progunner1957
member
From the Washington Times letters sction:
U.N. meeting plots global gun ban
- Thread starter progunner1957
- Start date
- Status
Lucky
Member
Light weapons are cool. When my cash-flow gets bigger I'm hooking some up.
http://www.marstar.ca/specials/VZ-52-82mm.shtm
http://www.marstar.ca/specials/VZ-52-82mm.shtm
John G
Member
I thought "Light Weapons" referred to lazers. 
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
Very punny John G
cloudkiller
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2003
- Messages
- 134
I spent a while discussing this issue with some UN folks
Most of the international attention to firearms stems from the manufacture and sale of small arms to groups in 3rd world countries. Often the efforts to sell these guns are accompanied by a great deal of political maneuvering by arms dealers that fan the fires of the conflicts they are trying to supply. In an old documentary (60 minutes perhaps?) an arms dealer boasted how he got the Lebanese civil war rekindled through careful marketing of small arms to various militias, for example. In Africa and Latin America the market for manufacturers and dealers in small arms is huge, as long as military conflicts continue. In a way, the health of this market is dependent on the failure of peacekeeping efforts. Decidedly not the most ethical of marketplaces.
Unfortunately I think this is tragic, and difficult to reconcile with the idea of a more ethical concept of firearm ownership by private individuals, which I support wholeheartedly, but which most of the world does not understand.
My acquaintances who worked as field officers in the UN have been in the US long enough to understand this disconnect and agree that the perspective is totally different. When the UN writes a bill about gun sales, Americans become idignant because it flies in the face of our constitutional guarantees. The UN, on the other hand, isn't really concerned about US gun ownership per se, but rather on the impact the small arms trade has on political stability elsewhere. Essentially they don't see American's giving up gun ownership as a big issue if it would help resolve a huge amount of political strife elsewhere. (A view which is naive in many ways, and incorrect, but nonetheless more accurate than saying that they want to take over the US government as part of some leftist conspiracy).
I am curious to know what others think.
Most of the international attention to firearms stems from the manufacture and sale of small arms to groups in 3rd world countries. Often the efforts to sell these guns are accompanied by a great deal of political maneuvering by arms dealers that fan the fires of the conflicts they are trying to supply. In an old documentary (60 minutes perhaps?) an arms dealer boasted how he got the Lebanese civil war rekindled through careful marketing of small arms to various militias, for example. In Africa and Latin America the market for manufacturers and dealers in small arms is huge, as long as military conflicts continue. In a way, the health of this market is dependent on the failure of peacekeeping efforts. Decidedly not the most ethical of marketplaces.
Unfortunately I think this is tragic, and difficult to reconcile with the idea of a more ethical concept of firearm ownership by private individuals, which I support wholeheartedly, but which most of the world does not understand.
My acquaintances who worked as field officers in the UN have been in the US long enough to understand this disconnect and agree that the perspective is totally different. When the UN writes a bill about gun sales, Americans become idignant because it flies in the face of our constitutional guarantees. The UN, on the other hand, isn't really concerned about US gun ownership per se, but rather on the impact the small arms trade has on political stability elsewhere. Essentially they don't see American's giving up gun ownership as a big issue if it would help resolve a huge amount of political strife elsewhere. (A view which is naive in many ways, and incorrect, but nonetheless more accurate than saying that they want to take over the US government as part of some leftist conspiracy).
I am curious to know what others think.
longeyes
member
Beware of "political stability" bought at the price of serfdom. That's what I think. The people in the U.N. are very, very well aware of who's running the show and on what terms. In fact they are part of the problem, as we have learned from the oil-for-food scandal.
eastwood44mag
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,027
I hate the U.N.
It's long past time America take back its independence.
It's long past time America take back its independence.
Molon Labe
Member
I would much rather have political instability than give up my right to keep and bear arms.
progunner1957
member
Molon Labe!
Well folks, therein lies the rub. There's a whole lot of gun owners in this country - tens of millions of them - that regard their right to arms with deadly seriousness.
These people will not hand over their guns under any circumstances; if the UN or any other agency attempts to take them by force, there will be shots fired and dead people.
When you take a person's guns from them, you are not taking their fishing poles, their CD collection, their book collection, their canoe, bicycle, stamp collection, coin collection or their bass boat. You are taking their freedom from them, plain and simple.
The shooting sports, reloading and guns are not merely a "hobby," as some antigunners claim. Guns, magazines and ammunition are the implements of freedom. This nation would never have broken free from the chains of servitude to the British Crown if it were not for guns in the hands of patriots. No one in the world understands this like the American gun owner.
Many gun owners have served in the military, where they swore "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Many still live by and uphold that oath, even though they have taken off the uniform.
These are concepts about America that the bureaucrats of the United Nations need to get their brains around. If they choose to disregard these concepts and attempt to steamroller the American gun owner, things will get ugly - very ugly.
The UN needs to accept the fact that they are not dealing with Australians or Brits here, and conduct themselves accordingly.
They are saying, "What's the big deal?"
Well folks, therein lies the rub. There's a whole lot of gun owners in this country - tens of millions of them - that regard their right to arms with deadly seriousness.
These people will not hand over their guns under any circumstances; if the UN or any other agency attempts to take them by force, there will be shots fired and dead people.
When you take a person's guns from them, you are not taking their fishing poles, their CD collection, their book collection, their canoe, bicycle, stamp collection, coin collection or their bass boat. You are taking their freedom from them, plain and simple.
The shooting sports, reloading and guns are not merely a "hobby," as some antigunners claim. Guns, magazines and ammunition are the implements of freedom. This nation would never have broken free from the chains of servitude to the British Crown if it were not for guns in the hands of patriots. No one in the world understands this like the American gun owner.
Many gun owners have served in the military, where they swore "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Many still live by and uphold that oath, even though they have taken off the uniform.
These are concepts about America that the bureaucrats of the United Nations need to get their brains around. If they choose to disregard these concepts and attempt to steamroller the American gun owner, things will get ugly - very ugly.
The UN needs to accept the fact that they are not dealing with Australians or Brits here, and conduct themselves accordingly.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Get This Straight -
Guns do not cause political strife. Guns are usually required to end it, though.
Woody
"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood
Guns do not cause political strife. Guns are usually required to end it, though.
Woody
"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
"You can't spell 'unethical' without U.N.,"
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-02-Sun-2006/opinion/8077906.html
VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: The U.N.: facilitating genocide worldwide
I spoke to a class of bright young folk at the community college in Henderson last week. The most intriguing questions are the ones that catch you off guard. Asked what I thought of the United Nations, I believe I stammered that the Founding Fathers were right: To the extent we need government at all, it's best to keep it as local as possible -- ideally, people you're likely to run into in the produce section of the supermarket so you can give them a piece of your mind.
Obviously, it's hard to imagine a body as remote from accountability to its "subjects" as the United Nations, which I wouldn't trust to do much more than standardize international marine buoys. (Even then, they'd probably decide red and green lights were Zionist-influenced holdovers from the era of Caucasian capitalist colonialism, responding with a complex 12-shade pastel scheme symbolic of the rights of the oppressed that would soon have freighters colliding or running aground the world over.)
No sooner did I return to my desk the next day, however, that I learned the simpering statists at the United Nations have decided America's Fourth of July weekend is a great time for their latest attempt to push through their ban on civilian small arms and light weapons. (See www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/ -- featuring the outfit's outrageously illustrated motto, "Crush the Illicit Trade in Small Arms.")
Needless to say, the kleptocrats in charge, still presumably enjoying their Iraqi "Oil-for-Peace" bribes, insist they have no interest in "denying law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws."
This might be branded "disingenuous," were there not a better word ready to hand. In fact, thinly veiled by some rhetorical sleight of hand, it's a lie.
Our ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, called them on this chicanery back in 2001. Under the soothing rhetoric, he found the actual draft version of the U.N.'s "Program of Action" on small arms specifically referenced civilian possession, stating:
"The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons can be exacerbated by the unregulated possession of small arms and light weapons by civilians not part of responsible military and police forces. The measures below can contribute to addressing this aspect of the illicit trade in these weapons.
"(a) States will establish appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which small arms and light weapons can be acquired, used and traded by private persons.
"(b) States will seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes (e.g., assault rifles, machine guns, grenades and high explosives produced for military purposes)."
Bolton's firm stand got the dashiki-clad kleptocrats to remove that verbiage in 2001, but now they're back. Just last week, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, Robert Joseph, found cause to again inform the assembled totalitarians: "The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those rights. The United States will not agree to any provisions restricting civilian possession, use or legal trade of firearms inconsistent with our laws and practices."
If only Foggy Bottom's commitment were as strong as Mr. Joseph makes it sound. In fact, World Net Daily informs us: "The U.S. has provided more than $27 million to help various nations destroy surplus stockpiles of small arms and light weapons and offers regular technical assistance, according to the State Department." (You think "law-abiding" American citizens wouldn't like to buy that stuff at cost? I'll happily take a ZB 1926 or '30 in any working condition, guys. A Belgian FN-D? Swedish Model 21 in 6.5mm? Give me a call.)
"A June 9 State Department fact sheet says, 'Given the close links between terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking, the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons has the potential to affect any country in the world at any time,' " World Net Daily continues.
"The State Department urges 'focused efforts to identify and curb the sources and methods of the illicit trade via robust export controls, law enforcement measures, and efforts to expeditiously destroy excess stocks and safeguard legitimate stocks from theft or illegal transfer.'"
I don't always agree with NRA chieftain Wayne LaPierre, but he tells WND that he sees the U.N. as "a club of governments, some of which want to 'strip opposition forces of the means to challenge their authority.' "
Sounds about right. These gun-grabbing thugs regularly stage symbolic "gun destruction" events -- a little different from selling them at cost to "law-abiding citizens," no? The outfit's news releases play the standard public relations trick of lumping together citizens killed by their own oppressive governments, a smaller number of evil agents of the local tyrant killed by righteous freedom fighters, and the far smaller number of "small arms deaths" caused by crime, suicide and accidents, to come up with a scary statistic like "300,000 killed by small arms each year," as though small arms at the very least deserve to be treated like typhoid, or at worst have been found to get up at night and stalk the streets, dispatching people at random. (www.irinnews.org/webspecials/small-arms/default.asp)
What about the genocidal murder of 800,000 to 1 million Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, guys? Small arms involved? Nope. Most of the victims were killed with machetes. How was that possible? Because residents of this former Belgian colony lacked small arms to defend themselves and their families. Chalk up another million killed by "gun control."
For a worldwide tally of the 75 million disarmed victims killed by their own governments in the 20th century -- four times more than killed in all domestic and international wars -- visit the Web site of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, at www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm. Giving up their small arms has brought happiness and long life to so many minorities over the decades.
The U.N. willfully ignores the fact that civilian small arms have facilitated virtually every leap forward for liberty in the past 250 years, starting with the American Revolution, to the success of which they were indispensable.
They might as well try to ban private ownership of automobiles -- leaving only powerful central governments with nifty tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers -- on the grounds that vehicles propelled by internal combustion engines "kill and main hundreds of thousands each year." (Or is Al Gore already on that?)
This is the outfit, mind you, that in 2003 actually placed Libya at the head of its Human Rights Commission, rendering that body (according to The Wall Street Journal) "worse than a joke. ... Among the 33 governments that voted in favor of Libya (by secret ballot) were almost certainly the rulers of such civic sinkholes as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe. Like the despots in Syria, Vietnam and China, these are folks who do not have the guts to face a genuine system of democracy back home. They wield their votes at the U.N. not as legitimate representatives of their own fellow citizens, but as two-faced members of the global club of tyrants, who hold sway through force and fear."
As the shirt says (www.thoseshirts.com/imaoun.html) "You can't spell 'unethical' without U.N.," and, "If this is an emergency, please hang up and dial America."
And that, perhaps, is a slightly more complete answer to "What I think about the United Nations."
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal...
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-02-Sun-2006/opinion/8077906.html
VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: The U.N.: facilitating genocide worldwide
I spoke to a class of bright young folk at the community college in Henderson last week. The most intriguing questions are the ones that catch you off guard. Asked what I thought of the United Nations, I believe I stammered that the Founding Fathers were right: To the extent we need government at all, it's best to keep it as local as possible -- ideally, people you're likely to run into in the produce section of the supermarket so you can give them a piece of your mind.
Obviously, it's hard to imagine a body as remote from accountability to its "subjects" as the United Nations, which I wouldn't trust to do much more than standardize international marine buoys. (Even then, they'd probably decide red and green lights were Zionist-influenced holdovers from the era of Caucasian capitalist colonialism, responding with a complex 12-shade pastel scheme symbolic of the rights of the oppressed that would soon have freighters colliding or running aground the world over.)
No sooner did I return to my desk the next day, however, that I learned the simpering statists at the United Nations have decided America's Fourth of July weekend is a great time for their latest attempt to push through their ban on civilian small arms and light weapons. (See www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/ -- featuring the outfit's outrageously illustrated motto, "Crush the Illicit Trade in Small Arms.")
Needless to say, the kleptocrats in charge, still presumably enjoying their Iraqi "Oil-for-Peace" bribes, insist they have no interest in "denying law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws."
This might be branded "disingenuous," were there not a better word ready to hand. In fact, thinly veiled by some rhetorical sleight of hand, it's a lie.
Our ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, called them on this chicanery back in 2001. Under the soothing rhetoric, he found the actual draft version of the U.N.'s "Program of Action" on small arms specifically referenced civilian possession, stating:
"The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons can be exacerbated by the unregulated possession of small arms and light weapons by civilians not part of responsible military and police forces. The measures below can contribute to addressing this aspect of the illicit trade in these weapons.
"(a) States will establish appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which small arms and light weapons can be acquired, used and traded by private persons.
"(b) States will seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes (e.g., assault rifles, machine guns, grenades and high explosives produced for military purposes)."
Bolton's firm stand got the dashiki-clad kleptocrats to remove that verbiage in 2001, but now they're back. Just last week, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, Robert Joseph, found cause to again inform the assembled totalitarians: "The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those rights. The United States will not agree to any provisions restricting civilian possession, use or legal trade of firearms inconsistent with our laws and practices."
If only Foggy Bottom's commitment were as strong as Mr. Joseph makes it sound. In fact, World Net Daily informs us: "The U.S. has provided more than $27 million to help various nations destroy surplus stockpiles of small arms and light weapons and offers regular technical assistance, according to the State Department." (You think "law-abiding" American citizens wouldn't like to buy that stuff at cost? I'll happily take a ZB 1926 or '30 in any working condition, guys. A Belgian FN-D? Swedish Model 21 in 6.5mm? Give me a call.)
"A June 9 State Department fact sheet says, 'Given the close links between terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking, the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons has the potential to affect any country in the world at any time,' " World Net Daily continues.
"The State Department urges 'focused efforts to identify and curb the sources and methods of the illicit trade via robust export controls, law enforcement measures, and efforts to expeditiously destroy excess stocks and safeguard legitimate stocks from theft or illegal transfer.'"
I don't always agree with NRA chieftain Wayne LaPierre, but he tells WND that he sees the U.N. as "a club of governments, some of which want to 'strip opposition forces of the means to challenge their authority.' "
Sounds about right. These gun-grabbing thugs regularly stage symbolic "gun destruction" events -- a little different from selling them at cost to "law-abiding citizens," no? The outfit's news releases play the standard public relations trick of lumping together citizens killed by their own oppressive governments, a smaller number of evil agents of the local tyrant killed by righteous freedom fighters, and the far smaller number of "small arms deaths" caused by crime, suicide and accidents, to come up with a scary statistic like "300,000 killed by small arms each year," as though small arms at the very least deserve to be treated like typhoid, or at worst have been found to get up at night and stalk the streets, dispatching people at random. (www.irinnews.org/webspecials/small-arms/default.asp)
What about the genocidal murder of 800,000 to 1 million Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, guys? Small arms involved? Nope. Most of the victims were killed with machetes. How was that possible? Because residents of this former Belgian colony lacked small arms to defend themselves and their families. Chalk up another million killed by "gun control."
For a worldwide tally of the 75 million disarmed victims killed by their own governments in the 20th century -- four times more than killed in all domestic and international wars -- visit the Web site of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, at www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm. Giving up their small arms has brought happiness and long life to so many minorities over the decades.
The U.N. willfully ignores the fact that civilian small arms have facilitated virtually every leap forward for liberty in the past 250 years, starting with the American Revolution, to the success of which they were indispensable.
They might as well try to ban private ownership of automobiles -- leaving only powerful central governments with nifty tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers -- on the grounds that vehicles propelled by internal combustion engines "kill and main hundreds of thousands each year." (Or is Al Gore already on that?)
This is the outfit, mind you, that in 2003 actually placed Libya at the head of its Human Rights Commission, rendering that body (according to The Wall Street Journal) "worse than a joke. ... Among the 33 governments that voted in favor of Libya (by secret ballot) were almost certainly the rulers of such civic sinkholes as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe. Like the despots in Syria, Vietnam and China, these are folks who do not have the guts to face a genuine system of democracy back home. They wield their votes at the U.N. not as legitimate representatives of their own fellow citizens, but as two-faced members of the global club of tyrants, who hold sway through force and fear."
As the shirt says (www.thoseshirts.com/imaoun.html) "You can't spell 'unethical' without U.N.," and, "If this is an emergency, please hang up and dial America."
And that, perhaps, is a slightly more complete answer to "What I think about the United Nations."
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal...
Clipper
Member
America was founded with the help of the 'arms trade'
When the British at one point outlawed the importation, manufacture and sale of firearms in the colonies as a hedge against insurrection. Without the gun-runners bringing in French weapons, and the 'illegal' locally produced arms, the 'boys of summer' would be playing cricket...
So this begs the question, as unappetizing as it is, that since people will always be willing to fight and die for what they believe in, whether 'right' or 'wrong' to those not directly involved, who are the UN to decide whether or not to allow people their right to self-determination?
When the British at one point outlawed the importation, manufacture and sale of firearms in the colonies as a hedge against insurrection. Without the gun-runners bringing in French weapons, and the 'illegal' locally produced arms, the 'boys of summer' would be playing cricket...
So this begs the question, as unappetizing as it is, that since people will always be willing to fight and die for what they believe in, whether 'right' or 'wrong' to those not directly involved, who are the UN to decide whether or not to allow people their right to self-determination?
longeyes
member
Right thinking + guns are the implements of freedom. You need a proper education in the predicates of liberty first.
cloudkiller
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2003
- Messages
- 134
I don't disagree
with the importance of firearms rights to our freedoms and our history. I don't disagree that populations are often disarmed as part of efforts to subjugate and enslave them, or exterminate them. Sadly this fact remains hidden to most, particularly in the academic world.
However, I do think that we need to consider that the bulk of the global arms trade is not a moral or freedom loving one. Particularly when it comes to insurgencies that are not only markets for firearms, but are often sponsored by the very people who wish to become arms suppliers to the ensuing conflicts. The ideals of gun ownership as a means to obtain freedom are held by foreign revolutionaries and educated working Americans. Ironically neither group would consider the other an ally in the debate!
Insofar as the UN goes, as a political body I agree it is corrupt, irresponsible, and illsighted in many ways, though this characterization applies primarily to the security council and other political bodies at the UN rather than its agencies. (Ironically many in the 3rd world would tell you that the UN is controlled by nations like the US and its European allies, and that its policies are geared towards lining the pockets of the wealthy!) -- A lot depends on which branch of the UN is under discussion. It is far from a monolithic entity. Two close relatives worked for UNICEF, and their work consisted primarily of setting up sanitation projects, education programs for women and education programs for local government officials so they would learn how to administer budgets and plan capital infrastructure projects. -- They worked side by side with American Christian missionary groups, and other aid agencies.
My point with my post was to indicate that American gun rights are not the reason why the UN holds its views on arms, wrong as it is. To describe it as such is misguided. While Rwanda's massacres may not have been carried out with firearms, small arms dealers have made a lot of money stoking the fires of civil unrest in places like Congo, Liberia, Lebanon, Gaza, Chad, Colombia and other places. (No, they aren't the ONLY reason for conflicts in those areas, but are benefitting tremendously from them).
with the importance of firearms rights to our freedoms and our history. I don't disagree that populations are often disarmed as part of efforts to subjugate and enslave them, or exterminate them. Sadly this fact remains hidden to most, particularly in the academic world.
However, I do think that we need to consider that the bulk of the global arms trade is not a moral or freedom loving one. Particularly when it comes to insurgencies that are not only markets for firearms, but are often sponsored by the very people who wish to become arms suppliers to the ensuing conflicts. The ideals of gun ownership as a means to obtain freedom are held by foreign revolutionaries and educated working Americans. Ironically neither group would consider the other an ally in the debate!
Insofar as the UN goes, as a political body I agree it is corrupt, irresponsible, and illsighted in many ways, though this characterization applies primarily to the security council and other political bodies at the UN rather than its agencies. (Ironically many in the 3rd world would tell you that the UN is controlled by nations like the US and its European allies, and that its policies are geared towards lining the pockets of the wealthy!) -- A lot depends on which branch of the UN is under discussion. It is far from a monolithic entity. Two close relatives worked for UNICEF, and their work consisted primarily of setting up sanitation projects, education programs for women and education programs for local government officials so they would learn how to administer budgets and plan capital infrastructure projects. -- They worked side by side with American Christian missionary groups, and other aid agencies.
My point with my post was to indicate that American gun rights are not the reason why the UN holds its views on arms, wrong as it is. To describe it as such is misguided. While Rwanda's massacres may not have been carried out with firearms, small arms dealers have made a lot of money stoking the fires of civil unrest in places like Congo, Liberia, Lebanon, Gaza, Chad, Colombia and other places. (No, they aren't the ONLY reason for conflicts in those areas, but are benefitting tremendously from them).
GW
Member
I agree with a lot of your post but I wonder how much of Rwanda's populace would have survived had they been able to defend themselves with small arms. Or the folfs being harassed in Darfur or the Sudan. A disarmed populace is always a key ingredient in oppressions and genocides. The UN has proven itself to be worthless in every peacekeeping effort it has ever engaged in. They are not part of the problem. They are THE problem.
Global disarmament plays right into the hands of every petty tyrant that makes up the UN.
Global disarmament plays right into the hands of every petty tyrant that makes up the UN.
Lucky
Member
"However, I do think that we need to consider that the bulk of the global arms trade is not a moral or freedom loving one. Particularly when it comes to insurgencies that are not only markets for firearms, but are often sponsored by the very people who wish to become arms suppliers to the ensuing conflicts. The ideals of gun ownership as a means to obtain freedom are held by foreign revolutionaries and educated working Americans. Ironically neither group would consider the other an ally in the debate!"
That's irrelevant eh. It does not matter one bit if a gun-seller is 'sponsoring' an insurgency. I find it hard to believe, I rather suspeect it's a rumour propogated by those who dislike both guns and capitalism, but it's irrelevant just the same.
For the record my understanding was that insurgencies are pretty much dumping grounds for firearms, rather than lucrative markets. The governments that fight those insurgencies, on the other hand, have much more money to spend.
"Hey Jim, there's an insurgency in Eritrea. They're all incredibly poor and have no prospects on which to lend credit. What do you say we further international strife by giving them a few crates of FN2000's up front, at a personal loss to ourselves? If we can keep this conflict going indefinately then - well - they'll still be poor. And they'll still be unable to buy stuff from us, Sound like a plan?"
That's irrelevant eh. It does not matter one bit if a gun-seller is 'sponsoring' an insurgency. I find it hard to believe, I rather suspeect it's a rumour propogated by those who dislike both guns and capitalism, but it's irrelevant just the same.
For the record my understanding was that insurgencies are pretty much dumping grounds for firearms, rather than lucrative markets. The governments that fight those insurgencies, on the other hand, have much more money to spend.
"Hey Jim, there's an insurgency in Eritrea. They're all incredibly poor and have no prospects on which to lend credit. What do you say we further international strife by giving them a few crates of FN2000's up front, at a personal loss to ourselves? If we can keep this conflict going indefinately then - well - they'll still be poor. And they'll still be unable to buy stuff from us, Sound like a plan?"
If your UN buddies want to end strife and revolution in 3rd world cesspools then there is an easy solution --> REGULATE THE GOVERNMENTS THAT COMPOSE THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
The GOVERNMENTS are the ones that are selling 100,000 AK-103s to Venezeula along with tooling and manufacturing rights. The GOVERNMENTS are the ones shipping MP5s and G3s to rebellion prone African countries. The GOVERNMENTS are the ones selling Steyr .50 caliber rifles to Iran. The GOVERNMENTS are the ones shipping RPG-7s and Kalashnikov's of all makes to every two-bit outfit in Africa, Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, etc...
If the UN was serious about it they would be putting restrictions on GOVERNMENT. Not Joe Schmoe's Sportin' Goods.
But watch, any gun ban orchestrated by the UN WILL have exemptions for governments and government agents, while restricting the rights of ordinary citizens that couldn't give a rat's ass about arming islamic militias in Somalia.
The GOVERNMENTS are the ones that are selling 100,000 AK-103s to Venezeula along with tooling and manufacturing rights. The GOVERNMENTS are the ones shipping MP5s and G3s to rebellion prone African countries. The GOVERNMENTS are the ones selling Steyr .50 caliber rifles to Iran. The GOVERNMENTS are the ones shipping RPG-7s and Kalashnikov's of all makes to every two-bit outfit in Africa, Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, etc...
If the UN was serious about it they would be putting restrictions on GOVERNMENT. Not Joe Schmoe's Sportin' Goods.
But watch, any gun ban orchestrated by the UN WILL have exemptions for governments and government agents, while restricting the rights of ordinary citizens that couldn't give a rat's ass about arming islamic militias in Somalia.
GW
Member
Amen, orangelo!
Originally posted by Cloudkiller:
"I spent a while discussing this issue with some UN folks
Most of the international attention to firearms stems from the manufacture and sale of small arms to groups in 3rd world countries. "
Be that as it may Cloudkiller, the U.N. IANSA says the following in one of their Anti-2nd Amendment documents:
"...Kalashnikof assault rifles have been used for unlawful killing, wounding, and infliction of other types of suffering" in very many countries, including countries as "diverse" as Afghanistan, Britain, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Mexico, Sierra Leone, the USA, Venezuela, and Yemen.
The United Nations Gun Grabbers place no distinction whatsoever between the United States (as shown above) and the nine other countries cited. To compare the United States, with countries that routinely kill their unarmed citizens with the very same type of rifle they are protesting ownership of by the citizens, is a great example of exactly why the United Nations needs to be disbanded. "Unlawful killing?" Do they sanction "Lawful" killings of folks in countries led by dictators, such as Yemen, Venezuela, and Sierra Leone?
In a dictatorship, "lawful" means anything a dictator claims it is.
North Korea sits in on the IANSA meetings telling the United States they need to sign this stupid treaty, at the same time they launch ICBM's?
How ridiculous it is that we don't (as a nation) deport every U.N. thug in the building.
"I spent a while discussing this issue with some UN folks
Most of the international attention to firearms stems from the manufacture and sale of small arms to groups in 3rd world countries. "
Be that as it may Cloudkiller, the U.N. IANSA says the following in one of their Anti-2nd Amendment documents:
"...Kalashnikof assault rifles have been used for unlawful killing, wounding, and infliction of other types of suffering" in very many countries, including countries as "diverse" as Afghanistan, Britain, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Mexico, Sierra Leone, the USA, Venezuela, and Yemen.
The United Nations Gun Grabbers place no distinction whatsoever between the United States (as shown above) and the nine other countries cited. To compare the United States, with countries that routinely kill their unarmed citizens with the very same type of rifle they are protesting ownership of by the citizens, is a great example of exactly why the United Nations needs to be disbanded. "Unlawful killing?" Do they sanction "Lawful" killings of folks in countries led by dictators, such as Yemen, Venezuela, and Sierra Leone?
In a dictatorship, "lawful" means anything a dictator claims it is.
North Korea sits in on the IANSA meetings telling the United States they need to sign this stupid treaty, at the same time they launch ICBM's?
How ridiculous it is that we don't (as a nation) deport every U.N. thug in the building.
HankB
Member
A timely commentary from Mallard Fillmore . . .
Aguila Blanca
Member
What I think is that the U.N. can basically go pound sand. We (the U.S.) get horrendous press world-wide over acts by a very few rogue soldiers in Iraq, yet U.N. "peacekeeprs" engage in rape and extortion on an institutionalized basis, and the U.N. has the chutzpah to point fingers at us.cloudkiller said:
IMHO it doesn't matter to me if Americans giving up our guns WOULD resolve every instance of political strife elesewhere. I don't see how it could, but the fact is I don't care. Their problems are their problems, and I resent their trying to make their problems my problem. We have a Constitution that guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. If they don't ... or if they want to surrender such right if they have it ... they can have their little world, and I'll move to the back country in Montana and finish out my days blasting holes in Coke cans.
Carl N. Brown
Member
"The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons can be
exacerbated by the unregulated possession of small arms and
light weapons by civilians not part of responsible military
and police forces."
2001 draft version of the U.N.'s "Program of Action"
Oh, right. The child soldiers in Africa are armed by duck hunters
in Minnesota and rabbit hunters in Queensland.
Ignore the governments and political movements behind the curtain.
They are probably UN members.
exacerbated by the unregulated possession of small arms and
light weapons by civilians not part of responsible military
and police forces."
2001 draft version of the U.N.'s "Program of Action"
Oh, right. The child soldiers in Africa are armed by duck hunters
in Minnesota and rabbit hunters in Queensland.
Ignore the governments and political movements behind the curtain.
They are probably UN members.
Thin Black Line
Member
I've said this before: UN gun bans only get traction here when our so-called
leaders in this country betray us and cast off the Constitution they swore an
oath to follow.
leaders in this country betray us and cast off the Constitution they swore an
oath to follow.
- Status