The UN and Gun Control


June 20, 2006, 02:55 PM is where this piece is hosted, it features videos from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, and the NRA as well as a link to the new UN video "Armed to the Teeth".

The blogsphere is a regular feature on this site.


The United Nations and Gun Control

The Infozone features a look at what some bloggers are saying. The blogsphere is always interesting.

Five years after the adoption of the United Nations Programme of Action to address the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, some 2,000 representatives from Governments, international and regional organizations and civil society will meet at the United Nations Headquarters from 26 June to 7 July 2006 to review progress made; to address future cooperation and activities; and to assess challenges on the road ahead in New York.

The U.N. Conference on Global Gun Control brings together diplomats, NGOs and the media. Click to watch UN Video: Armed to the Teeth.

The top NGOs both in favour of gun control, and those opposed to the UN program will be in attendance.

IANSA, the International Action Network on Small Arms is the largest NGO for the 'anti-gun side'. The WFSA, World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities is the largest 'pro-gun' NGO attending the meeting.

From the Blogsphere
Rphaedrus blogs, "First, let me be clear. I'm in support of personal possession of firearms. Not because I'm afraid of people, but because I'm afraid of governments. I WANT the government that controls the land my house is on to know that I can and will shoot back if they go too far in violating what I perceive as my rights. I am also an omnivore who would like to limit my dependence on the meat industry and I'm a lousy shot with a bow...

"That said, violence and the threat of violence are the ultimate forms of coercion. (My philosophy says that coercion is an un-good). In many parts of the world, anyone with a couple bucks to get some automatic weapons and a box of rounds can be a two-bit warlord or worse. There's a campaign to at least limit the free flow of arms to anyone with the money to pay for it - nothing too invasive on a personal level - just an international arms control treaty. Something to limit the flow of weapons across borders.

"If you're not in support, that's OK. The threat of lethal violence can also be used to oppose coercion. Its a bit hard to know really what's best, but I think a treaty is a good idea." Rphaedrus offers a link to an online petition at

Customer Servant blogs, "I think it’s about time we tell the UN to stay out of our internal affairs. Maybe someone should remind them that, if they start regulating fire arms globally, who will save them when the practice of paying off corrupt officials and terrorists stops working in their favor? We can govern ourselves just fine, thanks, and that includes regulation of fire arms."

Professor Gary Mauser writing to a Canadian MP, says, "I recently attended a meeting of the Canadian National Committee on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALWs) at Foreign Affairs Canada and was shocked at what I was told. I am writing to ask that you review the attached report before it is presented to the United Nations in June.

"The chair of this committee, Earl Turcotte, reported that, even though they do not have a mandate from the new Conservative government, they intend to continue acting as if they had.

"The Canadian National Committee on SALW has spent tens of millions of dollars - possibly hundreds of millions -- on a large number of vague "feel good" projects around the world. At least 24 different international programs and initiatives are listed as being funded or largely funded by them. (These are listed in the Report appended to this letter).

"The SALW Committee is downplaying the importance of evaluating the effectiveness of these projects in attaining their stated goals of reducing terrorism, criminal violence or suicide. There is no convincing empirical support for the success of these projects. Apparently, one of the primary goals of this committee, set by the previous government, is to embarrass the United States at the United Nations. I hope that a Conservative government would wish to stop supporting a committee that purposefully undermines the government's stated aims of improving relations with the United States."

The NRA's Wayne Lapierre writes, "his 4th of July, while you and your family celebrate the 230th Anniversary of the founding of our great nation, there’s one party you won’t be invited to...

...And that’s the party that Kofi Annan is throwing at United Nations headquarters in New York — using your tax dollars — for nearly fifty dictatorships, six terrorist states, governments that endorse execution based on religious faith, and a multitude of other nations from around the globe."

If you enjoyed reading about "The UN and Gun Control" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Jim K
June 20, 2006, 03:34 PM
This is not a single issue problem. The official UN position on the press is that the press exists to support the state; it can remain "free" only if it does that.

The UN has its uses and even has done some good. But we need to remember, and tell others, what the UN is. It is NOT a group of elected representatives of the people. It is just what the name says, a group of representatives of nation-states, appointed by the governments of those states. Its main job and duty is not to protect individual rights but to protect the rights of its member states to act as they choose as long as they do not attack other member states without UN approval.

They talk about human rights but, again, their position is that the primary role and duty of the people is to support their national government. Rights are considered as privileges to be given to those who act in a manner pleasing to the government or at least not contradictory to its positions. The idea of revolution, even against the most tyrannical and oppressive government is anathema to the UN. Remember, they will support their member state, no matter what. If the UN had existed in the late 1930's and 1940's, they would have had no problem with Hitler killing German Jews, as long as he did not invade another country.

That is in direct conflict with the U.S. view that people are "endowed by their creator" with fundamental rights, which exist regardless of what a government says, and that the people have the right to change their government (by armed revolution if necessary) if those rights are denied. (That, not quail hunting, is what the Second Amendment is all about.)

So the UN opposes individual gun ownership because it constitutes a threat to some of its member states. Its pretended concern about human rights is simply a mask to disguise its unqualified and enthusiastic support of even the most evil and tyrannical governments simply because they are governments.


June 21, 2006, 08:37 AM
With the UN, gun owners as a group usually don't pay much attention to the various efforts they do.

In the USA, gun owners figure they are safe under the protection of the Second Amendment.

That is why many of the leading forces to fight gun ownership internationally focus on Britian, Australia, Canada, Japan, and other countries.

However, international treaties tend to involve the US, and to ignore the UN is not a safe strategy for any gun owner.


June 21, 2006, 10:22 AM
if an anti-second amendment president gets into the white house again, they won't call this a "treaty" will become an "agreement"...and just like the NAFTA scenario, a simple majority in congress could vote in favor of it, not a super majority...

June 21, 2006, 11:37 AM

That is exactly right.

Now, would you wonder if a Democratic President Hillary Clinton, working to 'restore' America's reputation in the world wouldn't do something to this effect?

Do you think the next President of the USA, if it were a Democrat would consider keeping Bolton as the UN Ambassador?


June 21, 2006, 12:30 PM
you're right...Bolton would be out!

and in the short term, this whole idea of having the conference on Independence Day is an insult to this country...need some leading conservatives to start speaking up on this...

June 21, 2006, 09:12 PM
Looks like MSNBC picked up on this, even with their slanted views...


June 21, 2006, 10:34 PM
I just checked out the IANSA website and found the UN Firearms Protocol which I think is what they are trying to get the UN to pass, what a scary read. I found Article 6-Confiscation, Seizure and Disposal very frightening.

June 22, 2006, 01:03 AM
Jim Keenan,

That was a good post. Thanks for the insight.

I now hate the UN even more, if that is possible.

June 22, 2006, 07:08 AM
TIZReporter: Now, would you wonder if a Democratic President Hillary Clinton, working to 'restore' America's reputation in the world wouldn't do something to this effect?Ding! Ding! Ding! The man gets it. This is not about the UN directly disarming us (ain't going to happen). This is about marginalizing the USA, turning the RKBA into the international equivalent of Apartheid and getting us to disarm ourselves.

June 22, 2006, 08:39 AM

This link offers a background look at what IANSA is, who funds them, and contrasts how they work compared to the WFSA which is the pro-gun NGO at the UN.

While it might seem gun owners might not want to bother with the UN, the big picture and large focus of the UN is incredible.


June 22, 2006, 08:41 AM
Here is the UN Press Release on the meeting, issued this morning;

New York, Jun 21 2006 6:00PM
The chairman of an upcoming United Nations-organized conference looking into ways of curbing the illegal trade in small arms said today that stepped-up action is needed to tackle the global scourge and follow-up on a Programme of Action endorsed by all Member States in 2001.

The Small Arms Review Conference, to be held in New York from 26 June to 7 July, will involve more than 2,000 representatives from governments, international and regional organizations and civil society, the Conference President-designate, Sri Lankan Ambassador Prasad Kariyawasam, told reporters.

“The 2006 Review Conference is first and foremost about eliminating illegal small arms in order to save more lives…It is a known fact that in the 1990s, that out of 49 major conflicts, 47 were waged with small arms and light weapons and that most of the conflicts were exacerbated by the availability of illegal small arms.”

Ambassador Kariyawasam said the Conference will also be a chance for all countries to review their pledges to get rid of the illegal trade in small arms and to develop a strategy for further implementation of the UN Programme of Action that was agreed in 2001.

Since its adoption, the Programme of Action has stimulated a wide range of initiatives at the national, regional and global levels, the UN said in a press release.

Examples include improved legislation in countries such as Cambodia and Brazil; destruction of large amounts of illegal small arms, for example in Burundi and Rwanda; and, the coming into force in July last year of the UN Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition – the first legally binding global instrument on small arms that aims to strengthen cooperation among States.

“The Programme of Action has started making a difference but much more remains to be done,” said Ambassador Kariyawasam.

The Conference is also expected to welcome the establishment of a group of governmental experts who will meet in November to tackle the issue of reining in illegal arms brokers, the UN press release said.

On the eve of the Conference, from 22-23 June, the world body is also organizing a workshop on capacity building for developing countries on the 2001 Programme of Action.

If you enjoyed reading about "The UN and Gun Control" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!