U.N. members, gun lobby face arms fight

[Aussie bloke!]

UN Sucks!!

G'day everyone,......

The British say a "mechanism for enforcement and monitoring" would be necessary — implying some kind of U.N. arms watchdog — along with provisions for punishing states breaking the rules.

Yeh that sounds like the UN alright!!
Take any opertunity to increase the Burocracy,require an increase in budget,...
And include a means to intrude into others buisness.

No good has come from UN involvment,their record is clear!
Dissaster and failure on massive proportions.
The US contributes 22% to the UN budget,......time to cut back I say.
I wonder what you will say if one day you have a knock at the door and it is a 'Blue Cap' come to ask you to 'Provide details of your arms collection,just for their records!'

UNITED NATIONS - Britain, Japan, Australia and others are pushing for an unprecedented treaty regulating the arms trade worldwide,

I'd say Australia is only on the UN side because of John Howards Pathalogical hatred for gun owners.
If you asked the majority of Aussies they would be against it.

Based on the UN's record,.....its time to disband the organisation.
Funny how the biggest human rights violators head the top commisions/jobs in the UN?
Eg: Lybia heads the Human Rights Commision at the UN,..... FFS!

:banghead:


Aussie.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"Gun Control" Always Backfires.

The trouble with "gun control" is that every attempt to keep arms out of the hands of the criminals(or what-have-you) is more successful in keeping arms out of the hands of the law abiding or righteous.

(N)obody wants to stop Americans owning in guns in there own country. (I)t's stopping aks and other junk small arms reaching Africa(,) parts of the middle east(,) and a few other places.

Ah, but those other people have as much right to arms as we do here in the United States. The right is protected here, and just because it isn't protected there doesn't mean they don't have it.

Woody

"Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom: Magic elixirs of life brought to you courtesy of the Constitution for the United States of America." "Terrorism, Poverty, and Subjugation: World dominating poisons of life; brought to you courtesy of the United Nations". B.E.Wood

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

nobody wants to stop Americans owning in guns in there own country.

Then why do past UN proposals (such as the UN Small Arms proposal in 2001) do exactly that? Why is Rebecca Peters of IANSA basically dictating the UN proposal?

its stopping aks and other junk small arms reaching Africa parts of the middle east and a few other places.

If it is about this, then why the focus on the United States and UK when they do not make these small arms AND have some of the strictest export controls in the world?

 

[Aussie bloke!]

Rabecca,...YUCK!!

G'day everyone,....

Why is Rebecca Peters of IANSA basically dictating the UN proposal?

Because if you are going in the same direction you get all the help you need.
Why do you think the US is'nt leading the UN's policy?

(I for one think Rabecca is an embarrisment to all us Aussie's)


Aussie.

 

[The Cavalry]

Thanks Bartholomew for beating me to it...Rebecca Peters' organization, IANSA.org, is a major entity funded by George Soros (our friendly resident Socialist) with the stated intent of disarming what they call "non-governmental actors" including American citizens.

They have been stopped in the past, and this must continue.

 

[the pistolero]

nobody wants to stop Americans owning in guns in there own country.

A-yep. Just like the Bradys and the VPC don't wanna ban all guns, either.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Then why do past UN proposals (such as the UN Small Arms proposal in 2001) do exactly that? Why is Rebecca Peters of IANSA basically dictating the UN proposal?

This one is really long... but if you take the time, this report is down right frightening:

http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf

Essentially, the report claims that self defense is not a right.

Similarly, international criminal law sets forth self-defence as a basis for avoiding criminal responsibility, not as an independent right.

Further, it tries to limit that "basis for avoiding criminal responsibility" by use of the terminology:

"provided that the person does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided.... Under this interpretation of international human rights law, the State could be required to exonerate a defendant for using firearms under extreme circumstances where it may be necessary and proportional to an imminent threat to life. "

Note the absence of the standard language "or greivious bodily harm". Under this provision, a woman could not use deadly force against a rapist.

Some more quotes to make you afraid with Halloween approaching:

Even so, none of these authorities enumerate an affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.

The severe consequences of firearm use therefore necessitate more detailed and stricter guidelines than other means of force.

 

[JoshM]

Bartholomew Roberts

What exactly is the point of an international treaty that levies restrictions on individual gun owners in the United States but leaves Russia and China free to ship AKs by the planeload? It certainly doesn't have anything to do with humanitarian ideals.

Aside from providing bureaucrats with zilch common sense some make work , I expect that the proposed treaty will focus on products that the treaty sponsor nations do not produce in large amounts. Therefore decreasing the profitability of some of their competition. If the treaty focused on BAE howitzers and AMX Main Battle Tanks I doubt the UK or France would be so keen.

modifiedbrowning

In its submission, Britain proposes a legally binding treaty requiring governments to authorize weapons exports only after ascertaining that they will not provoke or prolong armed conflicts, aid in human rights abuses, destabilize countries or undermine peace in other ways.

How will they ascertain this result?
Britain can't even stop criminals from using firearms within Britain, despite their own domestic Draconian anti-firearms laws.

Good point - I expect the Russians in particular would actually enjoy, as a matter of national pride, telling a certain nation to go to hell if they attempt to enforce the treaty provisions to halt a sale of Russian equipment.

Even if the treaty was effective, The obvious outcome would be that banned nations would just ramp up their own domestic production. Making small arms is hardly rocket science, e.g. Israel created IMI, Iran created the DIO and South Africa created ARMSCOR.

 

[The Wiry Irishman]

"That's not what we're looking at here," countered Greg Puley, of the Control Arms coalition of pro-treaty advocacy groups. "The point is to control trade in weapons that contribute to conflict and atrocities."

If I remember correctly, a good deal of atrocities in Ruwanda were committed with machetes.

The state that Africa is in is horrible, and something should be done, but they're taking the same backwards road as antis here. Gun killings aren't the problem, they're a symptom of the problem. I'm afraid that something like this will go through and thousands of more lives will be flushed away before people start to realize that taking away guns isn't the answer. Its irrational, and its trying to take the easy way out. If you really want to change something, try to address the social conditions that make people so willing to use guns (and anything else that's handy) to kill other people. Doesn't matter if its Darfur or LA.

 

[Citroen]

History Lesson

Beg, borrow or buy a copy of Innocents Betrayed for a documented view of what the UN is all about. The one hour DVD should be required viewing for everyone in this country.

Never heard of it? Try the JPFO website.

It is in our best interests to get out of that failed organization and form one promoting freedom as a way of life.

John
Charlotte, NC

 

[tkkr]

if the UN had everything the way they wanted it, america would be one big nudist colony just to make sure nobody was carrying while terrorists destroy us from the inside out, then the UN would say SEE ISNT IT SO MUCH BETTER. makes me rethink who the real terrorists are.

 

[obxned]

Neither the president nor congress can make a treaty in opposition to the Constitution. Such would be a treasonous act and the people would have to respond with extreme prejudice.

 

[woodybrighton]

most of the weapons they are trying to stop reaching the combatants are surplus small arms so not directly exported from russia or china still not going to effect the US.
UN is well meaning but has too often been used either as a political football or as a fig leaf e.g. the us in Haiti and Somalia go in kick everything over and then hand over to a smaller and less effective UN force and act all surprised when they achieve zilch.
The UN does'nt have masses of motor rifle divisions hidden in secret bases just itching to confiscate Americans guns.
it has to go begging to nation states for every single man it puts in the field and operates under rules that makes it neutral even when faced with evil

 

[legaleagle_45]

Neither the president nor congress can make a treaty in opposition to the Constitution. Such would be a treasonous act and the people would have to respond with extreme prejudice.

Which is one reason why Heller is so important.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

most of the weapons they are trying to stop reaching the combatants are surplus small arms so not directly exported from russia or china still not going to effect the US.

I absolutely guarantee you that both the 2001 and 2006 UN Small Arms program would have affected legal gunowners in the United States as they were originally proposed. You don't even have to take my word for it - you can read the UN Reports on the matter at the aptly named URL:
http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/salw.html

You can also read, if you dig deep enough, what the UN considers a "small arm and light weapon" - basically anything from a man-portable SAM to a handgun. In the minds of many UN representatives, there is no difference between the two.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums...ighlight=United+Nations+Small+Arms+Conference
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums...ighlight=United+Nations+Small+Arms+Conference

To put it another way, if what the UN is proposing doesn't affect the United States at all - then why does every news article whine about how the United States won't support it?

 

[JoshM]

WoodyBrighton

most of the weapons they are trying to stop reaching the combatants are surplus small arms so not directly exported from russia or china still not going to effect the US.

RKBA issues and the proposed treaty will impact further then the U.S.

1 example - There are no "combatants" in New Zealand, but "UN Protocols" were still used as the basis to destroy surplus arms instead of selling them to the licensed and law abiding public there.

UN is well meaning but has too often been used either as a political football or as a fig leaf

I'd suggest that is a strong argument not to involve the UN in such matters. Especially considering the bickering and power plays at the UNSC level that resulted in Bosniacs suffering under an arms embargo during the Sarajevo siege.

 

[Citroen]

The UN is a Totalitarian Organization

I take strong exception to the idea that the UN does not want to take our guns! And, for that matter, that the despots who live in luxury (at American taxpayer expense) care about anyone other than themselves.

From the Congo to the present day, the UN has sided with oppressive governments and fought against freedom.

Ask Michael New about UN troops!

How could anybody who did not sleep through world history actually believe the lies put forth by the UN proponents?

And don't fool yourself that a treaty with the UN that alters our Constitution "can't happen". I suggest you read the Constitution and see just how many "unauthorized and illegal areas" the government is currently involved with.

How about property rights? How about the right to keep and BARE arms?

The only solution is to get us OUT of the UN and get the UN out of the US!

JOhn
Charlotte, NC

 

[Aussie bloke!]

UN Funding

G'day everyone,.....

Can I suggest stop funding this organisation?
Let them fade away as thay go bankrupt.

Would be interesting to see what country would have them move into their yard and have them pay their bills!!!!

Did'nt someone start a campain to have the UN move elsewhere?


Aussie.

 

[the pistolero]

I really, really liked what blogger David Codrea had to say right about the time the UN was holding the small-arms talks in the summer of '06:
It's time we chased these monsters from our shores, razed the UN building, pulled down their obscene twisted gun barrel sculpture (and melted it into something useful--like personal defensive arms) and pried off all those "World Heritage Site" placards desecrating revered locales like Independence Hall.
Only thing I could say to that was, A-yep...