Hollywood Lobbies U.N. on Gun Control


PDA






Waitone
January 21, 2006, 06:43 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/1/20/170234.shtml?s=tn

Kenneth R. Timmerman
Saturday, Jan. 21, 2006

NEW YORK CITY -- An international coalition of anti-gun groups called on Hollywood to convince a U.N. conference in New York to impose legally-binding United Nations controls over small arms and personal firearms.

Flanked by Hollywood director Andrew Niccol, advocates from ControlArms, SaferWorld, and the International Action Network on Small Arms, IANSA, hosted a cocktail party at the United Nations headquarters building Tuesday night, followed by a viewing of Niccol's 2005 film, "Lord of War."

The film, starring Nicolas Cage, is a searing portrayal of an American gun-runner who criss-crosses Africa, supplying warlords and heads of state with a variety of weaponry.

After dodging bullets and Interpol agents seeking his arrest, Cage returns to his multi-million dollar Manhattan condo and his trophy wife, just like any international businessman. "Cars and cigarettes kill more people than guns," he says at one point. "I simply give people the means to defend themselves."

The only problem with the film's scarcely-veiled condemnation of international arms traffickers is that Cage's behavior is more harshly regulated in the United States than in virtually any other country around the world, according to the anti-gun lobbyists themselves.

Brian Wood, a top arms trade analyst for Amnesty International and ControlArms, told anti-gun activists in New York that the arms dealers who have supplied Africa's most brutal war lords over the past decade were French, Russian and Ukrainian - not American.

"Only 30 countries in the world have laws that regulate arms brokering," he said. They include the 25 European Union nations, Nicaragua, Israel, Japan, South Africa – and the United States. "And that's it," Wood said.

Victor Bout, who became famous for running guns into improvised air strips in Africa in exchange for raw diamonds, is a Russian national. Leonid Minin, arrested in Milan, Italy on August 5, 2000 for selling arms to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone, is from Ukraine.

"Arms brokers use the weakest links in the system," Wood said. "A lot of the most damaging cases involve siphoning off surpluses, especially in Central Asia and certain countries in Eastern Europe."

He lauded two nations for "a high degree of extra-territorial application" of their national arms brokering laws, South Africa and the United States.

Nevertheless, anti-gun activists made clear at week-long meetings in New York to prepare this summer's UN Small Arms and Light Weapons conference, that their goal was to place legally-binding international restrictions on the possession of personal firearms and the international arms trade.

"I was in Sierre Leone," British activist Anthea Lawson, a spokesperson for IANSA, told Newsmax. "How can I explain to people who have gone through incredible suffering because of small arms that NRA [National Rifle Association] concerns are blocking an international agreement that would make lots of people safer?"

International gun control was necessary, she argued, "because the legal trade in weapons is where the illegal trade begins. The weapons themselves all come out of the legal trade."

In Africa's worst killing spree in modern history, an estimated 500,000 Tutsis were massacred by rival Hutu tribesmen in Rwanda in 1994. But the weapons used were machetes, not firearms.

Former U.S. Congressman Bob Barr, who is serving as an unpaid advisor to the U.S. delegation to the conference, said that the goal of the non-government organizations and the countries supporting them "is to take away the freedom we possess in our country to possess firearms."

Just as anti-gun control advocates in the United States, the international NGOs were "focusing on the instrument, not on the underlying problem," he told NewsMax. "It's relatively easy to get a handle on the true problem, which is how do you prevent military weapons from getting into the hands of rogue regimes and genocidal maniacs."

The Bush administration has set out several "red lines" that the United States would not cross, he said.

"We will allow no discussion, no negotiation, over civilian possession of firearms," Barr said. Nor will the U.S. agree to any U.N. effort to impose binding U.N. controls on what "non-state actors" a member state will supply with weapons.

"We feel it's the prerogative of the president of the United States to decide what groups to support," Barr said. "There could be freedom fighters in ‘Freedonia' we find it in our interest to arm."

Countries backing the effort to place legally-binding international restrictions on the trade in small arms include Canada, which hosted a presentation by Amnesty International at the United Nations, Britain, Mexico, Japan, the Netherlands, and Brazil.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hollywood Lobbies U.N. on Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Matthew748
January 21, 2006, 07:52 AM
U.N., what a joke. This is the same organization that, to the best of my knowledge, circulated an internal memo not to use the word “genocide” and “Rawanda” in the same sentence because recognizing the situation for what it was would have required their intervention.

I cannot imagine a president, any president, who would want to handover a fair amount of their power to a third party composed mostly of European ilk that all have axes to grind. The power hungry do not like to give up one iota of power they possess.

slzy
January 21, 2006, 08:38 AM
and remember the stalwart advocate of international peace and human rights reinhard heydrich was once president of interpol

GoRon
January 21, 2006, 09:46 AM
I cannot imagine a president, any president, who would want to handover a fair amount of their power to a third party composed mostly of European ilk that all have axes to grind.

The democrats like the UN to have power. Their last presidential candidate said that before using our military, the action would have to pass the "global test".

Maxwell
January 21, 2006, 10:50 AM
Those who have annointed themselves to be our future leaders have no care for what the masses think or how everyone else is supposed to make ends meet, day to day.
By giving the United Nations control over elected governments they can buypass all the objections by paying a few well placed dignitaries a small fee.

Its just an end run around your local government.

Any party that threw enough power onto a system outside of your government could be assured of holding that power, no matter if they lose the next election.

Silver Bullet
January 21, 2006, 11:10 AM
An international coalition of anti-gun groups called on Hollywood
Gotta hand it to the coalition; they identified our weak link.

El Tejon
January 21, 2006, 12:07 PM
If Hollywood hates guns so much,why are guns featured so prominently in its films?:D

Hollywood needs to SDASU and bring us their women.:D

Silver Bullet
January 21, 2006, 12:15 PM
If Hollywood hates guns so much,why are guns featured so prominently in its films?

<pistol> envy.

longeyes
January 21, 2006, 12:39 PM
In the unlikely event that the global anti-gun gun activists were to succeed in their general disarmament plan it would only lead to a much, much larger underground black market for firearms than exists today.

And I don't really see American gun owners kowtowing to international demands on this, anyway, no matter what.

Hockeydude
January 21, 2006, 12:50 PM
"How can I explain to people who have gone through incredible suffering because of small arms that NRA [National Rifle Association] concerns are blocking an international agreement that would make lots of people safer?"

This uneducated and emotional logic should be ingnored. What they don't want you to know is that those people in Africa are suffering because of Dictators that are stealing thier food.

Turkey Creek
January 21, 2006, 01:05 PM
Does the United Nations have any redeeming social value at all?

fedlaw
January 21, 2006, 02:11 PM
Does the United Nations have any redeeming social value at all?
I liked visiting it when I was a kid.

fedlaw
January 21, 2006, 02:13 PM
United Nations: A pretend world government.
Hollywood: Folks who pretend they are intelligent, brave, noble, honorable, etc.
Seems like a good combination.

longhorngunman
January 21, 2006, 02:18 PM
At least the current administration sides with the US citizen on this issue. Of course many here say there is no difference between the GOP and Democrats:rolleyes: . I'm sure President Kerry wouldn't have sided with the UN either:rolleyes: .

cbsbyte
January 21, 2006, 06:55 PM
One day this country will have a president, Republican or Democrat that will sign the International arms ban agreement, which will eventually lead to the US populace being completely disarmed, like the rest of the world. It is only a matter of time.

Waitone
January 21, 2006, 07:02 PM
Those who would rule us have determined the US insistence on protecting the second amendment is the single biggest hinderance to the implementation of global governance. George Soros has spend lots of capital and prestige trying to defeat RKBA in the US and he consistently loses.

Dionysusigma
January 21, 2006, 08:26 PM
cbsbyte: One day this country will have a president, Republican or Democrat that will sign the International arms ban agreement, which will eventually lead to the US populace being completely disarmed, like the rest of the world. It is only a matter of time.
At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches.

Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked.

An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public.

Taxi drivers are prohibited from making love in the front seat of their taxi during their shifts.

It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath.

No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.

Bullets may not be used as currency.
These from your very own home state of Massachusetts. Just because a law is on the books doesn't make it enforced or followed. ;) :D

Lambo
January 21, 2006, 08:36 PM
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d9/RWLambo/Gun%20Photos/un-annan.jpg


http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d9/RWLambo/Gun%20Photos/guologo.jpg

Dionysusigma
January 21, 2006, 08:58 PM
http://www.grijalvo.com/Imagenes_Cz/Cz_heavily_loaded_donkey.jpg

Apparently, though, the UN's ass is in Iraq, trying to supply food to insurgents. Thusly, it is too far away to kiss.






:D :neener:

Standing Wolf
January 21, 2006, 10:33 PM
If Hollywood hates guns so much,why are guns featured so prominently in its films?

The self-appointed aristocrats are exempt from ordinary charges of hypocrisy.

haole_boySS
January 22, 2006, 04:36 PM
One day this country will have a president, Republican or Democrat that will sign the International arms ban agreement, which will eventually lead to the US populace being completely disarmed, like the rest of the world. It is only a matter of time.

Can I quote the former President of the NRA? "......from my cold dead hands"

I thought my state sucked until I saw where you lived. No offence, jmho. :D;)

cbsbyte
January 22, 2006, 04:51 PM
Can I quote the former President of the NRA? "......from my cold dead hands"

I thought my state sucked until I saw where you lived. No offence, jmho. :D;)

I don't know about that Mass sucks, I actually like living in this state. Mass gun laws are not that bad compared to Caly. It easy for me to get a concealed weapons permit. How about you?

Igloodude
January 22, 2006, 05:23 PM
I don't know about that Mass sucks, I actually like living in this state. Mass gun laws are not that bad compared to Caly. It easy for me to get a concealed weapons permit. How about you?

But compared to, say, the states to the north of you... :D

Kodiaz
January 22, 2006, 06:34 PM
You want my guns ok well let me give you the ammo first.

cbsbyte
January 22, 2006, 06:42 PM
You want my guns ok well let me give you the ammo first.

The antis won't do a grab, they are too smart for that. They will slowly implement gun control measures over decades until no one has a gun or until not enough people care about the issue any longer than they will do an outright ban. They are very patient.

LAR-15
January 23, 2006, 01:19 AM
Kofi Annan got Bill Klinton to allow him illegal MP-5s for his protection! :fire:

slzy
January 23, 2006, 01:29 AM
i remember a sailor on an aircraft carrier during the tsunami relief,said the UN people choppered in,lounged around like they owned the ship,had their pictures made,left,then the US Navy fed the starving and offered medical assistance after they were long gone. i think "pimp' may be the best description of the UN.

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 23, 2006, 01:43 AM
i think "pimp' may be the best description of the UN.Something like that...
U.N. Sex Scandal (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp)

lucky_fool
January 23, 2006, 02:39 AM
International gun control was necessary, she argued, "because the legal trade in weapons is where the illegal trade begins. The weapons themselves all come out of the legal trade."

Umm, no. They're holding up Africa as the example, but most of the trade in Africa is in military surplus that was bought from former combloc nations that would rather have the cash than a bunch of AKs and RPGs that they'll never use against NATO. Not to mention the fact that most of the killing in Africa in the past hundred years or so has been committed by the government against an unarmed populace.

Lambo
January 23, 2006, 04:18 AM
Seen Lord of War last night. It SUCKED! This movie is without any doubt anti gun propaganda. Is Cage a Leftist?

IndianaDean
January 23, 2006, 05:13 AM
I wish they'd put the issue of us withdrawing from the UN on a voting ballet.

I don't know anyone who thinks we should be in the UN.

LAK
January 23, 2006, 06:52 AM
NEW YORK CITY -- An international coalition of anti-gun groups called on Hollywood to convince a U.N. conference in New York to impose legally-binding United Nations controls over small arms and personal firearms.
This is a very creative piece of writing. Since the global corporate-government organized crime cartel that calls itself "the United Nations" does not need any convincing by it's own "Non-Government Organizations" via their collective magic wand and tool of perversion known as Hollywood on this subject matter.
Brian Wood, a top arms trade analyst for Amnesty International and ControlArms, told anti-gun activists in New York that the arms dealers who have supplied Africa's most brutal war lords over the past decade were French, Russian and Ukrainian - not American.
Well; this won't matter to the captivated foreign audiences in S. America, Africa, Europa, Asia and the Far East soaking up this piece of audio-visual programming produced by the magic wand. Neither will it occur to most of them that those who probably run the most arms, dope, prostitution and other illicit trades, and stealing their money - are their saviours, the U.N, along with their own national leaders.
Victor Bout, who became famous for running guns into improvised air strips in Africa in exchange for raw diamonds, is a Russian national. Leonid Minin, arrested in Milan, Italy on August 5, 2000 for selling arms to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone, is from Ukraine.
Well; freelancers do get busted. Governments hate competition, and the occasional "big bust" makes them look like they are doing something with all the public money they steal.

And what they do not mention here that all these alphabet revolutionary fronts are just that. Fronts. Controlled conflicts for controlled change.
He lauded two nations for "a high degree of extra-territorial application" of their national arms brokering laws, South Africa and the United States.
This is bs; South Africa has been the conduit for ars funneled from other countries; like the State of Israel for example. And our own nation, the United States has supplied it's own share like Iraq.
Nevertheless, anti-gun activists made clear at week-long meetings in New York to prepare this summer's UN Small Arms and Light Weapons conference, that their goal was to place legally-binding international restrictions on the possession of personal firearms and the international arms trade.
I wonder how long it will take to dawn on enough people where our national leadership (and I use that term loosely) and their active participation and complicity with this global corporate-government organized crime cartel is taking us.
"I was in Sierre Leone," British activist Anthea Lawson, a spokesperson for IANSA, told Newsmax. "How can I explain to people who have gone through incredible suffering because of small arms that NRA [National Rifle Association] concerns are blocking an international agreement that would make lots of people safer?"
And how long ago, and how many times have some people said that this sort of thing is precisely what was planned and coming, how it would be presented, how it would be worded, what emotional buttons it would push, and how it would progress?
International gun control was necessary, she argued, "because the legal trade in weapons is where the illegal trade begins. The weapons themselves all come out of the legal trade."
Although this is somewhat true; it is not completely true - especially in the field of "light weapons". But regardless - this is simply stating the obvious, and is a predictable angle we have seen used on the domestic front. Ultimately the correct response to this observation is; "So?"
In Africa's worst killing spree in modern history, an estimated 500,000 Tutsis were massacred by rival Hutu tribesmen in Rwanda in 1994. But the weapons used were machetes, not firearms.
Ah yes; Rwanda. Well, Rwanda was not about weapons, it was about creating demand for a more aggressive U.N. among other things.
Former U.S. Congressman Bob Barr, who is serving as an unpaid advisor to the U.S. delegation to the conference, said that the goal of the non-government organizations and the countries supporting them "is to take away the freedom we possess in our country to possess firearms."
Not to pick on Bob Barr; but it is our current administration and , uh, leadership, that supports and is complicit with those in the U.N. and it's global criminal agenda.
Just as anti-gun control advocates in the United States, the international NGOs were "focusing on the instrument, not on the underlying problem," he told NewsMax. "It's relatively easy to get a handle on the true problem, which is how do you prevent military weapons from getting into the hands of rogue regimes and genocidal maniacs."
Well, you destroy all those not in actual military inventory - eliminate the "surplus market" ;) You license and track those willing to jump the hoops to have some of these awful tools of destruction, while everyone else can have a "duck or deer" gun. For now ;)
The Bush administration has set out several "red lines" that the United States would not cross, he said.
"We will allow no discussion, no negotiation, over civilian possession of firearms," Barr said. Nor will the U.S. agree to any U.N. effort to impose binding U.N. controls on what "non-state actors" a member state will supply with weapons.
Again, not to pick on Mr Barr, but this is not binding in any sense whatsoever. A few ghastly and timely events, the right presentation, and watch all the cowering slaves nod in agreement at the "unpalatable but necessary steps".

Ask anyone who watched the British television media coverage of the Hungerford and Dunblaine shootings in the U.K. Saatchi & Saatchi could not have done a better job.
"We feel it's the prerogative of the president of the United States to decide what groups to support," Barr said. "There could be freedom fighters in ‘Freedonia' we find it in our interest to arm."
Yep; "groups" like the United Nations.
Countries backing the effort to place legally-binding international restrictions on the trade in small arms include Canada, which hosted a presentation by Amnesty International at the United Nations, Britain, Mexico, Japan, the Netherlands, and Brazil
Canada; our Pan-American provincial neighbors and fellow servants of the Crown. Of course, who else ;)
---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
htp://ssunitedtstates.org

Lambo
January 23, 2006, 01:57 PM
I wish they'd put the issue of us withdrawing from the UN on a voting ballet.

I don't know anyone who thinks we should be in the UN.

In 2004, The Idaho State Legislature passed a Resolution calling for the withdraw of the United States from the U.N..
Alabama the year before attempted to do the same but I believe it failed in Committee. And last year, 2005, I drafted & proposed a Get US Out of the U.N. Resolution
for my State Reps ( Note: unfortunately here in Maryland the Citizen doesn't have the Right to initiate only the Right to refer Legislation) to sponsor & file as Legislation. None would! They claimed this to be a Federal Issue. My point to them was "the States created the Federal Government not the other way around. If the State is threatened by the actions of the Federal Government how is this not a State Issue?". They were evasive and non-responsive. :banghead: Didn't surprise me though, most Reps have little knowledge in Civics and if they have a copy of there respected Constitutions they're covered in dust! Have a strange habit of violating their Oath of Office too!:fire:

carlrodd
January 23, 2006, 02:40 PM
In the unlikely event that the global anti-gun gun activists were to succeed in their general disarmament plan it would only lead to a much, much larger underground black market for firearms than exists today.

And I don't really see American gun owners kowtowing to international demands on this, anyway, no matter what.

+1 not too mention outright war. i'm pretty sure that nowhere in the constitution will one find any articles that address protocol for succumbing to the whims of any international organization. the Declaration of Independence also provides for no such development.

TheEgg
January 23, 2006, 04:34 PM
"We will allow no discussion, no negotiation, over civilian possession of firearms," Barr said. Nor will the U.S. agree to any U.N. effort to impose binding U.N. controls on what "non-state actors" a member state will supply with weapons.

Thank you, George Bush.

Manedwolf
January 23, 2006, 05:59 PM
I don't know about that Mass sucks, I actually like living in this state. Mass gun laws are not that bad compared to Caly. It easy for me to get a concealed weapons permit. How about you?

For all cities? How about high-capacity? If I asked someone in the MA legal system whether I could come in with my 17rd mags, their head would come off. :D

mordechaianiliewicz
January 23, 2006, 07:00 PM
look, don't worry about the u.n. here. The u.n. showed it's true colors in rwanda when it acted like the genocide wasn't happening. something truly nasty is about to happen in s.a. The gov will kill Afrikaaners, and the u.n. will act like it's ok. some kind of recompense for apartheid (myself, i'm not for killing sons for the sins of their fathers).

half the places represented by the u.n. are corrupt, barely democratic :cuss: states anyway. but, the u.n. has no real power for now.

Only a handfull of indian and bangladeshi troops are their arm at the moment in terms of who provides the most manpower.

The u.n. is not to worry about for the moment. However, that would all change if they got the power to tax.

Look up "tobin tax" on google, or wikipedia. Something like that happens, and no one is safe. then, we'll have the genocidal ignorance, and sex slave allegations everywhere. But keep them voluntary, and it'll be a case of "you and who's army" ;)

FRIENDLY
January 23, 2006, 10:35 PM
one simple answer- move the headquarters from western country to say Nigeria Ghana or maybe Liberia NOT New York city.then see just how many incompetent second grade ex politicians would like to work there.the hard working men and women in the field would still do their jobs but there would be a lot of high ranking scum missing in action.

LAK
January 24, 2006, 06:43 AM
Actually, the criminals and thugs of the U.N. and their proxies or revolutionary fronts have never shied away in the past from taking swift and brutal action where they could exercize a good measure of editorial control during and after the fact. Since WW2 one example that stands out is Katanga.

http://rhodesian.server101.com/katanga.htm

"It may look like war but it's peacekeeping" - General Babacar Gaye of Senegal, U.N. force commander in Congo in May 23, 2005
-------------------------------------------------

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

Lambo
January 24, 2006, 10:22 AM
Actually, the criminals and thugs of the U.N. and their proxies or revolutionary fronts have never shied away in the past from taking swift and brutal action where they could exercize a good measure of editorial control during and after the fact. Since WW2 one example that stands out is Katanga.

http://rhodesian.server101.com/katanga.htm

"It may look like war but it's peacekeeping" - General Babacar Gaye of Senegal, U.N. force commander in Congo in May 23, 2005
-------------------------------------------------

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

Don't forget the Congo!

Waitone
January 24, 2006, 10:44 AM
Rwanda was full-throat genocide and the UN's response was to not use the term. Classic example of language manipulation.

cracked butt
January 24, 2006, 11:05 AM
The hollywood limosine liberals should consider a self imposed ban on guns- especially movie guns in order to stop promoting a 'culture of violence.'

Fat chance.:mad:

middy
January 24, 2006, 12:55 PM
most of the killing in Africa^H^H^H^H^H^H the world in the past hundred years or so has been committed by the government against an unarmed populace.
I fixed it for you.

Carl N. Brown
April 19, 2006, 11:36 AM
Nevertheless, anti-gun activists made clear at week-long
meetings in New York to prepare this summer's UN Small Arms and
Light Weapons conference, that their goal was to place legally-binding
international restrictions on the possession of personal firearms
and the international arms trade.

"I was in Sierre Leone," British activist Anthea Lawson, a spokesperson
for IANSA, told Newsmax. "How can I explain to people who have
gone through incredible suffering because of small arms that NRA
[National Rifle Association] concerns are blocking an international
agreement that would make lots of people safer?"

IANSA, by diverting the UN small arms conferences in the past to
restrictions on legal personal firearms within the US, helped torpedo
efforts to control international illicit firearms trafficking. What is IANSA's
answer to the UN mishandling of the massacre in Rwanda of unarmed
civilians by thugs with machettes? A Hollywood fiction. In fact, a
Hollywood fiction that raises the possibility that perhaps illicit traffic
could arm victims against agressors with proper state-sanctioned
arms connections.

Manedwolf
April 19, 2006, 11:55 AM
An unstable nation with an armed populace becomes an armed scuffle BECAUSE it's people defending their villages, families and culture against others who would rather kill them all. It means they're EFFECTIVE.

If you don't have that, what you have is a GENOCIDE.

But I'd not expect out-of-touch idiots who have their own personal bodyguards to understand or care about that.

Prolonged scuffles are messy, they'd prefer a nice, quick genocide and new trading partners. :barf:

DontBurnMyFlag
April 19, 2006, 12:06 PM
well i just hope when it happens that the UN sends over some foreign troops in blue helmets. Or else Id end up shooting at alot of my friends if they used our boys to take our guns.

but seriously.

i agree with what a previous poster said. The anti-gun movement is incredibly patient. They will wait, and gradually destroy our rights over time. .50 cal....ok.....5.7mm pistol....ok.....30rd magazines....ok......etc etc. until there is simply nothing left.

Art Eatman
April 19, 2006, 04:06 PM
Nothing wrong with the subject of this thread, but the posts, overall, are just too Low Road to tolerate. Some folks are gonna have to make a serious effort to clean up their language and phrasing.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Hollywood Lobbies U.N. on Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!