1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

U.S. gun rights at issue in UN effort

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Drizzt, Aug 14, 2005.

  1. Drizzt

    Drizzt Well-Known Member

    U.S. gun rights at issue in UN effort
    Vitter proposes bill to protect arms owners

    Saturday, August 13, 2005
    By Bruce Alpert
    Washington bureau

    WASHINGTON -- Expressing concern that the United Nations' efforts to stem international gun running could impede the rights of U.S. gun owners, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., is proposing legislation to bar financing for the world organization should it infringe on Americans' Second Amendment rights.

    Critics of Vitter's bill, including Eric Howard of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, accuse the freshman senator of placating voters who oppose gun control and are cynical about the United Nations. Howard said the bill could torpedo international efforts to stem the flow of arms to brutal militias in Africa and elsewhere that target civilians, particularly children.

    Vitter, who calls his bill The Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005, said he's all for reducing the spread of weapons to terrorists, criminals or violent insurgents. "But the UN efforts seem to go well beyond that into an area that threatens the Second Amendment rights of Americans to keep and bear arms," he said.

    Among the steps Vitter said have been discussed by UN delegates at a recent meeting are tracking lists of all firearm sales, worldwide record-keeping of all manufactured guns and even the licensing of all gun owners, measures he said are anathema to U.S. gun owners.

    International focus

    Vitter, who introduced his bill just before the start of the August recess, has nine co-sponsors, all Republicans.

    Rebecca Peters, director of the London-based International Action Network on Small Arms, said that while the National Rifle Association is trying to portray the UN effort as an attempt to require Americans to register their guns, the consensus of delegates who met at the United Nations last month is quite different.

    The emphasis, she said, is on getting international agreements to notify countries when arms are being shipped across international boundaries, a requirement that manufacturers produce an identifying trait, much like a fingerprint, so officials can identify guns used in crimes and military attacks, and a system to ensure the destruction or securing of surplus military weapons and those confiscated in crime investigations.

    UN delegates at the conference said they would return for another meeting next summer to try to draw up a treaty, although Peters said opposition from the United States and its new UN Ambassador John Bolton may make that task difficult, if not impossible.

    U.S. laws too lax?

    "I'm sorry if the senator (Vitter) is feeling anxious, but I'm happy to assure him that there is no danger of the United Nations coming in and confiscating guns of his constituents," Peters said. Even if that's what UN delegates wanted, she said, the United States would be unlikely to ratify a treaty with such provisions.

    At its July meeting on gun running, the United Nations released a report estimating that 500,000 people have died over the past decade from injuries caused by small weapons or guns used in crimes or military attacks. Children are frequent victims, the UN report said.

    Wendy Cukier, president of Canada's Coalition to End Gun Violence, said the issue is a priority to the United States' northern and southern neighbors because 80 percent of gun crimes committed in Mexico and 50 percent in Canada involve guns that originated in the United States. Strong gun control laws in Mexico and Canada, she said, are being undermined by lax laws in the United States.

    "The United States never hesitates to impose standards on other countries: pushing Canada to strengthen its border controls in the fight on terrorism and for Mexico and Central American countries to reduce the flow of drugs north across the border," Cukier said. "But it won't take steps to reduce the flow of guns outside the United States, and that's a big problem in Canada and Mexico."

    Target: Gun violence

    Under the Vitter bill, the United States would be barred from providing financing to the United Nations unless the president of the United States certifies that the United Nations "has not taken action to restrict, attempt to restrict, or otherwise adversely infringed upon the rights of individuals in the United States to possess a firearm or ammunition . . . "

    Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said that Vitter is right to be concerned about what the United Nations might do in the name of reducing gun violence. "While the goals may be noble, their intent is very clear and that is impeding the rights of law-abiding Americans to own guns," Arulanandam said.

  2. hifi

    hifi member

    How is it possible for an international organization to infringe on U.S. gun owners rights unless there's alot of other things terribly wrong in the first place? More feel good non-sense. Hey, let's make a law that says the 2nd Amendment is law! I got more brilliant ideas where that came from! Another attempt to deny reality and placate the sheep.
  3. armoredman

    armoredman Well-Known Member

    NEVER TRUST ANYTHING REBECCA PETERS OF IANSA SAYS!!! If you saw the gun debate she had with Wayne LaPierre, you would have seen her adgenda exposed - complete confiscation of every single firearm from civilian possession around the world, with the only legal civlilian "firearm" being a single shot rifle capable of only shooting 100 yards...yes, she said so in so many words. When she says don't worry, WORRY!
  4. SIOP

    SIOP Well-Known Member

    You notice that the bill doesn't appear to do anything to actually prevent abuses of our second amendment rights, it simply cuts funding for the U.N. after our rights are gone. More republican inaction.
  5. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    SIOP, impacting the UN budget is the only hammer we have. And nothing scares a bureaucrat more than the idea that his budget will get chopped--and possibly his job.

    (Yeah, sure, we could leave the UN, but that ain't gonna happen, so I won't ever address that issue...)

  6. SIOP

    SIOP Well-Known Member

    Could happen tomorrow if Republicans really were conservatives and had any balls. Same with balancing the budget, puting an end to abortion, restoring property rights, restoring 2nd amendment rights, ending judicial activism, ad nauseum. End of story.
  7. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    So the Republicans have the ability to do all these things tomorrow if they just had the backbone eh? Without getting into the tedious argument of whether Republicans could actually do these things with their current numbers in the House and Senate, let's just grant that they could.

    Now the only question is after they have stepped on all the toes that would need stepping on to accomplish those goals, how many Republicans are left in Congress after the 2006 elections? How does the 2008 election run for them?

    Politicians are predictable creatures in one aspect - they do what they believe will get them re-elected and don't do that which they believe will get them fired from their cushy job. Just looking at the evidence at hand it appears a lot of them think they might lose their jobs for enacting your platform. Now is that their fault or is it our fault that there isn't more popular support for whatever cause it is we want to see enacted?
  8. SIOP

    SIOP Well-Known Member

    The definitive answer to your question is: Who cares? It's gotten to the point where today's Republicans are no better than yesterday's Democrats. You can spare me all the rhetoric about how the Democrats will destroy all of our rights if they get back in power; it's already happening with the Republicans at the wheel. Only now, it's being done in the name of "conservatism", so it's acceptable to those who would be sreaming bloody murder if the Democrats were doing it.
  9. JERRY

    JERRY Well-Known Member

    i guess no one is pointing out that the VAST MAJORITY of arms in criminal hands outside of the U.S.A. are from some of these U.N. countries trying to kill our rights.

    me thinks they should do a little self reflection.
  10. DeseoUnTaco

    DeseoUnTaco Well-Known Member

    They are INSANE if they think that a strongly-worded letter from the UN is going to change the minds of African warlords. The UN has been so successful at controlling international trafficking in drugs, I'm sure they'll have just as much success with arms. The UN puts its absolute best efforts into controlling nuclear technologies, and nuclear technologies are a lot easier to control than plain old guns, and still nuclear technology is getting out there.

    Gun control laws here in the US will only disarm law-abiding citizens. International efforts against guns will only succeed in keeping guns away from civilians in non-violent first world countries.

    I support this bill.

    Anyway, the biggest misusers of firearms by far are authorized government purchasers. I'm sure Kim Jong-Il would be authorized to buy small arms under this UN treaty, but North Korean freedom fighters would be denied. Oh great! Keeping the world safe... for dictators.
  11. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    2nd Amendment Protection Act? Aren't they about 75 years too late?
  12. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Getting out of the UN may seem like a good idea, but I'll stop here long enough to point out that as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the United States has the ability to halt anything simply by voting no. Essentially we have the power to veto anything that comes down the pike, even if we're the only ones voting against it.

    As for UN headquarters, I'm all for moving that to Mogadishu.
  13. SIOP

    SIOP Well-Known Member

    Only on Security Council items. The vote on disarmament will be a treaty voted on by the General Assembly. Then, even if the U.S. votes against it, you will hear from Washington that we have to abide by the treaty because treaties trump the Constitution. They don't, but that's what the socialists in D.C. will use as justification for coming to take your guns away.
  14. ralphie98

    ralphie98 Well-Known Member

    This looks to me like another reason to seal up the borders. If its such a big problem, why don't these other countries do more to stop illegal border crossings instead of this UN crap?
  15. Baba Louie

    Baba Louie Well-Known Member

    Yeah Art, highly improbable we'd leave the organization WE STARTED and give up that ever important Security Council VETO vote, keeping the smaller mongrels at bay... let alone the funding thing. The U.N., without American Taxpayers money = toothless dog. Even with American Taxpayers money, long on words/resolutions... short on action.

    They're supposed to be do-gooders and tyrant watchdogs; talkers not walkers. Who does the actual heavy lifting, be it finances, sending troops with guns, food or medicine; going into the valley of the shadow of death where others fear to walk?

    The United States is today and has always been the largest financial contributor to the United Nations system. United States contributions to the United Nations is currently assessed at 27 percent of the total, and as of October 2003 the U.S. was paid in full. In 2003, the U.S. contributed over two-thirds of a billion dollars for United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world. (latest info I could quickly find)

    Still and all, pricey as it is to belong to the club, it is nice to know what our enemies and friends discuss and plan in a public forum. Forewarned is forearmed and all that.
  16. Waitone

    Waitone Well-Known Member

    Steaming fresh male bovine skat. Can these people not come up with original argumentation?

    I'm glad Bolton reported for duty. He's summarily dealt with preceding initiatives out the UN. Perhaps he'll continue his exemplary conduct.

    His boss is a different matter. The guy is evidently an international corporatist not beholding to the UN. The joker would seem to surrender our sovereignty of trade boards but stand up to legislative groups like the UN. I expect Bolton to wreck any initiative out of the UN but we'd better watch our 6 because his boss is back there.
  17. hifi

    hifi member

    How come getting into the U.N. wasn't considered toe stepping, but getting out would be?

    ..and Wayne LaPierre's lack of debate skills.
  18. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Well, I got the impression YOU did since you were complaining about it. After all, if the Republican s have the power to enact your entire agenda right now then I would think you would be concerned with convincing them to do it.

    Making a politician do what you want is simple enough - convince him he won't get re-elected if he doesn't do what you want him to do. The tough part is building up the bloc of voters who share your concerns without compromising your agenda. That task only gets tougher with the more politicians you want to replace.

    I would suggest to you that the Republicans don't enact the agenda you suggest because the majority of political powers-that-be (whether voters, corporations, or special-interest money) do not want that exact agenda enacted. Some may want parts of it but are not willing to compromise on other issues so the agenda remains a net political loser.

    Now if you want to complain about how the Democrats and the Republicans are all the same then maybe it is worth considering why they might share some simalarities. They are similar (but most assuredly not the same) because they can't adopt policies too different from each other and still keep enough people supporting them to remain in power. The key to changing either party lies in changing what the voters demand of the party.

    This means that on an individual level you need to educate your friends, neighbors, co-workers etc. on why what you want is a good thing and why they need to get politically active and write letters to help you support it. I personally don't believe that negative complaints about the current state of affairs will serve that goal very well; but you're free to try whatever method you like.
  19. hifi

    hifi member

  20. Silver Bullet

    Silver Bullet Well-Known Member

    Good one ! :cool:

Share This Page