IANSA never sleeps, another gauntlet thrown


PDA






K-Romulus
August 29, 2006, 12:13 PM
After losing big at the UN earlier this summer, the IANSA crowd is busy with its latest attempt at "global norms" against private firearms ownership. This time it's in the form of a UN Human Rights Council push to declare nations that don't license gun owners as "human rights violators."

From today's IANSA main page: http://www.iansa.org/index.htm

Fifteen principles for preventing human rights abuses with guns were endorsed by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Geneva (Switzerland) on 24 August. This is the highest level acknowledgement to date of the link between small arms control and human rights.

The principles were presented as part of the final report of Professor Barbara Frey, the UN Special Rapporteur on small arms and human rights violations. The Sub-commission passed a resolution endorsing the principles and recommending their adoption by the new UN Human Rights Council. (K-Rom: Frey is apparently a prof at U of MN)

'Gun violence is a human rights issue,' said Rebecca Peters, director of IANSA. 'Around the world people are suffering because the legal gun market is poorly regulated, allowing these deadly weapons to be misused, whether by police, criminals, terrorists, or in the home. Governments must now implement these global principles in order to protect their citizens from the flood of guns.'

The principles set out basic standards for regulating the use of small arms by police and private owners, to prevent weapons being misused. In addition, they prohibit international transfers where the arms are likely to be used in serious human rights violations. This is also the focus of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) proposed by the Control Arms campaign.

Governments will vote during the UN General Assembly in October on whether to start negotiations on an ATT. . .

When these "human rights" principles get ratified by the UN Human Rights Council in the near future, they become "international law." Want to see fun? Wait until the Brady campaign files its first lawsuit in The Hague!:eek:

(Overview of the sub-committee's activities: http://www.iansa.org/issues/UNhumanrights.htm)

Here is the gauntlet (from that overview page) :mad: :

Examining the use of guns by civilians and armed groups, the UN Special Rapporteur concludes that there is no 'right' to self-defence under international human rights law. When someone uses a gun in self-defence, they can only use the principle of self-defence to establish that they have not committed a crime (eg their life was in danger). Even if there were a 'right' to self-defence, this does not affect governments' responsibility to prevent guns being misused.

Among the Sub-Committee's fifteen adopted principles:

http://www.iansa.org/documents/salw_hr_principles.pdf

B. Due diligence to prevent human rights abuses by private actors

10. In order to ensure the protection of human rights by preventing small
arms violence by private actors, Governments shall enact licensing
requirements to prevent possession of arms by persons who are at risk of
misusing them. Possession of small arms shall be authorized for specific
purposes only; small arms shall be used strictly for the purpose for which
they are authorized. Before issuing a licence Governments shall require
training in proper use of small arms, and shall take into consideration, at a
minimum, the following factors: age, mental fitness, requested purpose, prior
criminal record or record of misuse, and prior acts of domestic violence.
Governments shall require periodic renewal of licences.


The full Sub-Committee report is here: http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf

Get a cup of coffee, it's 72 pages.

From the Exec Summary:

The principle of self-defence has an important place in international
human rights law, but does not provide an independent, supervening right
to small arms possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of States to use
due diligence in regulating civilian possession. Rather, as this report shows,
there are wide areas where States should, can, and do regulate possession
of firearms consistent with principles of self-defence. Self-defence is a
widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to
respect the life of others. It is the basis for exemption from criminal
responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor.
International law does not support an international legal obligation requiring
States to permit access to a gun for self-defence. The principle of self-
defence does not negate the due diligence responsibility of States to keep
weapons out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them. The State
has particularly acute obligations to protect vulnerable groups, including
victims of domestic violence, from abuses with small arms.

Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of self-defence for individual persons.

Basically, by throwing around terms like "due diligence," the report seems to be gunning (pardon the pun) for a legal basis to slap the "human rights violator" label on any nation with liberal firearms ownership laws. This is blatantly evident in the following from the report:


42. . . . Under the due diligence standard, international human rights bodies should require States
to enforce a minimum licensing standard designed to prevent small arms from being used
by private actors to violate human rights.


43. Other effective measures consistent with due diligence include the prohibition of
civilian possession of weapons designed for military use; the sponsoring of effective
amnesty programmes to decrease the number of weapons in active use; requirement of
marking and tracing information by manufacturers; and incorporation of a gender
perspective in policies regarding small arms. States have an affirmative duty under
international human rights law to protect groups that are most vulnerable to small arms
misuse, including victims of domestic violence.

What did someone say about the 2006/2008 elections?:uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "IANSA never sleeps, another gauntlet thrown" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LAR-15
August 29, 2006, 12:18 PM
See my signature below about IANSA.


I voted for GWB and Republicans :)

And will do so again

ArmedBear
August 29, 2006, 12:21 PM
But this is a good time to punish the GOP by helping the anti-gun activist Democrats win elections...:rolleyes:

NeveraVictimAgain
August 29, 2006, 12:23 PM
I can't believe these people don't believe in the right to self defense. The question is what can we do about it?

Is the IANSA a part of the U.N? Who do I write to besides my congress critters?

THANKS!

ArmedBear
August 29, 2006, 12:26 PM
I can't believe these people don't believe in the right to self defense.

That's not it. They believe that self-defense is a violation of human rights.

Can'thavenuthingood
August 29, 2006, 12:27 PM
Fits well with this from FrontPage.

"wanna see something really scary?"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24073

Vick

K-Romulus
August 29, 2006, 12:38 PM
http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf

16. Minimum effective measures that States should adopt to prevent small arms violence,
then, must go beyond mere criminalization of acts of armed violence. Under the principle of due
diligence, it is reasonable for international human rights bodies to require States to enforce a
minimum licensing requirement designed to keep small arms and light weapons out of the hands
of persons who are likely to misuse them.7 Recognition of this principle is affirmed in the
responses to the questionnaire of the Special Rapporteur on the prevention of human rights
violations committed with small arms and light weapons which indicate widespread State
practice to license private ownership of small arms and ammunition.8

The criteria for licensing may vary from State to State, but most licensing procedures consider the following:
(a) minimum age of applicant; (b) past criminal record including any history of interfamilial
violence; (c) proof of a legitimate purpose for obtaining a weapon; and (d) mental fitness.9

Other proposed criteria include knowledge of laws related to small arms, proof of training on the proper
use of a firearm and proof of proper storage. Licences should be renewed regularly to
prevent transfer to unauthorized persons. These licensing criteria are not insurmountable barriers
to legitimate civilian possession. There is broad international consensus around the principle
that the laws and procedures governing the possession of small arms by civilians should remain
the fundamental prerogative of individual States.10

While regulation of civilian possession of firearms remains a contested issue in public debate
- due in large part to the efforts of firearms manufacturers and the United States of America-based pro-gun organizations - there is in fact almost universal consensus on the need for reasonable minimum standards for national legislation to license civilian possession in order to promote public safety and protect human
rights.11 This consensus is a factor to be considered by human rights mechanisms in weighing
the affirmative responsibilities of States to prevent core human rights violations in cases
involving private sector gun violence.

17. Other effective measures should also be considered by human rights bodies charged with
overseeing State action to protect the right to life. These measures are similar to United Nations
guidelines adopted to give meaningful protection to other core human rights obligations.12 They
include:

(a) The prohibition of civilian possession of weapons designed for military use
(automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles, machine guns and light weapons) . . . .


The underlined part is why self-described liberal Democrat K-Romulus became an NRA Life Member earlier this summer . . .

Can'thavenuthingood
August 29, 2006, 12:39 PM
This is an attack on the Sovereignty of nations.

Human rights my foot. They are not interested in God given rights, but only the rights they assign to you. They are not interested in the safety for another human being, just control.

I'm so damn mad right now. I need to go kick something.

I got a half a notion to help hillary get into office so we can bring this to a head and get it over with. I'm tired of pussy footing around.

Vick

Zundfolge
August 29, 2006, 01:18 PM
I got a half a notion to help hillary get into office so we can bring this to a head and get it over with. I'm tired of pussy footing around.
I've given this a lot of thought over the last year or so and I've come up to the conclusion that the time for violent revolution to restore our republic and defend RKBA has long past.

We didn't stand up and shoot the bastards in 1934 so its too late for that to work now ... violent revolution at this point in time will only do the following:

Get a lot of gun owners killed.
Cement the idea that "civilians" should not be armed because it promotes "terrorist behavior".
Force government to tighten its grip on us even more.
Even if the US government fell to a revolution, it would be replaced with a Fascist Dictatorship that is in bed with the UN.

You said you want to bring it to a head and get it over with ... I'm more and more convinced that a violent revolution in the US would fail and thus end freedom for all of humanity for a good century (if not millennium). Then the only thing that would save us is a serious SHTF (global nuclear war, giant asteroid impact or return of Christ ... something that completely destabilizes the world government and destroys their electronic surveillance and control capacities...so freedom would come at the cost of returning the world to a "pre industrial age").

If we can't win our rights back through the system we're basically screwed. Good news is that I've also come to the conclusion that we CAN win through the system (it just won't be instant and it will require several stages of compromise and incrimintalism ... so the LP and "Ideological Purity" types will just bitch and moan along the way).

longeyes
August 29, 2006, 01:25 PM
And we wonder why there is "terrorism" in the world...?

orangelo
August 29, 2006, 01:40 PM
I'm paying off the rest of my NRA life membership dues today. For now we might still be able to get things done through the parts of the system that aren't broken.

Strange how the governments that actually perpetrate genocide and rebellion are exempt from all the feel-good legislature promoted by those socialist dirtbags.

That's right. Joe Sixpack and his deer rifle is more of a threat to world peace than China selling 12 state of the art jet fighters to Zimbabwe. Russia selling 100,000 AK103 rifles to Venezeula isn't as much of a threat as Jane Doe's skeet gun. Iran building nuclear weapons production facilities is not as large a threat as your .38 special.

:fire:

Every time I read this garbage the more it feels like debating time is over and head busting time is starting. :scrutiny:

longeyes
August 29, 2006, 01:43 PM
You said you want to bring it to a head and get it over with ... I'm more and more convinced that a violent revolution in the US would fail and thus end freedom for all of humanity for a good century (if not millennium). Then the only thing that would save us is a serious SHTF (global nuclear war, giant asteroid impact or return of Christ ... something that completely destabilizes the world government and destroys their electronic surveillance and control capacities...so freedom would come at the cost of returning the world to a "pre industrial age").

If we can't win our rights back through the system we're basically screwed. Good news is that I've also come to the conclusion that we CAN win through the system (it just won't be instant and it will require several stages of compromise and incrimintalism ... so the LP and "Ideological Purity" types will just bitch and moan along the way).

And what exactly is "the system" in an era of Political Disconnection?

HankB
August 29, 2006, 02:34 PM
the UN Special Rapporteur concludes that there is no 'right' to self-defence under international human rights law. States have an affirmative duty under international human rights law to protect groups that are most vulnerable to small arms misuse, including victims of domestic violence. So you have NO right to protect yourself, but the State is supposed to do so under the same "international human rights law" that safeguards people in Darfur, Rwanda and Burundi, the Balkans, Cambodia, etc. etc.

Note how the U.N. mentions "domestic violence" . . . I wonder how well they're addressing the issue in that large group of countries (we all know who they are) where the belief system allows wife-beating? :barf:

Once again, my .sig line is proven appropriate. Wish it wasn't so . . .

Zundfolge
August 29, 2006, 03:36 PM
And what exactly is "the system" in an era of Political Disconnection?

False Premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise)

The idea that our political system is completely broken and its impossible to make positive change through it is an idea thats fun for sardonic Letters to the Editor, Claire Wolfe books, debates in coffee shops with Libertarians and online bitch sessions, but it's not based in fact.

If the political system were completely broken and we couldn't make any positive change, then explain;
the end of the AWB.
the increase in states with right to carry laws (down to only 2 with NO CCW at all).
passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
more states passing "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws



No, I'm not convinced that we can't turn the tide back in our favor by way of "the system" ... but if it turns out that we can't than you must accept the reality that violent revolution ain't gonna work either.

longeyes
August 29, 2006, 04:42 PM
Try using the windshield, not the rear-view mirror.

If you think the majority--either worldwide or within our own country--will be on "our side" in five to ten years, you are dreaming. The only way we will avoid being a shrinking, embattled, and marginalized minority, will be to insist on our civil liberties and defend them by whatever means necessary.

Zundfolge
August 29, 2006, 04:45 PM
Then we're doomed ... we should either start killing them or ourselves.

Oleg Volk
August 29, 2006, 05:11 PM
While there's breath, there's hope.

Conceding the fight now guarantees a loss.

We live in a country founded by the political losers from other countries...so being a loser doesn't mean life is over. It means we start this up again.

Green Lantern
August 29, 2006, 06:48 PM
So the UN now comes out and says there is no right to self defense???

Do we need ANY other reason to demand the US get the heck out of the UN?!?!?! At the very least - I'd prefer they disband altogether!

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 11:18 PM
Reason enough for me to do what I'd been putting off over a petty squabble at the local level (ahem, Ms. Palmer, you listening? I doubt it):

Join the NRA.

nico
August 29, 2006, 11:38 PM
Let me get this straight. IANSA wants to "protect" women from rapists by taking away my guns. But, if a woman happens to be attacked, she should just lay there and take it because she has no right to defend herself:fire:

btw, for those who think all is lost, do you really think the people behind the recent CCW/castle doctrine movements will sit idly by while something as absurd as this is implemented? IMO, if any of IANSA's ideas even come close to being implemented in this country, the outcry will be surprising to many. This is not Australia.

oops!
August 29, 2006, 11:43 PM
1. get the friggin' UN off U.S. soil!

2. call in the debts the u.n. owes the U.S. If they can't pay, confiscate assets.


The u.n. is an afront to human decency. Annan spouts all that crap, yet supports hellholes that keep women in human bondage. The u.n. will standby and watch relief supplies being stolen by tribal warlords. The thought of that jerk getting 1/10 of one cent of my tax money makes me want to puke.


What we have here is the result of a world driven by uncontrolled breeding. When any species exceeds the carrying capacity of it's enviroment the mutations and aberrant behaviour commence. Followed eventually by a big , "die-back".

Want to start a pool on when ours occurs? I'll put $50.00 on 2017. Who wants to hold the money?

Hawkmoon
August 29, 2006, 11:48 PM
After losing big at the UN earlier this summer, the IANSA crowd is busy with its latest attempt at "global norms" against private firearms ownership. This time it's in the form of a UN Human Rights Council push to declare nations that don't license gun owners as "human rights violators."
Ain't that a hoot?

IMHO countries (and/or subjurisdictions thereof) that DO license gun ownership are the ones I would consider to be human rights violators.

Once again, it is time for the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations and boot them out of our country.

Zedicus
August 30, 2006, 12:03 AM
IMHO countries (and/or subjurisdictions thereof) that DO license gun ownership are the ones I would consider to be human rights violators.

Once again, it is time for the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations and boot them out of our country.
+1,000,000

Green Lantern
August 30, 2006, 06:28 PM
Some lib-**** had a letter published in a local paper talking about how great the UN is. Well, come to think of it, the best he could manage was the UN only costs each man woman and child in America $1.42 per year, and that the UN is neutral on abortions. My response (just sent it in, too soon to tell if it'll see print)
I agree 100% with *name changed to protect the sheeple ;) * that people need the facts about the U.N. However, I'm sure we'll disagree about the exact type of facts we want to come to light! And now it's a fact that the elite U.N. has concluded that there is no right to use firearms in self-defense under international human rights law. I presume this only applies to "citizens" since the U.N. has no problem with government possession of guns - never mind how oppressive a government may be.
So in the United Nations' opinion, for instance - if a woman is about to be raped and she shoots her attacker...SHE would be as much a criminal as the rapist! One dollar and forty-two cents per citizen per year (the amount of money from the U.N. budget that comes from the U.S.) is not very much, but even one penny per year is too much to pay to a group as flawed and irrational as the United Nations! To say nothing of the scandals, and the U.N.'s track record when it comes to "peacekeeping" across the globe. The U.N. has already had more than enough time to reform if those in charge were really serious about it. It's long past time for the U.S. to withdraw from this morally bankrupt and impotent organization.

This will hopefully open a few eyes if printed, being that the city this paper serves is a DU-described "liberal oasis." :barf: They printed my letter protesting the Gun Ban Summit anyway...!

By the way, the one who came to this "progressive" conclusion, is one Professor Barbara Frey, who may, and SHOULD, be reached at freyx001@tc.umn.edu

Henry Bowman
August 30, 2006, 11:11 PM
I agree with IANSA that gun control is a human rights issue. The truth is it's a human rights violation. They just happen to be on the wrong side of the equation.

mordechaianiliewicz
August 31, 2006, 03:00 AM
Look, this comes down to morality, and do you have a line in the sand. It comes down also to what longeyes said. Defending your rights by any means necessary.

Sh*t or get off the pot.

Things are gonna be interesting in the Chinese sense of the word very shortly. Anyone doubting that hasn't been paying attention.

As for would a fight work? Who knows. You can't say, "No." Because to do so is to say the 2A is dead. But, that doesn't make violence the option.

To me we can still work within the system, but time is short, and people need to be woken up to the reality and gravity of the situation. I've said before that guns are but one piece of a much grander mosaic.

While I support any means necessary, I also support prudent action. For right now, that is political action, and efforts to destroy the U.N. by booting them off American soil, and doing our best to undermine their efforts. Such isn't easy, but we have to start somewhere. Mainly because if we don't 10-15 years from now, we will be facing a situation where violence is the onlyanswer. While I admit, no declare I 'd be there rifle in hand, I'd be sad, because that would mean that I and everyone else with me failed already. Not because we won't be able to win back our freedoms that way, but because no one wins a war, they only survive one.

coyote_jr
August 31, 2006, 08:07 AM
Who gives a F#$@ about IANSA.

Green Lantern
August 31, 2006, 08:25 AM
EVERYONE should....as IANSA is 100% "in bed" with the UN.

The insane college professor that made the anti-self-defence declaration...the UN "Special Rapporteur" - is a MEMBER of IANSA!!!

G36-UK
August 31, 2006, 08:40 AM
IANSA's now "worried" about the fact that there's more licenced gun owners over here.

Why are these ar*eh*les worring about the law-abiding?

The Cavalry
August 31, 2006, 11:05 AM
Time to write Kofi and IANSA, asking why the UN has armed guards in clear violation of this policy statement.

The UN isn't a "state" as defined in their supporting documents. Only "state" personnel should have firearms.

Can'thavenuthingood
August 31, 2006, 11:15 AM
Why are these ar*eh*les worring about the law-abiding?

Its safer.

You don't see these clowns in Africa trying to convince the thuggery that guns are bad. They are not in Sudan working with the gov to ban guns as the muslims will behead them.

They are on the world stage and have credibility because of it. The clowns talk to the educated and whine and moan because its safer.

Convince someone with authority to ban guns and then that someone has to get their hands dirty enforcing the ban. Those that don't obey are obviously criminals and need to be dealt with in a refurbishmnet sort of way. Meaning they are victims of oppression and with enough money and programs we can convince the criminal that his/her ways are wrong.

Stripping the law abiding first sets the example for all to follow.

Works in the UK and Australia does it not? Where banning doesn't appear to work is just randomness or anomaly.

Individual states will start making compacts with the UN and its ilk before long. Bet it starts with California. Can't doit? Unconstitutional? So what? Means nothing as they know whats right.

Arrogance.

Vick

Carl N. Brown
September 15, 2006, 05:29 PM
I am reminded of a picture I saw of Canadians in
Saskatchewan (I know I spelled that wrong)
burning gun registration forms in protest of
Canada's gun registration law.

How has that C96 law progressed (or regressed)?

Zundfolge
September 15, 2006, 06:03 PM
You don't see these clowns in Africa trying to convince the thuggery that guns are bad. They are not in Sudan working with the gov to ban guns as the muslims will behead them.
Actually thats not true, the IANSA and UN have done a WONDERFUL job of stemming the flow of "illicit" guns into the hands of many Africans ... thus leaving them disarmed so that they may be shot, macheted and raped by their fellow Africans.

longeyes
September 15, 2006, 09:13 PM
IANSA hasn't been read the riot act by responsible gun owners. That might be a good place to begin. They need to be called out, unmasked, and blistered with reason.

I think we all want to try and work "through the system" while that makes sense. But sense is something that is becoming rare coin. The government brazenly ignores the will of the people. The people are busy watching American Idol when they should be vigilant toward their rights.

The fact is that the steering groups of all political entities are comprised of relatively small numbers of people. That includes IANSA. And these entities are NOT all-powerful or invulnerable. So far our side is upholding reason and responsibility, as it should. When we are really pushed to the wall and see our basic rights jeopardized, the rules will change.

Clean97GTI
September 15, 2006, 09:26 PM
not that it stands much, if any chance of passing, but HR1146 introduced by Ron Paul is a bill that would get the USA out of the UN and require the UN to relocate.
If passed, we'd have 2 years to close out our affairs with the UN and then we'd be done with them.

a pipe dream yes, but at least somebody has the right idea.

The Cavalry
September 15, 2006, 09:28 PM
I occasionally email them with reminders that I've been increasing my contributions to the NRA and other pro-gun organizations, and bringing more people into the shooting sports, thanks to them.

I also ask them how they possibly feel they're engaged in a just cause, given they're receiving their funding from a convicted felon (George Soros).

Here's their contact list from the IANSA website, bear in mind that they'll be glad to use any threats or other unacceptable behavior against our cause...so please keep it polite and firm.

Just let 'em know their actions are enabling the murder of innocent unarmed families at the hands of "state actors" in places like Darfur, just like 800,000 unarmed Tutsis died in Rwanda after being disarmed.

-----------------------
Rebecca Peters
IANSA Director
director@iansa.org

Alun Howard PhD
Policy Officer
alun.howard@iansa.org

Joseph Dube
Control Arms Campaign Coordinator
joseph.dube@iansa.org

Laura Cheeseman
Program Officer
laura.cheeseman@iansa.org

Susanna Kalitowski
Women’s Network Coordinator
susanna@iansa.org

Mark Marge
UN Office Coordinator
mark.marge@iansa.org

Mr Kablammo
September 16, 2006, 12:57 AM
Hmm, think I will join IANSA and begin a within-the-system movement to urge Rebecca to visit Nasrallah to take away his toys. Any thoughts on the chances of success?

Mr Kablammo
September 17, 2006, 12:52 AM
All right then, in the spirit of the good Bluto Blutarsky, LETS DO IT!!

If you enjoyed reading about "IANSA never sleeps, another gauntlet thrown" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!