath.

Seeing as how we actually have the tools and ability to do the job and are ready, willing and able to do it - the UN, IANSA and Rebeca Peters proceed at their peril.

Am I advocating assasinating socialist UN bureaucrats? Noooooooooooo- what I am advocating is that socialist UN bureaucrats cease and desist their global power grab while they still have the opportunity to do so.

The UN and its bureaucrats can be tolerated - as long as they know their place in the scheme of things and stay in their place.

When they think that they are going to take my guns and turn me into a slave that grovels before their jackboots - they are comitting a grave error in judgement.

There are tens of millions of others in this nation that feel the same way.

MOLON LABE.:D

mcooper
January 11, 2006, 02:59 PM
No one, currently, could...or would enforce these powerless edicts in our nation.


If that day comes. MOLON LABE!

cosine
January 11, 2006, 03:30 PM
it's STUPID to vote third-party in a big Federal election, as long as the Democrats remain totalitarian internationalists.

We're all going to die someday. Probably before there's a Libertarian majority in DC. In the meantime, I'd just as soon hang onto what freedoms I can, when I can, instead of whistling a happy tune of pure libertarian ideology as my country turns totalitarian in every respect.

+1. Excellent. Armed Bear, you just said what I had been trying to figure out myself. This is why I don't fully agree with the "vote third-party" members or with the "vote third-party" arguments that are put forth whenever one of those "third-party vs. mainstream" voting threads appear.

Lambo
January 11, 2006, 03:33 PM
http://www.getusout.org/artman/publish/cat_index_23.shtml
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d9/RWLambo/Gun%20Photos/un-annan.jpg

progunner1957
January 11, 2006, 08:30 PM
Come get some, old man!!:D :D

odysseus
January 11, 2006, 09:47 PM
Come get some, old man!!:D :D

LOL... That's classic.

Waitone
January 11, 2006, 10:58 PM
The UN pushed all its chips on Brazil and lost big time. Doesn't mean it won't be back, just means it lost in Brazil as did Becky Peters.

The Freeholder
January 11, 2006, 11:01 PM
Ammo first, baby. Ammo first.

CAnnoneer
January 11, 2006, 11:20 PM
I blame the UN on one of the biggest idealistic impracticals of all time - Woodrow Wilson!

"If I want to punish one of my provinces, I appoint a philosopher for its governor." Friedrich II the Great

DontBurnMyFlag
January 12, 2006, 12:10 AM
dont fire until you see the blue of their helmets

progunner1957
January 12, 2006, 12:46 AM
LOL... That's classic.I own more .223 rounds than Kofi's addled, incontinent old cadaver has square inches of skin.:D :D

RaetherEnt
January 12, 2006, 12:52 AM
Anyone up for organizing a "million gun march" on the United Nations in NYC?

Molon Labe
January 12, 2006, 12:53 AM
Not sure about you, but I have no qualms about firing on a guy wearing a blue helmet and speaking broken English...

ReadyontheRight
January 12, 2006, 01:55 AM
The UN pushed all its chips on Brazil and lost big time. Doesn't mean it won't be back, just means it lost in Brazil as did Becky Peters.


Oops -- the frog just moved. Looks like he might jump out of the pot. We'd better not turn the heat up quite so fast.

And hey -- you camels -- just stay in a holding pattern with one hump in the tent while we figure this Brazil thing out.

The-Fly
January 12, 2006, 02:04 AM
Good quality Bushmaster or RRA - $800
20 USGI mags from 44mag.com - $200
Blackhills 68gr HP bluebox 600rnds - $180

Being able to shoot 600 socialists & fascists - priceless

There are some things you can't buy, for everything else theres the 2nd Amendment. Don't defend your home without it.

McCall911
January 12, 2006, 05:01 AM
[JUST KIDDING mode on]

Kofi, if you want my guns, you can't have 'em.

But you can come get my bullets. I'll give 'em to you--one at a time!

[JUST KIDDING mode off]

After all, I don't want be construed as threatening the High Leader of the United World Government!

:D


[JUST KIDDING mode really off now!]

LAK
January 12, 2006, 05:33 AM
Anyone doubting that the corporate-government international organized crime cartel otherwise known as "the United Nations" has teeth, review some modern history.

Take a look and see what the U.N. did in Katanga during the beginning of the 1960s for example.

And while people in this country are mesmorized watching the WWF show of "republican" leaders - and their star performer in the WH - "versus" the "democratic" leaders; the "toothless" United Nations is busy elsewhere.

To quote General Babacar Gaye of Senegal, U.N. force commander in Congo in May 23, 2005 (according to the NYT):

"It may look like war but it's peacekeeping"

This is why what transpired in Rwanda went the way it did; it riled people into clammering for a "stronger more decisive U.N.". Etc.

Controlled conflict for controlled change.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

buzz_knox
January 12, 2006, 09:26 AM
No one, currently, could...or would enforce these powerless edicts in our nation.


If that day comes. MOLON LABE!

Should it be ratified, it would become the law of the land. And then it would be enforced just like every unjust or unconstitutional law is enforced today.

Waitone
January 12, 2006, 09:47 AM
Every international "agreement" we sign is just one more thread strapping the US down. NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, LOST, ad nauseum all have provisions limiting our sovereignty, not by much but limits just the same. Gulliver's Travels is classic.

K-Romulus
January 12, 2006, 11:04 AM
Does anyone else think it's a little odd that at the start of this year we have:

1) Canada loudly "blaming" the US "gun culture" and "loose" US civilian gun laws for Canada's gun crimes, and criticizing the US for not having laws like Canada's (licensing/registration/bans),

and

2) The Mayor of NYC, along with mayors from other major US cities with international name recognition, embarking on an unbelievably high-profile nationwide "gun control" tour to call for ending "loose" civilian gun laws and the adoption of NYC-style laws (licensing/registration/bans),

in the same year that the UN committee on arms control is seeking to promulgate some sort of treaty on minimum "acceptable" laws (licensing/registration/a ban on at least something) concerning civilian firearms ownership? A treaty that the US has so far resisted even discussing with the other members? :uhoh: :scrutiny:

FYI: I got the "minimum" laws from IANSA's partner, the "Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue," in its "Apr. 2005 Bulletin: Small Arms and Human Security" :

http://www.iansa.org/documents/2005/Bul5English.pdf

Global standards are clearly emerging.7 Licensing owners
and registering guns are among the most basic measures
available to States. . . A number of other policies are important, such as
prohibitions on re-selling guns, limits on the number of
guns that civilians may own and restrictions on who and
where guns may be carried. . . .

But national level action alone is not sufficient. States
that enact strict controls over civilian possession of guns
find those controls undermined if firearms can be easily
(illegally) imported from neighbours with less strict
controls. Therefore, regional and even global harmonisation
is required. . . .

Regional policymaking has moved farther. Most notably,
governments in Eastern and Southern Africa have agreed
—through the Nairobi and sadc Protocols—to a comprehensive
set of civilian gun laws that include the criminalisation
of illicit possession of small arms and light weapons,
the prohibition of automatic and semi-automatic rifles,
gun owner licensing, gun registration, stringent marking
requirements for all civilian guns and limits on the number
of guns that can be owned. Importantly, both Protocols
call for the harmonisation of laws within the region on a
variety of measures, in recognition that each region shares
common problems and that a strong, united approach
is essential to bringing improvements.

And the "rationale" IANSA is using to target civilian firearms (from the same document):

This opposition is based on a belief that the more
civilians own and carry guns, the safer society is—due
to the presumed, but unproven, deterrent effect armed
populations might have on criminals. However, this ‘self
defence/deterrence’ model rejects the evidence base
which links the presence of guns with increased death
and injury. It also ignores the fact that gun violence is
often committed between acquaintances (rather than
between strangers) and by people who are not criminals
before they kill, injure or coerce.11

If anyone is interested, here is fn.11:
11 Vetten, Lisa (2005), Gunning for you: The role of guns in men’s killing of their
intimate female partners. csvr Gender Programme, Policy Brief No. 02, April
2005. The peer-reviewed work of Dr. Arthur Kellermann in the United States
has established that the presence of guns in the home raises the risks that family
members will die by homicide or suicide. See for example: Kellermann AL,
Rivera FP, Rushforth NB, et al. (1993), Gun ownership as a risk factor for
homicide in the home. New England Journal of Medicine, 329: pp. 1084–91.

Kellermann's work is now a global talking point . . . .

Waitone
January 12, 2006, 11:11 AM
IIRC late last year or early this year a highly place Canadian screwball said they intended to take the US to international court because our gun laws constitute human rights violations.

xd9fan
January 12, 2006, 01:28 PM
Good quality Bushmaster or RRA - $800
20 USGI mags from 44mag.com - $200
Blackhills 68gr HP bluebox 600rnds - $180

Being able to shoot 600 socialists & fascists - priceless

There are some things you can't buy, for everything else theres the 2nd Amendment. Don't defend your home without it.



beautiful......

CAS700850
January 12, 2006, 03:24 PM
We had this discussion years ago when I was in law school. U.N. Order 66 (any Star Wars fans out there?) is recognized by the U.S., and all small arms are declared illegal for ownership by any non-LEO, non-military personnel. Given the nature of the order, this includes retired LEO's and military in the prohibition. So, how do you enforce it here in the U.S.? Well, first, you have the Pres. issue an executive order suspending the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the 6th Amendment. Then, you begin the searches. All individuals known to own or suspected of owning firearms. Door to door search by thousands of LEO's and soldiers, many wearing blue helmets. Come to your door and search. Find nothing. Where are your guns (no 5th and 6th for protection)? I sold them years ago to someone at a gun show, before any records were required. Paid in cash, money spent on cheap booze and women years ago. No evidence of any guns, so they search the property, and again no luck. they leave, and you get the guns out of their secret hding place (you know the one). Given that only about 100,000 of the guns are recovered, a sweep from coast to coast is ordered. Search every square inch of the country. Yeah, right. Let's say they try, except it is impossible to do a search line border to border (lack of manpower), so you simply take the guns from in front of the line and sneak them through to where the search is completed.

And, what about smuggling? Look at how easy it is to smuggle drugs and people in and out of the country. Guns would be easier, because the dogs can't sniff them out. Just metal and wood. Ammo may be a little harder, but not really. So,myou're talking some type of full embargo with a "gun quarantine" around the country. And, this assumes passive resistence from the citizens, and no resistence from military and LEO's.

Don't sound real likely to me. ;)

longeyes
January 12, 2006, 03:34 PM
Every international "agreement" we sign is just one more thread strapping the US down. NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, LOST, ad nauseum all have provisions limiting our sovereignty, not by much but limits just the same. Gulliver's Travels is classic.

Good and true analogy.

But treaties were made to be broken. And so too will these be when the necessity and the right leadership arise.

mrmeval
January 13, 2006, 08:23 AM
Actually it would be a good thing if the DNC and Hillary swept the next election. A jackboot now would be better than a jackboot after a century of withered rights.


UN Security Council Veto. That is all. Also, assuming a hillary presidency, which I'm not, it would still have to be ratified by a mostly pro-gun congress. Not gonna happen.

50caliber123
January 13, 2006, 08:36 AM
Is that true about "order 66"? where can I look that up? I would like to find that for my next gun control/starwars comparison. Also, see Xmen, for a comparison of mutants to gun owners.

mmike87
January 13, 2006, 11:09 AM
I am not worried. Why? Because in most areas of the country, gun control has been getting weaker rather than stronger. Sure, there are some localized exceptions in a few states - but generally more people can carry and own guns now than for a long time. More and more states have passed CCW, preemption, "stand your ground" laws, etc. and that trend is continuing.

F*** the UN.

MedGrl
January 13, 2006, 11:14 AM
UN Security Council Veto. That is all. Also, assuming a hillary presidency, which I'm not, it would still have to be ratified by a mostly pro-gun congress. Not gonna happen.

<willy wonka>You win nothing! You lose! Good day sir!</willy wonka>

Even if they somehow could get it ratified, the treaty would be forbidden by the constitution. Then again, so is much of Title 18 section 922-925.



Well said:D

CAS700850
January 13, 2006, 11:48 AM
I made up Order 66 as an inside joke for the Star Wars fans. Not the first Jedi Knight = gun owner comparison around here.

longeyes
January 13, 2006, 12:50 PM
The U.N.'s goal is a "peaceable kingdom," run by The Few.

Someday the choice, the way things are going now, will be between a docile U.N. serf and an outlaw. Perhaps I need to start getting in touch with my Inner Thug.

azredhawk44
January 13, 2006, 12:59 PM
Not sure about you, but I have no qualms about firing on a guy wearing a blue helmet and speaking broken English...

Foreign Invader, US soil...

Time to warm up the M1a.

molon labe

solareclipse
January 13, 2006, 10:55 PM
you don't have to fire on them. the blue helmets cannot fire at you. all they can do is look at you and pretend they will do something.

and that's a fact.

johnster999
January 13, 2006, 11:11 PM
That is why I, as a card-carrying member of Libertarian Party, think it's STUPID to vote third-party in a big Federal election, as long as the Democrats remain totalitarian internationalists.

The Republicans suck much of the time, but there is NOTHING the Democrats would do that would be better, and much that would be worse. Their bizarre love for the UN is a genuine threat to all we value as Americans who have some awareness of what remains of our unique freedom.

We're all going to die someday. Probably before there's a Libertarian majority in DC. In the meantime, I'd just as soon hang onto what freedoms I can, when I can, instead of whistling a happy tune of pure libertarian ideology as my country turns totalitarian in every respect.

Every vote is an important choice. Please try to choose wisely. I do sometimes vote Libertarian, but I think about it when I do.

Right on the money.

999

50caliber123
January 16, 2006, 07:37 AM
Another almost-starwars comparison are the amount of civilized countries that ban most or all firearms compared to those that don't. America is a "safe-haven", so to speak. Yes, I think most of our laws are garbage involving gun control, but we got it better here than most places. This is why the UN (Galactic Empire) wants to have a meeting about Gun Control. They view the US as the biggest obstacle between guns being privately owned by civillians and oppression. Never forget that every country that has required registration of every weapon eventually confiscated them (see Nazi Germany, 1933-1945). We are all that stands in their way... yet we fund over 40% of the UN. Do not fear whatever threats they make, they can't back them up (Canada, Mexico, France, etc) a multi-national coalition to disarm, peacefully or otherwise, without US backing is doomed to fail.

DRZinn
January 16, 2006, 02:53 PM
That is why I, as a card-carrying member of Libertarian Party, think it's STUPID to vote third-party in a big Federal election, as long as the Democrats remain totalitarian internationalists.Depends on the circumstances, Bear. Here in Cali, a vote for a Republican president has no impact whatsoever on the fact that California's electoral votes are going to go to the Democratic candidate. In a swing state I'd probably vote Republican, but while I'm stuck here I want my vote to be heard for what it really means, rather than throwing it away on a losing candidate.

Mornard
January 16, 2006, 03:31 PM
I have several thoughts on this...

1. The International effort is directed completely towards the USA, by quite frankly, jealous/rabid/hysterically fanatic agendized citizens and foreigners alike.

2. I am too old to give up much of anything anymore, esp. God-given liberty.

3. Blue helmets make good targets.

4. If this comes to pass, it will be time to load them, not bury them.

5. I am old enough that I may as well die for something I truly believe in; to save the future for my grandchildren, and to thank our fathers for their past sacrifices in the name of liberty and the USA.

6. Insane? Rabid? Hysterical? Paranoid? Conspiracy theorist? No, not really. But if it had one tattoo, it would be Molon Labe...

7. "All that is necessary for evil men to succeed, is for good men to do nothing..." A far greater man than I said that, and I believe it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Coming for our Guns..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!